We are anonymous, we are legion

Speak Easy: Citizenship, Freedom of Expression and Online Governance

praskrishna — 2012-08-01T04:56:36Z

The event organised by the YP Foundation, Youth Ki Awaaz, Change.Org and RTI Anonymous was held at the American Centre in Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi on July 31, 2012. Chinmayi Arun, a Fellow at the Centre for Internet & Society

The event focused on exploring the freedom of expression vis-a-vis its impact on accessibility and connectivity across multiple youth movements focused on gender, speciality, education, governance and arts.

There were group discussions with Venkatesh Nayak (Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative), Anja Kovacs (Internet Democracy Project), Chinmayi Arun (Centre for Internet & Society) among others.

Agenda

2.00 2.30	Registrations open for workshops!
2.30 2.45	Getting started – ‘Why Speak Easy?’
2.45 4.30	Speak Easy \| Learn: Workshops on advocating online, citizenship journalism, filing the Right to Information (RTI) application, and participating in online legislation with Youth Ki Awaaz, Change.Org, Get Up 4 Change, The YP Foundation and PRS Legislative.
4.30 6.00	Speak Easy \| Converge: Exploring the Freedom of Expression vis-à-vis its impact on accessibility and connectivity across multiple youth movements focused on gender, sexuality, education, governance and arts. Group Discussions with Venkatesh Nayak (Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative), Anja Kovacs (Founder, Internet Democracy Project), Chinmayi Arun (Centre for Internet and Society) and many others.
6.00 7.00	Speak Easy \| Demand: How can young people dialogue with decision makers?

Venue Partner: The American Center
Read the original published in the YP Foundation here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/speak-easy

Role of the US Tech Companies in Government Surveillance: A Lecture by Christopher Soghoian

praskrishna — 2012-08-26T11:03:19Z

Christopher Soghoian will deliver a lecture on the role US tech companies play in assisting government surveillance at the Centre for Internet & Society office in Bangalore on August 27, 2012, from 5.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m.

Your internet, phone and web application providers are all, for the most part, in bed with US and other foreign government agencies. They all routinely disclose their customers' communications and other private data to law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Worse, firms like Google and Microsoft specifically log data in order to assist the government. How many government requests does your ISP get for its customers' communications each year? How many do they comply with? How many do they fight? How much do they charge for the surveillance assistance they provide? Who knows? Most companies have a strict policy of not discussing such topics.

The differences in the privacy practices of the major players in the telecommunications and internet applications market are significant. Some firms retain identifying data for years, while others retain no data at all; some voluntarily provide the government access to user data, while other companies refuse to voluntarily disclose data without a court order; some companies charge government agencies when they request user data, while others disclose it for free. For an individual, later investigated by the police or intelligence services, the data retention practices adopted by their phone company or email provider can significantly impact their freedom.

Unfortunately, although many companies claim to care about end-user privacy, and some even that they compete on their privacy features, none seem to be willing to compete on the extent to which they assist or resist the government in its surveillance activities. Because information about each firms' practices is not publicly known, consumers cannot vote with their wallets, and pick service providers that best protect their privacy.

This talk will pierce the veil of secrecy surrounding these practices. Based upon a combination of Freedom of Information Act requests, off the record conversations with industry lawyers, and investigative journalism, the practices of many of these firms will be revealed.

Christopher's Personal Experience

In the year 2006, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) raided Christopher’s home at 2.00 a.m. seizing his personal documents and computers. Two attorneys, Stephen Braga and Jennifer Granick came to his defence. With their expert assistance, Christopher was able to get back his possessions within three weeks, and FBI’s criminal and TSA’s civil investigations were closed without any charges being filed.

Jennifer Granick came to Christopher’s assistance once again (joined by Steve Leckar) in 2010 after the Federal Trade Commission’s Inspector General investigated Christopher for using his government badge to attend a closed-door surveillance industry conference. It was at that event that Christopher recorded an executive from wireless carrier ‘Sprint’ bragging about the eight million times his company had obtained GPS data on its customers for law enforcement agencies in the previous years.

To know more, read Christopher Soghoian’s dissertation titled "The Spies We Trust: Third Party Service Providers and Law Enforcement Surveillance". [PDF, 1056 Kb]

About Christopher Soghoian

Christopher Soghoian is a privacy researcher and activist, working at the intersection of technology, law and policy. He is a Principal Technologist and Senior Policy Analyst at the American Civil Liberties Union and is based in Washington, D.C.

Soghoian completed his Ph.D. at Indiana University in 2012, which focused on the role that third party service providers play in facilitating law enforcement surveillance of their customers. In order to gather data, he has made extensive use of the Freedom of Information Act, sued the Department of Justice pro se, and used several other investigative research methods. His research has appeared in publications including the Berkeley Technology Law Journal and been cited by several federal courts, including the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Between the years, 2009-2010, he was the first ever in-house technologist at the Federal Trade Commission's Division of Privacy and Identity Protection, where he worked on investigations of Facebook, Twitter, MySpace and Netflix. Prior to joining the FTC, he co-created the Do Not Track privacy anti-tracking mechanism now adopted by all of the major web browsers.

He is a TEDGlobal 2012 Fellow, was an Open Society Foundations Fellow between the years, 2011-2012, and was a Student Fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society, Harvard University between 2008 and 2009.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/role-of-us-tech-companies-in-govt-surveillance

October 2011 Bulletin

praskrishna — 2012-07-25T04:53:06Z

Welcome to the Centre for Internet and Society newsletter! In this issue we bring you the updates of our research, events, media coverage and videos of some past events organized by us during October 2011.

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:

Key Research

On Fooling Around: Digital Natives and Politics in Asia
by Nishant Shah, Director-Research
Youths are not only actively participating in the politics of its times but also changing the way in which we understand the political processes of mobilisation, participation and transformation, writes Nishant. The paper was presented at the Digital Cultures in Asia conference at the Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan.

Links in the Chain

Analog Relics in the Digital Age, volume 8, issue 4
Guest Editor: Nilofar Ansher
“The scale of inventions has not really leaped, so much as mutated. We had Twitter and Facebook ... (remember notice boards, community centers and pamphlets); they just weren’t so instant, hyperlinked and global in scale. We still use the medium of a mouthpiece and speaker to talk to each other long distance, the difference is in the changed aesthetics of the 21st century – it’s all squarish curves and scratch-proof glass that are more appealing today. Blackboards, writing material, listening devices and memory aids have undergone unprecedented transformations of function and usage, but it’s still about having a blank canvas to write upon with a chalk, pen, paper or iClick”, writes Nilofar in this issue of the Digital Natives newsletter.

Articles/Columns

In Search of the Other: Decoding Digital Natives: Nishant Shah charts the trajectories of our research at the Centre for Internet and Society (Bangalore, India) and Hivos (The Hague, The Netherlands) to see how alternative models of understanding these relationships can be built. This blog post by Nishant Shah was published in DML central on 24 October 2011.

Staff Quoted in the Media

The Write Stuff , Deccan Chronicle, 14 November 2011. Nishant Shah has been quoted in this article.

Accessibility

Publication

e-Accessibility Policy Handbook for Persons with Disabilities (Russian Version)
Edited by Nirmita Narasimhan
The e-Accessibility Policy Handbook for Persons with Disabilities is now available in Russian. The handbook is a joint publication of ITU, G3ict and the Centre for Internet and Society, in cooperation with the Hans Foundation. Dr. Hamadoun I. Toure, Secretary-General, International Telecommunication Union wrote the preface, Dr. Sami Al-Basheer, Director, ITU-D wrote the introduction and Axel Leblois, Executive Director, G3ict wrote the foreword.

Blog Entry

The case for Accessible Banking by Dinesh Kaushal.

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:

Key Research

Of Jesters, Clowns and Pranksters: YouTube and the Condition of Collaborative Authorship
by Nishant Shah, Director-Research, Centre for Internet and Society
The idea of a single author creating cinematic objects in a well-controlled scheme of support system and production/distribution infrastructure has been fundamentally challenged by the emergence of digital video sharing sites like YouTube, writes Nishant in this essay published in the Journal of Moving Images.

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

Know Your Users, Match their Needs!
As Free Access to Law initiatives in the Global South enter into a new stage of maturity, they must be certain not to lose sight of their users’ needs. This blog post gives a summary of the “Good Practices Handbook”, a research output of the collaborative project Free Access to Law — Is it Here to Stay? undertaken by LexUM (Canada) and the South African Legal Institute in partnership with the Centre for Internet and Society. Rebecca Schild and Prashant Iyengar from CIS were part of the research team.

Event Organised

Open Access to Academic Knowledge, organised by the Indian Institute of Science and CIS at National Centre for Science Information, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore on 2 November 2011. Tom Dane participated in this event.

Event Participated

3rd Canadian Science Policy Conference, organised by Canadian Science Policy Conference from16 to 18 November 2011 at the Ottawa Convention Centre. Sunil Abraham spoke in the session on Global Implications of Open and Inclusive Innovation.

Announcement

The Wikimedia India Program Trust. A new entity, the “Wikimedia India Program Trust”, has been registered in Delhi. Sunil is a trustee.

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:

Comments / Submissions

CIS Comments on Finance Committee Statements to Open Letters on Unique Identity: The Parliamentary Finance Committee responded to the six open letters sent by CIS through an email on 12 October 2011. CIS has commented on the points raised by the Committee.
Comments on the National Policy of Information Technology: The NPIT 2011 has the laudable goal of making India a ‘knowledge economy with a global role’ by developing and deploying ICT solutions in all sectors to foster development within India and at a global level. CIS appreciates this initiative of the Department of Information Technology and offers brief comments to strengthen the draft.
CIS Comments on the Draft National Policy on Electronics: CIS submitted its comments to the request for comments put out by the Department of Information Technology on its draft 'National Policy on Electronics'.

Statement

India's Statement Proposing UN Committee for Internet-Related Policy: India made its statement at the 66th session of the United Nations General Assembly, its proposal for the UN Committee for Internet-Related Policy was presented.

Podcast

Professor Balaram talks Open Access : Tom Dane spoke with Professor P Balaram, Director of the Indian Institute of Science about the Open Access movement. A podcast of the interview is available for download.

Event Report

The 2nd IJLT-CIS Lecture Series — A Post-event Report : The 2nd IJLT-CIS Lecture Series was organised by the Indian Journal of Law and Technology and CIS on the 21st and 22nd of May 2011 at the National Law School of India University, Nagarbhavi, Bangalore. The main theme for this year was Emerging Issues in Privacy Law: Law, Policy and Practice.

Peer Review

Material Cyborgs; Asserted Boundaries
by Nishant Shah, Director-Research
Nishant explores the possibility of formulating the cyborg as an author or translator who is able to navigate between the different binaries of ‘meat–machine’, ‘digital–physical’, and ‘body–self’, using the abilities and the capabilities learnt in one system in an efficient and effective understanding of the other. The essay was published in the European Journal of English Studies, Volume 12, Issue 2.

Articles / Columns

What is Dilligaf? On the web, time moves at the speed of thought: Groups emerge, proliferate and are abandoned as new trends and fads take precedence. Nowhere else is this dramatic flux as apparent as in the language that evolves online. While SMS lingo – like TTYL (Talk To You Later) and LOL (Laughing Out Loud)– has endured and become a part of everyday language, new forms of speech are taking over. This article by Nishant Shah was published in GQ India.
The Book of Jobs The man who made the computer personal, who changed the face of the digital media industry, who was inspired by Zen philosophy to create an eight-billion-dollar empire, Steve Jobs, died last month. Just a few weeks before his death, in the midst of his painful illness, he told Walter Isaacson, the man chosen to write his authorised biography, “I really want to believe that something survives”. And Isaacson wrote him a fairy tale which will make sure that Jobs will be remembered beyond the gizmos and gimmicks, writes Nishant Shah in this article published in the Indian Express on 12 November 2011.

Staff Quoted in the Media

Is Facebook tracking your virtual footprints? by Sheetal Sukhija in MidDay, 22 November 2011. Sunil Abraham was quoted in this article.
M-governance gains momentum by Vasudha Venugopal in the Hindu, 20 November 2011.
Learn it Yourself: The peer-to-peer world of online learning encourages conversations and reciprocal learning, writes Nishant Shah. The article was published by the Indian Express on 30 October 2011. Nishant Shah is quoted in this article.
SOPA: The bill that could kill the Internet by Suw Charman-Anderson in Firstpost.Technology, 16 November 2011.
Broadband user base still has a long way to go, by Leslie D’Monte & Deepti Chaudhary in Livemint, 15 November 2011. Sunil Abraham has been quoted in this article.
Not mandatory’ but maids, guards get fingerprinted by Hemanth Kashyap in Bangalore Mirror, 9 November 2011. Sunil Abraham has been quoted in this article.
Netizen Report: Transparency Edition by Rebecca MacKinnon in Global Voices Online, 7 November 2011.
Blocking online content: Google gets more requests than govt by Pallavi Polanki in Firstpost.com, 2 November 2011. Pranesh Prakash has been quoted in this article.

Blog Entries

Sources of CIS Funding by Pranesh Prakash on 9 November 2011.

TRAI urged to take action against P2P throttling and DNS hijacking by Anand on 9 November 2011.

Events Organised

Exposing Data: Art Slash Activism organised by Tactical Tech and CIS at CIS office in Bangalore on 28 November 2011. Ward Smith and Stephanie Hankey (Co-founders of TTC), Ayisha Abraham (Filmmaker, Srishti School of Art Design) and Zainab Bawa (Research Fellow, CIS) gave a lecture.
Droidcon India, first Android Conference in Bangalore, organised by CIS in collaboration with Droidcon.com, Bangalore Android User Group, MobileMonday Bangalore and Android Advices on 18 and 19 November 2011 at the MLR Convention Centre, Bangalore.

Events Participated

Western Ghats Portal: Workshop on Biodiversity Informatics organised by the Western Ghats Portal team at the Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and Environment, 25 November 2011. Sunil Abraham spoke in the session on Scientific Commons and Policy.
Names Not Numbers Mumbai, 26 November 2011. Nishant Shah spoke in a panel on “The New Digital Individual: Is New Technology Liberating or Enslaving?”. The event was organised by Editorial Intelligence and partners which included the British Council and Financial Times, BBC World News, Mumbai first, Vodafone, Trident and Godrej India Cultural Lab.

Video

Facebook Resistance Workshop at CIS. This was a workshop for people to learn on how to think beyond the rules and limitations of Facebook, to tweak and play around the features and design to generate useful, creative, and funny concepts and explore how this creative intervention can be turned into a real software developed by the Facebook Resistance.

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:

Article / Column

Telecom Path-Breaker?
Does the draft National Telecom Policy-2011 reflect true brilliance or smoke-and-mirrors? It will be a game-changer if a shared network is implemented effectively, writes Shyam Ponappa in this article published in the Business Standard on 3 November 2011.

Follow us elsewhere

Get short, timely messages from us on Twitter
Join the CIS group on Facebook
Visit our website here

CIS is grateful to 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/october-2011-bulletin

November 2011 Bulletin

praskrishna — 2012-07-24T02:37:09Z

Digital Natives with a Cause?

Key Research

On Fooling Around: Digital Natives and Politics in Asia
by Nishant Shah, Director-Research
Youths are not only actively participating in the politics of its times but also changing the way in which we understand the political processes of mobilisation, participation and transformation, writes Nishant. The paper was presented at the Digital Cultures in Asia conference at the Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan.

Links in the Chain

Analog Relics in the Digital Age, volume 8, issue 4
Guest Editor: Nilofar Ansher
“The scale of inventions has not really leaped, so much as mutated. We had Twitter and Facebook ... (remember notice boards, community centers and pamphlets); they just weren’t so instant, hyperlinked and global in scale. We still use the medium of a mouthpiece and speaker to talk to each other long distance, the difference is in the changed aesthetics of the 21st century – it’s all squarish curves and scratch-proof glass that are more appealing today. Blackboards, writing material, listening devices and memory aids have undergone unprecedented transformations of function and usage, but it’s still about having a blank canvas to write upon with a chalk, pen, paper or iClick”, writes Nilofar in this issue of the Digital Natives newsletter.

Articles/Columns

In Search of the Other: Decoding Digital Natives: Nishant Shah charts the trajectories of our research at the Centre for Internet and Society (Bangalore, India) and Hivos (The Hague, The Netherlands) to see how alternative models of understanding these relationships can be built. This blog post by Nishant Shah was published in DML central on 24 October 2011.

Staff Quoted in the Media

The Write Stuff, Deccan Chronicle, 14 November 2011. Nishant Shah has been quoted in this article.

Pathways for Learning in Higher Education

The Pathways Project for Learning in Higher Education is a collaboration between the Higher Education Innovation and Research Applications (HEIRA) at the Centre for the Study of Culture and Society (CSCS) and the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS). The project is supported by the Ford Foundation and works with disadvantaged students in 9 undergraduate colleges in Maharashtra, Karnataka and Kerala, to explore relationships between Technologies, Higher Education and the new forms of social justice in India.

Article Published by the Media

Learn it Yourself: The peer-to-peer world of online learning encourages conversations and reciprocal learning, writes Nishant Shah. The article was published by the Indian Express on 30 October 2011.

Video of Event Participated

Mobility Shifts 2011 — An International Future of Learning Summit: The summit was organised by the New School and sponsored by MacArthur Foundation and Mozilla. It was held from October 10 to October 16, 2011 at the New School, New York City. Nishant Shah participated in the summit and spoke on Digital Outcasts: Social Justice, Technology and Learning in India. The video of the event is online.

Accessibility

Estimates of the percentage of the world's population that is disabled vary considerably. But what is certain is that if we count functional disability, then a large proportion of the world's population is disabled in one way or another. At CIS we work to ensure that the digital technologies, which empower disabled people and provide them with independence, are allowed to do so in practice and by the law. To this end, we support web accessibility guidelines, and change in copyright laws that currently disempower the persons with disabilities.

Publication

e-Accessibility Policy Handbook for Persons with Disabilities (Russian Version)
Edited by Nirmita Narasimhan
The e-Accessibility Policy Handbook for Persons with Disabilities is now available in Russian. The handbook is a joint publication of ITU, G3ict and the Centre for Internet and Society, in cooperation with the Hans Foundation. Dr. Hamadoun I. Toure, Secretary-General, International Telecommunication Union wrote the preface. Dr. Sami Al-Basheer, Director, ITU-D wrote the introduction and Axel Leblois, Executive Director, G3ict wrote the foreword.

Blog Post

The case for Accessible Banking by Dinesh Kaushal.

Access to Knowledge

Key Research

Of Jesters, Clowns and Pranksters: YouTube and the Condition of Collaborative Authorship
by Nishant Shah, Director-Research, Centre for Internet and Society
The idea of a single author creating cinematic objects in a well-controlled scheme of support system and production/distribution infrastructure has been fundamentally challenged by the emergence of digital video sharing sites like YouTube, writes Nishant Shah in this essay published in the Journal of Moving Images.

Blog Posts

CIS Hosts Scanned Version of George Orwell’s Books vs. Cigarettes

Comments / Statement

CIS Intervention on Future Work of the WIPO Advisory Committee on Enforcement: The seventh session of the World Intellectual Property Organization's Advisory Committee on Enforcement (ACE) is being held in Geneva on November 30 and December 1, 2011. Pranesh Prakash intervened during the discussion of future work of the ACE with this comment.
Comment by CIS at ACE on Presentation on French Charter on the Fight against Cyber-Counterfeiting: The seventh session of the World Intellectual Property Organization's Advisory Committee on Enforcement is being held in Geneva on November 30 and December 1, 2011. Pranesh Prakash responded to a presentation by Prof. Pierre Sirinelli of the École de droit de la Sorbonne, Université Paris 1 on 'The French Charter on the Fight against Cyber-Counterfeiting of December 16, 2009' with this comment.
Statement of CIS on the WIPO Broadcast Treaty at the 23rd SCCR: The twenty-third session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights is being held in Geneva from November 22, 2011 to December 2, 2011. Pranesh Prakash delivered this statement on a new proposal made by South Africa and Mexico (SCCR/23/6) on a treaty for broadcasters.

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 Content, Open Standards, Open Access to Law, and Free/Libre/Open Source Software:

Featured Research

Know Your Users, Match their Needs!
As Free Access to Law initiatives in the Global South enter into a new stage of maturity, they must be certain not to lose sight of their users’ needs. This blog post gives a summary of the “Good Practices Handbook”, a research output of the collaborative project Free Access to Law — Is it Here to Stay? undertaken by LexUM (Canada) and the South African Legal Institute in partnership with the Centre for Internet and Society. Rebecca Schild and Prashant Iyengar from CIS were part of the research team.

Event Organised

Open Access to Academic Knowledge, organised by the Indian Institute of Science and CIS at National Centre for Science Information, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore on 2 November 2011. Tom Dane participated in this event.

Event Participated

3rd Canadian Science Policy Conference, organised by Canadian Science Policy Conference from16 to 18 November 2011 at the Ottawa Convention Centre. Sunil Abraham spoke in the session on Global Implications of Open and Inclusive Innovation.

Announcement

The Wikimedia India Program Trust. A new entity, the “Wikimedia India Program Trust”, has been registered in Delhi. Sunil Abraham is one of the trustees.

Internet Governance

Comments / Submissions

CIS Comments on Finance Committee Statements to Open Letters on Unique Identity: The Parliamentary Finance Committee responded to the six open letters sent by CIS through an email on 12 October 2011. CIS has commented on the points raised by the Committee.
Comments on the National Policy of Information Technology: The NPIT 2011 has the laudable goal of making India a ‘knowledge economy with a global role’ by developing and deploying ICT solutions in all sectors to foster development within India and at a global level. CIS appreciates this initiative of the Department of Information Technology and offers brief comments to strengthen the draft.
CIS Comments on the Draft National Policy on Electronics: CIS submitted its comments to the request for comments put out by the Department of Information Technology on its draft 'National Policy on Electronics'.

Statement

India's Statement Proposing UN Committee for Internet-Related Policy: India made its statement at the 66th session of the United Nations General Assembly, its proposal for the UN Committee for Internet-Related Policy was presented.

Podcast

Professor Balaram talks Open Access : Tom Dane spoke with Professor P Balaram, Director of the Indian Institute of Science about the Open Access movement. A podcast of the interview is online.

Event Report

The 2nd IJLT-CIS Lecture Series — A Post-event Report : The 2nd IJLT-CIS Lecture Series was organised by the Indian Journal of Law and Technology and CIS on the 21st and 22nd of May 2011 at the National Law School of India University, Nagarbhavi, Bangalore. The main theme for this year was Emerging Issues in Privacy Law: Law, Policy and Practice.

Essay in Peer Reviewed Journal

Material Cyborgs; Asserted Boundaries
by Nishant Shah, Director-Research
Nishant explores the possibility of formulating the cyborg as an author or translator who is able to navigate between the different binaries of ‘meat–machine’, ‘digital–physical’, and ‘body–self’, using the abilities and the capabilities learnt in one system in an efficient and effective understanding of the other. The essay was published in the European Journal of English Studies, Volume 12, Issue 2.

Articles/Columns

What is Dilligaf? On the web, time moves at the speed of thought: Groups emerge, proliferate and are abandoned as new trends and fads take precedence. Nowhere else is this dramatic flux as apparent as in the language that evolves online. While SMS lingo – like TTYL (Talk To You Later) and LOL (Laughing Out Loud)– has endured and become a part of everyday language, new forms of speech are taking over. This article by Nishant Shah was published in GQ India.
The Book of Jobs The man who made the computer personal, who changed the face of the digital media industry, who was inspired by Zen philosophy to create an eight-billion-dollar empire, Steve Jobs, died last month. Just a few weeks before his death, in the midst of his painful illness, he told Walter Isaacson, the man chosen to write his authorised biography, “I really want to believe that something survives”. And Isaacson wrote him a fairy tale which will make sure that Jobs will be remembered beyond the gizmos and gimmicks, writes Nishant Shah in this article published in the Indian Express on 12 November 2011.

Staff Quoted in the Media

Is Facebook tracking your virtual footprints? by Sheetal Sukhija in MidDay, 22 November 2011. Sunil Abraham was quoted in this article.
M-governance gains momentum by Vasudha Venugopal in the Hindu, 20 November 2011. Nishant Shah was quoted in this article.
SOPA: The bill that could kill the Internet by Suw Charman-Anderson in Firstpost.Technology, 16 November 2011.
Broadband user base still has a long way to go, by Leslie D’Monte & Deepti Chaudhary in Livemint, 15 November 2011. Sunil Abraham has been quoted in this article.
‘Not mandatory’ but maids, guards get fingerprinted by Hemanth Kashyap in Bangalore Mirror, 9 November 2011. Sunil Abraham has been quoted in this article.
Netizen Report: Transparency Edition by Rebecca MacKinnon in Global Voices Online, 7 November 2011.
Blocking online content: Google gets more requests than govt by Pallavi Polanki in Firstpost.com, 2 November 2011. Pranesh Prakash has been quoted in this article.

Blog Posts

Sources of CIS Funding by Pranesh Prakash on 9 November 2011.

TRAI urged to take action against P2P throttling and DNS hijacking by Anand on 9 November 2011.

Events Organised

Exposing Data: Art Slash Activism organised by Tactical Tech and CIS at CIS office in Bangalore on 28 November 2011. Ward Smith and Stephanie Hankey (Co-founders of TTC), Ayisha Abraham (Filmmaker, Srishti School of Art Design) and Zainab Bawa (Research Fellow, CIS) gave a lecture.

Droidcon India, first Android Conference in Bangalore, organised by CIS in collaboration with Droidcon.com, Bangalore Android User Group, MobileMonday Bangalore and Android Advices on 18 and 19 November 2011 at the MLR Convention Centre, Bangalore.

Events Participated

Western Ghats Portal: Workshop on Biodiversity Informatics organised by the Western Ghats Portal team at the Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and Environment, 25 November 2011. Sunil Abraham spoke in the session on Scientific Commons and Policy.
Names Not Numbers Mumbai, 26 November 2011. Nishant Shah spoke in a panel on “The New Digital Individual: Is New Technology Liberating or Enslaving?”. The event was organised by Editorial Intelligence and partners which included the British Council and Financial Times, BBC World News, Mumbai first, Vodafone, Trident and Godrej India Cultural Lab.

Upcoming Events

Dialogue Cafe @ Centre for Internet and Society, 2 December 2011, Centre for Internet & Society, 4 p.m. to 6 p.m.
The High Level Privacy Conclave, 3 February 2011, Paharpur Business Centre, Nehru Place Greens New Delhi, 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. This is a closed-door meeting. For participation, get in touch with Elonnai (elonnai@cis-india.org).
All India Privacy Symposium, 4 February 2011, India International Centre, New Delhi. This is a public meeting. For participation, get in touch with Elonnai (elonnai@cis-india.org).

Video

Facebook Resistance Workshop at CIS. This was a workshop for people to learn on how to think beyond the rules and limitations of Facebook, to tweak and play around the features and design to generate useful, creative, and funny concepts and explore how this creative intervention can be turned into a real software developed by the Facebook Resistance.

Telecom

Column

Telecom Path-Breaker? (by Shyam Ponappa): Does the draft National Telecom Policy-2011 reflect true brilliance or smoke-and-mirrors? It will be a game-changer if a shared network is implemented effectively, writes Shyam Ponappa in this article published in the Business Standard on 3 November 2011.

Follow us elsewhere

Get short, timely messages from us on Twitter
Follow CIS on identi.ca
Join the CIS group on Facebook\
Visit us at www.cis-india.org

CIS is grateful to 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/november-2011-bulletin

December 2011 Bulletin

praskrishna — 2012-07-23T08:35:03Z

Welcome to the newsletter issue of December 2011. This issue carries a special section on Freedom of Expression as there was much discussion regarding the Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology, Mr. Kapil Sibal’s proposal for pro-active censorship of social media.

Digital Natives with a Cause?

Digital Natives with a Cause? is a knowledge programme initiated by CIS, India and Hivos, Netherlands. It is a research inquiry that seeks to look at the changing landscapes of social change and political participation and the role that young people play through digital and internet technologies, in emerging information societies. The collaboration has produced a four book collective around ‘digital revolutions’ in a post Arab spring world, a position paper, a scouting report and three international workshops in Taipei, Johannesburg and Santiago.

Blog Entry

The Digital Other: Nishant Shah raises his concerns that increasingly, Digital Natives are acting as pure consumers of technology and gadgets, and seem willing to do so. The blog post was published in DML Central, 14 December 2011.

Events

Digital Native Video Contest, jointly organised by CIS and Hivos. Submission guidelines and FAQs are online. Submit your proposal online by 26 January 2012.
Digital AlterNatives Tweet-a-Review, 17 – 26 December 2011: 'Digital Natives with a Cause?' Project invites readers to review essays from the 'Digital AlterNatives with a Cause', a four-book collective published by Centre for Internet & Society and Hivos.

Book Reviews

Unpacking Digital Natives from their Shiny Packaging: “The ‘Digital Natives’ concept is neither necessarily nor inherently positive, as YiPing Tsou highlights in her chapter Digital Natives in the Name of a Cause: From Flash Mob to "Human Flesh Search.” — Argyri Panezi
On Natives, Norms and Knowledge: “It is a text I strongly recommend, especially to those interested in the reasons behind contemporary policies that try to regulate digital activism such as the US SOPA Act.” — Philip Ketzel
Digital Native: Twin Manifestations or Co-Located Hybrids: “Ben-David’s piece is a well-articulated and informed attempt to resolve two of the several conceptual fuzziness of the term Digital Native. She attempts this in a philosophical manner: trying to move away from the ontological who are Digital Natives? to an epistemological when and where are Digital Natives?” — Samuel Tettner

Pathways for Learning in Higher Education

The Pathways Project for Learning in Higher Education is a collaboration between the Higher Education Innovation and Research Applications (HEIRA) at the Centre for the Study of Culture and Society (CSCS) and the Centre for Internet and Society (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.

Workshop Report

The Digital Classroom: Social Justice and Pedagogy: Nishant Shah captures some of the questions that were thrown up and discussed at the 2 day Faculty Training workshop for participant from colleges included in the Pathways to Higher Education programme, supported by Ford Foundation and collaboratively executed by the Higher Education Innovation and Research Application and the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore

Blog Post

Technology, Social Justice and Higher Education by Nishant Shah, 7 December 2011.

Event Organised

Pathways 3rd Faculty Workshop & Regional Facilitators Meeting at CSCS, 8–10 December 2011, CSCS, Bangalore, Nishant Shah participated in the workshop.

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. So far we have organised Right to Read campaigns in the four metro cities of Chennai, Kolkata, Delhi and Mumbai, made a submission to amend the Indian Copyright to the HRD Ministry, researched on accessible mobile handsets in India, analysed the Working Draft of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, and published a policy handbook on e-accessibility and a book on universal service for persons with disabilities.

Publications

Universal Service for Persons with Disabilities: Published by G3ict and CIS in cooperation with the Hans Foundation. The book is co-authored by Axel Leblois, Executive Director, G3ict, Deepti Bharthur and Nirmita Narasimhan.
The Business Case for Web Accessibility: NASSCOM Foundation has published a handbook on web accessibility titled “Understanding Web Accessibility — A Guide to Create Accessible Work Environments”. Nirmita Narasimhan authored a chapter “The Business Case for Web Accessibility”.

Submission

Accessibility in the New Telecom Policy 2011: CIS was part of the 27 organisations that responded to the call for comments on NTP 2011. The submission was made to the Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications & Information Technology, Government of India on 9 December 2011.

Interview

An Interview of Nirmita Narasimhan on ITU Portal: ITU Girls in ICT is now online! ITU interviewed Nirmita and published her profile on their website.

Award

Nirmita receives NIVH Award: Nirmita Narasimhan received the NIVH Excellence Award from Justice AS Anand (retd), former chairman of the National Human Rights Commission, on International Day of Persons with Disabilities at the National Institute for the Visually Handicapped in Dehradun on Saturday, 3 December 2011. The Tribune covered the award ceremony and published this in their newspaper on 3 December 2011.

Upcoming Event

ITU Meeting and Tutorial on Audiovisual Media Accessibility, organized by the International Telecommunication Union, India International Centre, 13 – 15 March 2012. CIS is hosting the workshop in collaboration with the ITU-APT Foundation. More information and registration are available at the ITU website.

Access to Knowledge

Access to Knowledge is a campaign to promote the fundamental principles of justice, freedom, and economic development. It deals with issues like copyrights, patents, and trademarks, which are an important part of the digital landscape. We prepared the India report for the CI IP Watchlist, made submission to the HRD Ministry on WIPO Broadcast treaty, questioned the demonization of pirates, and advocated against laws (such as the PUPFIP Bill) that privatize public funded knowledge.

Comments

CIS Intervention on Future Work of the WIPO Advisory Committee on Enforcement
The seventh session of the World Intellectual Property Organization's Advisory Committee on Enforcement (ACE) was held in Geneva on 30 November and 1 December 2011. Pranesh Prakash participated in the event and made the intervention.
Comment by CIS at ACE on Presentation on French Charter on the Fight against Cyber-Counterfeiting: Pranesh Prakash responded to a presentation by Prof. Pierre Sirinelli of the École de droit de la Sorbonne, Université Paris 1 on 'The French Charter on the Fight against Cyber-Counterfeiting of 16 December 2009 during the seventh session of the World Intellectual Property Organization's Advisory Committee on Enforcement (ACE) held in Geneva.

Blog Post

CIS Hosts Scanned Version of George Orwell’s Books vs. Cigarettes: Verbindingen/Jonctions (V/J), the bi-annual multidisciplinary festival organised by Constant took place on 1 December 2011. CIS hosted the scanned pages of the essay in public domain.

Openness

Innovation and creativity should be fostered through openness and collaboration. The advent of Internet has radically defined what it means to be open and collaborative. The Internet itself is built upon open standards and free/libre/open source software. Our endeavour has resulted in a report on open government data, a report on online video environment in India and a film on oral citations on the Wikipedia.

Award

Inaugural EPT Award for Open Access: The Electronic Publishing Trust for Development is pleased to announce the winners of a new annual award to be made to individuals working in developing countries who have made a significant personal contribution to advancing the cause of open access (OA) and the free exchange of research findings. The winner of the inaugural award is Dr Francis Jayakanth of the National Centre for Science Information, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India.

Internet Governance

The Tunis Agenda of the second World Summit on the Information Society has defined internet governance as the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the internet. CIS partnered with Privacy International and Society in Action Group which has produced outputs in banking, telecommunications, consumer rights, media law, sexual minorities, etc., and submitted seven open letters to Parliamentary Finance Committee on UID covering several aspects, feedbacks on NIA Bill, and IT Rules.

Peer Review

Now Streaming on Your Nearest Screen by Nishant Shah, Journal of Chinese Cinemas, Volume 3, Issue 1.
Internet and Society in Asia: Challenges and Next Steps by Nishant Shah, Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, Volume 11, Number 1.

Book Review

The Historian Wins Over the Biographer “In Walter Isaacson's eponymous biography of Steve Jobs, the multibillion dollar man who is credited with single handedly changing the face of computing and the digital media industry, we face the dilemma of a biographer: how do you make sense of a history that is so new, it is still unfolding.”
Nishant Shah's detailed review of Steve Jobs' biography was published in the Biblio Vol. XV Nos. 11 & 12, November- December 2011

Newspaper / Magazine Articles

Spy in the Web The government’s proposed pre-censorship rules undermine the intelligence of an online user and endanger democracy, Nishant Shah, Indian Express, 18 December 2011.
What is Dilligaf? On the web, time moves at the speed of thought: Groups emerge, proliferate and are abandoned as new trends and fads take precedence. Nowhere else is this dramatic flux as apparent as in the language that evolves online, Nishant Shah, GQ India.
Of Surrogate Futures and Scattered Temporalities: Nishant Shah responds to Michael Edwards through this blog post published in the Broker on 27 December 2011.

Interview

An Interview with Dr. Ann Cavoukian: Elonnai Hickok interviews Dr. Ann Cavoukian, Information and Privacy Commissioner, Ontario, Canada.
When the digital spills into the physical: Nishant Shah tells us why flash mobs are an interesting sign of our times, and not just a passing fad. MidDay published this interview in their newspaper on 18 December 2011.

Video

Phishing Attacks on the Rise: Sunil Abraham was on the TV Channel News 9 on 2 December 2011 speaking about two visual cues to distinguish between the fake and the real websites.

Media Coverage

India’s dreams of web censorship, Financial Time's beyondbrics, 6 December 2011, Sunil Abraham was quoted in this post.
Did He, Didn’t He by Rahul Bhatia, Open Magazine (issue: 7-14 December 2011)
Much at stake for tech sector in UID project by Pranav Nambiar, Economic Times, 12 December 2011. Sunil Abraham was quoted in this article.
On the net, red herring by Javed Anwer, The Times of India, 4 December 2011. Sunil Abraham was quoted in this article.
Twitter, Facebook take the lead in blogosphere as blog searches fall by half by Ameya Chumbhale, Economic Times, 17 November 2011. Pranesh Prakash was quoted in this article.

Event Report

Exposing Data: Art Slash Activism organised by Tactical Tech and CIS in Bangalore on 28 November 2011. Zainab Bawa, Ayisha Abraham, Ward Smith and Marek Tuszinsky gave a talk. Videos of the event are now online.

Upcoming Events

Privacy Matters — Analyzing the "Right to Privacy Bill": Privacy India in partnership with International Development Research Centre, Canada, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, the Godrej Culture Lab, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai and the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore is organising "Privacy Matters", a public conference at IIT, Bombay on 21 January 2012.

The High Level Privacy Conclave: Privacy India in partnership with the International Development Research Centre, Canada, Society in Action Group, Gurgaon and Privacy International, UK is organizing the High Level Privacy Conclave at the Paharpur Business Centre, Nehru Place Greens in New Delhi on Friday, 3 February 2012.

All India Privacy Symposium: Privacy India in partnership with the International Development Research Centre, Canada, Society in Action Group, Gurgaon, Privacy International, UK and Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative is organizing the All India Privacy Symposium at the India International Centre, New Delhi on Saturday, 4 February 2012.

Event Organised

Dialogue Cafe @ Centre for Internet and Society, 2 Dec 2011, Kavita Philip gave a talk.

Special Section on Freedom of Expression

We usually cover Freedom of Expression under Internet Governance. However, this month there has been much discussion regarding the Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology, Mr. Kapil Sibal’s proposal for pro-active censorship of social media. This special section covers reportage and original content from CIS:

Newspaper / Magazine Articles

Invisible Censorship: How the Government Censors Without Being Seen by Pranesh Prakash: The Indian government wants to censor the Internet without being seen to be censoring the Internet. The article was translated into Marathi and featured in Lokmat, 18 December 2011.
US Clampdown Worse than the Great Firewall by Sunil Abraham: If you thought China’s Internet censorship was evil, think again. American moves to clean up the Web could hurt global surfers. Sunil Abraham wrote this article in Tehelka, Volume 8, Issue 50, 17 December 2011.
That’s the Unkindest Cut, Mr. Sibal by Sunil Abraham: There’s Kolaveri-di on the Internet over Kapil Sibal’s diktat to social media sites to prescreen users’ posts. That diktat goes far beyond the restrictions placed on our freedom of expression by the IT Act. But, says Sunil Abraham of the Centre for Internet and Society, India is not going to be silenced online. Deccan Chronicle, 11 December 2011.

Blog Posts

Online Pre-Censorship is Harmful and Impractical by Pranesh Prakash: The Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology, Mr. Kapil Sibal wants Internet intermediaries to pre-censor content uploaded by their users. Pranesh Prakash takes issue with this and explains why this is a problem, even if the government's heart is in the right place.
Press Coverage of Online Censorship Row: We are maintaining a rolling blog with press references to the row created by the proposal by the Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology to pre-screen user-generated Internet content.

Radio Broadcast

Social media sites refuse Indian censorship request: Sunil Abraham spoke to Radio Australia. Follow the broadcast here

Live Chat

Is the govt bid to regulate content on the Internet a good thing?: Pranesh Prakash answered questions freedom of expression vis-a-vis objectionable content live on CNN-IBN's chat feature, 7 December 2011.

Media Coverage

Caught in the Web: “As it is the status of freedom of speech in India is in a bad shape. Sibal's new rules will only make it worse.”— Sunil Abraham in Hindu Business Line, 13 December 2011.

Online gag: Existing rules give little freedom: “Our criticism is of the policy and not of the websites and Internet entities that are forced to err on the side of caution when faced by such notices.” — Sunil Abraham in the Times of India, 9 December 2011.
Facebook, Google tell India they won’t screen for derogatory content: “Researchers sent mock take-down notices to seven sites, complaining about their content... six sites immediately deleted content. They did not even verify the validity of our flawed complaint. They over-complied.” — Sunil Abraham in Washington Post, 6 December 2011.
‘Any Normal Human Being Would Be Offended’: “Indian law seems to state that it has global jurisdiction but that is not really true. An Indian court might give an order that is unenforceable in the United States or anywhere else.” — Sunil Abraham in the New York Times, 6 December 2011.
IT Inc oppose Sibal’s ‘great’ firewall proposal: “You wouldn’t want to end up with a situation where you are denied access to, say, the website of the University of Sussex because the address contains the word ‘sex’.” — Nishant Shah in Indian Express, 7 December 2011.
Online @ India: “I haven't yet heard of anybody in India going on a rampage because somebody in Pakistan started an 'India hate' page.” — Nishant Shah in the Hindustan Times, 10 December 2011.
How ‘private-censorship’ is making online content disappear, quietly: “Google’s self-reported compliance rate of 51 per cent shows that they are probably over-stepping the law in order to appease the Indian government’s requests.” — Pranesh Prakash in FirstPost, 15 December 2011.
Kapil Sibal to sterilise Net but undercover sting shows 6 of 7 websites already trigger-happy to censor under ‘chilling’ IT Act, Legally India, 7 December 2011. Sunil Abraham was quoted in this blog post.
‘Chilling’ Impact of India’s April Internet Rules by Heather Simmons, New York Times, 7 December 2011.
Govt wants to scrub the Internet clean, Livemint, 7 December 2011. Sunil Abraham was quoted in this article.
India's Techies Angered Over Internet Censorship Plan, NPR, 20 December 2011. Pranesh Prakash was quoted in this blog post.
Internet, social media access should not be blocked: Ban, Oman Tribune, 10 December 2011. Sunil Abraham was quoted in this article.
India entering the Minority Report age?, ioL scietech. Sunil Abraham was quoted in this.
Los internautas indios se oponen a la censura a través de la Red, Diario de Navarra, 7 December 2011. Sunil Abraham was quoted in the Spanish newspaper.
Technological beasts like Facebook, Orkut, YouTube & Google impossible to control by Sunanda Poduwal & Kamya Jaiswal, Economic Times, 11 December 2011. Sunil Abraham was quoted in the article.
Google V/s Kapil Sibal by Sundeep Dougal in Outlook, 8 December 2011. Pranesh Prakash's work at CIS has been extensively quoted in this blog post.
India bid to censor Internet draws flak Phil Hazlewood spoke to Sunil Abraham and published this article for AFP. France 24, Khaleej Times, Physorg.com, TimesLive, Bangkok Post, Yahoo News, MSN News, Emirates 24/7, Business Live and Jakarta Globe also carried the news on their websites, 9 December 2011.

Videos

Censorship — A Death Knell for Freedom of Expression Online: On 8 December 2011, NDTV aired an interesting discussion on internet censorship. Shashi Tharoor, Soli Sorabjee, Shekhar Kapoor, Ken Ghosh and Sunil Abraham participated in this discussion with NDTV's Sonia Singh.
FTN: Should social networking sites be censored?: Telecom Minister Kapil Sibal met the representatives of Facebook, Google and others seeking to device a screening mechanism. Sunil Abraham was on CNN-IBN from 10.00 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. speaking about freedom of expression in India.
Debate: Online content row-1: Sunil Abraham was on Times Now from 9.05 p.m. to 9.45 p.m. on 6 December 2011 speaking about freedom of expression in India.

Event Organised

Free Speech Online in India under Attack? A Panel Discussion, 21 December 2011. Achal Prabhala, Anja Kovacs, Lawrence Liang and Sunil Abraham gave lectures.

Telecom

The growth in telecommunications in India has been impressive. While the potential for growth and returns exist, a range of issues need to be addressed for this potential to be realized. One aspect is more extensive rural coverage and the second aspect is a countrywide access to broadband which is low at about eight million subscriptions. Both require effective and efficient use of networks and resources, including spectrum. In this connection, Shyam Ponappa continues to write his monthly column for the Business Standard.

Newspaper Article

Healing self-inflicted wounds by Shyam Ponappa, Business Standard, 1 December 2011: A spate of dysfunctional actions and retrograde developments has led to an unimaginable mess for India. Can the damage to growth prospects be undone? Does it need to be? If so, how?

Follow us elsewhere

Get short, timely messages from us on Twitter
Follow CIS on identi.ca
Join the CIS group on Facebook\
Visit us at www.cis-india.org

CIS is grateful to 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/december-2011-bulletin

The kids are all on Facebook

praskrishna — 2012-07-20T06:24:17Z

In one photo, Prerna stands in front of the mirror, back slightly arched, a fringe covering her left eye, one hand on her hip, pursing her lips. The other hand holds the camera in a steadfast grip. Below this picture are almost a hundred likes and comments. There is nothing unusual as such about this photo on Facebook. Prerna, however, is just 11.

This article by Shikha Kumar was published in Daily News & Analysis on July 8, 2012. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

"Stop looking so pretty" and "OMG! You’re so thin" are some of the comments that appear under the picture of this young girl.

In another picture, Diksha’s wavy hair cascades around her face as she fixes the camera with an unwavering stare. The caption reads — "I love my hair. I know I sound like a conceited bitch." Diksha is 12.

Children like Prerna and Diksha, who are under the age of 13, are officially not allowed to open accounts on Facebook. But they are among the 7.5 million under-13 users of the popular social networking website, according to a study released by Consumer Reports last year. The study further revealed that among such users, 5 million were under the age of 10. Closer home, a McAfee-Synovate survey conducted across various cities in India revealed that 64% kids in the age group of 9-12 are members of social networking sites.

You may find the trend daunting since ‘kids’ are supposed to step out and socialise, rather than chat online. However, it’s a reality that we have no choice but to accept as a modern reality.

Internally, Facebook seems to have accepted the trend. As revealed by a news reports last month, the company is readying a technology that will allow children younger than 13 to open accounts and operate them in a secure manner. Possible approaches include connecting the children’s Facebook accounts with their parents’, and giving parents the control over who befriends their children on the website.

The New ways of being in touch with ‘friends’
The move has once again put the spotlight on the ways in which social networking is changing the way children interact with each other.

Namrata Bhoomkar, 13, logs on to the website at least two to three times a day. "I check my news feeds and see what my friends are up to. If you’re not on Facebook, you can’t be updated with what’s happening with everybody," she says.

Apart from finding out what their friends are up to, kids also spend a lot of time sharing their pictures, and are proficient at photo editing software like Photoshop, Picasa and Photobooth to make their pictures more striking.

Another way of standing out is to give pictures creative captions. "I google random quotes on love and life and then put those up as captions on the pictures. I get a lot of likes for it, which makes me feel nice," says 13-year old Sakshi Shrivastav.

Having No clue about privacy settings
However, while the kids use many of Facebook’s features, few are aware of the risks or the privacy settings available on the website that can protect them. In the McAfee-Synovate survey, 32% of the kids were not aware of any online threats, such as cyber hacking, stalking, bullying and identity thefts.

As a result, lessons are often learnt the hard way. "A 39-year-old man started sending me messages saying that I’m very pretty. My father found out and told me to disable my account. I was very upset since all my friends are on Facebook. So finally, my sister helped me activate my privacy settings," says an underage girl on the condition of anonymity.

Anandita Mishra, a security expert at McAfee Cybermum India, says that she does not advocate kids’ presence on Facebook. "There are several dangers; there might be paedophiles lurking, strangers pretending to be younger or your child may be a victim of online abusing or bullying," she says.

With the new timeline format, even though one’s account is protected, the cover pictures are always visible to everybody. In such cases, Mishra recommends either keeping no cover photo or keeping pictures of favourite cartoon characters.

In the face of so many risks, some experts believe that Facebook’s move to officially allow younger kids under some form of parental supervision is a step in the right direction.

"Children’s interaction online should always be under parental supervision. Censorship and control is not the responsibility of the government, but of parents," points out Sunil Abraham, director, Centre for Internet and Society.

Abraham believes that if this technology comes into force, children will consume content more responsibly. This will also give them the chance to go out in the real world and get some real communication experience, the old-fashioned way.

"They will even behave responsibly. If the account is supervised, they are less likely to engage in bullying, abusing, sexting or any other unacceptable forms of social behaviour," he adds.

While she is not totally in favour of this development, McAfee’s Mishra sees no other way because parents are unable to control their children. "Seven million kids are online with or without parental supervision. You cannot have cyber policing of children. It is important to inculcate the right values about responsible internet usage," she says.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/kids-on-facebook

A Net of Hatred

praskrishna — 2012-07-20T06:09:19Z

Citizens worlwide have been resisiting the threat of internet censorship that governments seek to impose — and justifiably so. But while we have seen democratic revolutions such as the Arab Spring emerge from the power of the net, it is increasingly becoming clear to even the most ardent defender

This article by Samar Khurshid was published in the Hindustan Times on July 14, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted in it.

The Problem

On the internet, anyone can say anything and largely get away with it, making it a near-perfect means for fanatics. India, in particular, with its religious diversity and history of communal tension, constantly struggles with this issue. Earlier this week, the phrase ‘Internet Hindus’ was trending on popular social media website, Twitter, brought to the fore by a discussion about online religious fundamentalism on Al Jazeera, a news network based in Qatar. The panelists sought to put in context the largely vocal community of internet users who support right-wing Hindu ideology. These ‘Internet Hindus’ have become synonymous with an "abusive, vocal, uncouth group of people who subscribe to Hindu nationalism," said one panellist. The tribe of ‘Twitter jihadis’ is now responding with equal fervour with mostly anonymous fundamentalists who are vocal with their message.

"The problem," says Pranesh Prakash, programme manager at the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), "is that internet conversations become extreme. Liberals don’t get embroiled in heated arguments while fundamentalists, dedicated to extreme ideologies, tend to win out." Web censorship, he adds, is in vain as the net is too vast to control.

Online fanaticism is not limited to Hindus. For long, extremist Islamic groups have taken their jihad on to the world wide web. Of late, jihadist groups have mushroomed on social media to expand their base of support. The trend was observed by BBC Islamic Groups Analyst, Murad Batal al-Shishani, on Twitter. Even the recent arrest of Lashkar-e-Toiba’s handler of the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks, Syed Zabiuddin Ansari alias Abu Jundal, was possible after he was tracked on Facebook trying to recruit young Muslims for 'the cause'. The Afghanistani Taliban, in fact, has its own news website with a running Twitter feed. The site offers the ‘voice of jihad’ with events propagandised from the Taliban perspective – American and Afghan soldiers are referred to as puppets, minions, cowards and even terrorists.

Islamic groups, however, are not a major cause of concern for India, according to Prasanto K Roy, a tech analyst and social media commentator. "Jihadist groups are a relatively small minority in India. But right wing Hindu groups have majority support."

The greatest issue, says CIS’s Prakash, is that these fundamentalists are increasingly well-organised and make great efforts to build a stronger extremist position. They are encouraged, he says, by the likes of Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy, who believes that minorities in India should only be given political rights after they acknowledge their Hindu ancestry; Francois Gautier, a French-Indian writer and journalist who supports the cause of Hindutva; and Zakir Naik, a Mumbai-born Islamic televangelist whose controversial opinions often attracts criticism. Prakash also says that on the net, "Many people are not only manufacturing opinion but also manufacturing facts as the basis of that opinion. These falsities are fuelling Right-wing anger."

The Solution

Governments are hard pressed to effectively censor and discourage otherwise reprehensible dialogue. The UPA attempted to tackle what they see as ‘objectionable content’. In December 2011, based on a petition, the government prosecuted internet giants like Yahoo, Google, Twitter and Facebook for hosting offensive material.

Legally, various sections of the Indian penal code, notably 153A – promoting enmity between communities – can be applied in cases of hate speech. But online speech falls short of being prosecutable, says sociologist Dipankar Gupta. "Something can only be (considered) hate speech if it directly incites people or results in violence, like statements made by Varun Gandhi in the 2009 Lok Sabha elections. Online fundamentalist speech does not cross the boundaries of the law. And we cannot prosecute someone for their opinion."

When a Twitter post asked the question whether certain people could be violating section 153A, the response was far from reasonable, or even civil. One person wrote, "We p*ss on you and your secular section." Another urged others to report the user to Twitter as spam and have him blocked. And of course all this comes with the barrage of by now infamous Twitter terms like 'sickular', 'pseudo secular' or 'Congress Dirty Tricks Department'. They have thousands of followers, even their own websites and are extremely organised.

"The larger question is whether we should tackle this legally or develop other methods," says Siddharth Narayan, a lawyer with the Alternative Law Forum. "Hate-speech laws have been misused in the past. We don’t need a clampdown on internet freedom. We just need a more nuanced application of existing legislation," he says.

When looking at net-speak, it is tough to distinguish between generic statements of hate and a genuine call to violence. The internet has no intermediaries; no editors to censure your posts. Then perhaps it bodes ill for India’s secular democracy, and for secularism in the world at large, that uncurbed dialogue, which seeks to crystallise hate between communities, is spreading like an epidemic. CIS’s Prakash says the government cannot cope with this. “But we as society should be strong enough to respond, even if we disagree."

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/a-net-of-hatred

Fifth Meeting of the two Sub-Groups on Privacy Issues under the Chairmanship of Justice AP Shah

praskrishna — 2012-08-07T10:11:25Z

The fifth meeting of the two sub-groups on privacy issues will be held on July 22, 2012 under the chairmanship of Justice AP Shah, former chief justice of Delhi High Court.

The next meeting of the two Sub-Groups (5th Meeting) on privacy issues under the Chairmanship of Justice A.P. Shah, former Chief Justice of Delhi High Court is scheduled to be held on July 22, 2012 at 11.00 a.m. This was announced vide notice No. M-13040/47/2011-CIT&I, dated the 10th June, 2012.

A copy of the notice was sent to the following individuals:

Justice AP Shah, Chairman
Dr. Kamlesh Bajaj
Usha Ramanathan
Sunil Abraham
Prashant Reddy
Prof. Arghya Sengupta
Shri Som Mittal
Shri Gulshan Rai
Mala Dutt

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/fifth-meeting-of-two-sub-groups-on-privacy

Session M4 – International Public Policy and Internet Governance Issues Pertaining to the Internet

praskrishna — 2012-07-19T05:59:40Z

The Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum 2012 is being organised at Aoyama Campus, Aoyama Gakuin University in Tokyo on July 20, 2012. Sunil Abraham will be speaking in the session on international public policy and internet governance issues pertaining to the internet. The event is organised by APrIGF.Asia

The Internet is a vital strategic communications infrastructure for the Asia Pacific region, and so the future evolution of the Internet is a hugely important policy issue for individuals, business and government alike across the region. The region is the most diverse and dynamic in the world and the formulation of a unified and coherent regional view on such an important policy issue is very challenging. With internet governance becoming increasingly important, efforts are underway by some countries in Asia Pacific and elsewhere to change the nature of internet governance; moving from a relatively open multi-stakeholder model to a more closed, government led system of governance. What is the best evolution Internet governance path for Internet users of Asia Pacific to follow? This workshop will discuss the competing paths currently under discussion and seek to offer delegates a comprehensive understanding of the issues.

Panel

Moderator – Mr. Jeremy Malcolm, Consumers International

Speakers

Hasanul Aaq Inu, Member, Bangladesh National Parliament; Chairman, Parliamentary Standing Committee for Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications
Atsushi Umino, Director for International Policy Coordination, Global ICT Strategy Bureau (MIC)
Sunil Abraham, Centre for Internet & Society, India
David Farrar, Director of Curia Market Research

Panelists

Naoya Bessho, General Counsel, Chief Compliance Officer, Yahoo Japan Corporation
William Drake, International Fellow & Lecturer, Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ, University of Zurich, Switzerland

For the full agenda, click here
Click to read the original

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/session-m4-international-public-policy-and-internet-governance-issues-pertaining-to-the-internet

Open letter to Hillary Clinton on Internet Freedom

sunil — 2012-09-04T08:28:02Z

Last month I wrote an open letter to Hillary Clinton. It was based on a presentation I that I made during a panel discussion at a Google sponsored conference titled Internet at Liberty 2012 in Washington DC on May 24, 2012.

Sunil Abraham's article was published in Thinking Aloud on July 17, 2012

The question that my panel tried to grapple with was "In a world where nearly nine out of ten Internet users are not American, what is the responsibility of United States institutions in promoting internet freedom?" My co-panelists were Cynthia Wong who is with the Centre for Democracy and Technology, Mohamed El Dahshan a writer and journalist, Dunja Mijatovic the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media.

Internet freedom is a curious subject. It is a technology specific liberty - for a moment consider television freedom. The US has more Muslims than India has Christians. But Indian television in the average hotel comes in hundreds and there are at least 3 channels of Christian preaching. But US television in hotels is usually less than 50 channels with no channels of Islamic preaching. In fact even the reception of secular channels from the Islamic World like Al Jazeera is still difficult in America. Can we accuse the US of not having television freedom since their television features Christian evangelists but not Muslim evangelists? Should it be part of India's foreign policy to evangelize television freedom given that there is a large domestic industry with clear international potential?

In an ideal world - citizens will possess technology-neutral freedom to communication and expression. But nothing can be farther from the truth. Communication technologies are regulated using a plethora of policies and practices and very often these have a chilling effect on freedoms.

The following is my response to the technology-specific demands for deregulation from the US Government.

Text of the Open Letter[2]

Recognise Access to Knowledge (A2K) as pre-condition for freedom of expression: There is no difference between aggressive enforcement of imbalanced and obsolete intellectual property laws and censorship. The need of the moment is not more enforcement to protect obsolete business models against the everyday practices of ordinary netizens but rather the reform of intellectual property law (levies, broader exceptions and limitations, pools, statutory and compulsory licenses, prizes etc.) to keep pace with innovations in technology and the production of knowledge and culture.

Recognise privacy as pre-condition for security: The alleged tension between privacy and security is a false dichotomy. Blanket surveillance by design compromises security. Surveillance is like salt in cooking — essential in very small quantities but dangerous even if slightly in excess. Blanket surveillance technologies are only going make things easier for — and will only serve as targets for — current and future online villains.

Don't lose the moral high-ground: Remember, with great power comes great responsibility. Other countries are waiting to cherry pick from your worst practices. Also don't use trade agreements to selectively export components of US policy without the accompanying safeguards for civil liberties and rights. Citizens in oppressive and authoritarian states are depending on the US government, courts and civil society to protect their rights online. Don't undermine their capacity to shame their governments by holding up the US as the example of 'how to get things right'. They urgently need the US government to lead by example.

Recognise that freedom of expression has become a trade issue: This is unfortunate but this is true — thanks to the precedent set by the developed world when it came to asymmetric trade negotiations. Just as the US is interested in protecting the interests of its corporations in global markets — other governments are keen protect the interests of their own corporations. The optimal solution in this case is where all countries and corporations are equally unsatisfied. This will remain a continuing discussion.

Address developing country anxieties around critical internet infrastructure: Security by obscurity will no longer do — security by transparency through open standards, technologies and governance is the only way to fears and build a trust-worthy and secure Internet for all of us. For example, there is urgent need to develop standards for supply chain audits of information infrastructure. The US has dealt with the fear of back doors by banning the use of hardware and software from countries it does not trust. The developing world is not sure if there are back-doors in hardware and software manufactured by US corporations.

Time has comes to address this and other related anxieties.

Appreciate diversity in nomenclature: 'Freedom' and 'liberty' may be appropriate terms to use in the United States of America. But openness may be more in countries that are not yet full and robust liberal democracies. The Internet Governance Forum for example uses 'openness' instead of 'freedom'. Openness is also preferred because it includes 'freedom of expression', 'freedom of information' (also known as right to information, access to information or public and 'free knowledge' (free software, open standards, open content, open access, open data, open educational resources, etc.)

Don't be too instrumental in your interventions: Don't undermine the local credibility of like-minded civil society, think-tanks and research organisations by being too directive in your support. Managerialism will undermine reform of policies and practices in information societies and so does inappropriate/premature monitoring and evaluation (for example, looking for explicit attribution in terms of casual connections between your actions and outcomes). There is a need to support greater reflexivity in the global information society by developing institutional capacity in developing countries through unrestricted funding. True critical thinking is the foundation of both scientific progress and open societies. Go out of your way to find and support those who disagree with you. Protect the plural foundation of our networked society!

Video

Sunil Abraham was a speaker along with Cynthia Wong, Mohamed El Dahshan and Dunja Mijatovic in Plenary IV Debate 3 at the Internet at Liberty 2012 event organised by Google on May 24, 2012.

View the video on YouTube

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/open-letter-to-hillary-clinton

Constitutional Analysis of the Information Technology (Intermediaries' Guidelines) Rules, 2011

ujwala — 2012-10-31T08:44:41Z

Ujwala Uppaluri provides a constitutional analysis of the Information Technology (Intermediaries' Guidelines) Rules notified in April 2011, and examines its compatibility with Articles 14, 19, 21 of the Constitution of India.

Summary of Salient Provisions

The Information Technology (Intermediaries’ Guidelines) Rules, 2011 (‘the Intermediary Guidelines’) were notified in April, 2011 as rules enacted in exercise of powers conferred under section 87(2)(zg) read with Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (as amended) (‘the IT Act’).

Rule 2 of the Intermediary Guidelines imports definitions for key terms from the IT Act. Notably, this includes an importation of Section 2 (w) by Rule 2 (i), which defines “intermediary” broadly in the following terms:

“ “intermediary”, with respect to any particular electronic records, means any person who on behalf of another person receives, stores or transmits that record or provides any service with respect to that record and includes telecom service providers, network service providers, internet service providers, web-hosting service providers, search engines, online payment sites, online-auction sites, online-market places and cyber cafes;”

Rule 3 whose margin note indicates that it is limited to due diligence measures to be adhered to by intermediaries nevertheless also raises other liabilities by creating a regime to censor content, pre-publication as well as once content has been made publically available online.

Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 inventories the classes of content which are deemed actionable, with only clause (i), clause (c), clause (e) and, arguably clause (h), of that rule addressing the national interest, public order and security restrictions cognizable under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The remainder of grounds includes private claims such as content which “belongs to another person”[1], or otherwise infringes proprietary rights[2], or is “defamatory”[3]. Still others are terminologically indeterminate and purely subjective, with the terms “grossly harmful”, “harassing” and “disparaging” being examples.

This sub-rule also includes a number of redundancies. While there is reference to libelous as well as defamatory content in clause (b), it is well established that Indian law does not admit of the former concept, instead dissolving the common law distinction between the two to treat them alike.[4] There is also clause (e), which prohibits content which is all ready illegal for violating the provisions of an existing statute and the residuary phrasing of the clause (b)’s reference to content which is “otherwise unlawful in any manner whatever”.

The sub-rules immediately following the list in Rule 3(2) address the consequences of users publishing content listed in that rule:

Sub-rule (3) of rule 3 provides that intermediaries will not knowingly deal in any manner whatsoever, whether by hosting, publication, transmission or otherwise, with any content of the types that are listed in the previous clause.

Sub-rule (4) of rule 3 creates a complaints mechanism in respect of content incompatible with Rule 3 (2) by requiring intermediaries to disable access to offending content within 36 hours of obtaining knowledge themselves or on being brought to “actual knowledge” by an “affected person”. The Intermediaries Guidelines do nothing to clarify what would amount to “actual knowledge”, to indicate in unambiguous terms, which parties would have sufficient locus to bring complaints in order to be deemed an “affected person” for the purposes of these provisions or to suggest that there is a procedure or timeline for action by the intermediary, such that requirements such notice to the author of the content and time for the preparation of a defence by the author and/or the intermediary are accounted for. Rule 3 (4) also requires that all information which is taken down be preserved, along with “associated records” for a duration of atleast ninety days for investigative purposes.

Sub-rule (5) of rule 3 mandates that intermediaries inform users that non-compliance with the Intermediary Guidelines, inter alia, is a ground for the exercise of their right to terminate access or usage rights and remove non-compliant content.

Finally, sub-rule (11) of rule 3 requires intermediaries to name Grievance Officers to receive complaints on any matters relating to the computer resources made available by the intermediary, including for non-compliance or harm in terms of Rule 3 (2). This officer is bound to respond to the complaint within one month from the date of receipt of the complaint.

In the result, the Intermediary Guidelines create a two-track system by which private censorship is legitimized online. In the first place, intermediaries can take down content on their own motion where they are of the opinion that the content falls under any of the grounds enumerated in Rule 3 (2) or, alternatively, do so in response to a complaint, in terms of Rule 3 (4).

In addition to the provisions relating to censorship, the Intermediary Guidelines also provide for information to be given over to government agencies making a request with lawful authority and in writing under sub-rule (7) of rule 3, for data protection measures in accordance with the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Information) Rules, 2011 notified under Section 43A of the IT Act to be adhered to (sub-rule (8) of rule 3) and for intermediaries to report and share information realting to cyber security with CERT-In (sub-rule (9) of rule 3).

Areas of Infirmity

It is doubtful whether the Intermediary Guidelines could pass constitutional muster, on several grounds:

Compatibility with Article 19 (1) (a) and (2)

(a) Applicability of Article 19 (2) to Rule 3 (2) Grounds

In Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras[5] the Supreme Court held that the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) includes the freedom to propogate and disseminate ideas. It also held that very narrow and stringent limits govern the permissibility of legislative abridgment of the right of free speech. Ordinarily, any abridgement of free speech by means of censorship must be compatible with one or more of the grounds provided for under Article 19 (2), and the Supreme Court held in Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd. v. Union of India[6]that limitations on the exercise of the Article 19(1)(a) right which do not fall within Article 19(2) cannot be upheld.

Further, the right to free speech applies across all media, and the internet is no exception. In Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal[7], the Supreme Court reflected the understanding that where media are different, such that the treatment accorded to them must be different in accordance with that indicia of difference, it will treat them as such in order to uphold fundamental rights. More specifically, in Ajay Goswami v. Union of India[8], the Supreme Court opined (in obiter) that the internet, as a unique medium of expression, deserved a different standard of protection than other mediums that have preceded it.

Rule 3 (2) of the Intermediary Guidelines, which lists the grounds for censorship, is not complaint with Article 19 (2) for two reasons:

First, many of the grounds mentioned have no constitutional basis whatsoever. Rule 3 (2) prohibits, inter alia, content which “grossly harmful”, “harassing”, “invasive of another’s privacy”, “hateful”, “disparaging”, “grossly offensive” or “menacing”, in addition to content which is simply illegal, and should be actionable ex post rather than prohibited ex ante (content infringing intellectual property under Rule 3 (2) (d), for example). Most of the terms employed are not legal standards, but merely subjective indicators of personal sensitivities, while still others though legal do not figure in Article 19 (2). Since the whole scheme of the Intermediary Guidelines is premised on these extra-constitutional grounds, they are, as a whole, subject to being to being struck down.

Second, the restriction is unreasonable because instead of preserving rights online in accordance with Ajay Goswami, the Intermediary Guidelines unjustifiably abridge the right to speak and receive information on the internet. The Intermediary Guidelines overreach in their scope, by including as actionable content which is not itself punishable when communicated via any other medium. For example, disparaging speech, as long as it is not defamatory, is not criminalised in India, and cannot be because the Constitution does not allow for it. Similarly, content about gambling in print is not unlawful, but now all Internet intermediaries are required to remove any content that promotes gambling.

(b) Nature of Censorship: Directness of Censorship and Legitimacy of Private and Prior Censorship

In judging whether a statute is constitutional, the effect that the statute will have on the fundamental rights of citizens must be examined. The Supreme Court held in Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India[9] that the test was to examine whether the effect of an impugned action was to abridge a fundamental right, notwithstanding its object.

Further, while it is true in light of the Supreme Court’s holdings in Prakash Jha Productions v. Union of India[10] that pre-censorship is permissible within the Indian constitutional scheme, this permissibility is qualified. Prior censorship may be undertaken only within closely regulated circumstances, such as under the grounds in the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and even then, only by an appropriately empowered governmental entity.

The Intermediary Guidelines create mechanisms for the abridgement of the freedom of speech which amount to indirect and unjustifiable prior censorship, contrary to Article 19 (2):

Firstly, while the state does not itself censor under these rules, it has empowered private, commercial entities to do so vide the Intermediary Guidelines. These rules thus transfer the executive power of censorship to private intermediaries. This amounts to an indirect form of censorship for the purposes of the Bennett Coleman test and has the result of increased censorship on the Internet because the state granted legislative sanction to such a system, although it does not censor by itself or through a state agency. The Intermediary Guidelines, and specifically Rule 3 (4) read with Rule 3 (2), place a burden on intermediaries to decide on the lawfulness of content as a pre-condition for their statutory exemption from liability. An intermediary, on receiving a complaint, to ensure that it continues to receive the protection offered by Section 79 of the IT Act, will be forced to disable access to the content posted by a user. Thus, the direct effect of the rules will be strict censoring of content posted on-line by users. The rules will have a direct effect on the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1) of the Constitution unreasonable restrictions on fundamental rights, that are imposed by a statute or executive orders are liable to be struck down as unconstitutional.

Secondly, while prior censorship is permissible only in a strictly limited range of cases, the Intermediary Guidelines allow for an unrestrained and unlimited degree of prior and arguably invisible censorship. Rule 3 of the Intermediary Guidelines clearly envisages such a system of prior censorship. Whereas the consequences for passively displaying content incompatible with Rule 3(2) would be a complete waiver and dissolution of the Section 79 immunity that would ordinary accrue to neutral intermediaries, intermediaries or complainants have no obligation in respect of ensuring the tenability of complaints and the grounds cited in them. The Intermediary Guidelines do not draw a distinction between arbitrary actions of an intermediary and take-downs subsequent to a request. Further, the inclusion of a residuary clause in Rule 3 (2) (b) allowing pre-censorship of content which is “unlawful in any manner whatever”, also indicates that the Intermediary Guidelines allow the use of the exceptional instrument of not only allows private censorship, but that they actively encourage it as the default rule rather than the exception without any justification whatsoever.

(c) Vagueness and Overbreadth: Possibility for Over-Censorship

Vagueness in the terms of a restriction to free speech is grounds for it to be struck down, even where the ground is apparently broadly constitutional. The Supreme Court held in Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India[11] that the Constitution must be interpreted in order to enable citizens to enjoy their rights to fullest measure, subject to limited permissible restrictions. In Romesh Thapar[12] the Supreme Court also held that a legislation authorizing the imposition of restrictions on free speech in language wide enough to cover restrictions which are permissible as well as extra-constitutional will be held to be wholly unconstitutional.

The grounds listed in Rule 3 (2) of the Intermediary Guidelines are highly subjective, private interest grounds which are not defined either in the Intermediary Guidelines or in the IT Act itself. These include terms such as “grossly harmful”, “harassing”, “invasive of another’s privacy”, “hateful”, “disparaging”, “grossly offensive” or “menacing”. Consequently, the Intermediary Guidelines constitute unreasonable restrictions on freedom of speech, with Rule 3 (2) containing vague terms which, in addition to falling beyond the purview of Article 19(2), cover only private and subjective grounds, incapable of objective definition or application.

Further, the Intermediary Guidelines do no precisely define the term “affected person” employed in Rule 3 (4). Thus, complaints from any party, including those uninvolved or unaffected by content must all be complied with, without qualification.

In the result, the vagueness of the grounds in Rule 3 (2) and the diffuse terminology of “affected person” leaves Rule 3 (2) grounds serving as placeholders for whatever claim a complainant, having no locus whatsoever, chooses to bring, without regard for whether it is constitutional or even legal. Online content is thus treated as presumptively illegal and take down of content as the presumptive course of action. Additionally, there is a further consequence to the vagueness and overbreadth of the terms in Rule 3 (2): because of the indeterminacy in the grounds listed thereunder, intermediaries tasked with enforcing the law will tend to err on the side of caution and censor, rather than keep speech accessible online. There is empirical evidence to show that cautious intermediaries will over-censor and over comply with complaints in order to avoid liability under Section 79 of the IT Act.[13]

(d) Contravention of International Human Rights Norms & Horizontal Application

The censorship regime constructed by the Intermediary Guidelines is non-compliant not only with domestic requirements under the Constitution, but also with India’s obligations under international human rights law under Articles 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (‘UDHR’) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (‘ICCPR’), under the UN Human Rights Council’s Report of the Special Rapporteur Frank La Rue on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression (2011)[14](‘Special Rapporteur’s Report’) and the UN Human Rights Council Resolution on Internet Freedom (2012)[15] (‘UN Internet Freedom Resolution’).

While the ICCPR as well as the UDHR guarantee a right to free speech “through any…media of…choice” in their respective Articles 19, the Special Rapporteur’s Report and the UN Internet Freedom Resolution recognize the need for special efforts to be undertaken by states to preserve free speech on the internet. The former document justifies censorship only in the most limited circumstances and makes specific mention of the commercial interests that may be implicated in delivering free speech.

Through the Intermediary Guidelines, the Indian state creates a system by which the right to free speech can be systematically violated by private and undisclosed entities and even empowers them to do so, without imposing any constitutional safeguards whatsoever. Thus, egregious violations of the right to free speech and expression are a direct and inevitable consequence of the Intermediary Guidelines. To the degree that the Indian Supreme Court has enagaged with free speech online, it appears from Ajay Goswami that it would apply standards consistent with international law obligations to rectify the Intermediary Guidelines to meet them.

Further, the Indian Supreme Court has held, where necessary for their true enjoyement, that fundamental rights may involve a degree of horizontality in their application. In other words, private action could be guided by fundamental rights, such as in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan[16] which evidences the Supreme Court’s willingness to hold that private entities could be held to constitutional and international human rights law standards where that is necessary for the real rather than illusory enjoyment of fundamental rights.

As a result, the Intermediary Guidelines are also liable to be struck down for their failure to recognize and account for the role of private interests while empowering them with the right to curtail fundamental rights.

Compatibility with Article 21

(a) Adverse Impact on Privacy (and consequently on Free Speech)

A constitutional right to privacy has been read into Article 21’s guarantee of life and personal liberty in several instances by the Supreme Court. The State is consequently under an obligation to refrain from interfering, whether by itself or through any of its agencies, with private lives and spaces. By the same coin, laws which encourage unwarranted state or societal intrusions into private life will contravene the victim’s Article 21 right. In People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India,[17] the Supreme Court held that Article 21 privacy protected individuals against the interception and monitoring of private communications by the state in the absence of sufficient safeguards.

Also, an individual’s privacy interests in information relating to him are not dissolved merely because information is not confidential or because another entity has some property interest in that information. In District Registrar and Collector, Hyderabad v. Canara Bank[18], the Supreme Court recognized that even where the search of private documents was concerned, Article 21 protected “persons not places”, i.e., that the privacy interest did not vest in property or communications but, rather, in the rightsholder himself.

The Intermediary Guidelines include no limits whatsoever on the scope of disclosures that government agencies can demand or expect to retain, in contravention of Article 21.

Specifically, Rule 3 (4), which requires data retention for a statutory minimum of ninety days of content taken down as well as “associated records”, violates users’ rights to privacy. In addition to the financial and technical burden (in storing and securing data) imposed by the Intermediary Guidelines in requiring potentially unlimited data retention by intermediaries, there is no clarity as to what or how much information precisely must be held in the form of “associated records”. Instead of subjecting data to limited and closely qualified retention by private intermediaries, and thus limiting the impairment of the fundamental right to privacy to the minimum possible degree necessary, Rule 3 (4) imposes blanket data retention requirements.

Further, Rule 3 (7), which makes any information held by an intermediary subject to being disclosed to the government upon request is also inconsistent with the requirement that the right to life and personal liberty be violated only in accordance with fair, just and reasonable procedures. Notwithstanding that Rule 3 (7) is consistent with Section 67C of the IT Act and specific rules framed in regard to the surveillance of communications, it is also unconstitutional because it fails to include any safeguards whatsoever in the process of surveillance. These would include, as minimum obligatory conditions in light of PUCL, the requirement that the surveilled be informed of the surveillance and be allowed to challenge its propriety ex ante or its procedural regularity ex post, or atleast administrative or judicial review ex parte.

(b) Non-compliance with Due Process and Natural Justice Requirements

Article 21 explicitly includes a due process guarantee. This means that the right to life and personal liberty, and its constituent rights, can be interfered with only through constitutionally consistent procedures. A cornerstone of fair procedure, compliant with the rule of law, is the notion of natural justice. Consequently, Article 21 contemplates that the procedure by which fundamental rights are curtailed will satisfy natural justice principles.

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India,[19] the Supreme Court held that natural justice was not a rigid or mechanical term, but one that referred to those practices and principles that would ensure “fair play in action”. In addition the Court held that all deviations from natural justice requirements must be supported by a sufficiently justificatory “compelling state interest”. Specifically, in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel[20], the Supreme Court held that the principle of natural justice required the satisfaction of the audi alteram partem rule, which consisted of several requirements, including the requirement that a person against whose detriment an action is taken be informed of the case against him and be afforded a full and fair opportunity to respond. Finally, in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India[21] the Supreme Court held that the absence of due notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond would vitiate any holding to the rightsholder’s detriment.

The Intermediary Guidelines fail to satisfy the requirement of natural justice, and particularly the rights to prior notice as well as that of the affected party to a hearing:

By requiring that content be taken down swiftly (within 36 hours of complaint, under Rule 3 (4)) and by failing to require the author of the content to be informed of the complaint and its contents, the Intermediary Guidelines violate the author’s right to notice and consequently affect his/her right to prepare and present a defence at all. In practice, authors of content which is the subject of a complaint may never know of the complaint or even of the fact of the take down, given the absence of any mechanism under the rules by which they could have been informed. In a scheme for silent, invisible censorship, authors are never afforded an opportunity to challenge the take down, just as they have no opportunity to rebut the initial complaint. In addition, at any event, it is the intermediary, a biased private entity whose immunity under Section 79 of the IT Act could be called into question based on the outcome, who must make the determination as to the legality of the content.

While there is nothing to prohibit intermediaries from informing authors on the receipt of a complaint, the limited time within which action must be taken means that such intermediaries would risk liability for non-compliance with the compliant and a waiver of their Section 79 immunity, where the content is not taken down, whether because communication does not occur within the 36 hour timeframe or because an author elects to resist takedown. By creating a system in which takedowns necessarily occur in response to complaints, irrespective of their legitimacy, the Intermediary Guidelines presume and rule in favour of the complainants and in favour of (private) censorship instead of presuming in favour of the preservation of the fundamental right to free speech, or even maintaining neutrality between the two ends.

Compatibility with Article 14

The guarantee of “equal protection of laws” requires equality of treatment of persons who are similarly situated, without discrimination inter se. It is a corollary that that persons differently situated cannot be treated alike. In E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu[22] the Supreme Court held that arbitrary or unfair actions necessarily run counter to Article 14. The Supreme Court explained in M/S Sharma Transport v. Government of Andhra Pradesh[23] that arbitrary actions are actions which are unreasonable, non-rational done capriciously or without adequate determining principle, reason or in accordance with due judgment. In addition, Article 14 also requires that state action be reasonable. In Mahesh Chandra v. Regional Manager, U.P. Financial Corporation[24] it was held that discretion must be exercised objectively, and that what is not fair or just will be unreasonable, and subject to being struck down as unconstitutional.Additionally, Article 14 also requires that the basis upon which classifications are undertaken for the purposes of same or differential treatment be reasoned and fair. The Supreme Court held in Sube Singh v. State of Haryana[25] that the state’s failure to support a classification on the touchstone of reasonability, with the existence of intelligible differentia or the rational basis of achieving a stated object, will be ground for it to be held arbitrary and unreasonable. Finally, all state action having the potential to curtail Article 14 must be reasonable, justifiable, undertaken in exercise of constitutional powers and be informed and guided by public interest. The Supreme Court held to this effect in Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kashmir[26].

The Intermediary Guidelines contravene Article 14 on the following grounds:

First, intermediaries who are not similarly situated are treated alike. Rule 2 (i) imports the IT Act’s omnibus definition of the term “intermediary”, such that all classes of intermediaries, ranging from intermediaries which control the architecture of the internet and the hardware which enables it to run (such as ISPs and DNS providers) to intermediaries that enable content creation, sharing and communications online (such as email clients, content aggregators, social networking services and content hosts), are empowered to censor and are required to comply with complaints regarding content. Intermediaries, for the purposes of the IT Act and the Intermediary Guidelines, thus refer to a large and disparate group of providers of services enabling access to as well as use of the Internet. Reasoned state action must recognize that their liabilities must necessarily vary with the specific type of service that each provides. The Intermediary Guidelines fail to do so, and are consequently incompatible with Article 14.

Second, the Intermediary Guidelines treat the same or similar content across media differently, without apparent justification. More specifically, users of the internet are unfairly discriminated against. All of the Rule 3 (2) grounds which are not explicitly mentioned in Article 19 (2) in particular reflect this discriminatory, unreasoned treatment. To illustrate, the prohibition under Rule 3 (2) on the display of any content online when it relates to gambling treats speakers using the internet differently from speakers communicating this content via any other medium of communication. Given that nothing in the nature of the medium itself attaches a new or different character to the content, criminality or liability must attach to such content in a medium-neutral fashion. So, while content qualifying as seditious under law remains so across media, whether it be print, audio or video broadcast or online, the same as not the case for communications on the internet. In other words, while gambling itself may be prohibited under law, speech or expression involving it is nowhere prohibited under law. While such content is legal and protected across print and broadcasting media, the same content is liable to take down online. This would amount to discriminatory treatment of equal content merely because speakers choose the internet, and the speech occurred online.

Third, the Intermediary Guidelines accord unrestrained discretion in the curtailment of fundamental rights to private functionaries, without any guidance whatsoever. This should have been the sole reserve of the state. In addition to the lack of guidance, the breadth of the grounds for censorship in Rule 3 (2), some of which are themselves incapable of precise and non-subjective application, means that private censorship can occur to an arguably unlimited degree. Expecting compliance with such terms, and attaching liability (for intermediaries) or a curtailment of fundamental rights (for generators of content), without the provision of a right to challenge or even, more fundamentally, be informed is both unreasonable and arbitrary.

Similarly, Rules 3 (4) and 3 (5) empower intermediaries to take down content without providing any realistic opportunity of hearing to its author. Intermediaries are accorded an adjudicatory role to the intermediary in deciding questions whether or not authors can access their fundamental right to free speech in the process. This role is ordinarily reserved for competent courts or administrative authorities, which are subject to constitutional checks and balances and a general obligation to preserve and promote fundamental rights. Assigning such functions to a self-interested private entity without any accountability whatsoever is both unreasonable as well as arbitrary.

Finally, the Intermediary Guidelines fail to account for the public interest because they directly restrict the public’s freedom of speech and expression, without any justifiable reason, and privilege the personal and not necessarily constitutional sensitivities of private complainants instead. Rule 3(3) in effect vests an extraordinary power of censorship in intermediaries, entities which operate on the basis of private interest and outside the limits of administrative or even the most basic human rights control. Safeguards must apply to power-bearers to the degree and in the manner required in relation to the nature of the power, rather than its holder, if fundamental rights are to be legislatively preserved. While the Supreme Court in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India[27] extended the applicability of natural justice principles from judicial bodies alone and quasi-judicial bodies to administrative bodies as well, the applicability of such principles still remains limited to state entities. In other words, there is an acknowledged difficulty in applying public law standards to private, commercial entities.

The Intermediary Guidelines thus vest the right to abridge core fundamental rights (under Articles 14, 19 and 21) in private delegates operating outside public law controls that constrain the scope in which the power can be exercised and ensure that citizen interest can be preserved. In the alternative, they also failed to provide for other safeguards to prevent abuse to the detriment of fundamental rights private delegates of governmental power, even as they granted such powers in unlimited terms. As a result, the Intermediary Guidelines evidence thoughtless, arbitrary, unreasoned and unjust state action.

Vires vis á vis the Parent Act

While it is permissible within the constitutional scheme for legislative functions of the Parliament to be delegated to a degree, they may be struck down on several grounds. In general, per Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India,[28] subordinate legislation can be challenged not only on any of grounds on which the parent legislation is vulnerable to challenge, but also on the grounds that it does not conform to parent statute, that it is contrary to other statutes or that it is unreasonable, in the sense that it is manifestly arbitrary. Notably, the Court also held here that subordinate legislation is liable to being struck down where it fails to conform to constitutional requirements, or, specifically that “it offends Article 14 or Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution”.

It is a well-accepted proposition that delegated legislation which travels outside the scope of its enabling law will not stand as valid. It was held in Agricultural Market Committee v. Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd [29] that a delegate cannot alter the scope of the act under which it has been it has been empowered to make rules, or even of a provision or principle included there under. In State of Karnataka v. Ganesh Kamath[30] the Supreme Court held that “it is a well settled principle of interpretation of statutes that the conferment of rule-making power by an Act does not enable the rule-making authority to make a rule which travels beyond the scope of the enabling Act or which is inconsistent there with or repugnant thereto”. Similarly, in KSEB v. Indian Aluminium Company[31], it held that“subordinate legislation cannot be said to be valid unless it is within the scope of the rule making power provided in the statute”.

The Intermediary Guidelines were enacted under Sections 79(2) and 87(2)(zg) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (as amended). While the latter provision explicitly grants the Central Government rule-making powers by which it can lay out guidelines to be followed by intermediaries in order to comply with Section 79(2), it appears that the rules in their current form appear to have been drafted based on a misunderstanding of Section 79.

Section 79(2) itself merely clarifies the circumstances in which intermediaries can claim that intermediaries are not liable for content where they do not initiate the transmission of potentially actionable content or select its recipient, modify its contents and observe all necessary “due diligence” requirements under the IT Act and rules.

The extent to which the Intermediary Guidelines alter the intent and scope of section 79 (or other provisions of the IT Act, in some cases) clearly leaves them ultra vires the parent statute. The specific instances of deviation by the Intermediary Guidelines from the IT Act are listed below:

First, Rule 3 (3) is ultra vires section 79 of the IT Act. Where this rule expressly prohibits the hosting, publication or initiation of transmission of content described in Rule 3 (2), section 79 does not intend any prohibition. All that it does is to waive the immunity otherwise accorded to intermediaries where the conditions specified are not satisfied. In other words, the section is optional, rather than mandatory and punitive: whether or not an intermediary can claim immunity will depend on whether it chooses to comply with section 79 (2).

Second, Rule 3 (4) requires intermediaries to take steps to disable access to within 36 hours of receiving a complaint in relation thereto. This is inconsistent with section 69B of the IT Act, which lays down in detail, the procedure to be followed to disable access to information. Since section 69B is statutory law, Rule 3 (4), being mere delegated legislation, will have to yield in its favour.

Third, Rule 3 (7) is ultra vires sections 69 and 69B, and falls outside the scope of section 79 (2). Rule 3 (7) provides that intermediaries must comply with requests for information or assistance when required to do so by appropriate authorities. This provision has no relation to the contents of section 79, which regulates intermediaries’ liability for content, and under which these rules were notified. In addition, rules have already been issued under the properly relevant sections, namely sections 69 and 69B, to provide a procedure to be followed by the government for the interception, monitoring, and decryption of information held by intermediaries. Rule 3 (7) is not consistent with the rules under sections 69 and 69B, as it removes all safeguards that those rules included. Under the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring, and Decryption) Rules 2009, for instance, permission must be obtained from the competent authority before an intermediary can be directed to provide access to its records and facilities while Rule 3 (7) makes intermediaries answerable to virtually any request from any government agency.

[1]. Rule 3 (2) (a).

[2]. Rule 3 (2) (d).

[3]. Rule 3 (2) (b)

[4]. Section 499, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“Defamation” is defined to include both written and spoken words).

[5]. AIR 1950 SC 124.

[6]. AIR 1958 SC 578.

[7]. AIR 1995 SC 1236.

[8].(2007) 1 SCC 170.

[9]. AIR 1973 SC 106.

[10]. (2011) 8 SCC 372.

[11]. AIR 1962 SC 305, ¶31.

[12]. Supra, n.5.

[13]. Centre for Internet & Society, Intermediary Liability in India: Chilling Effects on Free Expression on the Internet 2011 available at cis-india.org/internet-governance/chilling-effects-on-free-expression-on-internet/intermediary-liability-in-india.pdf.

[14]. UN Document no. A/HRC/17/27.

[15]. UN Document no. A/HRC/20/.13.

[16]. AIR 1997 SC 3011.

[17]. AIR 1997 SC 568.

[18]. (2005) 1 SCC 496.

[19]. 1978 SCR (2) 621.

[20]. AIR 1985 SC 1416.

[21]. AIR 1999 SC 2583.

[22]. AIR 1974 SC 555.

[23]. AIR 2002 SC 322.

[24]. AIR 1993 SC 935.

[25]. (2001) 7 SCC 545, 548, ¶10.

[26].1980 AIR 1992.

[27]. AIR 1970 SC 150.

[28]. AIR 1986 SC 515.

[29]. AIR 1997 SC 2502.

[30]. (1983) 2 SCC 40.

[31]. AIR 1976 SC 1031.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/constitutional-analysis-of-intermediaries-guidelines-rules

Internet Censorship: Anonymous Can’t be Just Harmful Hackers

nishant — 2012-08-06T06:56:50Z

If there was ever an interesting time for people concerned with freedom of speech and expression to live in, it is now, and it is definitely in India. It has been a series of battles the last couple of years, where a slightly out-dated government machinery has been trying to control and contain the burgeoning online spaces, only to be put in their place by the new-age tech-ninjas that have risen as the new heroes in our digital times.

Nishant Shah's column was published in the First Post on July 13, 2012

We might not have had our Wikileaks moment in India yet, but the recent consolidation of resources by civic hacker groups and a public outrage against top-down blocking of everyday webspaces have steadily and surely put the questions of censorship and freedom on our minds.

The protests have taken many forms – from civic action routes of campaigns and petitions by civil society and non-governmental organisations to guerrilla warfare in the shape of distributed denial of service attacks and hacking of government websites.

Anonymous must be more than just a hacker group: AP	A lot of these efforts have found popular interest and media attention, but they haven’t always found a solid ground for negotiation and dialogue with the policy makers and legislators designing this information regime. However, after the first off-line mobilisation of protests by Anonymous in India, the government has had to face the fact that the clicktivist users are not going to remain passive, merely venting their discontent on their blogs and social networking spaces. With the sustained and systemic attacks on government, public and corporate websites, revealing sensitive information and taking down web resources the new hackers have shown that they mean business. In a recent attack, Anonymous hacked the Tamil Nadu police’s websites and revealed information about the complaints people have made and the actions taken on them.

Anonymous must be more than just a hacker group: AP

A lot of these efforts have found popular interest and media attention, but they haven’t always found a solid ground for negotiation and dialogue with the policy makers and legislators designing this information regime. However, after the first off-line mobilisation of protests by Anonymous in India, the government has had to face the fact that the clicktivist users are not going to remain passive, merely venting their discontent on their blogs and social networking spaces.

With the sustained and systemic attacks on government, public and corporate websites, revealing sensitive information and taking down web resources the new hackers have shown that they mean business. In a recent attack, Anonymous hacked the Tamil Nadu police’s websites and revealed information about the complaints people have made and the actions taken on them.

They leaked the document under their Twitter handle ‘opindia_revenge’ to show the police inaction. The documents have redacted some information but it has also revealed personally identified data about the people involved, without taking into consideration that it might affect the people involved in the cases adversely. Acts like these have the cybercrime bureau now tracking down the attackers and taking the help of Internet Service Providers and other intermediaries to punish those responsible.

What the outcomes of this battle are going to be, will eventually change the ways in which our digital publics shape up. Given the lack of resistance that ISPs have shown in the past, when pressed for private information on suspicious users, the chances are that we might soon have a public spectacles of hacker-criminals. Looking at the past bungles in this arena, one also hopes that it will not be yet another instance of mixed up administration leading to wrong and misplaced prosecution.

But more than anything else, one hopes that the attackers, who have seen their protests as a part of their civic action and right to protest and demonstrate, have been wise enough to protect themselves because they are going to be tracked and tried as criminals if they are caught.

Much can be said about the nature of civic hacking, and much has already been said, heralding them as code warriors and berating them as a public nuisance. But in all that cacophony, we might need to separate the ideology (constitutional rights, free speech and expression) from the tactics (DDoS, hacking, parking on websites) and see what interests they eventually serve.

Because even as my heart sings with these sounds of protests, there is a growing alarm that these seemingly radical guerrilla warfare might actually be more counter-productive than helpful to the cause of building an open and inclusive internet.

Over the last years, many civil society and citizen collectives have realised that policies and regulation are more a dialogue than open warfare. Polarising ourselves on an axis of ‘good versus bad’, at the end of the day, only leads to more regulation and draconian measures because it makes the state feel under threat. Considerable energy has gone into building a culture of public policy consultations and dialogue that allows for different stakeholders to work towards a collective future of the internet.

And so we come back to the question of whose interest gets served in the spate of these attacks? This is the same question that haunts us when we hear about our favourite political parties taking to destroying public property and blocking public infrastructure. It is the question that resurfaces when you realise that you might agree with the politics but the tactics are actually harming what you think is important.

In the case of the Anonymous attacks, it unfortunately seems more bravado and aspiration to radical heroism than a sustained and strategic set of interventions. With this particular act they seemed to have not only hurt the people on whose behalf they are fighting, but also given the government more reasons and plausible excuses to exercise more regulation and control over the digital technologies.

The attacks are a bold move to put the questions of censorship into public discourse, and force the state to acknowledge the problems with its governance. But it would be great to see if we can build on these energies and momentum and lead to a more sustained engagement with the political questions at stake, so at to construct a larger movement to protect our rights to free speech and expression that is beyond the world of ad-hoc hacking and random acts of protest.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/internet-censorship

Overview and Concerns Regarding the Indian Draft DNA Profiling Act

GeneWatch UK & the Council for Responsible Genetics, US — 2012-07-11T11:30:38Z

The Indian Code of Criminal Procedure was amended in 2005 to enable the collection of a host of medical details from accused persons upon their arrest. Section 53 of the Cr.PC provides that upon arrest, an accused person may be subjected to a medical examination if there are “reasonable grounds for believing” that such examination will afford evidence as to the crime.

The scope of this examination was expanded in 2005 to include “the examination of blood, blood-stains, semen, swabs in case of sexual offences, sputum and sweat, hair samples and finger nail clippings by the use of modern and scientific techniques including DNA profiling and such other tests which the registered medical practitioner thinks necessary in a particular case.”

In Thogorani Alias K. Damayanti v. State of Orissa and Ors, 2004 Cri. LJ 4003 (Ori), the Orissa High Court affirmed the legality of ordering a DNA test in criminal cases to ascertain the involvement of persons accused. Refusal to cooperate would result in an adverse inference drawn against the accused.

After weighing the privacy concerns involved, the court laid down the following considerations as relevant before the DNA test could be ordered: “(i) the extent to which the accused may have participated in the commission of the crime; (ii) the gravity of the offence and the circumstances in which it is committed; (iii) age, physical and mental health of the accused to the extent they are known; (iv) whether there are less intrusive and practical ways of collecting evidence tending to confirm or disprove the involvement of the accused in the crime; (v) the reasons, if any, for the accused for refusing consent.” Id.

In brief, the 2007 draft DNA Profiling Bill (hereinafter “Bill”) pending before parliament attempts to create an ambitious centralized DNA bank that would store DNA records of virtually anyone who comes within any proximity to the criminal justice system. Specifically, records are maintained of suspects, offenders, missing persons and “volunteers.” The schedule to the Bill contains an expansive list of both civil and criminal cases where DNA data can be collected including cases of abortion, paternity suits and organ transplant. In all fairness, the Bill contains provisions limiting access to and use of information contained in the database, and provides for the deletion of a person’s DNA profile upon their acquittal.

2007 Draft DNA Profiling Bill

Preamble (§ 1)

Section 1 of the Bill sets out the broad policy objectives of its drafters. The most telling portion of § 1 states: “[DNA analysis] makes it possible to determine whether the source of origin of one body substance is identical to that of another, and further to establish the biological relationship, if any, between two individuals, living or dead without any doubt.” Bill, § 1 (emphasis added). Although it later makes mention of potential harms resulting from governmental misuse of genetic information technology, it is evident that the policy animating the Bill presupposes the objective infallibility of genetic analysis. This patent mistruth underpins the policy rationale for the Bill, and as such casts a long shadow over its substantive provisions. At the very least, it tells the reader (and perhaps one day the court) to broadly interpret the Bill’s language to favor DNA analysis as the privileged solution to investigational and prosecutorial needs.

Definitions (§ 2)

A number of the Bill’s definitions are overbroad, further expanding the scope of its later provisions. The “crime scene index” is defined to include “DNA profiles from forensic material found . . . on or within the body of any person, on anything, or at any place, associated with the commission of a specified offence.” Id., § 2(1)(vii) et seq. A “specified offence” is defined as any of a number of more serious crimes, “or any other offence specified in the Schedule [to the Bill].” The so-called “Schedule,” tucked neatly on page 34 of the Bill’s 35 pages, lists a hodgepodge of various crimes from rape, to “offences relating to dowry,” defamation, and “unnatural 3 offenses.”[1] Taken together, the government is empowered to conduct genetic testing on almost anyone in any way connected with even minor infractions of the criminal law.

Furthermore, the crucial term “suspect” is defined as anyone “suspected of having committed an offence.” Id., § 2(1)(xxxvi). By intentionally leaving out the qualifier “specified,” the drafters’ intent is plain: to sweep within the Bill’s breadth all persons suspected of any crime whatsoever. And, accordingly, the Bill defines the “suspects index” to include “DNA profiles derived from forensic material lawfully taken from suspects.” Id., § 2(1)(xxxvix). It is hard to imagine anybody of subsequent regulation that could adequately circumscribe this manifest affront to personal privacy and bodily integrity.

DNA Profiling Board (§§3 to 13)

The DNA Profiling Board (hereinafter “Board”) is responsible for administering and overseeing the Indian DNA database. §3 et seq. Among its several enumerated powers, the Board is charged with “recommend[ing] privacy protection statutes, regulations and practices relating to access to, or use of stored DNA samples or DNA analyses,” as well as “mak[ing] specific recommendations to . . . ensure the appropriate use and dissemination of DNA information [and] take any other necessary steps require to be taken to protect privacy.” §13(1)(xv) to (xvi). This provision is in lieu of any substantive principle limiting the scope of the legislation, which the bill otherwise lacks.

This is a significant omission. As expressed in the preamble, the stated purpose of the Bill is “to enhance protection of people in the society and [the] administration of justice.” §1. Taken alone, this expresses only the government’s interest in the legislation, suggesting an ambiguously wide scope for its provisions. A substantive concept of individual privacy is required to counterbalance the interests of the government and provide protections for the equally vital privacy interests of the individual. As such, a limiting privacy principle should be included alongside the expressing in §1 of the government’s security interest. Without it, the Board will effectively have carte blanche with regard to what privacy protections are—or are not—adopted.

Approval of Laboratories (§§14 to 18)

Sections 14 to 18 provide for the approval by the DNA Profiling Board of DNA laboratories that will process and analyze genetic material for eventual inclusion on the DNA database. Under §14, all laboratories must be approved in writing prior to processing or analyzing any genetic material. However, a conflicting provision appears in the next section, §15(2), which permits DNA laboratories in existence at the time the legislation is enacted to process or analyze DNA samples immediately, without first obtaining approval.

Either an oversight on the part of the drafters, or the product of overly-vague language, the result is that established genetic laboratories—including whatever genetic material or profiles they may already have for whatever reason—are in effect “grandfathered” into the system. The only review of these laboratories is the post hoc approval of the laboratory by the DNA profiling board. The potential for abuse and error that this conflict of provisions would be best addressed in keeping with the rule articulated in §14, i.e. correcting the language of §15(2) that allows for laboratories to be “grandfathered” into the system.

Standards, Obligations of DNA Laboratory (§§19 to 28)

Chapter V, which concerns the obligations of and the standards to be observed by approved DNA laboratories, lacks adequate administrative provisions. For example, §22 requires that labs ensure “adequate security” to minimize contamination without providing for accountability in the event of contamination. Similarly, §28 provides for audits of DNA laboratories only, withholding from similar scrutiny of the DNA Profiling Board itself.

National DNA Database (§§33 to 37)

In addition on one national DNA database, the Bill sanctions the several Indian states to maintain their own DNA databases, provided these state-level databases forward copies of their content to the national database. Id., § 33(3). The national database is envisioned to comprise several sub-databases, each to contain the genetic information of a subset of persons/samples, namely: (1) unidentified crime scene samples, (2) samples taken from suspects, (3) samples taken from persons convicted or currently subject to prosecution for “subject offences,” (4) samples associated with missing persons, (5) samples taken from unidentified bodies, (6) samples taken from “volunteers,”[3] and finally (7) samples taken for reasons “as may be specified by regulations. Id., § 33(4) et seq. Putting to one side the breadth of persons subject to inclusion under subcategories (1) through (6), subsection (7) appears on its face to be a “catch all” provision, leaving one only to guess at the circumstances under which its specificities may be promulgated. Id.

A close reading of § 33(6) strongly suggests that the agency [4]conducting conducting the forensic analyses and populating the DNA database shall retain the DNA samples thereafter. This section reads in relevant part:

The DNA Data Bank shall contain . . . the following information, namely: (i) in the case of a profile in the offenders index, the identity of the person from whose body substance or body substances the profile was derived, and (ii) in case of all other profiles, the case reference number of the investigation associated with the body substance or body substances from which the profile was derived. Id., § 33(6).

Rather than choose to link the DNA profile data to a specific offender or case, the drafters of the Bill instead like the “body substance or body substances” with that specific offender or case. Whether sloppy drafting or clever nuance, this provision elides the DNA profile with the DNA sample, injecting unneeded—and potentially harmful—ambiguity into the proposed law.

Confidentiality, Access to DNA Profiles, Samples, and Records (§§ 38-44)

Further compounding this ambiguity, § 36 entitled “Access to Information” opens the door to much more than DNA profiles alone being kept on the government database. In all three of its subsections it purports to govern access to “the information” contained in the database, not “the DNA profiles” contained in the database. Id., § 36(1) et seq. Subsection 2 employs even broader language, covering “the information in the offenders’ index pertaining to a convict.” Id. Taken at face value, this provision of the Bill suggests that any and all sort of “information . . . pertaining to a convict” that might be derived from his or her DNA can be stored on the database. Even if prudential oversight provisions elsewhere in the Bill suggests a tightly-controlled techno-forensic apparatus, the overbroad construction of provisions such as §§ 33 and 36 raise significant questions about the wisdom of enacting the text in this form.

Two further provisions regarding access to the database warrant close scrutiny. First, §§ 39 and 40 purport to confer upon the police direct access to all of the information contained in the national DNA database. While administratively expedient, this arrangement opens up the possibility for misuse. A more prudent system would place the Board (or some administrative subordinate portion thereof) between the police and the content of the DNA database, with the latter having to make specific and particular requests to the former. This would minimize the risks inherent in the more expansive model of database access the bill currently envisions.

Second, and more concerning, § 41 permits the Data Bank Manager to grant access to the database to “any person or class of persons that the Data Bank Manager considers appropriate.” This is a sweeping provision. It vests in one individual the ability to permit almost anyone access to the DNA database—without administrative review or oversight of any kind. Taken together with the general lack of administrative safeguards in the bill, § 41 again places the government’s interest in investigating crime far above individual privacy rights.

Omissions

Most notably, the bill specifically excludes a private cause of action for the unlawful collection of DNA, or for the unlawful storage of private information on the national DNA database. Nor does the bill grant an individual right to review one’s personal data contained on the database. Without these two key features, there is effectively no check against the unlawful collection, analysis, and storage of private genetic information on the database.

Best Practices Analysis

Collection of DNA

With consent: only for a specific investigation (e.g. from a victim or for elimination purposes). Volunteers should not have information entered on a database	No provision
Without consent: only from persons suspected of a crime for which DNA evidence is directly relevant i.e. a crime scene sample exists or is likely to exist. Or, broader categories?	No provision
Requirement for an order by a court? Or allowed in other circumstances?	No provision
Samples collected by police officers, or only medical professionals? Must take place in a secure location i.e. not on the street etc.	No provision
Provision of information for all persons from whom DNA is taken	No provision
Crime scenes should be promptly examined if DNA evidence is likely to be relevant, and quality assurance procedures must protect against contamination of evidence	No provision; regulated at discretion of DNA Profiling Board

Analysis of DNA

Should take place only in laboratories with quality assurance	Regulated at discretion of DNA Profiling Board
Laboratories should be independent of police	No provision; regulated at discretion of DNA Profiling Board
Profiling standards must be sufficient to minimise false matches occurring by chance. This must take account of increased likelihood of false matches in transboundary searches, and with relatives.	No provision; regulated at discretion of DNA Profiling Board

Storage of DNA

Data from convicted persons should be separate from others e.g. missing persons’ databases	Unclear
Access to databases and samples must be restricted and there must be an independent and transparent system of governance, with regular information published e.g. annual reports, minutes of oversight meetings	Access to database at discretion of DNA Data Bank Manager
Personal identification information should not be sent with samples to laboratories	No provision; regulated at discretion of DNA Profiling Board
Any transfer of data e.g. from police station to lab or database, must be secure	No provision; regulated at discretion of DNA Profiling Board

User Samples and Data

Research uses should be restricted to anonymised verification of database performance (e.g. checking false matches etc.). Third party access to data for such purposes should be allowed, provided public information on research projects is published. There should be an ethics board.	No provision
Research uses for other purposes e.g. health research, behavioural research should not be allowed.	No provision
Uses should be restricted by law to solving crimes or identifying dead bodies/body parts. Identification of a person is not an acceptable use. Missing persons databases (if they exist) should be separate from police databases.	Ambiguous provisions suggest much wider scope
Familial searching should be restricted e.g. ordered by a court? Or not used? Or regulated for use in special cases?	No provision

Destruction of DNA and Linked Datas

DNA samples should be destroyed once the DNA profiles needed for identification purposes have been obtained from them, allowing for sufficient time for quality assurance, e.g. six months	DNA samples are retained
An automatic removals process is required for deletion of data from innocent persons. This must take place within a reasonable time of acquittal etc.	No provision
There should be limits on retention of DNA profiles from persons convicted of minor crimes	No provision
There should be an appeals process against retention of data	No provision
Linked data on other databases (e.g. police record of arrest, fingerprints) should be deleted at the same time as DNA database records	No provision
Crime scene DNA evidence should be retained for as long as a reinvestigation might be needed (including to address miscarriages of justice)	DNA evidence permitted to be retained indefinitely

Use in Court

Individuals must have a right to have a second sample taken from them and reanalysed as a check	No provision
Individuals must have a right to obtain re-analysis of crime scene forensic evidence in the event of appeal	No provision
Expert evidence and statistics must not misrepresent the role and value of the DNA evidence in relation to the crime	No provision

Other

Relevant safeguards must be proscribed by law and there should be appropriate penalties for abuse	No provision
Impacts on children and other vulnerable persons (e.g. mentally ill) must be considered	No provision
Potential for racial bias must be minimised	No provision

[1]. No examples are given as to which unnatural offences are intended, leaving the reader wondering. Perhaps a DNA test of witchcraft?
[2]. Section 15(2) does mandate that such laboratories petition the DNA Profiling Board for approval within six months after the legislation is enacted.
[3].Per § (2)(1)(xxxxiii) of the Definitions, a “volunteer” is “a person who volunteers to undergo a DNA procedure.” The definition does not require that the “volunteer” be informed of the nature, purpose, or possible consequences of his generosity; nor is any such requirement specified elsewhere in the Bill.
[4].Or, as is laid out in great detail in §§ 14-32, at the privately-contracted forensics laboratory.

Note: § is a symbol for 'section'.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/indian-draft-dna-profiling-act

An all-nighter for hackers

praskrishna — 2012-08-06T10:59:09Z

Tech event management firm HasGeek is back with its Hacknight for hackers and developers willing to burn the proverbial midnight oil writing some competitive code.

An all-nighter for hackers

Tech event management firm HasGeek is back with its Hacknight for hackers and developers willing to burn the proverbial midnight oil writing some competitive code.

The Hacknight will be held between July 14 and 15, from 2 p.m. to 8 a.m. at the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), in Bangalore, and simultaneously in Pune, at AmiWorks.

The Data Hacknight was open to geeks, enthusiasts, designers, mathematicians and statisticians to work with different datasets on projects ranging from discovering unknown patterns in data to representing data in various visual forms. This event was being held in the run-up to a larger conference on big data, analytics and applications called The Fifth Elephant.

The Hacknight was also open to individuals who want to work with tools such as R, Pig, Excel or even Hadoop to discover the possibilities and challenges of working with data, a release from HasGeek stated.

To register for the Hacknight, visit http://beta.hacknight.in/fifthelephant/bangalore2012

Yahoo sets up Grid Computing Lab

Yahoo India’s Research and Development wing and the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras announced the launch of a Grid Computing Lab set up by the Internet major on the institute campus.

This cluster of high-end servers at the lab would allow researchers to access Web-scale data and conduct research on big data and cloud computing systems, a release from Yahoo stated. The lab would focus on this emerging field and encourage more researchers to take up research in the field, as well as process and analyse huge volumes of structured and unstructured data which, to date, has been limited due to significant cost barriers in getting large computing systems operational.

D. Janakiram, Department of Computer Science, IIT-Madras, said in a release: “This opens up a new arena of exciting opportunities for our students. We are hopeful such partnerships will allow students to conduct truly breakthrough work on cloud computing and data storage systems, ultimately leading to Web innovations coming to the marketplace.”

World Class Award for iGate

iGATE, an integrated technology and operations company, announced that it has won the ‘World Class Award’ under the ‘large service organisations’ category at the Global Performance Excellence Awards (GPEA).

The awards were administered by the Asia Pacific Quality Organisation, a non-profit group, a release from iGate stated. Ravi Mani, senior vice-president, Organisational Excellence Group, iGATE, said the award was a testimony to the persistent effort the teams have put in to achieve the high-quality standards and processes at iGATE.

Cloud and growth: a survey

Over the last two years, the public cloud market in India has rapidly evolved with focus on software and payments as a service, a survey by Zinnov, a consulting firm, has found.

A study titled ‘Public Cloud Opportunity in India’ found that the overall Indian market for cloud (both public and private) grew steadily in 2011. The Software as a Service (SaaS) market, largely dominated by email, collaboration tools and enterprise resource products grew by 46 per cent, a release on the survey stated.

The public cloud market was expected to grow 55 per cent in the near future and become a default choice for new IT investments, especially in the small and medium businesses segment, the study observed.

The article was published in the Hindu on July 11, 2012

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/all-night-for-hackers

Privacy Matters — Medical Privacy

natasha — 2012-07-10T13:41:26Z

On June 30, 2012, Privacy India in partnership with the Indian Network for People living with HIV/AIDS, Centre for Internet & Society, IDRC, Society in Action Group, with support from London-based Privacy International, held a public discussion on "Medical Privacy" at the Yashwantrao Chavan Academy of Development Administration.

The conversation brought together a cross section of citizens, lawyers, activists, researchers, academia and students.

	Prashant Iyengar, Assistant Professor, Jindal Law University, opened the conference with an explanation of Privacy India’s mandate to raise awareness, spark civil action and promote democratic dialogue around privacy challenges and violations in India. He summarized the series of ten consultations previously organized across India: Identity & Privacy, Kolkata, January 23, 2011 Internet & Privacy, Bangalore, February 5, 2011 National Security & Privacy, Ahmedabad, March 26, 2011 Transparency & Privacy, Guwahati, June 23, 2011 Telecommunication & Privacy, Chennai, August 6, 2011 Analyzing the Right to Privacy Bill, Mumbai, January 21, 2012 The High Level Privacy Conclave, New Delhi, February 3, 2012 The All India Privacy Symposium, New Delhi, February 4, 2012 Freedom of Expression & Privacy, Goa, June 2, 2012 Securing e-Governance, Ahmedabad, June 16, 2012

Prashant Iyengar, Assistant Professor, Jindal Law University, opened the conference with an explanation of Privacy India’s mandate to raise awareness, spark civil action and promote democratic dialogue around privacy challenges and violations in India. He summarized the series of ten consultations previously organized across India:

Identity & Privacy, Kolkata, January 23, 2011
Internet & Privacy, Bangalore, February 5, 2011
National Security & Privacy, Ahmedabad, March 26, 2011
Transparency & Privacy, Guwahati, June 23, 2011
Telecommunication & Privacy, Chennai, August 6, 2011
Analyzing the Right to Privacy Bill, Mumbai, January 21, 2012
The High Level Privacy Conclave, New Delhi, February 3, 2012
The All India Privacy Symposium, New Delhi, February 4, 2012
Freedom of Expression & Privacy, Goa, June 2, 2012
Securing e-Governance, Ahmedabad, June 16, 2012

Elonnai Hickok, a member of Privacy India, introduced the draft book Privacy in India: A Policy Guide that Privacy India has been compiling. Focusing on the draft chapter, Medical Privacy, she provided examples of legislation and policy containing safeguards to privacy such as Medical Council of India's Code of Ethics Regulations 2002, and pointed out legislation with missing safeguards such as in the Mental Health Act of 1987. Additionally, she gave many examples of projects being implemented in India that impact health privacy including Save the Baby Girl Project, the Mother and Child Tracking System, the UID, and a cloud based system known as Health Hiway.

Elonnai Hickok, a member of Privacy India, introduced the draft book Privacy in India: A Policy Guide that Privacy India has been compiling. Focusing on the draft chapter, Medical Privacy, she provided examples of legislation and policy containing safeguards to privacy such as Medical Council of India's Code of Ethics Regulations 2002, and pointed out legislation with missing safeguards such as in the Mental Health Act of 1987. Additionally, she gave many examples of projects being implemented in India that impact health privacy including Save the Baby Girl Project, the Mother and Child Tracking System, the UID, and a cloud based system known as Health Hiway.

Medical Privacy in India

	Dr. Dharmesh Lal, MBBS, DHA, MD, DNB, DVLDP, Officiating Dean, IIHMR, Delhi, discussed the correlation between medical privacy and confidentiality. Medical Privacy involves the confidentiality of patient-provider encounters, along with the secrecy and security of information memorialized in physical, electronic and graphic records created as a consequence of patient-provider encounters. Confidentiality involves restricting information to persons belonging to a set of specifically authorized recipients.

Dr. Dharmesh Lal, MBBS, DHA, MD, DNB, DVLDP, Officiating Dean, IIHMR, Delhi, discussed the correlation between medical privacy and confidentiality. Medical Privacy involves the confidentiality of patient-provider encounters, along with the secrecy and security of information memorialized in physical, electronic and graphic records created as a consequence of patient-provider encounters. Confidentiality involves restricting information to persons belonging to a set of specifically authorized recipients.

He went on to explain that limited financial resources in public hospitals often preclude the separate examination of one patient at a time. “In Government hospitals, large numbers of patients congregate in the doctors office,” he says. Privacy is also related to a patient's financial status and decreases as one goes down the socio-economic ladder.

Additionally, he described the privacy concerns that arise due to infrastructural constraints. India's healthcare infrastructure has not kept up with the development of government health initiatives. For examples, the Janani Suraksha Yojana (JSY) initiative was launched in 2005, under the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM). JSY was implemented with the objective of reducing maternal and neo-natal mortality by promoting institutional delivery among the Poor Pregnant Woman. Financial incentives were provided to mothers. There was a phenomenal increase of institutional delivery. However, there was no proportional increase in infrastructure.

He called for a change in medical education, administration and management, stating, “Privacy protection has to be established as a core value that connects organizational culture. Alarmingly, medical curriculum in India does not have formal component on medical privacy, significant curriculum reforms in undergraduate medical teaching is necessary.

Medical Privacy- Legal Aspects

Mr. Pandit, Advocate, Pandit law Office, discussed the Hippocratic oath, which includes the duty of the caregiver to ‘keep secret’ and ‘never reveal’ ‘all that may come to my knowledge’. In other words, right to medical privacy has to be balanced with right to healthy life of another whose right will be affected unless such information is disclosed to her/him. He described the code of conduct prescribed by Indian Medical Council to its members, as a guideline to be followed is intended to preserve protect and uphold dignity of profession. Physicians should merit the confidence of patients entrusted to their care, rendering to each a full measure of service & devotion.

Mr. Pandit, Advocate, Pandit law Office, discussed the Hippocratic oath, which includes the duty of the caregiver to ‘keep secret’ and ‘never reveal’ ‘all that may come to my knowledge’. In other words, right to medical privacy has to be balanced with right to healthy life of another whose right will be affected unless such information is disclosed to her/him.

He described the code of conduct prescribed by Indian Medical Council to its members, as a guideline to be followed is intended to preserve protect and uphold dignity of profession. Physicians should merit the confidence of patients entrusted to their care, rendering to each a full measure of service & devotion.

Referring to the Dr.Tokugha Yepthomi Vs Appollo Hospital Enterprises Ltd & Anr. III case, he described the Supreme Court’s verdict on the ‘Right to Life’.

The “Right to life” would positively include the right to be told that a person, with whom she was proposed to be married, was a victim of deadly disease, which was sexually communicable, since right of life includes right to lead a healthy life. Moreover where there is a clash of two fundamental rights, The RIGHT which would advance the public morality or public interest, would alone be enforced through the process of Court.

He concluded by asserting that there is considerable force in the argument that there is a need for a comprehensive legislation to protect the interest of poor patients and ordinary citizens who cannot afford to initiate a protracted legal battle to protect their medical privacy.

Supreme Court views on Medical Negligence

	Professor K. Elumalai, Director, School of law, IGNOU, provided numerous Supreme Court verdicts on medical negligence cases. He summarized the cases and discussed their salient features. He discussed the manner in which a Medical professional can be prosecuted for medical negligence under criminal law. It must be shown that the accused did something or failed to do something which in the given facts and circumstances, no medical professional in his ordinary senses and prudence would have done or failed to do.

Professor K. Elumalai, Director, School of law, IGNOU, provided numerous Supreme Court verdicts on medical negligence cases. He summarized the cases and discussed their salient features. He discussed the manner in which a Medical professional can be prosecuted for medical negligence under criminal law. It must be shown that the accused did something or failed to do something which in the given facts and circumstances, no medical professional in his ordinary senses and prudence would have done or failed to do.

Confidentiality and privacy in medical Settigs vis-a-vis PLHIV

Ms. Nitu Sanadhya, Senior Legal Officer, Lawyers Collective, HIV/ AIDS Unit, stressed the importance of a rights-based approach and integrationist legal response to the HIV epidemic. When legislations or policies discriminate or isolate persons living with HIV, for example, through mandatory testing and breach of confidentiality, it drives the epidemic underground.

In India, there is no comprehensive law on HIV. In 2007, the National Aids Control Organization (NACO) released the Operational Guidelines for Integrated Counseling and Testing Centres. She described the salient features of the guideline especially focusing on the privacy provisions. She described the various situations that permit a health practitioner to disclose the HIV status of a patient to a partner and/ or third party. Discriminatory practices that arise out of a breach or confidentiality or privacy violation include stigmatization, denial of access to treatment, loss of employment, etc.

In India, there is no comprehensive law on HIV. In 2007, the National Aids Control Organization (NACO) released the Operational Guidelines for Integrated Counseling and Testing Centres. She described the salient features of the guideline especially focusing on the privacy provisions. She described the various situations that permit a health practitioner to disclose the HIV status of a patient to a partner and/ or third party.

Discriminatory practices that arise out of a breach or confidentiality or privacy violation include stigmatization, denial of access to treatment, loss of employment, etc.

Under the RTI Act, A person’s HIV status is confidential and is protected in law and can only be disclosed to a third person in limited circumstances. The RTI Act specifically exempts the disclosure of personal information which is not of public interest; information which would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy; and information which has been received in a fiduciary capacity. Therefore, The RTI Act 2005 cannot be used to obtain a person’s HIV report.

Privacy in Practice

	Dr. Anand Philip, Personal Physician at NationWide Primary Healthcare Service Pvt. Ltd., drew from his personal experiences. During his presentation he emphasized how privacy is important, but it is clear that privacy does not happen the way it is theorized by. In fact there are many dichotomies in what we believe privacy is and how it is used. He pointed out that we often take for granted why privacy matters and where it comes from. He discussed how without patient autonomy and patient dignity, privacy cannot

Dr. Anand Philip, Personal Physician at NationWide Primary Healthcare Service Pvt. Ltd., drew from his personal experiences. During his presentation he emphasized how privacy is important, but it is clear that privacy does not happen the way it is theorized by. In fact there are many dichotomies in what we believe privacy is and how it is used. He pointed out that we often take for granted why privacy matters and where it comes from. He discussed how without patient autonomy and patient dignity, privacy cannot

be upheld. Yet, one sees a constant breach of people’s dignities in the medical system. Some people rationalize this violation of dignity by explaining that in India, doctors are used to people who have nothing and thus, dignity is not important. Yet, he argued, dignity is something that is inherent. The lack of dignity practiced in India's medical system shows a problem with how we are trained. Giving an example of how dignity is breached in India, Dr. Philip referred to two people being treated on the same table. He pointed out that the physical aspects of privacy are non-existent. For example, the WHO recommends five feet between beds, but typically two or three feet exist between hospital beds. Furthermore, there are often no curtains in hospitals. He then moved from physical privacy to information physical. In a hospital information flows in all directions, it is not a controlled environment and the patient does not choose who sees his/her information – the hospital decided. Dr. Philip then talked about training. The health care system encompasses a larger team of people from doctors to sweepers. Training is only given to clinical staff. Thus other aspects such as the Indian culture, infrastructure, and training all impact how privacy is carried out in the medical field. In conclusion Dr. Philip re-stated that privacy is a byproduct of autonomy and dignity. He noted that offering a patient dignity was a critical step that must be taken by service providers. Closing his presentation, he challenged the audience with the following questions: Considering how autonomy is not important, how do we reach people with the idea? Since physical privacy is key to other forms of privacy, how do we take it more seriously? What can we do about the medical team's approach to privacy?

Best Practices of Medical Privacy in Various Health Settings

	Sriram Lakshmanan, Head Information Security, UnitedHealth Group Information Systems, spoke about the US health-care market touching on medicare, medicaid, employer-sponsored insurance, and individual insurance plans. He also commented on the EU regime pointing out that most of the laws in the EU have a long list of identifiers indicating when your information counts as being compromised. Canada PIPEDA, is very strict and protects health privacy. In his opinion, the IT Act caters to many aspects of privacy. He also touched upon the eight OECD Privacy Principles and

Sriram Lakshmanan, Head Information Security, UnitedHealth Group Information Systems, spoke about the US health-care market touching on medicare, medicaid, employer-sponsored insurance, and individual insurance plans. He also commented on the EU regime pointing out that most of the laws in the EU have a long list of identifiers indicating when your information counts as being compromised. Canada PIPEDA, is very strict and protects health privacy. In his opinion, the IT Act caters to many aspects of privacy. He also touched upon the eight OECD Privacy Principles and

how they can be adopted for the Indian scenario. A few of the principles included collection limitation principle, data quality principle, purpose specification principle, use limitation principle. For example, if health information for treating malaria is collected, than that information should only be used for that purpose. Closing his presentation, he noted that most of the technologies that we use today for health run on IT, and thus can be used to compromise individual or hospital wide information.

Epidemics and Privacy

Dr. Rajib Dasgupta, Assistant Professor, Center of Social Medicine and Community Heath at Jawaharlal Nehru University, examined conflicts of issues of privacy, confidentiality and the role of the state in the context of epidemics and the provisions within the Epidemic Diseases Act. Epidemics are population-level events in contrast to illnesses that only involve individuals; therein lies the uniqueness of the intersection between medical privacy and public health ethics. The state has unique responsibilities to detect, diagnose, manage and control epidemics. This has local/regional and international ramifications. Also linked to these are limits to the powers, rights of individuals and the extent to which such rights may need to be suspended.

Dr. Rajib Dasgupta, Assistant Professor, Center of Social Medicine and Community Heath at Jawaharlal Nehru University, examined conflicts of issues of privacy, confidentiality and the role of the state in the context of epidemics and the provisions within the Epidemic Diseases Act. Epidemics are population-level events in contrast to illnesses that only involve individuals; therein lies the uniqueness of the intersection between medical privacy and public health ethics. The state has unique responsibilities to detect, diagnose, manage and control epidemics. This has local/regional and international ramifications. Also linked to these are limits to the powers, rights of individuals and the extent to which such rights may need to be suspended.

The exercise of actions within the Act is not necessarily bereft of infringement of privacy and overt discrimination. Certain diseases, as indeed limitations imposed by the state, have elements of stigma that further confound the fuzziness of this debate.

When an epidemic occurs, the need for privacy in the mind of the individual goes down, as they are concerned solely with receiving treatment. He also pointed out that there are contradictory elements during epidemics. For instance an area might not want to be named as having an outbreak of a disease, but at the same time individuals will line up outside hospitals for treatment, exposing the fact that they have the disease. He also spoke about how steps taken to address epidemics can invade privacy. For example, during the SARS outbreak, it was the practice to put the patient in an infectious disease hospital. This was invasive to personal privacy as it created stigma and discrimination. Closing his presentation he explained how the conventional notions of privacy do not necessary hold in the case of epidemics because it is an emergency outbreak. Thus, protocol is established on a case-to-case basis. Despite this he believes that it is possible and valuable to protect privacy in cases of epidemics.

HIV/ AIDS and Privacy

	KK Abraham, President of Indian Network for People Living with HIV/AIDS, described how privacy could be understood as a luxury, in some cases it can be understood as a right, and in other cases it is understood of responsibility. Regarding HIV patients, Mr. Abraham emphasized the need for privacy to be understood as a right. Mr. Abraham also pointed out that as trends are changing in India, and more services are becoming available, that this is the right time to talk about privacy. Closing his presentation Mr. Abraham called for a greater understanding of patients' privacy needs and the negative effect of stigma.

KK Abraham, President of Indian Network for People Living with HIV/AIDS, described how privacy could be understood as a luxury, in some cases it can be understood as a right, and in other cases it is understood of responsibility. Regarding HIV patients, Mr. Abraham emphasized the need for privacy to be understood as a right. Mr. Abraham also pointed out that as trends are changing in India, and more services are becoming available, that this is the right time to talk about privacy. Closing his presentation Mr. Abraham called for a greater understanding of patients' privacy needs and the negative effect of stigma.

HIPPA with reference to Applicability to Patient Privacy and Clinical Data Confidentiality in India

Dr. Lavanian Dorairaj, MD, CEO at HCIT Consultants, described how IT is a powerful tool for health care, despite the fact that health care has been hesitant to use IT. He explained that IT can help reduce errors in health care; it can help increase accessibility of patient data, improve diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis. Healthcare IT has great advantages but needs to be handled with great responsibility. He also pointed out that IT can lead to privacy violations if inappropriate access to patient records takes place. He argued that though India has recognized the need for privacy, it still needs to find a way to implement privacy protections and police the implementation of the guidelines. Drawing on examples from HIPPA, he argued that India would benefit from establishing privacy standards and security standards for health information. He explained further that HIPPA is a flexible rule, which obligates relevant entities to comply. The Rule is designed to be flexible. Entities regulated by the rules are obligated to comply.

Dr. Lavanian Dorairaj, MD, CEO at HCIT Consultants, described how IT is a powerful tool for health care, despite the fact that health care has been hesitant to use IT. He explained that IT can help reduce errors in health care; it can help increase accessibility of patient data, improve diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis. Healthcare IT has great advantages but needs to be handled with great responsibility. He also pointed out that IT can lead to privacy violations if inappropriate access to patient records takes place. He argued that though India has recognized the need for privacy, it still needs to find a way to implement privacy protections and police the implementation of the guidelines. Drawing on examples from HIPPA, he argued that India would benefit from establishing privacy standards and security standards for health information. He explained further that HIPPA is a flexible rule, which obligates relevant entities to comply. The Rule is designed to be flexible. Entities regulated by the rules are obligated to comply.

Presentations

Click to download the presentation files. [Zip files, 2184 Kb]

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/medical-privacy-conference-report