We are anonymous, we are legion

Internet users flay Mumbai girls' arrest over Facebook post

praskrishna — 2012-11-20T11:35:04Z

The arrest of two girls over their Facebook post on shutdown in Mumbai for Bal Thackeray's funeral on Monday again opened a can of worms with netizens calling the move a "social media hijack by the powerful and the fundamentalists". Social media was abuzz with tweets and posts about the arrest, with most referring to the arrest as yet another move to curb freedom of speech on the Internet.

This post was published by IBN Live on November 20, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

Noted journalist Gautam Chikermane tweeted "First Pondicherry businessman, now 21 year old Palghar girl. Next: all of us. Social media hijack by the powerful and the fundamentalists". Minister of State (Communications and IT) Milind Deora tweeted: "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize ~ Voltaire".

Communication specialist Alyque Padamsee expressed shock at the arrest and the vandalism at the clinic of one of the girl's uncle. "I want to know how these girls have broken the law when all they said is that why should Mumbai come to a standstill. There is nothing derogatory against Thackeray. I do not see anything illegal in that," he said. Padamsee further said the Constitution provides everyone free speech and that "no one should be arrested on such flimsy grounds".

Pavan Duggal, Cyber law Expert and an advocate with Supreme Court also voiced similar views. "This is high time for the government for the review of the law. The government should amend the IT Act so as to narrow down its provisions as some of the these violate our constitutional right of free speech."

He added that it would be a bigger challenge for the prosecution to prove that the statement could incite communal disharmony and violence. "This should not be seen merely as "social media regulation", but as a restriction on freedom of speech and expression by both the law and the police," Centre for Internet and Society Policy Director Pranesh Prakash said.

The two girls--Shaheen Dhada and Renu--were sent to 14-day judicial custody by a court before which they were produced today but were granted bail within hours after they furnished personal bonds. There was also an attack on the clinic of an uncle of one of them by Sena activists.

The arrests also sparked an outrage with Press Council of India chief Markandey Katju today demanding "immediate" action against police personnel involved. While Dhada was arrested for the post, Dhada's friend Renu was arrested for 'liking' the post. "Police arrested both of them under section 505(2) (statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes). Today, they were granted bail," their advocate Sudhir Gupta said.

The duo was arrested following a police complaint lodged by a local Sena leader. After the comment was posted, a mob of nearly 40 Shiv Sainiks allegedly barged into Dhada's uncles's orthopaedic hospital at Palghar and vandalised the place on Sunday. However, no arrests were made in connection with the attack.

Some other tweets in support of the girls read: "Hatred of minorities, liberals is an epidemic on Twitter. Law shd be harsh on hatespeak not on democratic rights of 21 year olds!Cheerio" (@sagarikaghose) and "So the girl n frnd got arrested for posting stuff on FB did Shiv sainiks get arrested for destroying the doc's hospital?? #Mumbai #Balasaheb" (@SocoMumbai).

Last month, a businessman from Puducherry was arrested on the charge of posting "offensive" messages on social media targeting Union Finance Minister P Chidambaram's son Karti Chidambaram.

The following image was also being circulated over the Internet and is said to be the Facebook post that led to the girls' arrest:

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/ibnlive-news-nov-20-2012-netizens-flay-mumbai-girls-arrest-over-facebook-post

WHO's WHO LEGAL names Malavika Jayaram as one of the top lawyers for Internet and e-Commerce Issues in India

praskrishna — 2012-11-20T11:22:03Z

Malavika Jayaram was one of 10 Indian lawyers selected for inclusion as the top lawyers for internet and e-commerce issues in India. The new volume for 2012 was recently published following a process of peer reviews and independent research.

WHO'sWHOLEGAL published an online biography of Malavika:

A dual-qualified lawyer, Malavika spent eight years in London - with Allen & Overy as an IP/IT lawyer in the communications, media & technology group; and with Citigroup, first as vice president and counsel in the technology legal team, and later as senior business analyst.

A lawyer for over 15 years, she relocated to India in 2006. She is a partner at Jayaram & Jayaram, focusing on domestic and cross-border corporate and technology intensive transactions. She represents clients in the aerospace, automotive, hydraulics and pharmaceutical sectors, as well as in the information technology, e-commerce and communication spaces. She has a special interest in new media and the arts, and advises start-ups, innovators, educational institutions and artists on digital rights, cultural heritage and the dissemination of creative works. Malavika is a fellow at the Centre for Internet and Society, reviewing and commenting on legislative and policy developments, and will have a monograph on privacy and identity in India published this year.

A graduate of the National Law School of India, she has an LLM from Northwestern University, Chicago. She is working on a PhD on data protection and privacy, with a special focus on India's e-governance schemes and the new biometric ID project. She is on the advisory board of the Indian Journal of Law & Technology, and is the author of the India chapter of Getting the Deal Through - Data Protection & Privacy, which is being launched this year. Malavika will be a visiting scholar during autumn 2012 at the Center for Global Communication Studies at the Annenberg School, University of Pennsylvania.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/whoswholegal-profiles-malavika-jayaram

Girl's arrest draws flak on social media

praskrishna — 2012-11-20T11:04:27Z

The arrest of a 21-year-old girl by Mumbai police for criticizing the shutting down of the city following the death of Bal Thackeray come under fire from netizens.

Arun Dev's article was published in the Times of India on November 20, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

Many tweets and Facebook posts popped up soon after the news of her arrest played on TV and social media networks, some even reposting what she first posted on her page.

Pranesh Prakash, programme manager, Centre for Internet and Society, told TOI this case was a clear case of misapplication of Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code. "This provision has been frivolously used numerous times in Maharashtra. Even the banning of James Laine's book, 'Shivaji: Hindu King in Islamic India', happened this section. The ban was subsequently deemed unlawful by both the Bombay high court and the Supreme Court. Indeed, Section 295A has not been applied in cases where it's more apparent," he said.

On the CIS blog, he commented, "Interestingly, the question arises of the law under which the friend who 'liked' the Facebook status update was arrested. It would take a highly clever lawyer and a highly credulous judge to make 'liking' of a Facebook status update an act capable of being charged with electronically sending ... any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character".

"It is absolutely ridiculous. Regardless of the fact she was given bail, she was sent to 14 days of judicial custody for a mere comment. We have allowed our social media to be free and open but we have laws which are ancient," said Lawrence Liang, a lawyer working on media laws with the Alternative Law Forum in Bangalore. "Such cases don't stand a chance in a court of law. We need procedural safeguards which will ensure cases which are not relevant are not be allowed to be filed," he added.

The open letter to the chief minister of the Maharashtra by Justice Katju, Chairman, Press Council of India, and former Judge, Supreme Court of India too was widely circulated on social media. Some posted this excerpt: "We are living in a democracy, not a fascist dictatorship. In fact this arrest itself appears to be a criminal act since under sections 341 and 342 it is a crime to wrongfully arrest or wrongfully confine someone who has committed no crime."

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/times-of-india-arun-dev-nov-20-2012-girl-arrest-draws-flak-on-social-media

Girls arrested for Facebook post on Thackeray get bail

praskrishna — 2012-11-30T05:18:30Z

Two girls who were arrested for making a Facebook comment protesting the closure of shops in the wake of Shiv Sena supremo Bal Thackeray‘s death, have been released on bail bonds of Rs 15,000 each.

This article was published in the FirstPost on November 19, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

The duo, one of whom had reportedly updated her Facebook status to read “People like Thackeray are born and die daily and one should not observe a bandh for that” and the other one who ‘liked’ it, were initially booked under section 295A (hurting the religious sentiment of others) and were reportedly remanded to judicial custody for 14 days, NDTV reported.

The two girls were arrested after a complaint made to the Palghar police station in neighbouring Thane district by a local Sena leader.

A group of Shiv Sainiks attacked and ransacked the girl’s uncle’s orthopaedic clinic at Palghar, even though she withdrew her comment and apologised.

In comments to Firstpost, Pranesh Prakash of the Centre for Internet and Society, said that the arrest was a gross misapplication of the Indian Penal Code, and said that this particular provision had been misused on multiple occasions by the state of Maharashtra.

“What makes this seem ironic, and almost a parodic news report, is the fact that Bal Thackeray probably violated this provision more times than most other politicians, but was only charged under it once or twice”, he said.

The arrest has predictably elicited outrage from across the spectrum. Many took to social media to express their disgust, while NDTV reported that Maharashtra police HQ in Mumbai was very upset with the action taken by the Palghar police.

Press Council of India Chairman Markandey Katju had also called for the immediate release of the girls and wrote to Maharashtra Chief Minister Prithviraj Chavan asking him to ensure it.

Pointing out that people were not living under a fascist dictatorship, he said that the act of arrest appeared to be a criminal act since it was a violation under sections of the Indian Penal Code to wrongfully arrest or confine anyone.

The PCI chief said that legal consequences would follow if the Chief Minister failed to take action.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/first-post-nov-19-2012-girls-arrested-for-facebook-post-on-thackeray-get-bail

Women arrested for Facebook post: Did cops act under Sena pressure?

praskrishna — 2012-11-21T11:17:37Z

After Bal Thackeray's death, during the Mumbai Bandh, a 21-year-old criticised the shutdown on her Facebook page — her friend approved of it — next thing they know, they are facing a case, and this morning they were arrested.

YP Singh, Alyque Padamsee, Rohan Joshi, Karuna Nundy and Pranesh Prakash took part in a discussion about the arrest of two girls over a Facebook comment. The discussion was aired in NDTV on November 19, 2012.

The anchor asked Pranesh Prakash:

Who are these people scrolling through people's Facebook posts and Twitter accounts, finding these comments and taking action?

Pranesh Prakash said that it could be anyone. The reality is doesn't really matter because the laws are written in such a way that if it is public and stuff that is on Facebook for different purposes can either be public or private, if it is public these laws can very often apply and that is a problem. We haven't quite figured out to what extent these laws apply. The IT Act section 66A for instance, is unconstitutional, section 295 A which has been applied, and section 505 which also seems to have been applied in this case make it a clear case of misappropriation of those provisions. These kind of arrests will happen. It doesn't quite matter if we have right laws at one level and it clearly doesn't help if we have bad laws. What we need to do at least in part to remedy the situation is to amend the IT Act to make it consonant and consistent with civil and political rights and to do so in multi-stakeholder fashion involving civil society, industry and government. Right now it doesn't protect privacy and freedom of speech as much as it should.

Watch the full video aired on NDTV

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/ndtv-video-ndtv-special-ndtv-24x7

Two women arrested over Facebook gripe on Mumbai shutdown

praskrishna — 2013-01-15T09:26:33Z

A woman who complained about the Indian city of Mumbai shutting down for the funeral of divisive Hindu nationalist politician Balasaheb Thackeray was arrested for "hurting religious sentiments," local police told reporters amid public anger over the case.

This article by Emily Alpert appeared in Los Angeles Times on November 19, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

Indian media identified the woman as Shaheen Dhada, 21, who reportedly wrote, "People like Thackeray are born and die daily and one should not observe a bandh [shutdown] for that.”

Police also arrested a friend of hers who "liked" the comment.

The Facebook remark spurred angry backers of Thackeray, a controversial figure who once openly called for attacks on Muslims, to assault a clinic owned by Dhada' uncle. Analysts told the Associated Press that the arrests appeared to be a move by police to head off any further violence from Thackeray supporters.

Free-speech groups were outraged by the ransacking and arrests. In a blistering letter to the chief minister of Maharashtra state, a former Supreme Court justice who now heads the Press Council of India called the charges absurd and unlawful and demanded that the police officers involved be prosecuted.

"We are living in a democracy, not a fascist dictatorship," Markandey Katju wrote.

The Maharashtra director-general of police ordered a probe into the arrests Monday, Indian television station IBN reported. The two women were reportedly released on bail during the day.

The Shiv Sena political party that Thackeray founded has polarized Mumbai over the years with campaigns against Muslims and migrants. His death put the city on high alert over the weekend amid fears of violence. As shops were shuttered and taxis sat idle, some Mumbai residents grew frustrated.

"When tens of thousands were making similar comments ... how did the police single out Shaheen Dhada and her friend for arrest?” wrote Pranesh Prakash of the Center for Internet and Society. He added, "This should not be written off as a harmless case of the police goofing up."

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/la-times-nov-19-2012-emily-alpert-two-women-arrested-over-facebook-gripe-on-mumbai-shutdown

India ranks second globally in accessing private details of users

praskrishna — 2012-11-19T04:49:23Z

According to the latest transparency report released by Google, India ranks second in the world for accessing private details of its citizens, only after the U.S. The Google report lists out requests it received from governments across the world to access details of users of its various services.

Kul Bhushan's blog post was published in thinkdigit on November 15, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

Google's data reveals India had made 2,319 requests involving 3,467 users in the first six months. The U.S. made 7,969 requests, while Brazil, which ranks third, made 1,566 requests during the same period. Worldwide 20,938 requests were made during the January-June period. The report says the information shared included complete Gmail account, chat logs, Orkut profile and search terms among others.

The requests for accessing user data from India had grown two-fold from 1,061 in July-December 2009 to 2,207 in July-December 2011, the report points out.

According to the report, India has been consistently sending requests to remove content which it brands as defamatory and against national security. The court orders, however, to take down content has remained almost stagnant over the years; though requests from the executive and police have grown.

In the first six months this year, there were 20 court orders and 64 requests from executive/police that resulted in 596 items being taken down from the web. During the January-June 2010 period, there were only eight court orders and 22 executive/police requests, resulting in 125 items being taken down. Read about Google's previous transparency report here.

"Though India is a large country with a significant number of internet users, this data is nonetheless an indicator of growing surveillance," Times of India quotes Pranesh Prakash, policy director at Centre for Internet and Society ( CIS), a Bangalore-based organization looking at issues of public accountability, internet freedom and openness, as saying.

"India lacks a general privacy law that helps set guidelines for such user requests, despite privacy being a constitutional right as part of the right to life," added Prakash.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/thinkdigit-internet-kul-bhushan-nov-15-2012-india-ranks-second-globally-in-accessing-private-details-of-users

Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009

smita — 2012-11-21T09:32:36Z

G.S.R.781 (E).-- In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (z) of sub-section (2) of section 87, read with sub-section (2) of section 69A of the Information Technology Act 2000, (21 of 2000), the Central Government hereby makes the following rules, namely:

1. Short title and commencement.--
(1) These rules may be called the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.
(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.

2. Definitions.--
In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(a) "Act" means the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000);
(b) "computer resource" means computer resource as defined in clause (k) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Act;
(c) "Designated Officer" means an officer designated as Designated Officer under rule 3;
(d) "Form" means a form appended to these rules;
(e) "intermediary" means an intermediary as defined in clause (w) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Act;
(f) "nodal officer" means the nodal officer designated as such under rule 4;
(g) "organisation" means -
(i) Ministries or Departments of the Government of ;
(ii) state Governments and Union territories;
(iii) any agency of the Central Government, as may be notified in the Official Gazette, by the Central Government;
(h) "request" means the request for blocking of access by the public any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource;
(i) "Review Committee" means the Review Committee constituted under rule 419A of Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951.

3. Designated Officer.--
The Central Government shall designate by notification in Official Gazette, an officer of the Central Government not below the rank of a Joint Secretary, as the "Designated Officer", for the purpose of issuing direction for blocking for access by the public any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource under sub-section (2) of section 69A of the Act.

4. Nodal officer of organisation.--
Every organisation for the purpose of these rules, shall designate one of its officer as the Nodal Officer and shall intimate the same to the Central Government in the Department of Information Technology under the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Government of India and also publish the name of the said Nodal Officer on their website.

5. Direction by Designated Officer.--
The Designated Officer may, on receipt of any request from the Nodal Officer of an organisation or a competent court, by order direct any Agency of the Government or intermediary to block for access by the public any information or part thereof generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource for any of the reasons specified in sub-section (1) of section 69A of the Act.

6. Forwarding of request by organisation.--
(1) Any person may send their complaint to the Nodal Officer of the concerned organisation for blocking of access by the public any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource:
Provided that any request, other than the one from the Nodal Officer of the organisation, shall be sent with the approval of the Chief Secretary of the concerned State or territory to the Designated Officer:
Provided further that in case a Union territory has no Chief Secretary, then, such request may be approved by the Adviser to the Administrator of that Union territory.
(2) The organisation shall examine the complaint received under sub-rule (1) to satisfy themselves about the need for taking of action in relation to the reasons enumerated in sub-section (1) of section 69A of the Act and after being satisfied, it shall send the request through its Nodal Officer to the Designated Officer in the format specified in the Form appended to these rules.
(3) The Designated Officer shall not entertain any complaint or request for blocking of information directly from any person.
(4) The request shall be in writing on the letter head of the respective organisation, complete in all respects and may be sent either by mail or by fax or by e-mail signed with electronic signature of the Nodal Officer:
Provided that in case the request is sent by fax or by e-mail which is not signed with electronic signature, the Nodal Officer shall provide a signed copy of the request so as to reach the Designated Officer within a period of three days of receipt of the request by such fax or e-mail.
(5) On receipt, each request shall be assigned a number alongwith the date and time of its receipt by the Designated Officer and he shall acknowledge the receipt thereof to the Nodal Officer within a period of twenty four hours of its receipt.

7. Committee for examination of request.--
The request alongwith the printed sample content of the alleged offending information or part thereof shall be examined by a committee consisting of the Designated Officer as its chairperson and representatives, not below the rank of Joint Secretary in Ministries of Law and Justice, Home Affairs, Information and Broadcasting and the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team appointed under sub-section (1) of section 70B of the Act.

8. Examination of request.--
(1) On receipt of request under rule 6, the Designated Officer shall make all reasonable efforts to identify the person or intermediary who has hosted the information or part thereof as well as the computer resource on which such information or part thereof is being hosted and where he is able to identify such person or intermediary and the computer resource hosting the information or part thereof which have been requested to be blocked for public access, he shall issue a notice by way of letters or fax or e-mail signed with electronic signatures to such person or intermediary in control of such computer resource to appear and submit their reply and clarifications, if any, before the committee referred to in rule 7, at a specified date and time, which shall not be less than forty-eight hours from the time of receipt of such notice by such person or intermediary.
(2) In case of non-appearance of such person or intermediary, who has been served with the notice under sub-rule (1), before the committee on such specified date and time, the committee shall give specific recommendation in writing with respect to the request received from the Nodal Officer, based on the information available with the committee.
(3) In case, such a person or intermediary, who has been served with the notice under sub-rule (1), is a foreign entity or body corporate as identified by the Designated Officer, notice shall be sent by way of letters or fax or e-mail signed with electronic signatures to such foreign entity or body corporate and any such foreign entity or body corporate shall respond to such a notice within the time specified therein, failing which the committee shall give specific recommendation in writing with respect to the request received from the Nodal Officer, based on the information available with the committee.
(4) The committee referred to in rule 7 shall examine the request and printed sample information and consider whether the request is covered within the scope of sub-section (1) of section 69A of the Act and that it is justifiable to block such information or part thereof and shall give specific recommendation in writing with respect to the request received from the Nodal Officer.
(5) The designated Officer shall submit the recommendation of the committee, in respect of the request for blocking of information alongwith the details sent by the Nodal Officer, to the Secretary in the Department of Information Technology under the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Government of India (hereinafter referred to as the "Secretary, Department of Information Technology").
(6) The Designated Officer, on approval of the request by the Secretary, Department of Information Technology, shall direct any agency of the Government or the intermediary to block the offending information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in their computer resource for public access within the time limit specified in the direction:
Provided that in case the request of the Nodal Officer is not approved by the Secretary, Department of Information Technology, the Designated Officer shall convey the same to such Nodal Officer.

9. Blocking of information in cases of emergency.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in rules 7 and 8, the Designated Officer, in any case of emergency nature, for which no delay is acceptable, shall examine the request and printed sample information and consider whether the request is within the scope of sub-section (1) of section 69A of the Act and it is necessary or expedient and justifiable to block such information or part thereof and submit the request with specific recommendations in writing to Secretary, Department of Information Technology.
(2) In a case of emergency nature, the Secretary, Department of Information Technology may, if he is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient and justifiable for blocking for public access of any information or part thereof through any computer resource and after recording reasons in writing, as an interim measure issue such directions as he may consider necessary to such identified or identifiable persons or intermediary in control of such computer resource hosting such information or part thereof without giving him an opportunity of hearing.
(3) The Designated Officer, at the earliest but not later than forty-eight hours of issue of direction under sub-rule (2), shall bring the request before the committee referred to in rule 7 for its consideration and recommendation.
(4) On receipt of recommendations of committee, Secretary, Department of Information Technology, shall pass the final order as regard to approval of such request and in case the request for blocking is not approved by the Secretary, Department of Information Technology in his final order, the interim direction issued under sub-rule (2) shall be revoked and the person or intermediary in control of such information shall be accordingly directed to unblock the information for public access.

10. Process of order of court for blocking of information.--
In case of an order from a competent court in India for blocking of any information or part thereof generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in a computer resource, the Designated Officer shall, immediately on receipt of certified copy of the court order, submit it to the Secretary, Department of Information Technology and initiate action as directed by the court.

11. Expeditious disposal of request.--
The request received from the Nodal Officer shall be decided expeditiously which in no case shall be more than seven working days from the date of receipt of the request.

12. Action for non-compliance of direction by intermediary.--
In case the intermediary fails to comply with the direction issued to him under rule 9, the Designated Officer shall, with the prior approval of the Secretary, Department of Information Technology, initiate appropriate action as may be required to comply with the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 69A of the Act.

13. Intermediary to designate one person to receive and handle directions.--
(1) Every intermediary shall designate at feast one person to receive and handle the directions for blocking of access by the public any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource under these rules.
(2) The designated person of the Intermediary shall acknowledge receipt of the directions to the Designated Officer within two hours on receipt of the direction through acknowledgement letter or fax or e-mail signed with electronic signature.

14. Meeting of Review Committee.--
The Review Committee shall meet at least once in two months and record its findings whether the directions issued under these rules are in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 69A of the Act and if is of the opinion that the directions are not in accordance with the provisions referred to above, it may set aside the directions and issue order for unblocking of said information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in a computer resource for public access.

15. Maintenance of records by Designated Officer.--
The Designated Officer shall maintain complete record of the request received and action taken thereof, in electronic database and also in register of the cases of blocking for public access of the information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in a computer resource.

16. Requests and complaints to be confidential.--
Strict confidentiality shall be maintained regarding all the requests and complaints received and actions taken thereof.

FORM
[See rule 6(2)]
A. Complaint
1. Name of the complainant: --___________________________________________
(Person who has sent the complaint to the Govt./Nodal Officer)
2. Address :________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
City :______________________ Pin Code:______________
3. Telephone :______________ (prefix STD code) 4. Fax (if any):__________
5. (if any):_____________________________
6. Email (if any):_____________________________________________
B : Details of website/ computer resource/intermediary/ offending Information hosted on the website
(Please give details wherever known)
7. URL / web address :________________________________
8. IP Address :___________________________
9. Hyperlink:____________________________
10. Server/Proxy Server address :__________________________________
11. Name of the Intermediary :___________________________________
12. URL of the Intermediary :____________________________________
(Please attach screenshot/printout of the offending information)
13. Address or location of intermediary in case the intermediary is telecom service provider, network service provider, internet service provider, web-hosting service provider and cyber cafe or other form of intermediary for which information under points (7), (8), (9), (10), (11) and (12) are not available.
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
C. Details of Request for blocking
14. Recommendation/Comments of the Ministry/State Govt :______________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
15. The level at which the comments/ recommendation have been approved
(Please specify designation):__________________________________________
16. Have the complaint been examined in Ministry/State Government: Y/N
17. If yes, under which of the following reasons it falls (please tick):
(i) Interest of sovereignty or integrity of
(ii) Defence of
(iii) Security of the State
(iv) Friendly relations with foreign States
(v) Public order
(vi) For preventing incitement to the commission of any cognisable offence relating to above
D. Details of the Nodal Officer forwarding the complaint alongwith recommendation of the Ministry/State Govt. and related enclosures
18. Name of the Nodal Officer:_____________________________________________
19. Designation :___________________________________________________
20. organisation :________________________________________________________
21. Address : ______________________________________________________
City :______________________ Pin Code:______________
22. Telephone:________________(prefix STD code) 23. Fax (if any):____________
24. (if any):_____________________________
25. Email (if any):_____________________________________________
E. Any other information :
F. Enclosures :

1.
2.
3
Date: Place: Signature

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/information-technology-procedure-and-safeguards-for-blocking-for-access-of-information-by-public-rules-2009

Post and be Damned

praskrishna — 2012-11-19T03:40:46Z

Your careless comments online could put you in jail, thanks to Section 66A of the Information Technology Act. Kavitha Shanmugam examines a law that some critics say is vague and unconstitutional

Kavita Shanmugham's column was published in the Telegraph on November 14, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

Two weeks ago, S. Ravi, owner of a small plastic packaging unit in Puducherry, was rudely woken up by the police at 5am, manhandled and arrested. Reason: Ravi had posted a couple of unflattering comments about Karti Chidambaram, son of finance minister P. Chidambaram, on Twitter. He had tweeted that Chidambaram Junior "had amassed more wealth than Robert Vadra".

Ravi was arrested under Section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2008, and hauled up before a judicial magistrate who remanded him to nine days in custody. "It was then that I became really scared," says Ravi, who is out on bail.

A casual tweeter with just 16 followers, Ravi believes he did nothing wrong. “I was using a statement that was already there on the Internet. They could have sent me a lawyer’s notice or investigated the complaint before taking action,” argues Ravi, whose Twitter following has now jumped to 2,518.

"My tweet was retweeted by 20,000 people, who dared the authorities to arrest them too," he adds indignantly, terming Section 66A a “draconian law" with "wide scope for misuse".

Ravi is not alone in denouncing Section 66A of the IT Act. Indeed, there is now a huge outcry against the law, with a section of legal and cyber experts saying that it is nothing but a useful tool in the hands of the powers that be to curb freedom of speech and expression online.

At the same time, there are those who believe that online abuse or defamation cannot masquerade as freedom of speech and that the law is necessary to move against those who commit this offence.

Karti Chidambaram, for one, believes that Ravi’s tweet was motivated and defamatory. "The tweeter made one tweet in 78 days. It was about me. It clearly implied that I am corrupt. That is malicious. So I preferred a complaint to the police. The law exists. I didn’t frame the law," he says.

Section 66A of the IT Act lays down that a person can be punished with up to three years’ imprisonment if he or she sends offensive information or messages through a computer resource or communication device. The problem arises because it fails to clarify what can be termed "offensive". For example, information that is "grossly offensive" or has "menacing character” or information disseminated for the “purpose of causing annoyance and inconvenience" are all brought under the ambit of "offensive". This leaves the law wide open for various interpretations and abuse. "It’s too vaguely worded," insists M. Lenin, a lawyer advising volunteers of India Against Corruption in Chennai. “Any online statement can be declared 'offensive' and any tweet may be deemed ‘inconvenient’. The section has become a convenient tool for the police to harass people."

Section 66A of the IT Act lays down that a person can be punished with up to three years’ imprisonment if he or she sends offensive information or messages through a computer resource or communication device. The problem arises because it fails to clarify what can be termed "offensive". For example, information that is "grossly offensive" or has "menacing character” or information disseminated for the “purpose of causing annoyance and inconvenience" are all brought under the ambit of "offensive". This leaves the law wide open for various interpretations and abuse.

"It’s too vaguely worded," insists M. Lenin, a lawyer advising volunteers of India Against Corruption in Chennai. “Any online statement can be declared 'offensive' and any tweet may be deemed ‘inconvenient’. The section has become a convenient tool for the police to harass people."

Earlier this year, Section 66A was also invoked, among other laws, to arrest Jadavpur University professor Ambikesh Mahapatra for forwarding an email cartoon of West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee.

Indeed, some experts go a step further and call Section 66A patently unconstitutional. Says Pranesh Prakash, policy director, Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, "It’s clearly in violation of Article 19(1)(a) of our Constitution that guarantees freedom of speech. The fact that some information is ‘grossly offensive’ (Section 66A) or that it causes ‘annoyance’ or ‘inconvenience’ while being known to be false (Section 66A(c)) cannot be a reason for curbing freedom of speech unless it is directly related to violating decency, morality or public order, or amounts to defamation."

However, apologists for Section 66A argue that the law has its merits too in that it can be used to move against genuine incidents of harassment or defamation online. Take the case of Chinmayee Sripada, a popular Chennai-based playback singer. Chinmayee, who has one lakh followers on Twitter, was targeted by a group of six men who sent her lewd and threatening tweets for a period of time. Apparently, they were upset with her remarks on reservation and for not joining them in a Twitter campaign against the killing of Tamil Nadu fishermen by the Sri Lankan navy.

Recently, Chinmayee complained to the police with “thousands of pages of ugliness and vulgarity” and the trolls, including a professor at the National Institute of Fashion Technology, Chennai, were identified and arrested under Section 66A.

The offending tweeters apologised to her and closed their accounts after the arrest. "I believe Section 66A belled the cat. The arrest made people realise that Twitter also demands self-regulation. In the name of freedom of speech there is zero control on platforms like Twitter. There should be some boundaries," says Chinmayee’s mother T. Padmahasini.

Ramachandra Murthy, Ravi’s lawyer, too believes that Section 66A is a "good tool" for genuine cases of harassment. "Unfortunately, it is being misused by influential people. Still, if you are innocent the case can never hold up in court," he reasons.

Others question the need for a separate law to deal with cases of online defamation or harassment when the Indian Penal Code already has provisions to tackle them. New Delhi-based lawyer Apar Gupta cites the examples of Section 500, 499 and 294 of the IPC which deal with defamation or committing obscene acts in public. "Section 66A only makes the burden on the accused harsher," he adds.

While some IT experts want Section 66A scrapped, others say that it should at least be amended. “Even if the section is not struck off the statute books, the provisions in it may be read down by the courts and safeguards may be prescribed in its application,” says Gupta.

Until that happens, mistaking social media platforms for online drawing rooms where you can indulge in all kinds of freewheeling chat could be fraught with danger.

Justice A.P. Shah, a former chief justice of the Delhi High Court, echoes that view. "Section 66A is very broad and loosely worded. The scope of such a law has to be restricted. Instead, it is vague and clearly violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution that guarantees freedom of speech and expression," he says.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/telegraphindia-opinion-story-kavitha-shanmugham-nov-14-2012-post-and-be-damned

Will The International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs) Impact Internet Governance? A Multistakeholder Perspective

pranesh — 2012-12-10T04:40:11Z

Pranesh Prakash made a presentation at the India Internet Governance Conference (IIGC) held at the FICCI, Federation House, Tansen Marg, New Delhi on October 4 and 5, 2012. The event was organised by the Ministry of Communications & Information Technology, FICCI and Internet Society. CIS was one of the supporting organisations.

Principles

I'll outline some broad principles that should be kept in mind while deciding on proposals for the International Telecommunications Regulations (ITR).

Any proposal should be considered for the ITR if an only if it satisfies all the below criteria:

Only if international regulation is needed

If only national regulation is sufficient, then ITR is not the right place for it.
International roaming price transparency, for instance, is an issue where international cooperation is required.

Only if it is a technical issue limited to telecommunications networks and interoperability

On the issues of 'security', if it is strictly about network security, then it is fine.

ITU already does some standard setting work around this.

If it about security of root server operations, or DNS, etc., that's not around telecommunications, despite being a technical issue.
If it is about criminal activities on telecommunications networks, that is not a technical issue.

Only if it is something that can be decided at the level of states.

Multistakeholder issues should not end up at the ITU, since the ITU is not a multistakeholder body.
This principle has been accepted by the ITU itself in the Geneva Declaration as well as the Tunis Agenda.

Only if it proposes to address a proven harm

The ETNO proposal, for instance, does not make it very clear why they think current interconnection system is a problem.

Though the ETNO proposal says that it is required to enable "fair compensation", "sustainable development of telecom", it does so without showing why the current payment mechanisms are unsustainable, or how telecom industry has changed lately, or even how moving from voice to data (even for voice) is going to affect "sustainable development of telecom".
Geoff Huston provides the wonderful example of how ten years ago, content providers were asking for fair compensation from telecom providers ("content is being provided free, while ISPs charge customers; ISPs are worthless without content, hence ISPs need to share revenue with content providers"). Now the opposite argument is being made by telecom operators.

Airtel in India has publicly asked Google and Facebook for revenue sharing.

Rohan Samarajiva of LIRNEasia

He believes ETNO proposal is bad for developing countries.

Adverse unintended effect of ETNO proposal ("sending-party network pays") is that less traffic will be directed towards poorer regions without the ability (whether through ad sales, or otherwise) to justify that expenditure by the sender.

ISOC paper is one of the most in-depth analysis so far.

They strongly believe it is going to be bad for Internet

Truth is that there has been no clear economic study so far of the potential impact. Hence counting benefits without proper analysis is risky.

Only if there's no better place than ITU

If another existing organization like ICANN or IETF can look at it, then ITU should not take over.

If all the above principles are satisfied, then the question becomes:

Does the proposal further substantive principles, such as:
Development
Competition and prevention of monopolies
Etc.

If the proposal does advance such substantive principles, then we should ask what kind of regulation is needed: Whether mandatory or not whether it is the minimal amount required to achieve the policy objectives.

Conclusion

Indian government's positions on the specific proposals to the ITR haven't yet been made public.

But the India government has taken a public position on the larger issue before: the IBSA statement on Enhanced Cooperation from December 2010. the IBSA reaffirms its commitment to the stability and security of the Internet as a global facility based on the full participation of all stakeholders, from both developed and developing countries, within their respective roles and responsibilities in line with paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda.

"The management of the Internet encompasses both technical and public policy issues and should involve all stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international organizations."

Demonization of the ITU is not good, though some in civil society have engaged in it, and is not the issue here. * After all, ITU was a core part of the WSIS process that led to the multistakeholder system. * ITU does have its own role to play in Internet governance.

Importantly, transparency and public participation is required. * We have signed an international civil society letter asking ITU to be more transparent. This has had a little impact; more documents are now out in the public. And there's now WCITLeaks.org * The Indian government must hold inclusive meetings with all relevant experts and stakeholders, including civil society organizations and academics.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/will-the-international-telecommunication-regulations-itrs-impact-internet-governance-a-multistakeholder-perspective

Privacy in the Social Networked World

praskrishna — 2012-12-04T16:19:51Z

The Asian Privacy Scholars Network 2nd International Conference was hosted by the Centre for Business Information Ethics, Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan, on behalf of the Asian Privacy Scholars Network, November 19 - 20, 2012. Elonnai Hickok is speaking at the event.

Monday, November 19, 2012

09:00—09:30	Registration and Welcome
09:30—10:30	Keynote Speaker: Pirongrong Ramasoota (Chulalongkorn University, Thailand) The Future of Privacy in the World's Largest Democracy
10:30—11:00	Break
11:00—12:30	Whon-Il Park (Kyung Hee University, Korea) How to Protect, or Utilize, Personal Visual Information in Korea Sinta Dewi Rosadi (University Padjadjaran, Indonesia) Constitutional Privacy Protection: The Indonesian Experience Takato Natsui (Meiji University, Japan) Censorship, Burying and Mental Health in Business Office
12:30—14:00	Lunch
14:00—15:00	Lilian Edwards (Strathclyde University, UK) International Implications of the Proposed Revision of the EU Data Protection Directive Graham Greenleaf (UNSW, Australia and Meiji University, Japan) 100 Data Privacy Laws: Their Significance and Origins
15:00—15:30	Break
15:30—16:30	Kiyoshi Murata/Yohko Orito (Meiji University/Ehime University, Japan) Japanese Youngsters' Social Attitude towards Privacy Ryoko Asai/Iordanis Kavathatzopoulos (Meiji University, Japan/Uppsala University, Sweden) The Paradoxical Nature of Privacy
18:00—20:00	Conference Banquet (Salon San, 23rd Floor, Liberty Tower, Meiji University)

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

09:00—09:45	Keynote Speaker: Roger Clarke (Xamax Consultancy, UNSW and ANU, Australia) Consumer-Oriented Social Media as Market Opportunity
09:45—10:00	Video Presentation from David Lyon (Queens University, Canada)
10:00—10:30	Break
10:30—12:00	Daniel Trottier (Uppsala University, Sweden) Social Networking Sites and Crowd-sourced Surveillance Colin Bennett (University of Victoria, Canada) Social Networking and Privacy Jurisdiction Andrew Adams (Meiji University, Japan) Facebook Code: SNS Platform Affordances and Privacy
12:00—13:00	Lunch
13:00—14:30	Elonnai Hickok (Centre for Internet and Society, India) Transparency and Privacy in India Fumio Shimpo (Keio University, Japan) Current Developments in Japanese Data Protection Policy Panel: Chen, Greenleaf, Hickok, Shimpo
14:30—15:00	Break
15:00—17:00	Ian Brown (University of Oxford, UK) Data Protection and Social Networking Services Shirley Williams (University of Reading, UK) Do Computer Science Scholars Consider Issues of Privacy when Studying Large Twitter Data Sets? Final Panel: Adams, Bennett, Brown, Clarke, Williams

Organisers

Prof Andrew A. Adams, Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan
Prof Kiyoshi Murata, Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan
Prof Graham Greenleaf, UNSW, Sydney, Australia
(JSPS Visiting Fellow, Meiji University Sep-Dec 2012)

Read the original here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/privacy-in-social-networked-world

Statement of Civil Society Members and Groups Participating in the "Best Bits" pre-IGF meeting at Baku in 2012

pranesh — 2012-12-07T08:06:25Z

The Centre for Internet & Society was one of the signatories for this submission made to the ITU on November 16, 2012.

Read the statement of civil society members and groups participating in the “Best Bits” pre-IGF meeting at Baku in 2012

We thank the Secretariat of the ITU for making the opportunity to submit our views.

Nevertheless, the process of the revision of the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs) has not been sufficiently inclusive and transparent, despite some recent efforts to facilitate public participation. Fundamental to the framing of public policy must be the pursuit of the public interest and fundamental human rights, and we urge Member States to uphold and protect these values.

We as civil society organizations wish to engage with the World Conference on International Telecommunication (WCIT) process in this spirit. Member States, in most cases, have not held open, broad-based, public consultations in the lead up to the WCIT, nor have they indicated such a process for the WCIT itself.

In order to address this deficiency, and at a minimum, we would urge:

All Member States and regional groups to make their proposals available to the public in sufficient time to allow for meaningfulpublic participation;
All delegates to support proposals to open sessions of the WCIT meeting to the public;
The ITU Secretariat to increase transparency of the WCIT including live webcast with the video, audio, and text transcripts, as far as possible, to enable participation by all, including persons with disabilities;
The ITU Secretariat, Member States, and regional groups to make as much documentation publicly available as possible on the ITU's website, so that civil society can provide substantive input on proposals as they are made available;
Member States to encourage and facilitate civil society participation in their national delegations;
The ITU to create spaces during the WCIT for civil society to express their views, as was done during the WSIS process.

Given the uncertainty about the nature of final proposals that will be presented, we urge delegates that the following criteria be applied to any proposed revisions of the ITRs.

That any proposed revisions are confined to the traditional scope of the ITRs, where international regulation is required around technical issues is limited to telecommunications networks and interoperability standards.
There should be no revisions to the ITRs that involve regulation of the Internet Protocol and the layers above.
There should be no revisions that could have a negative impact on affordable access to the Internet or the public's rights to privacy and freedom of expression.

More generally we call upon the ITU to promote principles of net neutrality, open standards, affordable access and universal service, and effective competition.

Signatories:

Access (Global)
Association for Progressive Communications (Global)
Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (Bangladesh)
Bytes for All (Pakistan)
Center for Democracy and Technology (United States of America)
Centre for Community Informatics Research (Canada)
Centre for Internet and Society (India)
Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (Eastern and Southern Africa)
Consumer Council of Fiji (Fiji)
Consumers International (Global)
Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles (IRP) (Global)
Electronic Frontier Finland (Finland)
Imagining the Internet Center (United States of America)
Instituto Nupef (Brazil)
Internet Democracy Project (India)
Internet Research Project (Pakistan)
Global Partners and Associates (United Kingdom)
GobernanzadeInternet.co (Colombia)
ICT Watch Indonesia (Indonesia)
Instituto Brasileiro de Defesa do Consumidor / Brazilian Institute for
Consumer Defense (Brazil)
InternetNZ (New Zealand)
IT for Change (India)
Media Education Center (Armenia)
ONG Derechos Digitales (Chile)
OpenMedia (Canada)
Public Knowledge (United States of America)
Thai Netizen Network (Thailand)
Ginger Paque (Venezuala)
Nnenna Nwakanma (Côte d'Ivoire)
Sonigitu Ekpe (Nigeria)
Wolfgang Kleinwächter (Denmark)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/statement-of-civil-society-members-and-groups-at-best-bits-pre-igf-meeting

India second in requesting user info: Google

praskrishna — 2012-11-15T09:40:10Z

India is at second place after the US in terms of the government requests for user data from Google

Karthik Subramanian's article was published in the Hindu on November 14, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

The Indian government made the second largest demand for Web user information — next only to the United States government — to Google in the six-month period from January to June this year, according to the ‘Transparency Report’ published by the Web services major on Tuesday.

During the six-month period, the Indian government — both by way of court orders and by way of requests from police— requested Google to disclose user information 2,319 times over 3,467 users/accounts. Google fully or partially complied with the request to the tune of 64 per cent. Only the U.S. government requested more data during the period — 7,969 requests over 16,281 accounts, compliance rate: 90 per cent.

It is the sixth time Google has brought out the bi-annual report detailing its interactions with the world government agencies. It details two categories of interactions : requests to divulge user data; and requests to pull down content. India ranked seventh in the list of requests to pull down data; experts say that the possible reason could be the government not having such powers under the Constitution.

Pranesh Prakash, policy director with Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society, said that the Google report was a damning indictment of the country’s government exceeding its constitutional bounds by demanding removal of material for defamation, government criticism, etc., without a valid court order. "There are no laws in our country that allows the executive or the police to remove such material without a court order."

Substantial spike

In all, 33 countries figure in the report. There was a substantial spike when compared to previous reports with respect to the number of requests from various governments to pull down content.

"In the first half of 2012, there were 20,938 inquiries from government entities around the world. Those requests were for information about 36,614 accounts,” wrote Dorothy Chou, Google’s senior policy analyst, on the Official Google Blog while presenting the report. “The number of government requests to remove content from our services was largely flat from 2009 to 2011. But it’s spiked in this reporting period. In the first half of 2012, there were 1,791 requests from government officials around the world to remove 17,746 pieces of content."

Google is leading the cause for voluntary disclosure of the interactions it has with the governments. Other web services that put out similar transparency reports include micro-blogging site Twitter; cloud storage service Dropbox; and social networking site Linkedin.

Mr. Prakash said it was not enough if just the web services put out such reports. "The telecom service providers must voluntarily come out with such information," he added.

"There is a dearth of public information about the amount of legal interception and surveillance. This does not bode well in a democratic polity."

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/the-hindu-sci-tech-internet-karthik-subramanian-nov-14-2012-india-second-in-requesting-user-info-google

India second in keeping tabs on netizens

praskrishna — 2012-11-15T09:04:01Z

India ranks second globally in accessing private details of its citizens, next only to the US, if the latest data from Google is to be believed.

The article by Ishan Srivastava was published in the Times of India on November 15, 2012, Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

The transparency report by the internet search giant lists out requests it received from governments across the world to access information on the users of its various services.

In the first six months of 2012, India made 2,319 requests involving 3,467 users. In comparison, the US made 7,969 requests in the same period and Brazil, which comes third, sent 1,566 requests. Globally, there were 20,938 requests for user data during the January-June period. The data can include your complete Gmail account, chat logs, Orkut profile and search terms among others. These reports are prepared by Google every six months, and were started in July-December 2009.

The requests for user data from India doubled from 1,061 in July-December 2009 to 2,207 in July-December 2011.

"Though India is a large country with a significant number of internet users, this data is nonetheless an indicator of growing surveillance," said Pranesh Prakash, policy director at Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), a Bangalore-based organization looking at issues of public accountability, internet freedom and openness.

"India lacks a general privacy law that helps set guidelines for such user requests, despite privacy being a constitutional right as part of the right to life," said Prakash.

India also actively sends requests to take down content which it deems defamatory and against national security. While the number of court orders for taking down web content has remained almost stagnant over the years, there has been a rise in the number of requests by the executive and police. Between January and June this year, there were 20 court orders and 64 requests from executive/police that resulted in 596 items being taken down from the web. In comparison, there were only eight court orders and 22 executive/police requests in January-June 2010, resulting in 125 items being taken down.

"The government does not always specify the reason for which they want access. They just want access, what they do with the information is not known to us," said a legal adviser to an MNC. "These requests come with a threat to our continued operation in India."

Falsified court orders are also being employed to seek removal of content. Three such court orders were sent to Google "that demanded the removal of blog posts and entire blogs for alleged defamation." One order was said have been issued by a local court in Andheri, Mumbai while the other two by the Delhi high court. But all the three were found to be fake.

Google says a single court order was responsible for removal of 360 items this year as they "contained adult videos that allegedly violated an individual's personal privacy." While such orders have a positive impact like curbing pornography and violent content, governments at every level have also tried to use these requests to take down unfavourable content or criticism.

In January-June 2011 period, Google received "requests from state and local law enforcement agencies to remove YouTube videos that displayed protests against social leaders or used offensive language in reference to religious leaders". Google rejected a majority of these requests. It also received a request from a law enforcement agency to remove 236 communities and profiles from Orkut that were critical of a local politician. Google did not remove them either.

"Prior to 2009, government had limited powers of interception. However, after 26/11 they gave themselves huge powers to block and monitor content," said Supreme Court lawyer Pavan Duggal. "Data privacy is non-existent in India." He said that the A P Shah Committee, which was formed to recommend principles for a privacy law, has submitted its report to the Planning Commission and now it is up to the government to take it to the next stage.

Both Prakash and Duggal said that technology companies in India, including telecom players, should come out with similar transparency reports as Google. A report by international watchdog Privacy International says that Bharti Airtel, in its 2010-2011 annual report, said it had received 422 appreciation letters from law enforcement agencies for assistance in lawful interceptions. "The Indian IT Act requires electronic audit by firms but the law is silent on how this audit is filed," said Duggal.

Globally, Dropbox, LinkedIn, Sonic.net and Twitter release transparency reports apart from Google.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/times-of-india-india-times-tech-tech-news-internet-ishan-srivastava-nov-15-2012-india-second-in-keeping-tabs-on-netizens

Steady Steps.....FOSS and the MDG's

praskrishna — 2012-12-09T01:11:31Z

Pranesh Prakash was a panelist at this IGF workshop held on November 9, 2012. It was organised by International Center For Free and Open Source Software and Free Software and OpenSource Foundation For Africa.

IG4D Thematic Cluster 2 "Enabling Environment" Question 1: What does it take to attract investment in infrastructure and enc

Concise Description of Workshop:

This workshop will address some key areas, where Free and open source software has made a milestone, in the last few years to fulfill the Millennium development goal, across the globe. Many a times whenever FOSS is mentioned, , thoughts quickly run to ‘techies’ . In this session , the Panelists will give practical presentations/projects on Free and Open Source Software, outside the technical arena and show how it has changed the face of : 1) Governments:- We will look at, Policy in the area of Open Data, 2) In Academia:- We will look at, Open Education Resources (OER) , FOSS in schools etc, both in Africa and India. 3) In Private Sector- we will look at , Wealth creation, innovation and job creation, just to mention but a few. 1) Secondly we will look at how FOSS is bridging the digital divide, existing between the different age groups more especially the Youth, Women, between the different social circles/media , inclusion of person's with disabilities.etc, through partnerships and rural deployment of FOSS. We will have the privilege to look at initiative(s), in Brazil. 1) Last but not least, It will address, the key policies, that governments should embrace, that would continue to enhance FOSS in the Internet development goal at national level , regional level and at the global level. A rich discussion will be encouraged, from the participants to ensure that the FOSS community understands its strength and role in the internet governance realm, in policy making process and in the privacy, security and openness arena.

Workshop Agenda:
1. What Milestone has FOSS made in:
i) Academia
ii) Government
iii) Private Sector
2. Is FOSS factor to consider in bridging the digital divide?
3. Regarding the Milestone that FOSS has achieved, should there be national, regional, global.etc policies to ensure a fair palying field it?
- Closing remarks, What actions to be taken, conclusion.

Submitted Workshop Panelists:

1. Mr. Satish Babu - ICFOSS, India (Government)- Moderator- Confirmed
2. Mr. Fernando Botelho- F123.org, Brazil (Remote Participation)- Confirmed
3. Ms. Anne Rachel Inne, ICANN- Confirmed
4. Mr. Pranesh Prakash, CIS Bangalore, India- Confirmed
5. Ms. Mishi Choudhary, Executive Director of International programs at Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC), India- Confirmed
6. Mr. Yves Miezan Ezo, FOSSFA , CHALA, France- Confirmed
7.Ms. Nnenna Nwakanma, CEO, Nnenna.org, Cote d' Ivoire- Confirmed

Name of Remote Moderator(s):

Ms. Judy Okite, FOSSFA

Assigned Panellists:

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/steady-steps-foss-and-mdgs