We are anonymous, we are legion

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

Q&A to the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy

elonnai — 2012-11-09T10:20:48Z

In January 2012 Justice A.P. Shah formed a committee consisting of a group of experts to contribute to and create a report of recommendations for a privacy legislation in India. The committee met a total of seven times from January to September 2012. The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) was a member of the committee creating the report. This blog post is CIS’s attempt to answer questions that have arisen from media coverage on the report, based on our understanding.

Executive Summary

The executive summary explains how the need for a horizontal privacy legislation that recognizes the right to privacy has come about in India in light of projects and practices such as the UID, NATGRID, and the changing nature of business and technology. The executive summary highlights the committee’s recommendations of what should be considered by legislatures while enacting a privacy legislation in India.

Q: What are the salient features of the committee’s recommendations?

A: In its report the committee recommended that any privacy legislation passed should:

Be technologically neutral and interoperable with international standards to ensure that the regulation can adapt to changing technology, and that business will be promoted.
Recognize the multiple dimensions of privacy including physical and informational privacy.
Apply to all data controllers both in the private sector and the public sector to ensure that businesses and governments are held accountable to protecting privacy.
Establish a set of privacy principles that can be applicable to different practices, policies, projects, departments, and businesses to create a uniform level of privacy protection across all sectors.
Create an enforcement regime of co-regulation, where industry has the choice of developing privacy principles and ensuring compliance at the sectoral level with regular oversight by the Privacy Commissioners.

Chapter 1: Constitutional Basis for Privacy

This chapter summarizes a number of decisions from the Indian Judiciary that demonstrate how the right to privacy in India has been defined on a case to case basis and has been defined as either a fundamental right or a common law right.

Q: What are the contexts of the cases covered?

A: This chapter covers cases that speak to the:

Right to privacy in the context of surveillance by the State
Balancing the ‘right to privacy’ against the ‘right to free speech’
The ‘right to privacy’ of HIV patients
Prior judicial sanctions for tapping telephones
The ‘search and seizure’ powers of revenue authorities

Chapter 2: International Privacy Principles

This chapter summarizes recent developments in privacy laws, international privacy principles, and privacy principles developed by specific countries. This review aided the Committee in forming its recommendations for the report.

Q: Privacy principles from which countries were reviewed by the Committee?

A: The Committee reviewed privacy principles from the following countries and international organizations.

EU Regulations of January 2012
US Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights
OECD Privacy Principles
APEC Privacy Framework
Australia
Canada

Chapter 3: National Privacy Principles, Rationales, and Emerging Issues

This chapter lays out the nine national privacy principles and describes the rationale for each principle along with emerging issues around each principle.

Q: What could the principles apply to?

A: The principles apply to the collection, processing, storage, retention, access, disclosure, destruction, sharing, transfer, and anonymization of sensitive personal information, personal identifiable information, and identifiable information by data controllers. The national privacy principles can also be applied to legislation, projects, practices, and policies to ensure that provisions and requirements are in compliance with the national privacy principles.

Q: Who could be brought under the scope of the principles?

A: The principles are applicable to every data controller in the private sector and the public sector. For example organizations and government departments that determine the purposes and means of processing personal information will be brought under the scope of the principles and will be responsible for carrying out the processing of data in accordance with sectoral privacy standards or the national privacy principles.

Q: How could the National Privacy Principles impact individuals?

A: The principles provide individuals with the right to 1. Receive notice before giving consent stating what personal information is being collected, the purposes for which personal information is being collected, the uses of collected personal information, whether or not personal information will be disclosed to third persons, security safeguards established by the data controller, processes available to data subjects to access and correct personal information, and contact details of privacy officers. 2. Opt in and out of providing personal information 3. Withdraw given consent at any point of time. 4. Access and correct any personal information held by data controllers 5. Allow individuals to issue a complaint with the respective ombudsman, privacy commissioner, or court.

Q: Would the National Privacy Principles be binding for every data controller?

A: Yes, but Self Regulating Organizations at the industry level have the option of developing principles for that specific sector. These principles must be approved by the privacy commissioner and be in compliance with the National Privacy Principles.

Chapter 4: Analysis of Relevant Legislation, Bills, and Interests from a Privacy Perspective

This chapter examines relevant legislation, bills, and interests from a privacy perspective. In doing so the chapter clarifies how the right to privacy should intersect with the right to information and the freedom of expression, and anaylzes current and upcoming legislation to demonstrate what existing provisions in the legislation uphold the privacy principles, what existing provisions are in conflict with the principles, and what provisions are missing to ensure that the legislation is compliant to the extent possible with the principles.

Q: How does the report understand the relationship between the Right to Information and the Right to Privacy?

A: When applied the Privacy Act should not circumscribe the Right to Information Act. Furthermore, RTI recipients should not be considered data controllers and thus should not be brought under the ambit of the privacy principles.

Q: How does the report understand the relationship between the freedom of expression and privacy?

A: Questions about how to balance the right to privacy with the freedom of expression can arise in many circumstances including: the right to be forgotten and data portability, journalistic expression, state secrecy and whistle blowers, and national security. Most often, public interest is the test used to determine if the right to privacy should supersede the freedom of expression or vice versa.

Chapter 5: The Regulatory Framework

This chapter outlines the committee’s recommendations for a regulatory framework for the Privacy Act.

Q: Who are the main actors in the regulatory framework?

A: The report recommends that a regulatory framework be comprised of one privacy commissioner at the central level and four commissioners at the regional level, self regulating organizations (SRO’s) at the industry level, data controllers and privacy officers at the organization level, and courts.

Q: What are the salient features of the regulatory framework?

A: The salient features of the regulatory framework include 1. A framework of co-regulation 2. Complaints 3. Exceptions to the Privacy Act 4. Offenses under the Act

Q: What are exceptions to the right to privacy? Are these blanket exceptions?

A: National security; public order; disclosure of information in public interest; prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of criminal offences; and protection of the individual or of the rights and freedoms of others are suggested exceptions to the right to privacy. The committee has qualified these exceptions with the statement that before an exception can be made for the following circumstances, the proportionality, legality, and necessity in a democratic state should be used to measure if the exception applies and the extent of the exception. Thus, they are not blanket exceptions to the right to privacy

Historical and scientific research and journalistic purposes were also recommended as additional exceptions to the right to privacy that may be considered. These exceptions will not be subjected to the principles of proportionality, legality, and necessary in a democratic state.

Q: What are the powers and responsibilities of the privacy commissioners?

A: The powers and responsibilities of the Privacy Commissioners are the following:

Responsibilities:

Enforcement of the Act
Broadly oversee interception/access, audio & video recordings, the use of personal identifiers, and the use of bodily or genetic material.
Evaluate and approve privacy principles developed by SRO’s
Collaborate with stakeholders to endure effective regulation, promote awareness of the Act, and sensitize citizens to privacy considerations

Powers:

Order privacy impact assessments on organisations
Investigate complaints suomotu or based off of complaints from data subjects (summon documents, call and examine witnesses, and take a case to court if necessary )
Fine non-compliant data controllers

Q: How does Co-regulation work?

A: The purpose of establishing a regulatory framework of co-regulation is to ensure that appropriate policies and principles are articulated and enforced for all sectors. If a sector wishes to develop its own privacy standards, the industry level self regulating organization will submit to the privacy commissioner a sub set of self regulatory norms. If these norms are approved by the privacy commissioner the SRO will be responsible for enforcing those norms, but the privacy commissioner will have the power to sanction member data controllers for violating the norms. If a sector does not have an SRO or does not wish to develop its own set of standards, the National Privacy Principles will be binding.

Q: What are data controllers? What are privacy officers? What are ombudsmen?

A: A data controller is any entity that handles or process data. Privacy officers receive and handle complaints at the organizational level and may be appointed as part of a SRO’s privacy requirements for a sector. Ombudsmen are appointed at the SRO level and are also responsible for receiving and handling complaints. The objective of having ombudsman and privacy officers is to reduce the burden of handling complaints on the commissioner and the courts.

Q: When can an individual issue a complaint? Which body should individuals issue complaints to?

A: An individual can issue a complaint at any point of time when they feel that their personal information has not been handled by a data controller according to the principles, or that a data controller is not in compliance with the Act. When applicable complaints are encouraged to be issued first to the organization. If the complaint is not resolved, the individual can take the complaint to the SRO or privacy commissioner. The individual also has the option of taking a complaint straight to the courts. When a complaint is received by the commissioner, the commissioner may fine the data controller if it is found to be non-compliant. Data controllers cannot appeal fines issued by the commissioner, but they can appeal the initial decision of non-compliance.

Q: Can an individual receive compensation for a violation of privacy:

A: Yes. Individuals who suffer damages caused by non-compliance with the principles or any obligation under the Act can receive compensation, but the compensation must be issued by the courts and cannot be issued by a privacy commissioner. Actors that can be held liable by individuals include data controllers, organization directors, agency directors, and heads of Governmental departments.

Q: What offences does the report reccomend?

A: The following constitutes as an offence under the Act:

Non-compliance with the privacy principles
Unlawful collection, processing, sharing/disclosure, access, and use of personal data
Obstruction of commissioner
Failure to comply with notification issued by commissioner
- Processing data after receiving a notification
- Failure to appear before commissioner
- Failure to produce documents requested by commissioner
- Sending report to commissioner with false or misleading information

Chapter 6: The Multiple Dimensions of Privacy

This chapter gives examples of practices that impact privacy in India which the national privacy principles could be applied to. These include interception/access, the use of electronic recording devices, the use of personal identifiers, and the use of bodily and genetic material. The current state of each practice in India is described, and the inconsistencies and gaps in the regimes are highlighted. Each section also provides recommendations of which privacy principles need to be addressed and strengthened in each practice, and how the privacy principles would be affected by each practice.

Q: Does the report give specific recommendations as to how each practice should be amended to incorporate the National Privacy Principles?

A: No. Each section explains the current state of the practice in India, gaps and inconsistencies with the current practice, and recommends broadly what principles need to be addressed and strengthened in the regime, and how the National Privacy Principles may be affected by the practice.

Summary of Recommendations

This chapter consolidates and clarifies all of the Committee’s recommendations for a Privacy Act in India.

Q: Are the recommendations in this chapter different from chapters above?

A: No. The recommendations in this chapter reflect the recommendations made earlier. This chapter does clarify the recommended scope and objectives of the Privacy Act including:

The Act should define and harmonize with existing laws in force.
The Act should extend the right of privacy to all individuals in India and all data processed by any company or equipment locating in India, and all data that originated in India.
The Act should clarify that the publication of personal data for artistic and journalistic purposes in public interest, the use of personal information for household purposes, and the disclosure of information as required by the Right to Information Act should not constitute an infringement of privacy.
The Act should not require a ‘reasonable expectation’ of privacy to be present for the right to be evoked.
If any other legislation provides more extensive protections than those set out by the Privacy Act, than the more extensive protections should apply.

Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy [PDF, 1270 Kb]

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/question-and-answer-to-report-of-group-of-experts-on-privacy

Law yet to catch up with tech-enabled peeping toms

praskrishna — 2012-11-08T08:06:07Z

Devices that give sharp images are the order of the day. But this clarity is lacking when it comes to regulating use of cameras and camera phones in public places, say policy makers.

The article by Sandhya Soman & Pratiksha Ramkumar was published in the Times of India on November 7, 2012.

If there is one thing that sends more clients harried by blackmailers to detectives like A M Malathy of Malathy Detective Agency, it is the pervasive presence of the camera, most often inside modest cell phones. "One girl had to leave a town as her ex-boyfriend uploaded her photo on the internet and referred to her as a call girl. We got the web page removed," says Malathy.

But tracing culprits is difficult if they are strangers on the road. Absence of a privacy law makes it difficult for police to book culprits. "If someone photographs a woman on a bus, we can ask the person to delete it. But we can't book the person s there is no law," says Jegabar Sali, assistant commissioner, cyber crime cell.

The Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000 talks of punishment only in cases where a person's private areas have been photographed. However, things are looking up with the government trying to draw up the Right to Privacy Bill.

"The problems posed by digital technology are complex and we need to define what these new crimes are," says Rajeev Chandrasekhar, independent Member of Parliament, who introduced the Right to Privacy Bill,2010 in Parliament. "I did it because I got representations from parents and women about how MMS clips were being used to blackmail them," says Chandrasekhar.

There have been attempts at legislation earlier. The Mobile Camera Phone Users (Code of Conduct) Bill, 2006 attempted to regulate the use of camera phones in public places. It proposed that manufactures build camera phones that flash a light or emit a 'click' sound, and that users should get consent of the person being photographed.

"The sound and light are for informing people that they are being filmed," says Sunil Abraham, executive director, Centre for Internet and Society, a Bangalore-based organisation that was part of the committee. These provisions are part of South Korea's privacy law, which sought to bring down cases of technology-enabled 'upskirt' photography, where photos of women were taken without their permission, he says.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/times-of-india-sandhya-soman-and-pratiksha-ramkumar-nov-7-2012-law-yet-to-catch-up-with-tech-enabled-peeping-toms

Information security policy on govt agenda

praskrishna — 2012-11-08T06:18:28Z

As an increasing quantity of sensitive information is transmitted through electronic channels, the government is considering putting in place an internal information security policy to reduce the risk of leaks and counter possible cyber attacks, said three government officials involved in discussions on the proposal.

Surabhi Agarwal's article was published in LiveMint on November 6, 2012. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

The policy will include new guidelines on top of the standards set out by the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and mandate safeguards for each category of information on how it should be transmitted, stored and preserved. The categories are “top secret”, “secret”, “confidential”, “restricted” and “official use only”.

Experts argue that given the easy portability of such information and its vulnerability to hackers, the policy should have been in place much sooner.

The Official Secrets Act seeks to protect sensitive information including official communications, sketch plans, documents and other information pertaining to government functioning. Gaining wrongful access to information deemed to be an official secret or unauthorized use of such information are regarded as offences.

Given that the law was enacted almost a quarter century before independence, it had no provisions to deal with electronic transmission of such information made possible by technological advances in subsequent decades, said cyber expert Pawan Duggal.

One of the three government officials cited above said the aim of the proposed internal information security policy is to protect classified information that’s transmitted electronically much as it is done currently in the paper format.

"As more information is getting transmitted in the electronic format, we have to put in place procedures, guidelines, policies and standards for protecting that information in the electronic format," the official said.

From the newsroom: Securing government information	The discussions, being anchored by the home ministry, have been under way for some time and the policy should be finalized in the “next few months”, the official said. A second official said the policy will lay down the dos and don’ts for government officers on how information has to be transmitted, stored and preserved in the electronic format. “In case of a breach, the investigation agencies can then look into whether the requisite safeguards were followed or not,” the official said. The proposal follows a rash of attacks on government computer systems that exposed their vulnerability to hackers. Former minister of state for communications and information technology Sachin Pilot told Parliament recently that between December 2011 and February 2012, a total of 112 government websites had been hacked.

From the newsroom: Securing government information

The discussions, being anchored by the home ministry, have been under way for some time and the policy should be finalized in the “next few months”, the official said.

A second official said the policy will lay down the dos and don’ts for government officers on how information has to be transmitted, stored and preserved in the electronic format. “In case of a breach, the investigation agencies can then look into whether the requisite safeguards were followed or not,” the official said. The proposal follows a rash of attacks on government computer systems that exposed their vulnerability to hackers.

Former minister of state for communications and information technology Sachin Pilot told Parliament recently that between December 2011 and February 2012, a total of 112 government websites had been hacked.

A third government official, who also didn’t want to be identified, said that every government official would have to follow standard procedures in electronic transmission of information.

“The moment one’s computer is connected to the Internet, it is part of a global network, so attackers in the cyber space know which information can be stolen from where if the necessary deterrents are not in place,” the official said.

Sensitive information such as tax matters and intellectual property issues are part of the information that’s transmitted electronically by government offices, which if leaked can have market implications as well as an impact on governance, experts said.

“The government leaks like a sieve,” said B.G. Verghese, a visiting professor at New Delhi-based Centre for Policy Research.

“This is a step and they are trying to lay some ground rules to regulate a process that fits in with concepts of law, good governance, Constitution, privacy and prevents any wrongdoing,” Verghese said.

The proposed policy, when put in place, will be a step forward so long as it does not dilute the powers available to citizens under the Right to Information Act, said Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bangalore-based research organization Centre for Internet and Society.

Currently there are several concerns centred on electronic transmission, including questions about who is responsible for information, especially its unauthorized use. “This could help establish an audit trail,” Abraham said.

The first government official quoted above stressed that although cyber security and information security cut across each other, the two concepts are different.

“Cyber (security) is basically about devices and networks, whereas information security is very particularly about the information which travels on the net,” this official said. Reinforced cyber security will be an additional benefit once the information security policy comes into force, he said.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/live-mint-politics-surabhi-agarwal-nov-6-2012-information-security-policy-on-govt-agenda

Who is Following Me: Tracking the Trackers (IGF2012)

praskrishna — 2012-12-07T17:17:32Z

The Internet Society and the Council of Europe are co-organising a workshop at the IGF (Baku - 8 November 2012 - 09:00 - 10:30) regarding online tracking. Malavika Jayaram is a speaker.

Interest in online tracking as a policy issue spiked with the release of the Preliminary Federal Trade Commission Staff Report in December 2010 entitled Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change – A Proposed Framework for Businesses and Policymakers calling for a “do not track” mechanism, the launch of the W3C Tracking Protection Workng Group and the recent entry into force of the so-called European “Cookie Directive” provisions. However, the actual and potential observation of individuals’ interactions online has long been a concern for privacy advocates and others.

Much of the policy attention is currently focused on cookies used to track users to build profiles for more targeted advertising, but some of the more difficult issues are:

How to deal with less-observable tracking (e.g. browser and/or device fingerprinting, monitoring of publicly disclosed information)
How to develop laws that accommodate different tracking scenarios – for example:
- different entities (law enforcement, companies, etc.);
- different and sometimes multiple purposes (security, personalising user experience, targeting advertising, malicious activity; etc.);
- first-party and third-party tracking o single site and multiple site tracking
Transparency (particularly on small mobile devices)
Whether a traditional consent model is sufficient and effective

The panel:

Wendy Seltzer, Policy Council, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Kimon Zorbas, Vice President, Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) Europe
Cornelia Kutterer, Director of Regulatory Policy, Corporate Affairs, LCA, Microsoft EMEA
Malavika Jayaram, partner at Jayaram & Jayaram, Bangalore
Shaundra Watson, Counsel for international consumer protection, USA Federal Trade Commission
Rob van Eijk, Council of Europe expert, Leiden University (PhD student)

The moderators:

Christine Runnegar, Internet Society
Sophie Kwasny, Council of Europe

The remote moderator:

James Lawson, Council of Europe

This workshop will explore:

Current and emerging trends in online tracking (and their related purposes)
How to give individuals full knowledge of the tracking that occurs when they go online
Mechanisms to give individuals greater control over tracking and data use
The respective roles of all actors (government, law enforcement, Internet intermediaries, businesses, browser vendors, application developers, advertisers, data brokers, users, Internet technical community, etc.)
Whether effective data protection online can be ensured solely by law.
Whether self-regulation and voluntary consensus standards offer better options for tuning privacy choice to the rapidly advancing technology environment.

Please read our background paper and update

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/who-is-following-me

Solutions for Enabling Cross-border Data Flows

praskrishna — 2012-12-07T22:42:35Z

ICC BASIS and the Internet Society are co-organising a workshop at the IGF (Baku - 7 November 2012 - 14:30 to 16:00) to explore solutions for enabling cross-border data flows. Malavika Jayaram is a panelist.

This was published by Internet Society. For details published on the IGF website, see here

BRIEF OVERVIEW

The Internet has revolutionised our ability to communicate and share data beyond national boundaries, thereby facilitating cross-border social and commercial interactions. Enabling cross-border data flows, however, raises a number of important Internet governance policy considerations for a broad range of stakeholders, such as business, intermediaries, users, law enforcement agencies, governments, policymakers and the wider Internet technical community. In this context, the workshop will explore policy issues, from various stakeholder perspectives.

The dynamic panel of experts will provide a wide range of perspectives for this discussion and explore concrete solutions and options for enabling cross-border data flows. This is an important opportunity to raise awareness about the practical and the policy realities raised by these issues. It will also be an opportunity to share concrete issues, experiences, possible approaches and solutions.

MODERATOR
Jeff Brueggeman, Vice President-Public Policy & Deputy Chief Privacy Officer, AT&T

PANELLISTS
Joseph Alhadeff, Chief Privacy Strategist, Vice President, Global Public Policy, Oracle
Maria Häll, Ministry of Enterprise, Energy and Communications, Sweden
Malavika Jayaram, Partner, Jayaram & Jayaram, Bangalore
Christine Runnegar, Senior Policy Advisor, Internet Society
Ivan Sanchez Medina, Member of the Columbian National Telecommunications Commission, CRC

LEAD DISCUSSANTS
Olga Cavalli, Advisor to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Argentina
Christoph Steck, Chief Regulatory Officer, Telefonica (TBC)
Kevin Bankston, Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director, Center for Democracy & Technology

REMOTE MODERATOR
Constance Weise, ICC BASIS

SUBSTANTIVE RAPPORTEUR
Karen Mulberry, Policy Advisor, Internet Society

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/solutions-for-cross-border-data-flows

Best Bits 2012

praskrishna — 2012-12-06T06:46:17Z

Best Bits organized a workshop at the IGF. It was held on November 3 and 4, 2012. Pranesh Prakash and Elonnai Hickok participated in the event.

Agenda

Day 1, Saturday, November 3, 2012

9.00 - 10.45	Internet governance history and review Mapping Internet governance – institutions and actors Last 20 years of Internet governance: ITU, ISOC, WSIS and IGF Last 2 years – ACTA, SOPA/PIPA and online activism eg. StopTheMeter.ca, government assertions of sovereignty over IG Southern perspectives on global Internet governance
11.00 - 12.45	The ITU and the International Telecommunications Regulations What are the real dangers of the proposed ITR revisions? Remaining opportunities for input into the WCIT process How to engage with your national delegation to the ITU Beyond WCIT – WTPF, WTSA, IMPACT, and the Dedicated Group
12.45 - 14.00	Lunch and networking break
12.00 - 17.30	Drafting a civil society statement to WCIT Draws together points of consensus Defines the legitimate role of the ITU Judges it against the WSIS criteria Refers to statement on IG principles

Day 2, Sunday, November 4, 2012

9.00 - 10.30	Declarations of Internet rights and Internet governance principles Background to Internet principles declarations 1999 to 2012 Declaration of Internet Freedom – first and second iterations Other current initiatives – “rival” Declaration, Marco Civil, etc. Respective advantages of consolidation and maintaining diversity
10.45 - 12.15	Process towards enhanced cooperation on Internet public policy issues If not the ITU, then what? The global vacuum on Internet-related public policy issues Likely scenarios (favourable or not) if the vacuum is not filled Discussion of reform proposals – Committee on Internet Related Policies, Enhanced Cooperation Task Force
12.15 - 13.00	Lunch and networking break
13.00 - 16.00	Drafting civil society IG principles for the IGF Development of existing statements Reinforces multi-stakeholder approach Suggests roadmap for improved implementation of enhanced cooperation
16.15 - 17.45	Next steps Making an inclusive civil society network on IG issues sustainable Other existing civil society+ networks – Internet Defence League, Internet Governance Caucus, Global Network Initiative, CSISAC, OpenMedia network, Internet Progress Administration Recap of upcoming events and campaigns for possible joint action

Participants

Alejandro Pisanty
Andrew Puddephatt
Anja Kovacs
Anna Orlova
Anriette Esterhuysen
Antonio Medina Gomez
Arthit Suriyawongkul
Ashnah Kalemera
Avri Doria
bdelachapelle
Brett Solomon
Carlos Alberto Afonso
Claudio Ruiz
Deborah Brown
Dixie Hawtin
Donny B U
Elonnai Hickok
Emma Llanso
Fouad Bajwa
Gene Kimmelman
Iarla Flynn
Imran Ahmed Shah
Jeremy Malcolm
Joana Varon Ferraz
Jochai Ben-Avie
Joonas Mikael Mäkinen
Joy Liddicoat
Katitza Rodriguez
Kevin Bankston
LAURA ABBA
matthew shears
Mawaki Chango
Michael Gurstein
Nnenna Nwakanla
Norbert Bollow
Parminder Jeet Singh
Pranesh Prakash
Premila Kumar
Raquel Gatto
Rashmi Rangnath
Sanja_Kelly
Shahzad Ahmad
Shita Laksmi
STEFANO TRUMPY
Stephanie Borg Psaila
Sylwia Rudnik
Tapani Tarvainen
Theresa Züger
Valeria Betancourt
William Drake
Wolfgang Kleinwächter

Attending Remotely

AHM Bazlur Rahman
Alex Comninos
Baudouin SCHOMBE
chaitanyabd
cveraq
De
encels
Fatima Cambronero
ganda
Hanane
Hindenburgo Francisco Pires
Jorge Gonzalez
Julian Casasbuenas G.
Lorna Tingu Makuma
Narine Khachatryan
natienciso
Pitshou Bulembi Ndongala
richaraix
rohanjay
Siranush Vardanyan
Sonigitu Asibong Ekpe
Susan Coughtrie
thierrys
vinsolo
Virginia Paque

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/best-bits

Cloudy Jurisdiction: Addressing the thirst for Cloud Data in Domestic Legeal Processes

praskrishna — 2012-12-09T01:00:49Z

Elonnai Hickok was a panelist at this workshop held at the IGF in Baku, Azerbaijan on November 7, 2012. The workshop was co-organised by Electronic Frontier Foundation (Peru) and University of Ottawa.

The use of cloud services is rising globally. Cloud computing and storage are uniquely tailored to take full advantage of our increasingly networked environment. However, a move to the cloud also entails tangible challenges as vast repositories of information once kept within the sacrosanct safety of the home computer are placed on a remote server in the control of a third party. While the protections of home storage and processing can be replicated in the cloud, legal norms have been slow to adopt. Jurisdiction, the classic internet governance question, is raised in particularly stark contrast in the move to the cloud, as placing user data can subject that data to the legal access laws of any (or even many) jurisdictions in the world.

While there are indicators that such data is being accessed at increasing and alarming rates, globally, yet even the dimensions of the problem remain obscure. What is needed is a set of shared international norms relating to transparency, data sovereignty and lawful access to private information. In recent years, however, International forums have appeared much more eager to adopt international standards for data access (be it to combat cybercrime, secure critical infrastructure, or help intellectual property holders uncover alleged infringers of their rights) than for data sovereignty. Standards need to be developed that will provide a basis for the special challenges to cross-jurisdictional privacy that the move to the cloud highlights. This panel will examine the need for such a cross-jurisdictional framework, what one might look like, and, importantly, how one might bring such a framework about where the issue appears to be a low priority for many national governments.

Agenda
The objective of this panel is to attempt to resolve some of the trans-border threats to civil liberties that are posed by the move to the cloud. If a baseline of privacy protection can be assured at the international level, concerns over limiting data flows on the basis of jurisdiction will be alleviated. This panel will be divided into two parts. The first part will discuss some of the challenges raised by the cloud environment for traditional civil liberties paradigms. The discussion in part two will be solution-driven—what rules can be put in place at the international level to alleviate the heightened risk to privacy and other civil liberties raised by a cloud-centric model.

Part 1: Cloud-based threats to cross-border civil liberties (45 mins)
This part will discuss some of the challenges to civil liberties arising from a cross-border cloud-based environment. The panel will be further sub-divided into 25-30 minutes of panelist input, followed by 15-20 minutes of general discussion. Panelists will be asked to spend 3-5 minutes highlighting what they view as the most pressing of these challenges may be.

This might include specific recurring problems that have arisen in many comparable online contexts, as they relate to the cloud such as, for example:

legal obligations to build in intercept capacity into Internet services (compare CALEA 2.0 efforts in US, Lawful Access in Canada, and domestic server obligations such as those imposed on RIM by India and others in order to facilitate access to data that is encrypted in transit).
Concerns that many legal regimes permit voluntary conduct without adequate safeguards for political pressure on companies, particularly smaller businesses, to comply with requests.
Inability to challenge surveillance laws because the programs are shrouded in secrecy, because individuals are never made aware they have been surveilled, because of standing issues, etc.
Ability for ‘one-stop access’: cloud centralizes mass amounts of data in one place. This concentration as well as a general erosion of traditional criteria designed to ensure surveillance is targeted in a way that impacts minimally on the general populace.
Nascent suggestions of informal information sharing arrangements through MLATs and less transparent more informal arrangements.

Part 2: Adopting protections at the International level (45 mins.)
The discussion in Part 2 will focus on how some of these problems can be addressed at the international level by adoption of a set of principled protections designed to meet the realities of online and specifically cloud services. The focus is on problem resolution.

Format for Part 2 will mirror that of Part 1. Panelists will be provided with 3-5 minutes each and asked to present their views on one or two solutions that can be adopted at the international level to the problems presented in part 1. The remainder (20-25 minutes) will be dedicated to general discussion.

It is hoped that the discussion will explore specific protections that might be adopted at the international level, how to advance those solutions, and what strategies can generally advance these objectives, on the advocacy front, by use of transparency tools to increase awareness of some of the issues.

Questions to think about:

Historically, interception of communications received the strongest protection at law, but it relied to a great extent on the act of interception coinciding with the communication itself. Should we be expanding this to other means of communications?
Do we have effective mechanisms to immunize private organizations from political pressure to voluntarily share information? Particularly, a lot of small companies can now have a lot of information. Are they well equipped to resist political pressure
Does the content/traffic data distinction still hold? Do we need a new framework for analysing the types of data produced as a natural byproduct of our online activities?
Can the MLAT regime form the basis for ensuring fundamental rights are respected in legitimate cross-border surveillance activities? If so, what would it take to have it reflect a baseline of protections?
Is it feasible to develop and formally adopt detailed limitations on state access at the international or regional level?
Is cloud-based info susceptible to unauthorized state access in new ways? Is this something the law can fix (mandate encryption in storage or other safeguards)? Social engineering concerns?

Background Reading:

The Draft International Principles on Surveillance & Human Rights: http://necessaryandproportionate.org/
Global Network Initiative, "Principles on Freedom of Expression and Privacy", http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/sites/default/files/GNI_-_Principles_1_.pdf
I. Brown & D. Korff, “Digital Freedoms in International Law”, GNI 2012, http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/sites/default/files/Digital%20Freedoms%20in%20International%20Law.pdf
J. McNamee, “Internet Intermediaries: The New Cyberpolice?”, GIS Watch, http://www.giswatch.org/sites/default/files/gisw_-_internet_intermediaries_-_the_new_cyber_police_.pdf
A. Escudero-Pascal & G. Hosein, "The Hazards of Technology-Neutral Policy: Questioning Lawful Access to Traffic Data", (2004) 47(3) ACM 77, http://web.it.kth.se/~aep/PhD/docs/paper6-acm-1905-reviewed_20021022.pdf
HRC, “Protect, Respect and Remedy: A Framework for Business and Human Rights”, April 2008, A/HRC/8/5, http://198.170.85.29/Ruggie-report-7-Apr-2008.pdf
HRC, “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework”, March 2011, A/HRC/7/31, http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Business/A-HRC-17-31_AEV.pdf
ACLU, “New Justice Department Documents Show Huge Increase in Warrantless Electronic Surveillance”, Sept 2012, http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/new-justice-department-documents-show-huge-increase

Organiser(s) Name:

Katitza Rodriguez, International Rights Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation (Peru)
Tamir Israel, Staff Lawyer, Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC), University of Ottawa (Canada)

Previous Workshop(s):

Submitted Workshop Panelists:

Chair: Katitza Rodriguez, International Rights Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation; (US/Peru) (Civil Society) / Confirmed

Ian Brown, Senior Research Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute (EU) (Academic) / Confirmed
Bertrand de la Chapelle, Program Director at International Diplomatic Academy (EU) (Civil Society) / Confirmed
Marc Crandall, Global Compliance, Google (US) (Private Sector)
Elonnai Hickok, Policy Associate, Centre for Internet & Society (India) (Civil Society) /Confirmed
Sophie Kwasny, Head of Data Protection Unit, Data Protection & Cybercrime Division, Council of Europe (IGO) / Confirmed
Bruce Schneier, Chief Security Technology Officer of BT (US) (Private Sector) / Confirmed
Wendy Seltzer, Policy Counsel, W3C (US) (Technical Community) / Confirmed

Name of Remote Moderator(s): Paul Muchene, iHub Nairobi (Kenya) (Private Sector) Assigned Panellists: de La Chapelle - Bertrand Rodriguez - Katitza Brown - Ian Schneier - Bruce KWASNY - Sophie Seltzer - Wendy Crandall - Marc

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/cloudy-jurisdiction-addressing-the-thirst-for-cloud-data-in-domestic-legeal-processes

Power to youth

praskrishna — 2012-11-06T06:10:57Z

The inclusion of young politicians in the recent reshuffle saw the average age of the Union Cabinet come down. But this is just the tip of the iceberg. Across sectors, a new order is emerging as the next generation takes over the reigns. It has been one of our biggest paradoxes - a country which has one of the youngest populations in the world has not been harnessing the energy, verve and change-making abilities of its young.

The article published in the Hindustan Times on November 3, 2012 names Sunil Abraham and Lawrence Liang as some of the young people who are shaping the future...

The Cabinet reshuffle saw the elevation of younger politicians to the higher echelons of power, but these new appointments symbolise the coming of age of an entire generation. Across other sectors too - business, entertainment, activism, publishing - the young are slowly but surely assuming power and extending their influence.

These people are in positions to change the way we live, think, work and play. The future is here. Here's a look at some of those who are shaping it...

1) Sachin Pilot, 35, corporate affairs minister
He is the youngest minister in UPA-II and a two-term MP. He recently became an officer in the Territorial Army. In the cabinet reshuffle, he was elevated to minister of state with independent charge of corporate affairs. He promised to look into corporate irregularities and wants corporate affairs to be an enabling ministry that reduces red tape.

2) Jyotiraditya Scindia, 41, power minister
He is a three-time MP. He has done much for his state, Madhya Pradesh, including computerising state post offices, strengthening BSNL services, setting up industries, and constructing roads. He recently took over the power ministry (independent charge) and said that rural electrification and fuel generation are his priorities.

3) Arvind Kejriwal, 44, activist-turned-politician
An IIT-Kharagpur graduate, he worked for the revenue service before becoming an activist. He joined the RTI movement. In 2006, set up his own NGO and was awarded the Ramon Magsaysay award for his contribution to RTI. In 2011, he successfully planned Anna Hazare's Lokpal movement. He recently launched his own political party.

4) Siddharth Roy Kapur, 38, MD, UTV Studios
One of the most powerful people in Indian entertainment, he was responsible for many hit films under the UTV banner including Jodhaa Akbar, Fashion, Dev D, Kaminey, Raajneeti, Udaan, Peepli [Live], Delhi Belly and in 2012, Paan Singh Tomar and India's entry to the Oscars, Barfi. He has also been instrumental in the strategic tie-up with Disney.

5) Manish Tewari, 47, Union I&B minister
Tewari is a first-time MP. He joined the Youth Congress in 1981 and became its president in 1998. After 2008, he became a popular choice to publicly articulate the party's views. In the reshuffle, he was given the information & broadcasting ministry with independent charge. He has set cable digitisation and the problem of paid news high on his agenda.

6) Cyrus Mistry, 43, deputy chairman, Tata Sons
Mistry will be 44 in December when he takes over Ratan Tata's mantle at Bombay House. He joined Shapoorji Pallonji & Co as director in 1991. He is considered more of an 'insider' in the Tata Group. A graduate of Imperial College, UK and London Business School, he has stayed away from the limelight for much of his career, not unlike Tata.

7) JBS Sangha, 44, agricultural entrepreneur
From a mere seven acres, his business has grown to 5500 acres, producing 55,000 tonnes of potatoes annually. A poster boy of Indian agriculture and a student of plant breeding, he took his father's business to a new heights using cutting-edge biotechnology. He uses newer cold storage techniques and opted for eco-friendly pest control.

8) Deepinder Goyal, 29, founder-CEO, Zomato.com
An IIT Delhi graduate, Goyal launched Foodiebay.com in 2008 as an online database of restaurant menus from the NCR. The site, now famous as Zomato.com, is India's largest online restaurant guide covering over 40,000 restaurants in 12 cities. The site even has smartphone applications for Apple, Windows, Android and Blackberry.

9) Anurag Kashyap, 40, film director
One of the most revered new-age directors of Indian cinema, Kashyap has transformed the way Bollywood movies are perceived. He has been instrumental in merging genres of realistic art-house cinema and mainstream commercial song-drama films. With powerful films such as Black Friday, Dev D, Gulaal and Gangs of Wasseypur, Kashyap is now recognised as a bankable film maker.

10) Ajay Dubey, 37, RTI and environmental activist
A Chhatisgarh resident, Dubey took the case of tiger conservation to its logical conclusion - a ban on tiger tourism in core areas. After his management degree, he took up activism and set up his own NGO, Prayatna, which started its first campaign for a ban on polythene. Of late, he has taken to legal advocacy fighting diverse cases such as environmental laws in mining, police reforms and other issues.

11) Shantanu Prakash, 47, founder, Educomp
He founded Educomp Solutions Ltd in 1994 after graduating from IIM-A. He began by setting up computer labs in schools on borrowed money. Educomp is a first-of-its-kind teacher-led educational content-based solution designed to improve learning. Featured in the Forbes 'Best Under a Billion' list, Prakash runs 27 offices worldwide working with over 26,000 schools and 15 million students.

12) Sachin Bansal, 31, CEO and co-founder of Flipkart
In 2007, Sachin and Binny Bansal (29) - pooled together Rs. 4 lakh to start an online bookstore, Flipkart.com. The venture was a high risk. But the Bansals (not related), IIT Delhi graduates, realised that quality of service was key - a lesson they learnt as engineers at Amazon.com. Four years down the line, Flipkart has roped in millions of dollars in investment becoming a successful e-retail store.

13) Hibi Eden, 29, green activist-MLA
Eden is the youngest of Kerala's green brigade of six young legislators who cried foul when the Planning Commission's Montek Singh Ahluwalia said Kerala should utilise its paddy fields for non-agricultural purposes. They started healthy debates on the environment, deforestation and criminalisation of politics. Their persistent campaign has forced the establishment to dump many environmentally hazardous programmes.

14) Akhilesh Yadav, 39, UP chief minister
He is the youngest ever CM of UP and the son of Samajwadi Party chief, Mulayam Singh Yadav. He has been widely credited with the party's thumping victory in the state assembly elections this year increasing their seats from 97 in 2007 to 224. He has attempted to move away from the image of 'goonda raj' (thug rule) which critics thought characterised Samajwadi's earlier regime.

15) Jeh Wadia, 37, managing director, GoAir
Wadia inherited an empire from his parents, Nusli and Maureen, and became one of the youngest chiefs in the aviation sector when he started GoAir, a low-cost airline, in 2005. He is currently the managing director of the 132-year-old textiles and retail business, Bombay Dyeing. He also sits on the boards of Brittania and Bombay Burmah. In 2008, the World Economic Forum elected him as a Young Global Leader.

16) Rakesh Senger, 38, child rights activist
Senger has saved a generation of children from exploitation - child labour, trafficking, organ trade and begging. A decade and a half into his calling, he helps the police raid places involved in child labour, disguises himself as a beggar to crack the children beggar mafia, and lobbies for children-friendly policies. His vision, with his organisation Bachpan Bachao Andolan, is to see every child in school.

17) VK Karthika, 44, chief editor-publisher, Harper Collins India
Karthika began her career as an editorial assistant at Penguin India after dropping out of JNU 15 years ago. She steered Harper Collins to its current position as a leading English-language publisher in India. Under her lead, Harper Collins has published successful writers like Rana Dasgupta (Solo), Manu Joseph (Serious Men) and Hussain Naqvi (Homeboy) and has nurtured a great deal of fresh writing talent.

18) Anurag Thakur, 38, MP and president, Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha
As a cricket administrator, he has put Himachal Pradesh on the world 'cricket map' by aiding the construction of a cricket stadium in Dharamsala, which has hosted three editions of the IPL. He is also promoting other games actively. "I see India as young nation with a billion dreams, ready to lead and inspire the world," he says.

19) Sunil Abraham, 39, executive director, Centre for Internet and Society
He started CIS in 2008 to deal with digital pluralism, public accountability and pedagogic practices. In 1998, he founded Mahiti, an IT and communication solutions firm. He was elected an Ashoka fellow to explore the internet's democratic potential. His activism focuses on limitations of the intellectual property rights regime, emerging alternatives and piracy.

20) Raj Thackeray, 44, founder, Maharashtra Navnirman Sena
He started his political career with his uncle and Shiv Sena-head Bal Thackeray, but left in 2006 to form the MNS. His politics is defined by protests against migrants, particularly from UP and Bihar. Thackeray and his party have been criticised for using violence and he faces several charges for incitement. His popularity rose after he won substantial votes in the recently held municipal elections.

21) Riyaaz Amlani, 37, CEO & MD, Impresario Entertainment & Hospitality
He runs more than 27 establishments including the likes of Salt Water Cafe, Mocha and Smoke House Grill across eight cities. An entertainment management graduate from UCLA, Amlani returned to develop Mumbai's first go-karting track. He worked with Pritish Nandy Communications before starting Impresario Entertainment & Hospitality, the company that owns the Mocha Cafè chain.

22) Lawrence Liang, 37, co-founder, Alternative Law Forum
Liang emerged as a voice against politics of "intellectual property". He is an Indian-Chinese legal researcher based in Bangalore and is known for his legal campaigns on public issues. Started in 2000, his forum provides legal support to people without access to legal services. It also conducts research on globalisation, urban studies, gender and intellectual property.

23) Francisco D'Souza, 43, CEO, Cognizant
D'Souza helped found the Nasdaq-100 company in 1994 and took over as CEO in 2007. During his tenure as Cognizant's CEO, revenues have grown from $1.4 billion to over $6 billion and the company has emerged as one of India's fastest growing tech companies. A son of an Indian diplomat, Francisco has lived in nine different countries and obtained his MBA degree from Carnegie-Mellon University.

24) Rohini Iyer, 32, MD, Raindrop Media
Her company is one of India's largest publicity firms. Most Bollywood A-listers are her clients and she is the publicist for three leading ladies - Katrina Kaif, Kareena Kapoor and Vidya Balan. Her other clients include Ranbir Kapoor, Abhishek Bachchan and John Abraham. Iyer has been featured in the Verve Power List, as well as Femina's list of 25 most powerful women in India, from the field of entertainment.

25) Milind Deora, 35, MoS telecom & IT
One of the youngest members of Lok Sabha, Deora was given additional charge of shipping in the recent Cabinet reshuffle. He says, "I think young people alone can't solve India's problems. There should be a good mix of experienced and young minds to bring about reforms and improve administration." He says he will work for making India a hub for ship maintenance and is also going to push for reforms in the telecom sector.

26) Lakshmi Venu, 29, executive-director, Sundaram Clayton
The daughter of TVS chairman Venu Srinivasan, Lakshmi is a topper from the Sishya School, Chennai, a Yale graduate and a PhD from the University of Warwick. She started as a management trainee in Sundaram Auto Components, a subsidiary of Sundaram Clayton, in 2003. She won her current position the hard way. She also had a stint with TVS Motor, another sub-division of the company.

27) SK Mahto, 38, deputy CM, Jharkhand
Head of the All Jharkhand Students Union Party, an ally in the BJP-led ruling coalition, he has been a minister in each government since Jharkhand's creation in 2000. His biggest achievements have been smooth conduct of the panchayat polls held in the state in 2009 after a gap of 29 long years and the 34th National Games held there last year. He is the undisputed leader of his party, which has six members in the state assembly.

28) Dhruv Ghanekar, 38, co-founder, Blue Frog
A composer by profession, he has co-created 3000 projects for ad films and alternative movies. His 2009 solo album Distance was a huge success. He has performed with famous musicians like Karl Peters, Louis Banks, Adrian D'Souza, Ustaad Zakir Hussain, AR Rahman, Etienne M'Bappe and Louis Banks. He now awaits the release of Broken Thread, an international film for which he has recorded music.

29) Chiki Sarkar, 35, Publisher, Penguin India
An Oxford graduate, Sarkar worked at Bloomsbury Publishing in London for seven years. In 2006, she became Editor-in-Chief of Random House India. Her picks that became award-winners include Shehan Karunatilaka's Chinaman, Mohammed Hanif's A Case of Exploding Mangoes and Aman Sethi's A Free Man. Last year, she took over as head of Penguin Books, India's largest English-language publishing house.

30) Glenn Saldanha, 41, CMD, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals
Saldanha joined the company after his father's demise in 1998 and became MD and CEO in 2001. Within a few years, he has transformed the company from just a local generics business to a research and innovation driven organisation. He has personally strategised the company's emergence as a leader in the discovery of new molecules.

31) Anirban Das Blah, 34, MD, CAA KWAN
KWAN is one of India's largest celebrity management firms. Under Blah's leadership, it tied up with Creative Artists Agency, the world's largest entertainment and sports agency. He specialises in motion films, television, music, commercial endorsements, sports consulting, licensing and merchandising. He represents many rising stars including Frieda Pinto, Dev Patel and other Indian celebrities.

Compiled by: Aurangzeb Naqshbandi, B Vijay Murty, Gaurav Choudhury, KV Lakshmana, Manjula Narayan, Nagendar Sharma, Naveen Ammembala, Neha Sharma, Neyaz Farooquee, Panna Saroopa, Rahul Noronha, Rajeev Bhaskar, Ranjan Srivastava, Samar Khurshid and Swati Chitnis.

This list is not in order of any ranking. The people chosen for this list are below 50 in age (except entertainment, where the cut-off age has been kept at 40 years).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/hindustan-times-india-news-new-delhi-nov-3-2012-power-to-youth

Indian Government's Submission to ITU

pranesh — 2012-12-09T00:48:10Z

The following is the text of the submission made by the Government of India to the World Conference of International Telecommunications, Dubai on November 3, 2012. This is the final version of a draft that was circulated earlier.

Read the detailed comments on India's draft proposal on the Proposed Amendments to the ITU’s ITR’s – November 3, 2012

World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12) Dubai, 3-14 December 2012
PLENARY MEETING														Document 21-E 3 November 2012 Original: English

India (Republic of)

PROPOSALS FOR THE WORK OF THE CONFERENCE

Introduction

We recognise and appreciate the efforts of International Telecommunication Union in preparing the Draft on proposed ITRs for WCIT 2012.

The attached proposal is developed through a consultation process involving various stakeholder groups, both, in Indian Public and Private sectors. Due consideration has been given to the existing legislations and government policies in the preparation of this proposal. We acknowledge that since 1988, there have been significant changes and challenges in Telecommunications / ICTs in terms of Technological breakthroughs, New Services and Market Structure. Acknowledging this fact, India’s proposal is offered in the form of addition (ADD) or modification (MOD) only on some of the relevant proposals, by giving reference to the appropriate CWG/4/XXX number mentioned in the Annex 2 of the ITU Document 4(Add.2)-E. Considering the magnitude of issues in International Telecommunications, India may take appropriate stand on other provisions of the draft ITR document during the WCIT discussions.

Further, the proposals from different regions to the conference as well as its preparatory process were carefully studied. In order to help the conference achieve a consensus on the various issues being discussed, the content of this proposal has been largely drawn from the output of the Council Working Group on WCIT (WCIT/4 Add.2 ” Draft of the future ITRs”).

A new proposal on 5A: Confidence and Security of Telecommunications/ICTs is also included as India believes that an international framework on Security is of importance in today’s connected world.

INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION
REGULATIONS
PREAMBLE

MOD	IND/21/1

1 While the sovereign right of each Member State to regulate its telecommunications is fully recognized, the provisions of the present International Telecommunication Regulations (hereinafter “Regulations”) complement the Constitution and Convention of the International Telecommunication Union, with a view to attaining the purposes of the International Telecommunication Union in promoting the development of telecommunication services and their most efficient operation while harmonizing the development of facilities for world-wide telecommunications.

Reasons: This Proposal is based on CWG /4 A 2/3.

Article 1

Purpose and Scope of the Regulations

ADD IND/21/2

3A c) These Regulations recognize that Member States should endeavour to take the necessary measures to prevent interruptions of services and ensure that no harm is caused by their operating agencies to the operating agencies of other Member States which are operating in accordance with the provisions of these Regulations.

Reasons: This Proposal is based on CWG /4 A 2/12.

ADD IND/21/3

3B d) These Regulations recognize the absolute priority for safety of life telecommunications, including distress telecommunications, emergency telecommunications services and telecommunications for disaster relief as provided in Article.

Reasons: This Proposal is based on CWG /4 A 2/14.

Article 2

Definitions

ADD IND/21/4

14A 2.1A Telecommunication/ICT: Any transmission, emission or reception, including processing, of signs, signals, writing, images and sounds or intelligence of any nature by wire, radio, optical or other electromagnetic systems, having a bearing on Telecommunication Technologies and Services.

Reasons: This Proposal is based on CWG /4 A 2/48.

ADD IND/21/5

27A 2.11 Transit rate: a rate set by the point of transit in a third country (indirect relation).

Reasons: This Proposal is based on CWG /4 A 2/74.

ADD IND/21/6

27C 2.13 Spam: information transmitted over telecommunication networks as text, sound, image, tangible data used in a man-machine interface bearing advertizing nature or having no meaningful message, simultaneously or during a short period of time, to a large number of particular addressees without prior consent of the addressee (recipient) to receive this information or information of this nature.

Reasons: This Proposal is based on CWG /4 A 2/78.

ADD IND/21/7

27D 2.14 Hub: a transit center (or network operator) that offers to other operators a telecommunication traffic termination service to nominated destinations contained in the offer.

Reasons: This Proposal is based on CWG /4 A 2/80.

ADD IND/21/8

27E 2.15 Hubbing: the routing of telecommunication traffic in hubbing mode consists in the use of hub facilities to terminate telecommunication traffic to other destinations.

Reasons: This Proposal is based on CWG /4 A 2/82.

ADD IND/21/9

27F 2.16 Network fraud: (fraud on international telecommunication networks): The causing of harm to operating agencies or to the public, the wrongful obtaining of gain in the provision of international telecommunication services through abuse of trust or deception, including through inappropriate use of numbering resources.

Reasons: This Proposal is based on CWG /4 A 2/87.

ADD IND/21/10

27G 2.17 Global telecommunication service (GTS): A service which enables communication to be established through a global number between subscribers whose physical location and national jurisdiction have no bearing on the tariff to be set for the service’s use; which satisfies and complies with recognized and accepted international standards; and which is provided over the public telecommunication network by operating agencies having obtained the relevant numbering resources from ITU-T.

Reasons: This Proposal is based on CWG /4 A 2/89.

ADD IND/21/11

27H 2.21 Originating Identification: The Originating Identification is the service by which the terminating party shall receive the identity information in order to identify the origin of the communication.

Reasons: This Proposal is based on CWG /4 A 2/81.

ADD IND/21/12

27L 2.25 Stability of the international telecommunication network: The capability of the international telecommunication network to carry international traffic in the event of failure of telecommunication nodes or links and also in the face of internal and external destructive actions and to return to its original state.

Reasons: This Proposal is based on CWG /4 A 2/99.

ADD IND/21/13

27M 2.26 Security of the international telecommunication network: The capability of the international telecommunication network to withstand internal and external destabilizing actions liable to compromise its functioning.

Reasons: This Proposal is based on CWG /4 A 2/101.

ADD IND/21/14

27N 2.27 International Roaming: Provision to the subscriber of the opportunity to use telecommunication services offered by other operating agencies of other member states, with which the subscriber has not concluded an agreement.

Reasons: This Proposal is based on CWG /4 A 2/103.

ADD IND/21/15

27O 2.28 IP interconnection: IP interconnection refers to means and rules employed to ensure the delivery of IP traffic through different networks.

Reasons: This Proposal is based on CWG /4 A 2/105.

ADD IND/21/16

27P 2.29 End to end quality of service delivery and best effort delivery: End to End quality of service delivery refers to the delivery of PDU (Packet Data Unit) with predefined end-to-end performance objectives; Best-effort delivery refers delivery to of a PDU without predefined performance targets.

Reasons: This Proposal is based on CWG /4 A 2/107.

Article 3

International Network

ADD IND/21/17

31A 3.5 Member States shall ensure that international naming, numbering, addressing and identification resources are used only by the assignees and only for the purposes for which they were assigned; and that unassigned resources are not used. The provisions of the relevant ITU-T Recommendations shall be applied.

Reasons: This Proposal is based on CWG /4 A 2/134.

ADD IND/21/18

31B 3.6 International calling party number delivery shall be provided in accordance with relevant ITU-T Recommendations.

Reasons: This Proposal is based on CWG /4 A 2/142.

Article 4

International Telecommunication Services

MOD IND/21/19

34 4.3 Subject to national law, Member States shall endeavour to ensure that operating agencies provide and maintain, to the greatest extent practicable, a satisfactory quality of service corresponding to the relevant ITU-T Recommendations with respect to:

Reasons: This Proposal is based on CWG /4 A 2/168.

MOD IND/21/20

35 a) access to the international network by users using terminals which are permitted to be connected to the network and which do not cause harm or diminish the level of safety and security of technical facilities and personnel;

Reasons: This Proposal is based on CWG /4 A 2/174.

MOD IND/21/21

36 b) international telecommunication facilities and services available to customers for their use;

Reasons: This Proposal is based on CWG /4 A 2/176.

MOD IND/21/22

37 c) at least a form of telecommunication service which is reasonably accessible to the public, including those who may not be subscribers to a specific telecommunication service; and

Reasons: This Proposal is based on CWG /4 A 2/179.

MOD IND/21/23

38 d) a capability for interworking between different services, as appropriate, to facilitate international telecommunication services.

Reasons: This Proposal is based on CWG /4 A 2/181.

ADD IND/21/24

38A 4.4 Member States shall ensure that operating agencies providing international telecommunication services, including roaming, make available to subscribers information on tariffs and taxes. Each subscriber should be able to have access to such information and receive it in a timely manner and free of charge when roaming (entering into roaming), except where the subscriber has previously declined to receive such information.

Reasons: This Proposal is based on CWG /4 A 2/188.

ADD IND/21/25

38B 4.5 Given the particular characteristics of GTS, which allows subscribers to have a worldwide number, implement GTSs in accordance with the National regulations.

Reasons: This Proposal is based on CWG /4 A 2/195.

ADD IND/21/26

38E 4.8 Member States, subject to national security requirements, may foster the establishment of mutual agreements on mobile services accessed within a predetermined border zone in order to prevent or mitigate inadvertent roaming charges.

Reasons: This Proposal is based on CWG /4 A 2/201.

Article 5

Safety of Life and Priority of Telecommunications

MOD IND/21/27

39 5.1 Safety of life telecommunications, including distress telecommunications, emergency telecommunication services and telecommunications for disaster relief, shall be entitled to transmission as of right and shall, where technically practicable, have absolute priority over all other telecommunications, in accordance with the relevant Articles of the Constitution, Convention and relevant ITU-T Resolutions and Recommendations.

Reasons: This Proposal is based on CWG /4 A 2/204.

ADD IND/21/28

41B 5.5 Member States should cooperate to introduce in addition to their existing national emergency numbers, a global number for calls to the emergency services globally.

Reasons: This Proposal is based on CWG /4 A 2/217.

ADD IND/21/29

41C 5.6 Member States shall ensure that operating agencies inform every roaming subscriber of the number to be used for calls to the emergency services, while entering into roaming, free of charge.

Reasons: This Proposal is based on CWG /4 A 2/219.

ADD IND/21/30

Article 5A

Confidence and security of telecommunications/ICTs

Reasons: This Proposal is based on CWG /4 A 2/221.

ADD IND/21/31

41D 5A1. Member‐States shall have the right to take appropriate measures to protect and Secure the ICT Network infrastructure and data contained in or flowing through the Network and also to prevent the misuse of ICT network and services within their state.

5A2. The Member States should endeavour to take appropriate measures, individually or in cooperation with other Member states, to ensure Security of the ICT Network and information, including user information, contained in or flowing through the ICT network within their jurisdiction.

5A3. Member‐States should endeavour to oversee that Operating Agencies in their territory do not engage in activities which impinge on the security and integrity of ICT network such as denial of service attack, unsolicited electronic communication (spam), unsolicited access to network elements and devices etc., to enable effective functioning of ICTs in secure and trustworthy conditions.

5A4. Member States should endeavour to cooperate to harmonize national laws, jurisdictions, and practices in the relevant areas.

Reasons: Combined proposal on clauses proposed from CWG /4 A 2/222 to 232 in 5A and 5B.

Article 6

Charging and Accounting

ADD IND/21/32

43A 6.1.1A Cost of International Roaming Services

a) Member States shall encourage competition in the international roaming market;

b) Member States are encouraged to cooperate to develop policies for reducing charges on international roaming services.

Reasons: This Proposal is based on CWG /4 A 2/243.

MOD IND/21/33

45 6.1.3 Member States are free to levy fiscal taxes on international telecommunication services in accordance with their national laws; however, the Member States should endeavour to avoid international double taxation on such services.

Reasons: This Proposal is based on CWG /4 A 2/249.

ADD IND/21/34

54E 6.10 Subject to national law, Member States shall ensure that Operating Agencies collaborate in preventing and controlling fraud in international telecommunications by:

– Identifying and transmitting to the transit and destination Operating Agencies the pertinent information required for the purposes of payment for the routing of international traffic, in particular the originating Country Code, National Destination Code and the Calling Party Number.

– Following up requests of other Member States or their Operating Agencies to investigate calls that cannot be billed, and helping to resolve outstanding accounts.

– Following up requests of other Member States or their Operating Agencies to identify the source of calls originated from their territories exerting potential fraudulent activity.

Reasons: This Proposal is based on CWG /4 A 2/287.

ADD IND/21/35

54F 6.11 The ITU Standardization Sector shall be responsible for disseminating the regulatory frameworks in place in administrations having an impact on matters related to fraud.

Reasons: This Proposal is based on CWG /4 A 2/289.

ADD IND/21/36

54H 6.12A Member States shall foster the establishment of international roaming mobile services prices based on principles of reasonability, competitiveness and non-discrimination relative to prices applied to local users of the visited country.

Reasons: This Proposal is based on CWG /4 A 2/293.

ADD IND/21/37

54K 6.14 Member States should foster continued investment in high-bandwidth infrastructures.

Reasons: This Proposal is based on CWG /4 A 2/299.

ADD IND/21/38

54L 6.15 Member States shall promote cost-oriented pricing. Regulatory measures may be imposed to the extent that this cannot be achieved through market mechanisms and to the extent that such measures do not hinder competition.

Reasons: This Proposal is based on CWG /4 A 2/301.

ADD IND/21/39

54N 6.17 Member States shall promote transparency of end-user prices, in particular to avoid surprising bills for international services (e.g mobile roaming and data roaming).

Reasons: This Proposal is based on CWG /4 A 2/305.

ADD IND/21/40

54S 6.D Member States should endeavour to take measures to ensure that an adequate return is provided on investments in network infrastructures in identified areas. If this cannot be achieved through market mechanisms, then other mechanisms may be used.

Reasons: This Proposal is based on CWG /4 A 2/315.

ADD IND/21/41

54O 6.18 Member States should consider measures to favour special interconnection rates for landlocked countries.

Reasons: This Proposal is based on CWG /4 A 2/307.

ADD IND/21/42

54P 6.18A Member States should endeavour that Recognized Operating Agencies establish charging units and parameters that bill telecommunication service consumers according to what is effectively consumed.

Reasons: This Proposal is based on CWG /4 A 2/309.

ADD IND/21/43

54R 6.20 Rendering and Settlement of Accounts

6.20.1 The settlement of international accounts shall be regarded as current transactions and shall be effected in accordance with the current international obligations of the Member States and Sector Members concerned in those cases where their governments have concluded arrangements on this subject. Where no such arrangements have been concluded, and in the absence of special agreements made under Article 42 of the Constitution, these settlements shall be effected in accordance with the Administrative Regulations.

6.20.2 Administrations of Member States and Sector Members which operate international telecommunication services shall come to an agreement with regard to the amount of their debits and credits.

6.20.3 The statement of accounts with respect to debits and credits referred to in No. 498 above shall be drawn up in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Regulations, unless special arrangements have been concluded between the parties concerned.

Reasons: The text is taken from CV 497, 498 and 499. This proposal is based on CWG /4 A 2/313.

ADD IND/21/44

57B Member States shall encourage the provision of global services based on international standards that ensure accessible telecommunications and ICT services to persons with disabilities.

Reasons: This Proposal is based on HNG /5/2.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/indian-govts-submission-to-itu

The Privatisation of Censorship: The Online Responsibility to Protect Free Expression

praskrishna — 2012-12-09T01:48:13Z

Pranesh Prakash was a panelist at this workshop organised on November 5, 2012. It was organized by Index on Censorship.

Much is known about state censorship, but increasingly private corporations are implementing censorship either at the behest of governments, or as part of a ‘walled garden’ approach. This censorship takes many guises: whether the proactive take-down of entirely legal material, the blocking of websites by overly zealous ISPs, mobile filters that cut access to websites such as Index on Censorship and the use of surveillance technology on behalf of autocratic states. The combination of state-led censorship with the privatisation of censorship requires a debate on the responsibilities of corporations and the framework needed to protect free expression online.

This side session will focus on two key areas:
1. Take-down, blocking and filtering of content
2. The export of surveillance technology, privacy

The panel will explore the ways in which the above can affect free expression online, and how civil society, governments and corporations can and should approach these issues, addressing the following questions:

1. Whether, why and in what ways censorship and surveillance is either as or more pervasive, intrusive and chilling than offline, and the impact on free speech and press freedom?
2. The inappropriate, intrusive or excessive use of filters and firewalls including how these impact directly and indirectly on access to media and the nature of news provision
3. Criminalisation of free speech and free expression – chilling use of takedown requests (impacting on public online debates, on media freedom including investigative journalism), and constraints on comment and debate (twitter, trolls, comment threads etc);
4. Excessive and blanket surveillance and data-gathering
5. Regulations and laws including intermediary responsibility that curtail digital free speech

Chair:
Michael Harris, Head of Advocacy, Index on Censorship

Panelists:

Dr Hosein Badran, Regional Chief Technology Officer, Cisco Systems International, covering MENA
Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director at the Centre for Internet and Society
Abhilash Nair, Northumbria University, UK
Camino Manjon Sierra, International Relations Policy Officer, Directorate General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, European Commission
Andrew Puddephatt, Global Partners and Associates

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/privatisation-of-censorship