We are anonymous, we are legion

Bill to create bank for DNA profiling of accused coming

praskrishna — 2012-10-22T09:15:43Z

Access to data only for victim’s or suspect’s relatives.

This article by Aarthi Dhar was published in the Hindu on October 21, 2012.

A Bill to create a DNA data centre to profile people accused of serious crimes and unknown deceased is in the works. The proposal was originally mooted in 2007 but was dropped to factor in ethical, moral and legal issues on the sensitive matter.

Crafted by the Department of Biotechnology, it allows Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid (DNA) profiling for cases of culpable homicide, murder, death by negligence, miscarriage, dowry deaths, causing death of new born child, sexual assault, unnatural offences, outraging the modesty of a woman, co-habitation with a woman by deceit, adultery, enticing a married woman with criminal intent, among others.

Protecting privacy

Addressing issues related to protecting privacy of individuals, the draft Bill envisages that access to the information in the National DNA Data Bank will be restricted to those related to the victim or suspect; any individual undergoing a sentence of imprisonment or death sentence can apply to the court which convicted him, for an order of DNA testing of specific evidence under specific conditions.

The Human DNA Profiling Bill seeks to establish a DNA Profiling Board that will lay down the standards for laboratories, collection of human body substances and custody trail from collection to reporting. It also has a provision for setting up a National DNA Data Bank.

The DNA analysis of body substances that makes it possible to determine whether the source of origin of one body substance is identical to that of another, and to establish the biological relationship, if any, between two individuals.

The “forensic material” from which the DNA sample can be lifted is biological material from the body and represents intimate body samples. They include blood, semen, or any other tissue fluid.

DNA Profiling Board

As envisaged in the Bill, the DNA Profiling Board at the national level, with similar structures at the State level, will be headed by a renowned molecular biologist with the other members being from police, legal, biological and related fields.

It will deliberate and advise on all ethical and human rights issues emanating out of DNA profiling in consonance with the United Nations vis-à-vis the rights and privacy of citizens, civil liberties and issues having ethical and other social implications.

The Board will make recommendations on the use and dissemination of DNA information, ensure the accuracy, security and confidentiality of DNA and guidelines destruction of obsolete, expunged or inaccurate information.

Jail, fine for data misuse

It will also will lay down standards and procedures for establishment and functioning of DNA laboratories and Data Banks and prepare guidelines for storage of biological substances and their destruction. Any misuse of DNA data will attract imprisonment up to three years and monetary fine.

The working draft of the Bill has been sent to the Centre for Internet and Society for analysis and comments. The Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties has already opposed the proposed legislation and sought pre-emptive intervention to stop “dangerous” erosion of privacy by DNA profiling of citizens.

In a representation submitted to the National Human Rights Commission, the Forum has said DNA profiling is “undesirable, particularly as forensic DNA developments are intertwined with significant changes in legislation and contentious issues of privacy, civil liberty and social justice.”

The Forum has sought “immediate intervention to safeguard citizens’ privacy and their civil liberties, which face an unprecedented onslaught from the provisions of the DNA Profiling Bill and other related surveillance measures being bulldozed by unregulated and ungovernable technology.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/the-hindu-aarti-dhar-october-21-2012-bill-to-create-bank-for-dna-profiling-of-accused-coming

Court’s approval needed to tap phones: Panel

praskrishna — 2012-10-22T07:02:34Z

Investigators can monitor a person for 15-20 days on executive orders in case of emergencies, suggests panel.

Surabhi Agarwal's article was published in LiveMint on October 18, 2012. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

Government agencies need judicial permission before intercepting any communication or starting surveillance of any individual, a panel on the proposed privacy law suggested on Thursday.

If there is any urgency, investigators can tap phones or monitor a person’s movements for 15-20 days on executive orders but will then have to approach the courts to continue, the committee led by retired Delhi high court judge Ajit P. Shah recommended.

“Phone tapping under the present regime is done under executive permission whereas in other countries it is done only with the permission of the courts,” Shah said.

Security agencies currently require permission from home secretaries, either at the Centre or the states, to set up wiretaps or monitor emails. An oversight group of the cabinet, law and telecom secretaries at the Centre reviews all such authorizations.

	The government established the Shah committee in Feburary under the Planning Commission to study international best practices on privacy and surveillance after concerns arose on misuse of information collected by official agencies. Shah said on Thursday that the committee was “not interested” in preparing a privacy law but has only laid down the principles. The department of personnel and training will deliberate on the panel’s recommendations and then draft a legislation, said Ashwani Kumar, junior minister in the Planning Commission.

The government established the Shah committee in Feburary under the Planning Commission to study international best practices on privacy and surveillance after concerns arose on misuse of information collected by official agencies.

Shah said on Thursday that the committee was “not interested” in preparing a privacy law but has only laid down the principles.

The department of personnel and training will deliberate on the panel’s recommendations and then draft a legislation, said Ashwani Kumar, junior minister in the Planning Commission.

The Shah panel has recommended appointing privacy commissioners and a system under which organizations will have to develop privacy standards that will be approved by a commissioner as a means of self-regulation.

Sectoral industry associations would form a code of conduct for companies that will comply with law as they will be approved by the privacy commissioner, according to Kamlesh Bajaj, chief executive officer of Data Security Council of India, one of the members of the committee. “These associations could also act as alternative dispute-resolution mechanisms,” Bajaj said.

The committee’s other recommendations include giving individuals a choice to provide personal information, collection of only critical personal information, use of data only for the purpose for which it has been collected, and a penalty for violations.

“Without a comprehensive horizontal regulatory framework and the office of the regulator both private and public entities in India have been trampling on the rights of citizens without complying to any of the international best practices when it comes to protecting the right to privacy,” said Sunil Abraham, executive director of Centre for Internet and Society, a Bangalore-based advocacy group. After the privacy law is enacted and the office of a privacy commissioner is created, people will be able to seek redressal against these erring pubic and private entities if their rights are violated, he added.

The government has been looking to enact a privacy law to ensure data collected by various programmes such as the National Population Register, Unique Identification Authority of India and National Intelligence Grid was not misused. It was expected to scotch criticism of these programmes by privacy and Internet activists. It later expanded the scope of the proposed legislation after catching flak for a leak of tapped conversations between corporate lobbyist Niira Radia, industrialists and journalists.

The government now aims to uphold the right of all Indians against any misuse of personal information, interception of personal communication, unlawful surveillance and unwanted commercial communication. That means it effectively covers everything from the misuse of data collected by the government to spam.

However, there could be opposition from law enforcement agencies if the privacy law mandates that prior permission of the courts will be required before intercepting communication.

If judges begin taking a call on interception requests, there could be chances of leakage, “since there are so many judges at so many levels”, said Rumel Dahiya, deputy director general at Institute of Defence Studies and Analyses, a New delhi-based think tank. “The government carries out surveillance to gain fool-proof intelligence. That purpose will be defeated.”

Last week, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said a fine balance needs to be maintained between the right to information and the right to privacy.

The Shah committee included representatives from the private sector, the department of information technology, ministry of home affairs, department of telecommunication, the law ministry and the department of personnel and training.

Kirthi V. Rao contributed to this story.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/livemint-october-18-2012-surabhi-agarwal-courts-approval-needed-to-tap-phones

Nine-point code set out to safeguard personal information

praskrishna — 2012-10-22T06:42:36Z

A. P. Shah panel lists exceptions; suggests privacy commissioners.

Published in Hindu Business Line on October 18, 2012.

The Justice A. P. Shah panel has recommended an over-arching law to protect privacy and personal data in the private and public spheres.

The report also suggested setting up privacy commissioners, both at the Central and State levels.

It has spelt out nine national privacy principles that could be followed while framing the law.

The report comes at a time when there is growing concern over unique identity numbers, DNA profiling, brain-mapping, etc, most of which will be implemented on the ICT platform.

The report has listed certain exceptions in the right to privacy such as national security, public order, disclosure in public interest, prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of criminal offences and protection of the individual or of the rights of freedom of others.

In certain cases, historical or scientific research and journalistic purposes can also be considered as exceptions, says the report.

Networking sites

Referring to social networking sites and search engines, which have their own privacy code, Justice Shah said these will either have to follow the model provided in the proposed Act or have a self-regulatory mechanism approved by the privacy commissioner.

The report suggests harmonising the proposed privacy Act with the RTI Act. Responding to privacy infringement concerns, as aired by the Prime Minister recently, Justice Shah said RTI was the only law that gave statutory protection to privacy, which could be over-ridden only in certain cases for individuals, not companies.

Minister of State for Planning Ashwani Kumar said a privacy Act was necessary as in a democracy one had to ensure that "no one right is so exercised so as to infringe upon the rights of individuals."

The high-level panel submitted its report to the Planning Commission on Thursday. It will now be forwarded to the Department of Personnel and Training, which is already looking into the privacy law.

Note: The Centre for Internet & Society was a part of the expert committee even though it is not explicitly mentioned here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/the-hindu-business-line-oct-18-2012-nine-point-code-set-out-to-safeguard-personal-information

Privacy law mooted to protect people against misuse of info

praskrishna — 2012-10-22T06:35:42Z

A government-appointed expert group on Thursday suggested enactment of a law to protect individuals against misuse of information collected through telephone tapping, videography or any other method.

Published in Zee News on October 18, 2012.

The group headed by former Delhi High Court Chief Justice A P Shah recommended setting up of a regulatory framework comprising Privacy Commissioners at the Centre and regional levels to deal with privacy issues and mandatory destruction of telephone conversation after a specified period.

As regards the specific issue of phone tapping, it said "interception orders must be specific and all interceptions would only be in force for a period of 60 days and renewed for a period up to 180 days".

The group, set up by Minister of State for Planning Ashwani Kumar in September 2011, suggested that the records of the conservation should be destroyed by security agencies and telephone service providers within stipulated time frame.

"Records of interception must be destroyed by security agencies after six months or nine months and service providers must destroy after two or six months," it said.

The proposed law seeks to protect individuals from misuse of data collected by agencies, whether in private or public sector. It said the data of individuals should be used only for the purpose for which it was collected.

The issues concerning privacy of individuals assume significance in view of the collection of data by multiple agencies, government as well as private, for different purposes. At present, data is being collected under programmes like Aadhar, Know Your Customer (KYC) norms, recordings of telephone conversation, DNA profiling, brain mapping, etc.

The group, Kumar said, "has evaluated what is happening in the other country and what is the constitutional position in India... How imperatives of national security and right to privacy of individual can be harmonised".

Note: The Centre for Internet & Society was part of the expert committee even though not explicitly mentioned here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/zee-news-october-22-2012-privacy-law-mooted-to-protect-people-against-misuse-of-info

Could better DNA testing facilities in India have saved the Talwars?

praskrishna — 2012-10-11T09:44:30Z

Over the last decade, the use of DNA tests to solve crimes has seen a significant rise in crime investigation in India. But forensic experts warn that the absence of standard practices, quality checks and regulation has resulted in irresponsible and inaccurate application of the technology.

This article by Pallavi Polanki was originally published in FirstPost on October 11, 2012. CIS press statement is mentioned.

The use of outdated technology and lack of expertise to competently collect and analyse DNA samples from the crime scene has compromised investigation and led to instances where courts have rejected DNA evidence as being unreliable or inconclusive.

Says GV Rao, DNA analyst and formerly chief staff scientist at the Hyderabad-based Centre For DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics (CDFD), “Today we are very much behind the rest of the World in upgradation of technology as required…Further, the backlog of cases is quite large in each of the DNA labs in India and not much is being done about it. Still we have not obtained or adopted the DNA techniques to identify difficult samples. The recent example of Bhanwari Devi case, where the CBI had to send the victim’s bones to FBI, USA for identification to get it identified. This is a sad reflection of the present status of DNA technology in India.”

Most recently, the demand for more advanced DNA tests to be conducted was unsuccessfully made by dentist couple Rajesh and Nupur Talwar, who have been charged with the murder of their teenage daughter Aarushi and domestic help Hemraj.

Perhaps, no other case has so fully exposed the pathetic state of the crime-scene investigation in India. With most of the crucial evidence either destroyed or contaminated due to shoddy police work, the prosecution’s case has come to depend entirely on circumstantial evidence, without a shred of material evidence to support it.

The police force’s lack of expertise to collect DNA evidence was flagged recently by senior scientist at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) Anupama Raina at a public meeting by the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society on the DNA profiling Bill, in the Capital.

Raina, speaking at the meeting, emphasized the usefulness of the technology but cautioned that the police were still perfecting the use of DNA samples for forensic purposes.

Elaborating on the inadequate training to cops on collecting DNA evidence, Rao said, “In India, there are no special crime case investigators. We have a law and order police station for each area and from bandobast duty to control crowds. It is a tall order expecting them to collect samples. In some states there are special teams which collect samples for DNA testing and then hand it over to the police….Till date none of the DNA labs have made any sample collection kits made available to police stations or other agencies.”

And what after the samples reach the DNA labs?

Painting a rather bleak picture of existing conditions under which many of the DNA labs are operating, Rao says “There is lack of standards, guidelines, accreditation, proficiency testing of the DNA labs and its experts. Each DNA lab is issuing DNA reports in its own style. Each DNA lab is again following different procedures for conducting the test. ”

“No proper records of the tests conducted are being maintained for production in a court of law for its inspection. DNA experts are not being tested for their proficiency in their expertise by a third party and presently they are getting away with such minimal expertise,” he said.

Will the new draft DNA Profiling Bill fix the problems that beset the use of DNA evidence for forensic purposes in India? And what is the context to the draft DNA profiling bill?

“India currently does not have a legislation specifically regulating the collection, use, and storage of DNA samples for forensics purposes. To address this gap, in 2007 a draft DNA Profiling Bill was created by the Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics. In February 2012 a new draft of the bill from the department of biotechnology was been leaked. The draft Bill envisions creating state level DNA databases that will feed into a national level DNA database for the purposes of solving crime.” (Read the full press statement by CIS here)

Raina endorsed the passing of the bill but with necessary safe-guards. The Bill has raised a degree of alarm for its sweeping proposals to collect DNA profiles and create DNA databases – a move experts believe violates the privacy of citizens.

Helen Wallace, director of GeneWatch UK (a not-for-profit group that monitors developments in genetic technologies from a public interest perspective), who participated in the public meeting on the DNA profiling bill, underlined the absence of a clear purpose for the DNA profiling system as proposed by the bill and its lack of clarity on the collection policy that wishes to profile not just those involved in criminal cases but also civil cases.

Jeremy Gruber, president and executive director of the US-based Council for Responsible Genetics, also warned against the bill’s blind faith in DNA results as the gospel truth and ignoring very real possibilities of false matches, cross-contamination and laboratory errors.

Expressing his disappointment with the draft bill, Rao said, “Unfortunately this bill does not provide for standardization, quality control and regulation except for collection of DNA samples of everybody involved in all civil and criminal cases, including suspects… We need standards, protocols, guidelines, amendments to IPC and CrPC for effective implementation of DNA testing.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/first-post-pallavi-polanki-oct-11-2012-could-better-dna-testing-facilities-in-india-have-saved-the-talwars

Forensic DNA Databases

praskrishna — 2012-10-10T10:57:33Z

A presentation by Jeremy Gruber

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/forensic-dna-databases.ppt

The UK DNA Database and the European Court of Human Rights

praskrishna — 2012-10-10T10:19:35Z

A presentation by Dr. Helen Wallace, Director, GeneWatch, UK

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/uk-dna-database-and-european-court-of-human-rights.ppt

DML Conference 2013

praskrishna — 2013-03-04T03:54:58Z

The Centre for Internet & Society and Digital Media & Learning Research Hub Central are jointly organizing the DML Conference 2013 in Chicago from March 14 to 16, 2013.

Conference Theme: "Democratic Futures: Mobilizing Voices and Remixing Youth Participation"

The fourth annual conference - DML2013 - will explore the shifting contours of participatory democracy with a focus, for example, on the role of networked publics in mobilizing social movements; the remixing of civic engagement; and youth-driven forms of social innovation and community transformation. This conference is meant to be an inclusive, international and annual gathering of scholars and practitioners in the field, focused on fostering interdisciplinary and participatory dialog and linking theory, empirical study, policy, activism, and practice.

The Digital Media and Learning Conference is an annual event supported by the MacArthur Foundation and organized by the Digital Media and Learning Research Hub located at the UC Humanities Research Institute, University of California, Irvine.

Nishant Shah has a featured session at the DML Conference. See http://bit.ly/13zhpmz

Feature Session: Whose Change Is It Anyway? Futures, Youth, Technology And Citizen Action In The Global South (And The Rest Of The World)

Whose Change Is It Anyway? seeks to explore new entry points into the discourse on youth, technology and change, with a specific focus on (but not restricted to) the Global South and the last decade of citizen action. This conference track seeks to fashion frameworks and structures that provide new ways of interpreting and understanding outcomes that technology mediated citizen action has to offer, as well as the future of citizen led interventions: What enables, catalyzes and moves young people to reinvent themselves as citizen actors? What are the interventions and narratives of change that fail to fit into a ‘success’ rubric, but are still significant in the processes of change they initiate? How do we understand these ‘new’ events as hybrids, connecting with existing histories, contexts, media and technologies in their regions? Is there an alternative discourse that does not necessarily adopt frameworks arising from the knowledge centers of the West? Do these discourses help challenge and rework global vocabularies by offering new ways of looking at citizen action and change? The track will invite provocative hypotheses, in-depth analyses, dialogues and contestations around these ideas, through innovative interactive presentation formats. The dialogue will be informed by experimental and new methods of information and knowledge production, focusing on the Global South and its larger transnational contexts at the junctures of youth, technology and change.

Organizer(s):

Nishant Shah

Participants:

Radhika Gajalla

Kavita Philip

Ramesh Srinivasan

Nighat Dad

Contact:
Email us at dmlhub@hri.uci.edu or subscribe to our mailing list at http://bit.ly/dmlhub-l to receive up-to-date information regarding the 2013 conference.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/dml-conference-2013

Transparency and Privacy

praskrishna — 2014-02-28T04:54:08Z

The two concepts, transparency and privacy, can be both opposing and inter related. On one level the protection of individual privacy is achieved through institutional and governmental transparency, as transparency of actions taken by the government or private sector, concerning the individuals works to inspire trust. On another level situations of privacy and transparency bring out the question of how the public good should be balanced against public and private interests.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/transparency-and-privacy.pdf

New Trends in Industry Self-Governance

praskrishna — 2012-10-04T11:37:54Z

Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, UK and Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ, University of Zurich, Switzerland and Nominet, UK is organising this workshop on November 7, 2012 at the seventh annual IGF meeting to be held in Baku, Azerbaijan. This workshop will be held in Conference Room 2, from 4.30 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. Sunil Abraham is one of the panelists at this workshop.

Concise description of the proposed workshop:
Informal rule setting still plays a significant role in Internet governance. Non-governmental governance can occur at two levels: by shared rules negotiated through bodies like ICANN, and via private ordering by individual firms with significant market power. This panel will explore these two levels drawing on research into ICANN and two recent cases: the Google Books [non-] settlement, and several governments’ demands that service providers such as Research In Motion and Facebook give local law enforcement agencies access to user communications.

Google’s project to digitize, index, and later to sell access to large numbers of out-of-print books is a leading example of an Internet-triggered shift from public to private regulation and the declining authority of copyright law. It triggered a major international controversy encompassing three class action lawsuits, a proposed and subsequently amended settlement by the litigating parties, more than 400 filings by class-members and "friends of the court" (including the French and German governments), two court hearings, various conferences, innumerous blog entries and articles. A New York federal district court ultimately rejected a proposed settlement between Google and representatives of book authors and publishers, stating that the issues would be “more appropriately decided by Congress than through an agreement among private, self-interested parties."

While almost all states allow law enforcement agencies to intercept Internet communications, the growing use of encryption has restricted access to in-transit communications and social networking data. The governments of India and several Middle Eastern nations have all pressed Research In Motion to allow police access to BlackBerry encrypted messages, threatening otherwise to shut down services. RIM has installed local servers in several countries to meet these demands. The Indian government is reportedly now looking at encrypted services provided by Google and Skype. These and other online services, often hosted in the US, receive frequent requests from foreign law enforcement agencies for user data. Such requests have no statutory force, but may be voluntarily granted under US law – raising questions about user privacy and the oversight of this access.

These cases have much wider implications for other Internet services and users around the world. The proposed workshop will facilitate a multi-stakeholder exploration of these implications.

Four researchers will give precise, provocative five-minute opening statements on the key lessons for Internet rule setting from these cases. Each speaker will pose three specific questions on the accountability, viability and efficiency of these governance structures. These questions will kick-off roundtable discussion between the panelists from government, civil society, business and the technical community. The objective will be to draw out further lessons in how the public interest can best be protected in informal Internet governance processes, with contributions and questions from workshop and remote participants.representing official positions.

Background Paper:

Name of the organiser(s) of the workshop and their affiliation to various stakeholder groups:
Ian Brown, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford
William Drake, University of Zurich Business, technical community, Civil Society, government co-sponsors in process (TBD)

Have you, or any of your co-organisers, organised an IGF workshop before?: Yes
Please provide link(s) to workshop(s) or report(s):
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=Workshopsreports2009View&curr=1&wr=84

Provide the names and affiliations of the panellists you are planning to invite:
Sunil Abraham, Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore
Ian Brown, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford (Moderator)
William Drake, University of Zurich
Jeanette Hoffman, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin
Emily Taylor, Independent Consultant, UK
Rolf Weber, University of Zurich
Google representative TBC
Government representative TBC

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/new-trends-in-industry-self-governance

Governing Identity on the Internet

praskrishna — 2012-10-04T09:06:59Z

Security, openness and privacy will be discussed at this workshop to be held at the IGF 2012 on November 8, 2012 from 11.00 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. Malavika Jayaram, a fellow at CIS is one of the panelists confirmed for participation.

Concise Description of Workshop:
From single-sign-on identifiers for federated websites to Whois data associated with Internet resources, countless individuals, business and government organizations have a stake in Internet identity information and its governance. While territorially-based governments have historically played a central role in their citizens' identity, it is private service providers and individual users that might be considered the de facto managers of Internet identity information. Private, rule-based arrangements (e.g., “trust frameworks”) have emerged in many industry sectors to help manage Internet identity transactions. Nonetheless, many states are actively pursuing digital identity efforts (OECD 2011), including the United States government's National Strategy for Trusted Identity in Cyberspace (NSTIC) which is standing up a governance body and the European Commission's proposed regulation on electronic identification and trusted services for electronic transactions. These efforts seek to promote greater adoption and interoperability of Internet identity solutions.

What are the appropriate roles of governments, the private sector and individuals in Internet identity? Are there benefits or risks of various Internet identity governance solutions being proposed? How compatible are they with the transnational nature of the Internet? Which stakeholders will determine the standards and policies for how Internet identity information is created, transmitted, utilized, or protected? This workshop, drawing on expertise from business, technical community, civil society and government actors, explores this active yet under examined area of Internet governance. The format of the workshop will include short position statements from the panelists followed by a question and answer session facilitated by a moderator involving the audience.

Organiser(s) Name:

Brenden Kuerbis, Citizen Lab, Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto and Internet Governance Project, Syracuse University
Christine Runnegar, Internet Society

Previous Workshop(s):
http://www.intgovforum.org/workshops_08/showmelist.php?mem=9 http://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?mem=23 http://www.intgovforum.org/workshops_08/showmelist.php?mem=10 http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chrono... http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=W...

Submitted Workshop Panelists:
The following panelists have been confirmed for participation:

Naomi Lefkovitz, Senior Privacy Advisor, National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace National Program Office, NIST, United States Dept of Commerce (government) (bio [1])
Andrea Servida, Head of Task Force "Legislation Team (eIDAS)", European Commission (government) (bio [2])
Robin Wilton, Technical Outreach for Identity and Privacy, Internet Society (technical) (bio [3])
Malavika Jayaram, Fellow, Centre for Internet & Society
Mawaki Chango, Africa Internet Policy Coordinator, Association for Progressive Communications (academic/civil society) (bio [4])
Marc Crandall, Google (business)
Bill Smith, Technology Evangelist, Paypal (business) (bio [5])
Brenden Kuerbis, Postdoctoral Fellow, Citizen Lab, University of Toronto and Internet Governance Project (academic/civil society) (bio [6])

[1] http://www.linkedin.com/pub/naomi-lefkovitz/47/788/a88 [2] http://www.linkedin.com/pub/andrea-servida/0/47a/a70 [3] http://www.internetsociety.org/who-we-are/staff/mr-robin-wilton [4] http://www.linkedin.com/in/touchwithmawaki [5] http://www.linkedin.com/pub/bill-smith/1/a0b/3a6 [6] http://www.linkedin.com/in/brendenkuerbis

Name of Remote Moderator(s):

Frédéric Donck, European Regional Bureau Director, Internet Society

Assigned Panellists:
Smith - Bill
Servida - Andrea
Jayaram - Malavika
Lefkovitz - Naomi
Wilton - Robin
Kuerbis - Brenden
Chango - Mawaki
Crandall - Marc

Read the original published on the IGF website

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/intgovforum-cms-w2012-proposals-governing-identity-on-the-internet

Civil rights in the digital age, about the impact the Internet has on civil rights

praskrishna — 2012-10-04T08:50:16Z

Malavika Jayaram, fellow of CIS is a panelist at this workshop to be held at the IGF 2012 in Azerbaijan.

The freedom of internet is increasingly causing heated debate . On the one hand the internet is the embodiment of freedom literally crossing all borders, on the other hand governments more and more think of curtailing e.g. social media when these are used to organize criminal activities. Governments in some countries restrict access to the internet or censor information even before their citizens go online. As a matter of fact the internet in Iran and China has already become an ‘intranet’. But also in the UK there is a growing body of public opinion that is in favor of more supervision of social media. When will the influence of this medium have become so strong that it, in certain situations, could be considered a danger to society? Will supervision then be a solution? Unique is the research carried out by D66-member of the European Parliament Marietje Schaake into internet freedom all over the world. The research should lead to a resolution on civil rights in our digital era. The report is expected to be finished sometime around the IGF in November. Subjects treated are trade, human rights, development, safety and the like. The report will contain a number of concrete suggestions both for businesses and for governments, so as on the one hand to expand opportunities with the help of technology, but also to limit possible risks.

Short program:

Introduction:

Each panelist has 2 minutes to introduce him/herself and make one statement on the topic.

Open discussion:

This is followed by an open discussion between panelist and the audience, fed and led by moderator Robert Guerra.

Recommendations:

15 minutes before the end of the workshop, recommendations, emerged from the open discussion, will be put to word.

Organiser(s) Name:

ECP on behalf of the IGF-NL (ECP | Platform for the Information Society wants to take barriers for the implementation and acceptance of ICT away to the benefit of our economy and society, and in order to strengthen our international competitive position. In addition, ECP (also at a political-governmental level) draws attention to a number of specific themes such as growth of productivity, strengthening of competitiveness and the European Digital Agenda. One of it programs is the public-private partnership NL IGF. NL IGF prepairs for the IGF and provides good embedding of the results of the IGF in national policy) Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture & innovation Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs Hivos, the Humanist Institute for Development Cooperation

Previous Workshop(s):

NL IGF organized : 2010: Public-private cooperation on Internet safety/cybercrime http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=W... 2011: Parliamentarian Challenge: a Round Table between Parliamentarians and other Stakeholders http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=W...

Submitted Workshop Panelists:

Marietje Schaake (Euro parliamentarian D66)
Lionel Veer (Dutch Human Rights Ambassador)
Hanane Boujemi (Diplo Foundation and upward of this autumn she will work for Hivos on it’s program 'Internet Govenance for the Mena region'.)
Malavika Jayaram (Fellow of the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore (India), assisting on projects and matters relating to IT law, data protection and privacy. She is also working on a Ph.D. on data protection and privacy laws, with a special focus on the new identity project launched in India. Malavika has over 15 years experience as a lawyer with a focus on technology and intellectual property.)
Emin Milli (an Azerbaijani writer)
Moderator: Robert Guerra (a Canadian independent consultant specializing in issues of Internet Freedom, Internet Governance and Human Rights)
Front row: two Dutch students (both male and female)

All speakers mentioned above have confirmed their participation.

Name of Remote Moderator(s):

Sophie Veraart, NL IGF – ECP

Assigned Panellists:

Schaake - Marietje
Veer - Lionel
Boujemi - Hanane
Jayaram - Malavika
Milli - Emin
Guerra - Robert

Read the original published on the IGF website

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/intgovforum-cms-w2012-proposals

National IG Mechanisms – Looking at Some Key Design Issues

praskrishna — 2012-12-09T00:50:46Z

The Centre for Internet & Society is coorganizing this workshop along with Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, Institute for System Analysis, Russian Academy of Sciences, et.al., at the seventh Internet Governance Forum 2012 in Azerbaijan. The workshop will be held in Conference Room 4, from 2.30 p.m. to 4.00 p.m. Pranesh Prakash is a panelist for this workshop.

Workshop Theme:
Other
Theme Question:
It is a workshop on national level IG mechanisms, and does not directly address any main theme questions

Concise Description of Workshop:

Such is the unique nature of the Internet that its governance often calls for institutional innovations. The proposed workshop will look at a range of national level IG mechanisms across the world. While the discussion will refer to good models and practices in different countries, it will not be organized around simple show-casing of different national IG mechanisms. The discussion will centre around key contexts, requirements, challenges and possibilities. It will be directed towards examining key institutional design issues, functions and outcomes with regard to national level IG mechanisms with the purpose to help countries make appropriate decisions in their specific contexts. Some of these are; - How should the national commons of Internet resources be managed?- What kinds of mechanisms are appropriate for technical matters, what for those that are partly technical and partly social, and what for larger public policy matters, requiring more political responses? - Should there be a common single mechanism to address all the above kinds of issues, or different ones? How to coordinate different mechanisms, and different parts of the national governance machinery dealing with different aspects or kinds of IG issues? - How to ensure meaningful participation of all stakeholders in a manner that focuses on public interest?- How can the surplus from domain name registration fees etc collected by national IG agencies be employed for public interest purposes, especially, for taking up Internet related research.

Organiser(s) Name:

Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore - Civil SocietyBrazilian Internet Steering Committee - National level governance bodyInstitute for System Analysis, Russian Academy of Sciences - Academic InsitutionCentre for Community Informatics Research, Development and Training (CCIRDT), Vancouver, BC CANADA - Civil Society Instituto NUPEF , Rio de Janeiro - Civil SocietyIT for Change, Bangalore - Civil Society.

Previous Workshop(s):

See in the workshops section in IGF 2011IG4D Workshop 183: A Possible Framework for Global Net Neutrality.

Submitted Workshop Panelists:

Carlos Afonso, Insituto NUPEF, Board Member, Brazilian Steering CommiteeEmily Taylor, Independent Consultant, Formerly with NOMINETAlice Munya, Chairperson, Kenya Internet Steering CommiteeVictor Tishchenko, Institute of Advanced Systems, Russian Academy of Sciences,Sunil Abraham, Centre for Internet and Society,Moderator, Micheal Gurstein, Centre for Community Informatics Research, Development and Training, Canada.

Name of Remote Moderator(s):

Ginger Paque

Read the original published on the IGF website here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/national-ig-mechanisms

September 2012 Bulletin

praskrishna — 2012-10-09T06:48:33Z

Welcome to the newsletter of September 2012 from the Centre for Internet & Society (CIS). The present issue features a second analysis by Snehashish Ghosh on the latest list of sites blocked by the Indian government from August 18, 2012 to August 21, 2012, a research on the issues of internet governance by Smarika Kumar, publication of a report on Accessibility of Government websites in India by Nirmita Narasimhan, Mukesh Sharma and Dinesh Kaushal, the Access to Knowledge programme plan and updates from the Wikipedia community in India on Indic languages, updates from the Habits of Living workshop organised in Bengaluru, the events connected to the visits of international DNA experts, Helen Wallace and Jeremy Gruber in India, and introduce you to our Access to Knowledge team members.

Announcements

Office in Delhi
CIS now has an office with a five-member team for the Access to Knowledge programme in Delhi at G 15, top floor, behind Hauz Khas G Block Market, Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110016, Ph: + 91 11 26536425.

New Team Members

Nitika Tandon: Nitika Tandon is a Program Officer with CIS. She has an MBA from Rotterdam School of Management, Netherlands and is a recipient of Dean's Fund Scholarship Program, Erasmus University.
Shiju Alex: Shiju Alex is a Consultant. His background is technical writing and he is interested in Indic language computing and community building for Indic language Wiki projects. Presently he works out of CIS office in Bengaluru.
Subhashish Panigrahi: Subhashish Panigrahi is a Programme Officer to CIS's Access to Knowledge programme and works out of CIS's Delhi office. His background is Business Development in Corporate Communications. He works on designing and implementing programs to provide on-wiki and off-wiki support for new editors.
Noopur Raval: Noopur Raval is working as Consultant - Communications for the Access to Knowledge team at CIS. Having previously worked in the media, she is currently pursuing her M.Phil in Cinema Studies from JNU, New Delhi.

Jobs
CIS is seeking applications from interested candidates for the posts of Research Manager, Researcher/Editor, and Programme Officer – Internet Governance. To apply for these posts send your resume to Sunil Abraham (sunil@cis-india.org) with three references. Archives of our bulletins can be found here. Click to read the newsletter on our website.

Accessibility

India has an estimated 70 million disabled persons who are unable to read printed materials due to some form of physical, sensory, cognitive or other disability. The disabled need accessible content, devices and interfaces facilitated via copyright law and electronic accessibility policies:
Featured Research

Accessibility of Government Websites in India: A Report (by Nirmita Narasimhan, Mukesh Sharma and Dinesh Kaushal, September 26, 2012): This is a report on the accessibility of government websites in India. It was published in cooperation with the Hans Foundation. The report consists of an executive summary, introduction, methodology, findings and recommendations and interpretation and recommendations. Examples of errors are given as appendices.

Project

Creating a National Resource Kit for Persons with Disabilities: An Introduction (by Anandhi Viswanathan, September 28, 2012): CIS is engaged in a two-and-a-half year project starting from August 2012 to create a national resource kit of state-wise laws, policies and programmes on issues relating to persons with disabilities in India. This project is supported by the Hans Foundation. The Resource Kit will be brought out in both English and Hindi and disseminated to policy makers from panchayat to ministry levels throughout India. Anandhi gives an introduction to the project in this blog entry.

Blog Entries

WIPO Treaty for the Visually Impaired — Moving from a Treaty on Paper to a Treaty that is Workable on the Ground (by Rahul Cherian, September 28, 2012): After many years of hard lobbying by the World Blind Union, it appears that the WIPO Treaty on limitations and exceptions for visually impaired persons/persons with print disabilities (TVI) could become a reality next year.
Breaking News on Electronic Accessibility (by Rahul Cherian, September 28, 2012): The Parliamentary Standing Committee constituted to study the Electronic Delivery of Services Bill has in its report explicitly recognized the concept of electronic accessibility and reasonable accommodation. This is the first time in the country that these two concepts have been reflected at the level of a Parliamentary Standing Committee in relation to a non-disability specific law.

Access to Knowledge

The Access to Knowledge programme addresses the harms caused to consumers, developing countries, human rights, and creativity/innovation from excessive regimes of copyright, patents, and other such monopolistic rights over knowledge:

Submission

Feedback to Draft Copyright Rules, 2012 (by Pranesh Prakash, September 29, 2012): submitted its written comments on the Draft Copyright Rules, 2012 to Mr. G.R. Raghavender, Registrar of Copyrights & Director (BP&CR), Ministry of Human Resource Development. Pranesh does a detailed analysis and provides recommendations on Rules 8,9,10, 29(6), 34(2), 37, 71(3), 72, 74(1), 74(6), 75, and 79 (3) and (4).

Projects

Access To Knowledge/Programme Plan: Pursuant to the announcement made on July 30, 2012 of a 22 months ‘grant’ (beginning from September 1, 2012 to July 31, 2014) of upto INR 26,000,000 and as reflected in the FAQ accompanying the announcement, the Wikimedia Foundation’s India Program will become a project of the Access to Knowledge (A2K) program of CIS. The prime objective is to support the growth of Indic language communities and projects by designing community collaborations and partnerships that recruit and cultivate new editors and explore innovative approaches to building projects and supporting India-focused efforts to improve the quality of India-relevant content on Indic languages and English Wikimedia projects.
Pervasive Technologies: Access to Knowledge in the Marketplace (by Jadine Lannon, September 25, 2012): Jadine Lannon gives an introduction to the new A2K research initiative. Pervasive technologies have flooded the Indian market and are changing the ways in which the average Indian accesses knowledge but very little is understood about these technologies, particularly when it comes to their legality. CIS hopes to do a research that aims to understand how pervasive technologies interact with Intellectual Property laws and what can be done to protect these technologies from being labelled “illegal” and eradicated from the Asian market.

Event Participated

Meeting of the Global Network on Flexible Limitations and Exceptions (organised by American University Washington College of Law, Washington D.C., September 12 to 15, 2012).

Internet Governance

The Internet Governance programme conducts research around the various social, technical, and political underpinnings of global and national Internet governance, and includes online privacy, freedom of speech, and Internet governance mechanisms and processes:

Featured Research

An Introduction to the Issues in Internet Governance (by Smarika Kumar, September 23, 2012): Smarika provides a detailed analysis to the issues that we face in Internet Governance today. She tries to canvass the controversies in the areas of internet governance that broadly focus around the institutional structures to govern the internet, discusses the evolution of these models against the historical background of internet governance and then proceeds to present the criticisms of each of these models with an emphasis on the interests of the regular internet user.
Analyzing the Latest List of Blocked Sites (Communalism and Rioting Edition) Part II (by Snehashish Ghosh, September 25, 2012): Snehashish Ghosh does a further analysis of the leaked list of the websites blocked by the Indian Government from August 18, 2012 till August 21, 2012 (“leaked list”). This analysis was re-posted by Medianama on September 26, 2012.

Columns

The Five Monkeys & Ice-cold Water (by Sunil Abraham, Deccan Chronicle, September 16, 2012): “The Indian government provides leadership, both domestically and internationally, when it comes to access to knowledge.”
SMS Block as Threat to Free Speech (by Chinmayi Arun, Hindu Business Line, September 1, 2012): If you could text just one or two people in a day, who would you choose? Many of us have had to make this choice thanks to the order limiting us to five texts a day. Short Message Service (SMS) is not used primarily to send staccato messages like the telegraph was.

Media Coverage

Censorship makes India fall two places on global internet freedom chart (by Dilnaz Boga, Daily News & Analysis, September 27, 2012). Pranesh Prakash’s analysis on blocked websites is quoted.

Pitroda seeks to put govt information in public domain (by Surabhi Agarwal, LiveMint, September 25, 2012): “One government bureaucrat available on Twitter for a fixed period doesn’t make up for the non-existence of the government on social media…they (government) should be available all the time.” — Sunil Abraham.

Govt plans inter-ministerial panel on Internet policy (by Surabhi Agarwal, LiveMint, September 19, 2012): ““The thumb rule with governance, be it international or national, is that coordination policy formulation bodies is a good idea, but we can’t damn or praise them over the process...We have to see what coordination results out of the body.” — Sunil Abraham.

Mind of the millennium teen (by Atul Sethi, The Times of India, September 16, 2012): “We live in accelerated times...The breathlessness of our times is evident in everything — from the kind of movies we make to the ways in which our news and information travel. At the end of the day, our younger generations are also products of our times.”— Nishant Shah.

China outranks India in world’s first ever web index (First Post, September 6, 2012): ““The Internet today doesn’t work according to the idealistic principles of openness, and democracy of information that Berners-Lee envisioned for it, and in India in particular, although the Internet has helped us rethink what the government can do, the attitude is that that Internet can only be used in ways that the government sees fit.” — Nishant Shah.

Need a standard strategy to deal with Web issues: Chandrasekhar (by Surabhi Agarwal, LiveMint, September 4, 2012). Pranesh Prakash’s analysis on blocked websites is quoted.

Political war on the web (by Kunal Majumder, Tehelka Magazine, Vol 9, Issue 36, September 8, 2012): “The fact remains none of the blockings were politically motivated.” — Pranesh Prakash.

Government to hold talks with stakeholders on Internet censorship (by Shalini Singh, The Hindu, September 4, 2012). Pranesh Prakash’s analysis on blocked websites is quoted.

The state. And the rage of the cyber demon (by Shougat Dasgupta, Tehelka, Vol 9, Issue 36, September 8, 2012): “While some people may see Twitter as akin to friends talking in the pub, others use the service as a bulletin board.” — Pranesh Prakash.

Watch out for fettered speech (by Rohit Pradhan, Business Standard, September 1, 2012). Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

Events Organised

DNA Profiling Bill
International DNA experts Helen Wallace from GeneWatch UK, and Jeremy Gruber from the Council for Responsible Genetics from the United States visited Bengaluru and Delhi and shared their experience in DNA sampling and gave feedback to the DNA Profiling Bill. Meetings were conducted with lawyers and the plaintiff in the Pascal Mazurier's rape case and with VR Sudarshan and Hormis Tharakan. There was a coverage of the event in Kannada media. Public lectures were organised in Bengaluru and Delhi:

UK DNA Database and the European Court of Human Rights: Lessons that India can Learn from Its Mistakes (organised by CIS and Alternative Law Forum, September 24, 2012): Helen Wallace from GeneWatch, UK and Jeremy Gruber from the Council for Responsible Genetics in the United States gave a public lecture.
The DNA Profiling Bill: Developing Best Practices (India International Centre, New Delhi, September 27, 2012): International experts Helen Wallace from GeneWatch UK, and Jeremy Gruber from the Council for Responsible Genetics from the United States gave a public lecture. Elonnai Hickok participated in the event.

Blog Entry

A Public Meeting on DNA Profiling Bill in Delhi (by Elonnai Hickok, September 29, 2012): Elonnai has blogged about the public lecture delivered by Dr. Helen Wallace, Jeremy Gruber and Dr. Anupuma Raina.

Upcoming IGF Events
At the seventh annual IGF meeting to be held in Baku, Azerbaijan in November 2012, CIS is organising one workshop:

National IG Mechanisms – Looking at Some Key Design Issues (co-organising with Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, Institute for System Analysis, Russian Academy of Sciences, et.al., November 8, 2012 from 2.30 p.m. to 4.00 p.m.

Sunil Abraham will be a panelist in the following workshop:

New Trends in Industry Self-Governance (organised by Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, UK and Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ, University of Zurich, Switzerland and Nominet, UK, November 7, 2012 from 4.30 p.m. to 6.00 p.m).

CIS fellow Malavika Jayaram is a panelist for these workshops:

Civil rights in the digital age, about the impact the Internet has on civil rights (organised by ECP on behalf of the IGF-NL, November 7, 2012, 4.30 p.m. to 6.00 p.m.).
Governing Identity on the Internet (organised by Brenden Kuerbis, Citizen Lab and Christine Runnegar, Internet Society, November 8, 2012, 11.00 a.m. to 12.30 p.m.).

Events Participated

Second Freedom Online Conference (organised by the Ministry of Information and Communications, Republic of Kenya in partnership with the government of Netherlands at UN complex in Gigiri, Nairobi, September 6 and 7, 2012). Pranesh Prakash was a panelist in the session on Access to Internet: Challenges and Opportunities.
Multi-stakeholder Discussion on India’s Position in UN for Internet Governance UN Committee for Internet Related Policies (Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry, New Delhi, September 19, 2012): Sunil Abraham was a panelist.
Seventh Meeting of the Group of Experts on Privacy Issues under the Chairmanship of Justice AP Shah (Committee Room No. 228, Yojana Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi): Sunil Abraham participated in this meeting. This was the final meeting of the series.

Talk

Talk at Yale University (New Haven, September 19, 2012): Pranesh Prakash gave a talk on censorship, intermediary liability, and the way forward.

Video

Internet Governance Plenary (August 28, Tokyo, Japan): Sunil Abraham was a panelist along with Ang Peng Hwa, Paul Wilson, Duangthip Chomprang and Raul Echeberria at this event organised by APNIC on August 28, 2012. Kuo Wei Wu, CEO, National Information Infrastructure Enterprise Promotion Association (NIIEPA) was the moderator.

Openness

The 'Openness' programme critically examines alternatives to existing regimes of intellectual property rights, and transparency and accountability. Under this programme, we study Open Government Data, Open Access to Scholarly Literature, Open Access to Law, Open Content, Open Standards, and Free/Libre/Open Source Software:
Featured Research

Indic Language Wikipedias – Statistical Report (January – June 2012) (by Shiju Alex, September 25, 2012): Shiju Alex provides a compilation of the statistical update of the Indic language Wikipedias from January to June 2012. He provides perspectives on the health of various Indic language communities as well as the state of various Indic language Wikipedias during the period.

Workshop Reports
Although most of the following workshops were conducted prior to the grant period, the report for all of these was written in the month of September, and hence, we are featuring these.

The First Punjabi Wikipedia Workshop (by Shiju Alex and Subhashish Panigrahi, September 27, 2012): This post is about the first Punjabi Wikipedia workshop held in Ludhiana, Punjab on July 28, 2012. Surinder Wadhawan, a Mumbai based Wikipedian played an important role in designing this workshop and introducing Punjabi Wikipedia to the Punjabi speakers. Long-term Punjabi wikipedian G.S.Guglani also joined this workshop. The event was covered in the Tribune, Hindustan Times, Punjab Infoline, and YesPunjab.com.
Punjabi Wikipedia Workshop at Punjabi University, Patiala (by Shiju Alex and Subhashish Panigrahi, September 28, 2012): A Wikipedia workshop was organized at the Punjabi University's Punjabi Department on August 16, 2012. Veteran Punjabi wikipedian G.S. Guglani came forward to spread the message of Punjabi Wikipedia among Punjabi speakers.
Punjabi Wikipedia Workshop at Amritsar (by Shiju Alex and Subhashish Panigrahi, September 30, 2012): The workshop was held at the Spring Dale Senior School, Amritsar on August 17, 2012. Nearly 50 participants including students and teachers from eight different schools apart from the students and teachers of Spring Dale School attended the workshop. One of the active and long-time Punjabi Wikipedian Guglani Gurdip Singh led the workshop with the active support from Shiju and Subhasish.
Wikipedia Workshop in British Library, Chandigarh (by Subhashish Panigrahi, September 27, 2012): A Wikipedia workshop was organized in Chandigarh by the British Library over two days on August 24 and 25, 2012. Bipin Kumar, Head of British Library and Christina, Deputy Manager had pivotal roles in designing this workshop with support from Piyush, a wikipedian. The session on Day 1 was conducted by Subhashish Panigrahi and the session on Day 2 was conducted by Subhashish and Piyush.
Kannada Wiki Workshop at Tumkur University (Tumkur, Karnataka, September 15, 2012): This was the first Kannada Wikipedia workshop at Tumkur. Prof. Ashwin Kumar from the Department of English, Tumkur University and Kannada wikipedians, Om Shiva Prakash, Hareesh, Tejus and Pavithra played vital roles in organising this workshop. Shiju Alex participated in this workshop. About 30 participants including students and teachers participated in this workshop.

Blog Entries

Editor Growth & Contribution Program on Telugu Wikipedia (by Nitika Tandon, September 29, 2012): Nitika Tandon tells us about the Editor Growth & Contribution Program on Telegu Wikipedia, how it will run, its necessity and the future steps.
Wikipedia comes to Hyderabad! (by Noopur Raval, September 30, 2012): A series of Wikipedia meetings were organized in Hyderabad on September 29 and 30, 2012. These workshops were a part of the larger effort to help Wikipedia contributors in the same city to meet each other and strengthen the local community. There was coverage about this event in the Hindu on September 28, 2012.

Event Organised

Thinking with Data@CIS (CIS, Bengaluru, September 16 – 18, 2012): The course offered at the National Institute of Advanced Studies was screened in CIS office.

HasGeek HasGeek creates discussion spaces for geeks and has organised conferences like the Fifth Elephant, Droidcon India 2011, Android Camp, etc. HasGeek is supported by CIS and works out from CIS office in Bengaluru. The following event was organised by HasGeek in the month of September: Cartonama Conference (TERI Complex, Bengaluru, September 22, 2012). The event was organised by HasGeek with support from CIS.

Digital Natives

Digital Natives with a Cause? examines the changing landscape of social change and political participation in light of the role that young people play through digital and Internet technologies, in emerging information societies. Consolidating knowledge from Asia, Africa and Latin America, it builds a global network of knowledge partners who critically engage with discourse on youth, technology and social change, and look at alternative practices and ideas in the Global South:

Newspaper Column

One. Zero. (Nishant Shah, Indian Express, September 16, 2012): “The digital world is the world of twos. All our complex interactions, emotional negotiations, business transactions, social communication and political subscriptions online can be reduced to a string of 1s and 0s, as machines create the networks for the human beings to speak.”

Pathways to Higher Education

The Pathways Project to Higher Education is a collaboration between the Higher Education Innovation and Research Applications at the Centre for the Study of Culture and Society and CIS. The project is supported by the Ford Foundation and works with disadvantaged students in nine undergraduate colleges in Maharashtra, Karnataka and Kerala, to explore relationships between Technologies, Higher Education and the new forms of social justice in India. Training workshops were organised in the month of September at Xaviers in Mumbai on September 6, 2012 and in Newman College, Thodupuzha from September 17 to 20, 2012. Each workshop had 25-30 undergraduate students from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds. They were trained to use digital technologies in order to think through problems of social justice.

Researchers at Work

From 2012 to 2015, the RAW series will build research clusters in the field of Digital Humanities. The Habits of Living: Global Networks, Local Affects is a global collaborative project to renew the conceptual power of networks. It concentrates on changing the habits of living. The Department of Modern Culture and Media at Brown University is an important locus.

CIS organised the Habits of Living Workshop in Bangalore from September 26 to 29, 2012. Jadine Lannon and Alok Vaid-Menon live blogged about the event:

Habits of Living Thinkathon - Day 1 Live Blog: Introduction (by Jadine Lannon, September 26, 2012).
Habits of Living Thinkathon - Day 1 Live Blog: PechaKucha (by Jadine Lannon, September 27, 2012).
Habits of Living Thinkathon - Day 1 Live Blog: Globalising Lady GaGa (by Alok Vaid-Menon, September 27, 2012).
Habits of Living Thinkathon - Day 2 Live Blog: Deepak Menon on Water in India (by Jadine Lannon, September 27, 2012).
Habits of Living Thinkathon - Day 2 Live Blog: On Technology and Affective Indian Feminism(s) (by Alok Vaid-Menon, September 27, 2012).
Habits of Living Thinkathon - Day 2 Live Blog: Radhika Gajjala Lectures on e-Philanthropy (by Jadine Lannon, September 27, 2012).
Habits of Living Thinkathon - Day 3 Live Blog: Joshua Neves on Media Archipelagos (by Jadine Lannon, September 26, 2012).
Habits of Living Thinkathon - Day 4 Live Blog: Finding and Funding the Masses (by Alok Vaid-Menon, September 26, 2012).
Habits of Living Thinkathon - Day 3 Live Blog: Akansha Rastogi's Performance on Exhibition Space
(by Jadine Lannon, September 30, 2012).
Habits of Living Thinkathon - Day 4 Live Blog: Wendy Chun on Friends (by Jadine Lannon, September 30, 2012).
Habits of Living Thinkathon - Day 4 Live Blog: Namita Malhotra on Amateur Pornography (by Jadine Lannon, September 30, 2012).

Telecom

While the potential for growth and returns exist for telecommunications in India, a range of issues need to be addressed. One aspect is more extensive rural coverage and the other is a countrywide access to broadband which is low. Both require effective and efficient use of networks and resources, including spectrum:

Building Knowledge and Capacity around Telecommunication Policy in India

Ford Foundation has given a grant of USD 2,00,000 to CIS to build expertise in the area of telecommunications in India. The knowledge repository deals with these modules: Introduction to Telecommunications, Telecommunications Infrastructure and Technologies, Government of India Regulatory Framework for Telecom, Telecommunication and the Market, Universal Access and Accessibility, The International Telecommunications Union and other international bodies, Broadcasting, Emerging Topics and Way Forward. Dr. Surendra Pal, Satya N Gupta, Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, Payal Malik, Dr. Rakesh Mehrotra and Dr. Nadeem Akhtar are the expert reviewers.

The following are the new outputs:

Associations Regulating Broadcasting in India (by Srividya Vaidyanathan, September 11, 2012): Broadcast regulation in India is currently an intricate web, with multiple agencies involved in formulating and implementing policy, drafting and enforcing legislation.
Optical Fibre (by Srividya Vaidyanathan, September 11, 2012): This unit tells us what is optical fibre, the types of optical fibres, how does an optical fibre work, fibre-optic relay system, and why are optical fibres uses in telecommunication systems.
Direct to Home (by Srividya Vaidyanathan, September 18, 2012): This unit tells us about Direct to home television, its history, how it works, the programming, its advantages and disadvantages are discussed in this module.
Cable Television (by Srividya Vaidyanathan, September 18, 2012): This unit brings you the history and evolution of cable television in India, talks about other cable based services, cable television digitization rule and the end consumer in India.
Private FMs (Commercial, Campus and Community Radios) (by Srividya Vaidyanathan, September 24, 2012): This unit introduces us to AM and FM, tells us the role of private FMs including what is a community radio and what is a campus radio.
Types of Radio Broadcasting in India (by Srividya Vaidyanathan, September 28, 2012): This unit tells us what is radio broadcasting, takes us through the history of radio broadcasting in India, explains what is AM and FM in the Indian context.
A History of All India Radio and Its Operations (by Srividya Vaidyanathan, September 29, 2012): This module gives us a picture of the history of All India Radio and its operations.

Newspaper Column

Changing Our Game (by Shyam Ponappa, Business Standard, September 5, 2012): “Adopting 'co-ordination models' like the Stag Hunt could reduce contention and improve outcomes.” This was re-posted in Organizing India blogspot.

Event Participated

Insights India 2012 (organised by MACH, Bangalore, September 26 – 28, 2012): Snehashish Ghosh and Srividya Vaidyanathan participated in this event.

About CIS

CIS was registered as a society in Bangalore in 2008. As an independent, non-profit research organisation, it runs different policy research programmes such as Accessibility, Access to Knowledge, Openness, Internet Governance, and Telecom. Over the last four years our policy research programmes have resulted in outputs such as the e-Accessibility Policy Handbook for Persons with Disabilities with ITU and G3ict, and Digital Alternatives with a Cause?, Thinkathon Position Papers and the Digital Natives with a Cause? Report with Hivos. With the Government of India we have done policy research for Ministry of Communications & Information Technology, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, etc., on WIPO Treaties, Copyright Bill, NIA Bill, etc.

CIS is an accredited NGO at WIPO and has given policy briefs to delegations from various countries, our Programme Manager, Nirmita Narasimhan won the National Award for Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities from the Government of India and also received the NIVH Excellence Award.

*Follow us elsewhere*

Get short, timely messages from us on Twitter
Join the CIS group on Facebook
Visit us at http://cis-india.org

CIS is grateful to its donors, Wikimedia Foundation, Ford Foundation, Privacy International, UK, Hans Foundation and the Kusuma Trust which was founded by Anurag Dikshit and Soma Pujari, philanthropists of Indian origin, for its core funding and support for most of its projects.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/newsletters/september-2012-bulletin

A Public Meeting on DNA Profiling Bill in Delhi

elonnai — 2012-10-10T10:58:32Z

On September 27, 2012, the Centre for Internet and Society hosted a public talk at the Indian International Centre focused on the draft DNA Profiling Bill. Presenting at the meeting were international experts Dr. Helen Wallace, director of GeneWatch UK and Jeremy Gruber, president and executive director of the Council for Responsible Genetics US, and Dr. Anupuma Raina, senior scientist at AIIMs.

The use of DNA samples for forensics purposes has been increasing as law enforcement in India are relying on DNA samples as a source of evidence to solve crimes. India currently does not have a legislation specifically regulating the collection, use, and storage of DNA samples for forensics purposes. To address this gap, in 2007 a draft DNA Profiling Bill was created by the Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics. In February 2012 a new draft of the bill from the department of biotechnology was been leaked. The draft Bill envisions creating state level DNA databases that will feed into a national level DNA database for the purposes of solving crime.

Opening the meeting was a presentation by Dr. Anupama that focused on how DNA analysis has been used in various cases in India. Dr. Anupama emphasized the important role that DNA plays and the usefulness of the technology, but also cautioned that the police are still perfecting the use of DNA samples for forensic purposes. She promoted the passing of the DNA profiling bill with the correct safeguards. Dr. Anupama also provided insight into the current procedure for DNA analysis in India noting that consent is taken from individuals before taking DNA samples, and that ethical clearance is taken before DNA samples are taken and used for research purposes. She also noted that labs are working on improving quality insurance and emphasized the importance of chain of custody in ensuring that DNA samples are not contaminated.

Following Dr. Anupama, Jeremy Gruber spoke about the US experience with DNA databases and explained how DNA testing was initially introduced as a tool for establishing additional evidence for convicting violent felony offenders or freeing innocent individuals on a case to case basis. He explained how the technology of DNA sampling and its use in forensic cases can be both a useful tool when used justly and democratically, or can be harmful when used unjustly and undemocratically. He noted that there has been an increase in the routine use and retention of DNA by law enforcement today for purposes such as using DNA databases for familial searching purposes, and using DNA analysis to create profiles of individuals. Concerns that Jeremy Gruber raised with respect to the draft DNA Profiling Bill included the assumption in the preamble of the bill that DNA is an infallible piece of evidence, pointing out that when DNA is used for forensic purposes it is vulnerable to inaccuracies such as false matches, sample contamination, and analysis error. He also made the point that the definitions found in the bill are overly broad and work to expand the scope by defining a wide range of crimes for which individuals will be added to the DNA database for. These broad definitions essentially turn the database into an all crimes database. Other concerns with the bill included that DNA laboratories are not clearly independent of the police, and that the bill allows for the additional collection of DNA from missing persons and victims.

In her presentation, Dr. Helen Wallace described the UK experience, where the first DNA database was established in 1995. In 2000 a major expansion of the UK DNA database took place, but was controversial for a number of reasons. In 2008 the European Court of Justice ruled that the regime of retaining DNA samples in the UK was unlawful and a breach of privacy. Now the UK law requires that only a barcode with identifying information be stored. Dr. Wallace also emphasized the fact that the number of convictions resulting from DNA detections has not increased as the UK DNA database has expanded, because the number of solved crimes is driven by the number of crime scene samples. Thus, samples on a database are only useful if they relate directly to the crime scene and a possible criminal. Therefore the more profiles that are added to the database that are related to petty crimes, civil cases, victims, volunteers etc. the less efficient and accurate the database becomes. Dr. Wallace recommended that a DNA database contain only careful crime scene evidence in order to ensure samples are matched accurately. Concerns with the DNA profiling Bill emphasized by Dr. Wallace included that consent is not provided for in the bill, and court orders are not required. Furthermore, the bill does contain a removal process, and it is unclear what DNA profiling system will be used.

Responding to the presentations made by the speakers, members of the audience raised concerns over the use of DNA sampling in India for reasons beyond forensic purposes, such as requiring surrogate mothers and the children to undergo DNA tests. Other members of the audience pointed out that the bill does not address the rights of suspects and prisoners. Additionally the question of the evidentiary weight of DNA samples in court was raised, along with the concern that the broad collection of DNA samples from individuals is just another example of the growing trend by the Indian government to collect and store information about its citizens.

Download Dr. Helen Wallace's presentation

Download Jeremy Gruber's presentation

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/public-meeting-on-dna-profiling-bill