We are anonymous, we are legion

Twenty-five distinguished experts appointed to Global Commission on Internet Governance’s Research Advisory Network

praskrishna — 2014-04-03T07:20:24Z

Twenty-five distinguished scholars and internationally recognized experts have been appointed to the Global Commission on Internet Governance’s (GCIG) new Research Advisory Network (RAN).

Sunil Abraham is one the 25 experts appointed to the Global Commission on Internet Governance’s Research Advisory Network. Read the original published by the Global Commission on Internet Governance here.

The Global Commission is a two-year initiative launched in January 2014, by the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) and Chatham House. Chaired by Sweden’s Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, the commission will produce a comprehensive stand on the future of multi-stakeholder Internet governance.

The commission’s RAN, led by CIGI Senior Fellow Laura DeNardis, will assist in identifying and prioritizing Internet governance and Internet policy related issues within the commission’s mandate. Members of the RAN will provide expert briefings to the members of the commission and conduct research and analysis for the commission’s preparatory work and final report.

“The research advisory network will be an indispensable component of the Global Commission on Internet Governance,” said Fen Osler Hampson, co-director of the commission and director of CIGI’s Global Security & Politics program. “Under the direction of Laura DeNardis, the RAN will be of great benefit to this initiative’s critical analysis and findings. I’m grateful that these experts have agreed to participate.”

The twenty-five member network consists of:

Sunil Abraham
Izumi Aizu
Peng Hwa Ang
Subimal Bhattacharjee
David Clark
Sadie Creese
Leslie Daigle
Oleg Demidov
William Dutton
Lorraine Eden
Laurent Elder
Patrik Fältström
Tobias Feakin
Urs Gasser
Clem Herman
Jeanette Hofmann
Konstantinos Komaitis
Ronaldo Lemos
Meryem Marzouki
Carolina Rossini
Michael Schmitt
Emily Taylor
Rolf H. Weber
Andrew Wyckoff
Christopher S. Yoo

Additional RAN members will be confirmed over time. For more information on the GCIG, including its twenty-nine commissioners and twenty-five research advisers, please visit: www.ourinternet.org. Follow the commission on Twitter @OurInternetGCIG.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/25-experts-appointed-to-global-commission-on-ig-research-advisory-network

Tweets with "IGF13"

pranesh — 2013-10-28T06:29:42Z

Tweets with "IGF13".

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/20131021T090102_igf13

Tweets from the afterlife

praskrishna — 2017-06-06T12:46:06Z

What happens to the digital legacy that celebrities leave behind after they die. Heena Khandelwal asks if their families must inherit their digital assets or can social media managers stake a claim.

The article by Heena Khandelwal was published by DNA on May 28, 2017.

Famous personalities and celebrities with millions of followers on social media platforms enjoy the stature comparable to high-value brands. Their Facebook posts, tweets and Instagram images not only have the potential to influence society but often become fodder for news, online discussions and even prime time debates. But have you paused to wonder what happens to their social media accounts in the event of their death? What becomes of the huge bank of online data that they leave behind? Do these digital assets naturally pass onto the next of kin, to the digital platform or to a third party that managed the said account/s in the first place?

While these are not new questions, the tussle over the social media accounts of former president late Dr APJ Abdul Kalam between his family and Kalam's former aide who managed his social media affairs, has thrown the issue under the spotlight. Nearly two years after Kalam's sudden demise, his family and Srijan Pal Singh find themselves on the opposing sides. It all started when Singh began handling Kalam's Twitter and Facebook accounts after his death on July 27, 2015. When the family sought the account details, stating their rights over Kalam's digital assets, Singh changed the username and the handle of his verified Twitter account from @apjabdulkalam to @KalamCentre. At the time of Kalam's death, his verified Twitter account (@apjabdulkalam) had nearly 1.5 million followers and 886 tweets. When this was renamed to @KalamCentre, it stopped being a 'verified' handle. Singh did not hand over the details of this account to the family but the details of a new Twitter account that he'd created with the same handle, @apjabdulkalam, which had barely 50 followers. Incidentally, Kalam's original Twitter account had 829 tweets (at the time of going to press), implying that some of Kalam's tweets have been deleted since his death. Regarding Kalam's Facebook page (Facebook.com/kalamcentre), Singh maintains that its username has always been Kalam Centre and that it doesn't belong to the family.

"These are digital assets of a former President of India. He (Singh) is changing the legacy by changing the name and handle of his Twitter account," says Kalam's grandnephew APJMJ Sheik Dawood, insisting that the account details should be given to the family. "Everybody was following Kalam and not anything or anybody else. He shouldn't have changed the name or handle."

Singh contends that since he was the one who created and managed Kalam's social media presence, he has sole rights over these assets. "Dr Kalam's social media accounts were started to spread the message about his ideologies. I am here to continue his mission... whoever handles his accounts should be in sync with his ideologies," says the 32-year-old. "I practically lived with him in the same house in the last few years of his life and was very close to him. I understood him."

Trust in times of tweets

Ask if his actions tantamount to misleading Kalam's followers and the public at large, Singh is dismissive. "On March 18, 2017, we informed our (Kalam Centre) users of the name change through a tweet, and so it is up to them to follow who they like. There are already plenty of fan pages and other accounts running in his name," says Singh.

Even as he defends his position, the fact that he was using Kalam's verified account for nearly 20 months after his demise can be seen as a breach of the right of reputation. "Posting or tweeting on behalf of a deceased person is breaching their right of reputation," says Chinmayi Arun, executive director, Centre for Communication Governance (CCG) at National Law University, Delhi. Third party agents, according to Arun, should refrain from impersonating their principals in the same manner that secretaries and administrators refrain from impersonating their employers. "In case of an individual's demise, the agents are expected to handover everything to the heirs and this should also apply to digital accounts," she says.

On its part, Twitter India refused to comment when contacted and pointed this reporter to the site's support page on deceased or incapacitated users. The micro-blogging site makes it clear on its website that it does not provide account access to anyone regardless of their relationship with the deceased person, and added that "this policy is about deactivating accounts, not transferring ownership of accounts".

Emails to Facebook India's corporate communication head remained unanswered. The social networking site states on its pages that it neither approves the inheritance of a user's account nor permits using an account following a user's demise. Instagram lists a similar policy and states that an account can be memoralised or removed after the user's demise.

Black, white & grey

While social networking sites' policies clearly mention that an individual user account should be operated by the person him/herself, it is common knowledge that celebrities often outsource the management of their social media accounts to digital and social media agencies or to a select team under their direct watch. They too tread nebulous waters. Digital marketing agency, EveryMedia Technologies, which manages celebrity accounts, states that although there is no clause regarding the protocol to be followed in the case of a client's death, they would do as per the social platform's guidelines after due consent from the family. "Our contracts do not have a clause that states the way forward in case of demise of the account holder and we hope such a day doesn't come," says Gautam B Thakker, CEO, EveryMedia Technologies. "In the event of such an unfortunate incident, the standard operating procedure would be to convert the account into a legacy account and memorialise it for fans and well-wishers or to deactivate and close it — whatever the social platforms' and the client's family permits."

Daksh Juneja says of Avignyata Inc specifies that the work is based on strict contracts, which never mention the course of action to be taken in case of the personality's death. "There is no contractual obligation towards the IPR rights for a celebratory client on both sides but it's important to share the access of the social media pages with the person's manager or a family member," says Juneja, the chief operating officer of the Mumbai-based digital agency, which handles social media accounts of Bollywood celebrities and sportsmen.

Supreme Court advocate and an expert in cyber law, Pavan Duggal, points out that the terms and conditions of social networking sites aren't clear. "Deactivating accounts can amount to loss of data, which can be used for reference and research. I think more clarity is required," says Duggal. "When a person has an account, only he/she should access it. However, if a person has an agent, then (in the case of death), the principle of agent applies."

Courtside view

Given the reluctance of social media platforms to engage and the lack of clarity as highlighted in the case of Kalam's accounts points to several questions — from handing over the digital accounts, intellectual property rights, right to reputation as well as unambiguous policies by service providers. Taking about Kalam's accounts, Duggal feels his family is the rightful legal heir to his digital assets. "The family should approach the court and file a case against Singh under the Information Technology Act and under IPC section 408 — criminal breach of trust," he says. "They can also reach out to service providers, and if they don't co-operate, they too can be sued under the IT Act."

Duggal strongly believes that "if a person has died without specifying, then his/her digital presence or accounts being a digital property, should be treated as movable assets and should pass on to the legal heir or representatives of the deceased person rather than to an NGO".

According to Sunil Abraham, executive director at Centre for Internet and Society, Twitter India should help settle the Kalam case using its existing policy. "And if there is no space for a legacy contact, they might consider resetting the password so that nobody has access to it and then they can memorialise the account," says Abraham. "Social media accounts are increasingly being enumerated under digital assets in wills. Once the asset has been transferred to the heir, the heir can choose to transfer the account to another person or organisation for their services in maintaining the account. While this is not explicitly provided for in the law, there is no prohibition either."

WHEN THEY DIED...

Among the eminent personalities whose social media accounts continue to be operational after their demise are anti-apartheid leader and former president of South Africa Nelson Mandela, pop star Michael Jackson and boxing legend Muhammad Ali.

While Mandela's account has been turned into a foundation, Ali's account states that it pays tribute to the boxing legend. Jackson's account mentions nothing about the fact that he died in 2009. Their Twitter and Facebook pages witness a tweet or a post every few days. Both Jackson and Ali also have verified accounts on Instagram; their photos are posted every now and then.

Among the celebrities whose accounts have been left inactive are Bollywood actress Jiah Khan, television actress Pratyusha Banerjee and British singer-songwriter George Michael. While Khan's last tweet (on May 23, 2013) was an apology message for staying away from the social networking site, Michael had shared his song Heartbreak a day before Valentine's Day on February 12, 2016. Banerjee had tweeted '#prayforparis #prayfortheworld' on November 15, 2015, showing her support against the terrorist attack in Paris on November 13, 2015. This was her last tweet before she was found hanging in her apartment in Mumbai on April 1, 2016.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/dna-may-28-2017-heena-khandelwal-tweets-from-the-afterlife

Tweets and twits

praskrishna — 2012-08-25T07:45:43Z

The orders issued by the Ministry of Communication and IT to block more than 300 items on the Internet, including Twitter handles, Facebook pages, YouTube videos, blogposts, pages of certain websites, and in some cases entire websites, tell a revealing story of a government that has simply not applied its mind to the issue of how to deal with hate speech, both cyber and traditional.

Published in the Hindu on August 25, 2012. Pranesh Prakash's blog post is quoted.

There can be no argument against taking down material that can incite violence, and some of the targeted content rightly needed to be blocked. But this should have been done transparently, with judicial oversight. In the present case, it is not clear what laws have been invoked to block the items specified in the four orders issued from August 18 to 21. Certainly, the orders themselves do not make reference to any law. As pointed out by the Centre for Internet and Society (http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/analysing-blocked-sites-riots-communalism), if the government had acted under the Information Technology Act, the host servers of the affected sites should have been notified and given 48 hours to respond under the IT Rules of 2009; and if it used the emergency provision in the Rules, which are themselves opaque, the orders should have come up before an ‘examination of request’ committee within 48 hours. Another serious problem is that the orders do not mention the duration of the blocks.

Especially disturbing is the decision to block the Twitter handles of right-wing agitators and one pro-Hindutva journalist. Bad taste, warped logic and chauvinist comment do not, by themselves, add up to hate speech or criminal incitement. If an individual is really spreading hate through speech, print or the Internet, let the government proceed against him or her under the Indian Penal Code — where the courts will have the final word — rather than indulging in censorship that is pre-emptive and arbitrary. And mindless too: among the sites blocked is an anti-hate page on a Pakistani website which was one of the first to expose how fake photographs had been used to whip up Islamist passion on the Rakhine clashes in Myanmar. A London School of Economics-Guardian study of the 2011 London riots documents how Twitter was used extensively in a positive way, to organise community clean-up operations after the riots. On the other hand, their analysis of 2.5 million tweets showed, the response to messages inciting riots was ‘overwhelmingly negative’. The lesson from this is that it is possible to counter hate on social media through the same platform. This is really what the government should be doing, instead of the Sisyphean task of trying to block noxious content that will always find other ways of bubbling to the surface.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/www-thehindu-com-opinion-editorial-aug-25-2012-tweets-and-twits

Tweeple say it pithily with hash tags

praskrishna — 2012-02-13T05:06:10Z

Twitter best captures public irreverence to pomposity and the powers-that-be, writes Deepa Kurup in this article published in the Hindu on February 11, 2012. Nishant Shah is quoted in this article.

The Twitter world is divided into two kinds of people, those who are funny and those who try.

And nothing gets them going like a jolly controversy, particularly one that involves politicians — an easy target, always — and pornography. Of course, there's still them blogs and Facebook, but Twitter, with its sense of ‘right here, right now' (something that Facebook's Timeline tries to emulate) appears to be where every current event is made light of, ripped apart, hash-tagged and, of course, wildly re-tweeted.

Hash-Tag Bash

This week, for instance, it was all about the three Ministers from Karnataka who were caught watching porn on their phones in the Legislative Assembly when the House was in session. For at least two whole days, tweeple (people using Twitter) seemed to be gripped by what has been christened #PornGate (yes, every event these days is reduced to a single hash tag on Twitter).

So jokes ranged from the genuinely clever, funny and to the lame and obscene. Though many cannot be mentioned here in print, quite a few had to do with the ministers' state of mind and being, and even offered them advice on how to tide through these, ahem, hard times.

On Facebook, a space that doesn't stifle your creativity to 140 measly characters (for those who've been living under a rock for the past six years, that's the word limit for a single Tweet), there were more elaborate forms of humour such as morphed pictures, couplets and political satire.

The last time when social media in India went viral was the Shahrukh Khan-Shirish Kundar brawl (predictably, christened #SlapGate).

Does something about Twitter, or its format, inspire everyone to try their hand at humour? Perhaps, it's the brevity — the soul of wit, remember? —- that the platform demands. “It's also probably because it's difficult to be profound in 140 characters,” offers Nishant Shah, researcher at the Centre for Internet and Society, who tracks social media closely. Another factor could be what he calls the “gamification aesthetic” of web 2.0. “This is because our social networking sites and writing platforms are performances of a certain kind... they allow us to convert our everyday lives into games — with rewards, actions, punishments or rules.”

More Immediate

Ask Ramesh Srivats, a hugely funny ad man who's wildly popular on Twitter for his one-liners, and he believes that online humour, particularly so on Twitter, is fun because its immediate, more observational, real and allows people an opportunity to be irreverent.

There're no sacred cows here. And there's a certain mood that Twitter sets up, often depending on what's current; the rest is about timing. “Twitter doesn't allow you to analyse or discuss an issue… I'd rather do that on Facebook or elsewhere,” he explains. So is there pressure to say the next-most-funny thing on Twitter? “Of course not. If something comes to mind, I say it. It's just like a conversation among friends,” Mr. Srivats laughs.

Why not Facebook?

It's not that there aren't other forms of humour online — there are videos, blogs, Facebook pages and so on. There are indeed some incredibly humorous bloggers — many of them, however, have migrated to Twitter. But it's the mood that Twitter creates. Facebook, on the other hand, allows for more expression of angst, grief and even activism. Mr. Shah says that Facebook is to sadness what Twitter is to humour; perhaps, it is a more “nurturing and personalised space”.

The “gaming aesthetic” on Facebook, however, does exist with memes, videos, picture remixes and so on, he says. “But unlike Twitter, here the attempt is not to be merely humorous... banter on Facebook is about a post or an object, where as banter on Twitter is about the banter itself!

The original story was published in the Hindu

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/tweeple-say-it-pithily-with-hash-tags

TV versus Social Media: The Rights and Wrongs

sunil — 2013-01-21T03:09:56Z

For most ordinary Netizens, everyday speech on social media has as much impact as graffiti in a toilet, and therefore employing the 'principle of equivalence' will result in overregulation of new media.

Sunil Abraham's guest column was published in the Tribune on January 20, 2013.

Many in traditional media, especially television, look at social media with a mixture of envy and trepidation. They have been at the receiving end of various unsavoury characters online and consequently support regulation of social media. A common question asked by television anchors is "shouldn't they be subject to the same regulation as us?" This is because they employ the 'principle of equivalence', according to which speech that is illegal on broadcast media should also be illegal on social media and vice versa. According to this principle, criticising a bandh on national TV or in a newspaper op-ed or on social media should not result in jail time and, conversely, publishing obscene content, in either new or old media, should render you a guest of the state.

Given that Section 66-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, places more draconian and arguably unconstitutional limits on free speech when compared to the regulation of traditional and broadcast media, those in favour of civil liberties may be tempted to agree with the 'principle of equivalence' since that will mean a great improvement from status quo. However, we must remember that this compromise goes too far since potential for harm through social media is usually very limited when compared to traditional media, especially when it comes to hate speech, defamation and infringement of privacy. A Facebook update or 'like' or a tweet from an ordinary citizen usually passes completely unnoticed. On rare occasion, an expression on social media originating from an ordinary citizen goes viral and then the potential for harm increases dramatically. But since this is the fringe case we cannot design policy based on it. On the other hand, public persons (those occupying public office and those in public life), including television journalists, usually have tens and hundreds of thousands friends and followers on these social networks and, therefore, can more consistently cause harm through their speech online. For most ordinary Netizens, everyday speech on social media has as much impact as graffiti in a public or residential toilet and therefore employing the 'principle of equivalence' will result in overregulation of new media.

Ideally speech regulation should address the asymmetries in the global attention economy by constantly examining the potential for harm. This applies to both 'speech about' public persons and also 'speech by' them. Since 'speech about' public persons is necessary for transparent and accountable governance and public discourse, such speech must be regulated less than 'speech about' ordinary citizens. Let us understand this using two examples: One, a bunch of school kids referring to a classmate as an idiot on a social network is bullying, but citizens using the very same term to criticise a minister or television anchor must be permitted. Two, an ordinary citizen should be allowed to photograph or video-record the acts of a film or sports star at a public location and upload it to a social network, but this exception to the right of privacy based on public interest will not imply that the same ordinary citizen can publish photographs or videos of other ordinary citizens. Public scrutiny and criticism is part of the price to be paid for occupying public office or public life. If speech regulation is configured to prevent damage to the fragile egos of public persons, then it would have a chilling effect on many types of speech that are critical in a democracy and an open society.

When it comes to 'speech by' those in public office or in public life - given the greater potential for harm - they should be held more liable for their actions online. For example, an ordinary citizen with less than 100 followers causes very limited harm to the reputation of a particular person through a defamatory tweet. However, if the very same tweet is retweeted by a television anchor with millions of followers, there can be more severe damage to that particular person's reputation.

Many in television also wish to put an end to anonymous and pseudonymous speech online. They would readily agree with Nandan Nilekani's vision of tagging all - visits to the cyber cafe, purchases of broadband connections and SIM cards and, therefore, all activities from social media accounts with the UID number. I have been following coverage of the Aadhaar project for the past three years. Often I see a 'senior official from the UIDAI' make a controversial point. If anonymous speech is critical to protect India's identity project then surely it is an important form of speech. But, unlike the print media, which more regularly uses anonymous sources for their stories, television doesn't see clearly the connection between anonymous speech and free media. This is because many of the trolls that harass them online often hide behind pseudonymous identities. Television forgets that anonymous speech is at the very foundation of our democracy, i.e., the electoral ballot.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/sunday-tribune-january-20-2013-sunil-abraham-tv-vs-social-media

Turning off the internet: Chips with Everything podcast

Admin — 2019-09-26T02:09:18Z

Gurshabad Grover and Ambika Tandon recorded an episode with the Guardian's podcast on digital culture, called Chips with Everything.

The episode was on internet shutdowns in India, and can be found here. Ambika spoke about a book CIS published in collaboration with 101 Reporters last year on personal narratives of experiencing shutdowns, which can be found here. Gurshabad talked about the legal grounds through which shutdowns are imposed, possible routes of countering them, and the status of shutdowns in international law.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/guardian-september-3-2019-turning-off-the-internet

Trending Hate Against Muslims: Is Twitter Complicit?

Puja Bhattacharjee — 2019-10-23T00:54:41Z

Twitter claimed that it had ‘prevented’ the Hashtag while it had not.

The blog post by Puja Bhattacharjee was published in News Central on October 21, 2019. Pranesh Prakash was quoted in it.

In 2009, Twitter took down a trending hashtag. The hashtag in question started in South Africa and had the word “darkie” in it. That word is not a slur in South Africa, but it was used as a slur against the African Americans community in the USA. On receiving complaints, Twitter immediately removed that from trending topics though it was a clash of meanings between two different places.

On Sunday evening, a hashtag of more insidious nature was trending in India. The hashtag #मुस्लिमो_का_संपूर्ण_बहिष्कार, translated literally means “Total boycott of Muslims”. The incident is ominous given rising apprehension across the world that India is now in the grip of a violent form of Hindu Nationalism. The tweets in support of the hashtags were mostly from right-wing accounts, some of which not only called for the boycott of Muslims but also celebrated the persecution of Uighurs in China.

Speaking to NewsCentral24x7.com, a Twitter spokesperson claimed that it had ‘prevented’ the hashtag from trending: “There are Rules for trends and we have prevented this hashtag from trending as it is in violation of the Twitter Rules”. (Full statement at the end of the story)

However this was patently false since many users pointed out that the hashtag continued to trend even after Twitter’s statement. In Delhi, the hashtag continues to trend at number one. More disturbingly, as reported by The Wire some of the accounts tweeting in support of the hashtags are followed by the Prime Minister and several cabinet ministers.

Also Read: Need To Change Name To Save Myself From Sword Of Hate: Muslim Bureaucrat From M.P. On The Atmosphere Of Hate In Modi II

Pranesh Prakash, co-founder of Centre for Internet and Society, says that Twitter usually does not ban a hashtag. “They can remove it from trending and if people use it offensively, then they can ban that person or that tweet…. Twitter should put out a statement apologizing for and condemning this given they condemn white nationalists in the US.” he says.

The hashtag was started ostensibly in retaliation of the murder Kamlesh Tiwari, 45, the president of the Hindu Samaj Party. Over the weekend, the police arrested five people in connection to the murder.

However, Kamlesh Tiwari in his last Facebook Live video before his murder protested the removal of his security by the Yogi Adityanath government and trying to hatch a conspiracy to kill him. His mother echoed his sentiments and has come out to say that there is no communal angle to his murder.

The matter once again raises questions about the responsibility Big-Tech platforms like Twitter need to discharge in monitoring and combating hate speech. Many organizations in the USA, UK and Australia such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the Women, Action and the Media (WAM!), Online Hate Prevention Institute and Sentinel Groups for Genocide Prevention have become increasingly invested in combating hate speech online by targeting Internet intermediaries and asking them to take greater responsibility in moderating content, in addition to raising awareness among users.

An interactive map showing the trends of the hashtag from October 20 evening till October 21 morning in the sub-continent.

However, in India, the government’s proposed changes to Section 79 of the IT Act for restricting hate speech has led to fears of widespread censorship. The Internet Freedom Foundation published a comprehensive blog on why such an amendment is undesirable.

In a report released in 2017, the Law Commission of India recommended broadening the existing provisions of hate speech to include other criteria that are based on their gender and sexuality.

“It does not look at underlying reforms. Like understanding the link to violence and whether it should only be a provision which should apply to members of a minority community -linguistic, caste, religion,” says Apar Gupta, executive director, Internet Freedom Foundation

He says if lawmakers are unwilling to substantively tinker with definitions in a very real and substantial way, they should come up with procedural safeguards instead.

Twitter or any social media company has two levels of obligation – its own obligations towards its users which is under the terms of service contract under which it can proactively take down a speech if there is a violation of those standards. “They have a degree of discretion to do it as well. This is where most of the content takedowns happen which also results in a certain amount of criticism because they lack the consistency desired by people,” says Gupta.

The second level of compliance is when a legal notice is sent by a judicial or executive authority. If they do not comply, their online immunity from liability for the content posted by the user can be removed and they can be prosecuted as an accessory or abettor to the content published on their platform. “Twitter can block the hashtag but what we are looking for is a much more credible law enforcement response based on the content of each tweet,” Gupta adds.

In her book, HATE: Why We Should Resist it With Free Speech, Not Censorship by Nadine Strossen, the author argues that that censorial measures are ineffective and do not promote equality. Instead, Strossen, recommends forceful counter-speech and activism.

“In 2016, a report was issued about counterspeech on Twitter, coauthored by a group of scholars from the United States and Canada. The report, which included the first review of the “small body” of existing research about online counterspeech, concluded that hateful and other “extremist” speech was most effectively “undermined” by counterspeech rather than by removing it,” she writes.

Editors Note: The hashtag discussed above is absolutely horrifying and historically widespread calls for ‘boycott’ have preceded genocide. While on one hand we cannot allow hate speech to become an excuse for governments to curb non-harmful, legal speech, the censor or counter debate cannot be allowed to become a veil for big-tech to wash its hands off the matter. There is now significant reportage which shows that hate speech essentially benefits social media platforms and therefore they are unwilling to curb it. In this specific case the double standards twitter has displayed in being prompt in one country while unresponsive in other is also a very disturbing aspect.

Full statement by Twitter:

“At Twitter our singular goal is to improve the health of the public conversation, including ensuring the safety of people who use our service. As outlined in our Hateful Conduct Policy, we do not tolerate the abuse or harassment of people on the basis of religion. As per our Help Center, there are Rules for trends and we have prevented this hashtag from trending as it is in violation of the Twitter Rules. If people on Twitter see something that violates the Twitter Rules, the most important thing they can do is report it, by clicking the drop down arrow at the top of the Tweet and selecting “Report Tweet.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/news-central-october-21-2019-puja-bhattacharjee-trending-hate-against-muslims

Transparent Government, via Webcams in India

praskrishna — 2011-07-21T05:41:53Z

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, India — Little Brother is watching you. That is the premise for the webcam that a top government official here has installed in his office, as an anticorruption experiment. Goings-on in his chamber are viewable to the public, 24/7.

The chief minister of Kerala state in India has installed a webcam in his office and puts the feed online as an anticorruption measure.

In an India beset by kickback scandals at the highest reaches of government, and where petty bribes at police stations and motor vehicle departments are often considered a matter of course, Oommen Chandy is making an online stand.

"Instead of taking action against corruption, I believe that we have to create an atmosphere where everything should be in a transparent way," Mr. Chandy, who recently became chief minister of Kerala state after his coalition won a close election, said in an interview in his office. "The people must know everything."

About 100,000 visitors logged in to the video feed on the day it began, July 1. And through last Friday afternoon, it had been visited by 293,586 users.

The chief minister — equivalent to an American governor — gave the interview during a break in negotiations with leaders of the state’s private colleges over the fees they can charge students.

Although the proceedings were being streamed on his office’s Web site, as with everything captured by the webcam there was no audio. (The minister says he wants visitors and aides to speak freely when they meet him.)

Sunil Abraham, the executive director of the Center for Internet and Society in Bangalore, said he applauded Mr. Chandy’s webcams, even if the effort amounted to no more than tokenism.

"This type of tokenism is also quite useful," said Mr. Abraham, predicting it might check the behavior of not only the chief minister, but also his underlings and the powerful executives and politicians who come to visit him.

Of course, he noted, if people are intent on paying bribes, they could probably still do it outside the office.

Mr. Abraham said webcams might be a far more powerful tool if installed in police stations, drivers’ licenses offices, welfare agencies and other places where Indians interact with officials who sometimes demand bribes to do routine work. A few agencies around the country have started such surveillance, he said, but most have not.

Mr. Chandy’s effort comes as India has been racked by one corruption scandal after another. A former federal telecommunications minister is sitting in jail on charges that he gave cellphone licenses to favored companies, costing the government as much as $40 billion. Several corporate executives, an official involved in planning the Commonwealth Games and the scion of a political family are also behind bars while being tried on various corruption charges.

But transparency is tedious. For most of the day, as the videos stream from the Chandy chambers, the chief minister is either out of the office or sitting with aides and other politicians. The video from a second camera, trained on the outside chamber, shows aides at their desks answering phones or staring into their computer screens.

A career politician and a member of the ruling Congress party, Mr. Chandy, 67, had a webcam in his office when he was chief minister for two years from 2004 to 2006. But his successor, the leader of a communist coalition government, removed the device when he took over. Now in the opposition, the communists deride the webcams as a publicity stunt.

But others see virtue in such efforts, even if the details are still being refined.

In Bangalore, the top executive of a government-owned electricity utility has been using a webcam in his office. The official, P. Manivannan, said he was now installing a "hemispheric" camera that would capture the goings-on in his entire office rather than just show his visitors.

But he said he would no longer broadcast the video stream to the Web site of the Bangalore Electricity Supply Company.

"I have been getting a lot of brickbats because of the cameras,” Mr. Manivannan said in a telephone interview. "My colleagues were telling me, 'What are you trying to prove — that you are the only honest one?' "

Once the new camera is installed, Mr. Manivannan said it would record everything. But anyone interested in viewing segments of the video would have to request the clips, at no cost. That should ease tension in the office, he said, while still keeping things on the up and up.

He said he had success with a similar camera when he was in the city government and some politicians threatened to call a strike unless he reinstated a fired employee. The politicians backed off, Mr. Manivannan said, when he threatened to give a recording of their meeting to local television stations.

"I definitely believe that putting a camera helps you prove that you are accountable," he said. "I would be very happy if tomorrow the government of India decided you must have a camera."

A version of this article appeared in print on July 18, 2011, on page B3 of the New York edition with the headline: Transparent Government, Via Webcams in India.

This news by Vikas Bajaj was published in the New York Times on 17 July 2011. It can be read here. (Photo of Oommen Chandy, the Chief Minister of Kerala taken by Sanjit Das for the New York Times)

The above news was published in other languages as well:

Read the news in wprost here [Polish]
Read the news in ictnews here [Vietnamese]
Read the news in@rret sur images here [French]

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/transparent-government-india

Transparency Reports — A Glance on What Google and Facebook Tell about Government Data Requests

prachi — 2013-09-13T09:44:53Z

Transparency Reports are a step towards greater accountability but how efficacious are they really?

Prachi Arya examines the transparency reports released by tech giants with a special focus on user data requests made to Google and Facebook by Indian law enforcement agencies.

The research was conducted as part of the 'SAFEGUARDS' project that CIS is doing with Privacy International and IDRC.

According to a recent comScore Report India has now become the third largest internet user with nearly 74 million citizens on the Internet, falling just behind China and the United States. The report also reveals that Google is the preferred search engine for Indians and Facebook is the most popular social media website followed by LinkedIn and Twitter. While users posting their photos on Facebook can limit viewership through privacy settings, there isn’t much they can do against government seeking information on their profiles. All that can be said for sure in the post-Snowden world is that large-scale surveillance is a reality and the government wants it on their citizen’s online existence. In this Orwellian scenario, transparency reports provide a trickle of information on how much our government finds out about us.

The first transparency report was released by Google three years ago to provide an insight into ‘the scale and scope of government requests for censorship and data around the globe’. Since then the issuance of such reports is increasingly becoming a standard practice for tech giants. An Electronic Frontier Foundation Report reveals that major companies that have followed Google’s lead include Dropbox, LinkedIn, Microsoft and Twitter with Facebook and Yahoo! being the latest additions . Requests to Twitter and Microsoft from Indian law enforcement agencies were significantly less than requests to Facebook and Google. Twitter revealed that Indian law enforcement agencies made less than 10 requests, none of which resulted in sharing of user information. Out of the 418 requests made to Microsoft by India (excluding Skype), 88.5 per cent were complied with for non-content user data. The Yahoo! Transparency Report revealed that 6 countries surpassed India in terms of the number of user data requests. Indian agencies requested user data 1490 times from 2704 accounts for both content and non-content data and over 50 per cent of these requests were complied with.

The following is a compilation of what the latest transparency reports issued by Facebook and Google.

Google

"The information we share on the Transparency Report is just a sliver of what happens on the internet"
Susan Infantino, Legal Director for Google

Beginning from December 2009, Google has published several biannual transparency reports:

It discloses traffic data of Google services globally and statistics on removal requests received from copyright owners or governments as well as user data requests received from government agencies and courts. It also lays down the legal process required to be followed by government agencies seeking data.

There was a 90 per cent increment in the number of content removal requests received by Google from India. The requests complied with included:
- Restricting videos containing clips from the controversial movie “Innocence of Muslims” from view.
- Many YouTube videos and comments as well as some Blogger blog posts being restricted from local view for disrupting public order in relation to instability in North East India.
For User Data requests, the Google report details the number of user data requests and users/accounts as well as percentage of requests which were partially or completely complied with. In India the user data requests more than doubled from 1,061 in the July-December 2009 period to 2,431 in the July-December 2012 period. The compliance rate decreased from 79 per cent in the July-December 2010 period to 66 per cent in the last report.
Jurisdictions outside the United States can seek disclosure using Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties or any ‘other diplomatic and cooperative arrangement’. Google also provides information on a voluntary basis if requested following a valid legal process if the requests are in consonance with international norms, U.S. and the requesting countries' laws and Google’s policies.

Facebook

"We hope this report will be useful to our users in the ongoing debate about the proper standards for government requests for user information in official investigations."
Colin Stretch, Facebook General Counsel

Facebook inaugurated its first ever transparency report last Tuesday with a promise to continue releasing these reports.

The ‘Global Government Requests Report’ provides information on the number of requests received by the social media giant for user/account information by country and the percentage of requests it complied with. It also includes operational guidelines for law enforcement authorities.

The report covers the first six months of 2013, specifically till June 30. In this period India made 3,245 requests from 4,144 users/accounts and half of these requests were complied with.

Jurisdictions outside the United States can seek disclosure by way of mutual legal assistance treaties requests or letter rogatory. Legal requests can be in the form of search warrants, court orders or subpoena. The requests are usually made in furtherance of criminal investigations but no details about the nature of such investigations are provided.

Broad or vague requests are not processed. The requests are expected to include details of the law enforcement authority issuing the request and the identity of the user whose details are sought.

The Indian Regime

Section 69 and 69 B of the Information Technology (Amended) Act, 2008 prescribes the procedure and sets safeguards for the Indian Government to request user data from corporates. According to section 69, authorized officers can issue directions to intercept, monitor or decrypt information for the following reasons:

Sovereignty or integrity of India,
Defence of India,
Security of the state,
Friendly relations with foreign states,
Maintenance of public order,
Preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to the above, or
For investigation of any offence.

Section 69 B empowers authorized agencies to monitor and collect information for cyber security purposes, including ‘for identification, analysis and prevention of intrusion and spread of computer contaminants’. Additionally, there are rules under section 69 and 69 B that regulate interception under these provisions.

Information can also be requested through the Controller of Certifying Authority under section 28 of the IT Act which circumvents the stipulated procedure. If the request is not complied with then the intermediary may be penalized under section 44.

The Indian Government has been increasingly leaning towards greater control over online communications. In 2011, Yahoo! was slapped with a penalty of Rs. 11 lakh for not complying with a section 28 request, which called for email information of a person on the grounds of national security although the court subsequently stayed the Controller of Certifying Authorities' order. In the same year the government called for pre-screening user content by internet companies and social media sites to ensure deletion of ‘objectionable content’ before it was published. Similarly, the government has increasingly sought greater online censorship, using the Information Technology Act to arrest citizens for social media posts and comments and even emails criticizing the government.

What does this mean for Privacy?

The Google Transparency Report has thrown light on an increasing trend of governmental data requests on a yearly basis. The reports published by Google and Facebook reveal that the number of government requests from India is second only to the United States. Further, more than 50 per cent of the requests from India have led to disclosure by nearly all the companies surveyed in this post, with Twitter being the single exception.

Undeniably, transparency reports are important accountability mechanisms which reaffirm the company’s dedication towards protecting its user’s privacy. However, basic statistics and vague information cannot lift the veil on the full scope of surveillance. Even though Google’s report has steadily moved towards a more nuanced disclosure, it would only be meaningful if, inter alia, it included a break-up of the purpose behind the requests. Similarly, although Google has also included a general understanding of the legal process, more specifics need to be disclosed. For example, the report could provide statistics for notifications to indicate how often user’s under scrutiny are not notified. Such disclosures are important to enhance user understanding of when their data may be accessed and for what purposes, particularly without prior or retrospective intimation of the same. Till such time the report can provide comprehensive details about the kind of surveillance websites and internet services are subjected to, it will be of very limited use. Its greatest limitation, however, may lie beyond its scope.

The monitoring regime envisioned under the Information Technology Act effectively lays down an overly broad system which may easily lead to abuse of power. Further, the Indian Government has become infamous for their need to control websites and social media sites. Now, with the Indian Government’s plan for establishing the Central Monitoring System the need for intermediaries to conduct the interception may be done away with, giving the government unfettered access to user data, potentially rendering corporate transparency of data requests obsolete.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/what-google-and-facebook-tell-about-govt-data-requests

Transparency in Surveillance

vipul — 2016-01-23T15:11:18Z

Transparency is an essential need for any democracy to function effectively. It may not be the only requirement for the effective functioning of a democracy, but it is one of the most important principles which need to be adhered to in a democratic state.

Introduction

A democracy involves the state machinery being accountable to the citizens that it is supposed to serve, and for the citizens to be able to hold their state machinery accountable, they need accurate and adequate information regarding the activities of those that seek to govern them. However, in modern democracies it is often seen that those in governance often try to circumvent legal requirements of transparency and only pay lip service to this principle, while keeping their own functioning as opaque as possible.

This tendency to not give adequate information is very evident in the departments of the government which are concerned with surveillance, and merit can be found in the argument that all of the government's clandestine surveillance activities cannot be transparent otherwise they will cease to be "clandestine" and hence will be rendered ineffective. However, this argument is often misused as a shield by the government agencies to block the disclosure of all types of information about their activities, some of which may be essential to determine whether the current surveillance regime is working in an effective, ethical, and legal manner or not. It is this exploitation of the argument, which is often couched in the language of or coupled with concerns of national security, that this paper seeks to address while voicing the need for greater transparency in surveillance activities and structures.

In the first section the paper examines the need for transparency, and specifically deals with the requirement for transparency in surveillance. In the next part, the paper discusses the regulations governing telecom surveillance in India. The final part of the paper discusses possible steps that may be taken by the government in order to increase transparency in telecom surveillance while keeping in mind that the disclosure of such information should not make future surveillance ineffective.

Need for Transparency

In today's age where technology is all pervasive, the term "surveillance" has developed slightly sinister overtones, especially in the backdrop of the Edward Snowden fiasco. Indeed, there have been several independent scandals involving mass surveillance of people in general as well as illegal surveillance of specific individuals. The fear that the term surveillance now invokes, especially amongst those social and political activists who seek to challenge the status quo, is in part due to the secrecy surrounding the entire surveillance regime. Leaving aside what surveillance is carried out, upon whom, and when - the state actors are seldom willing and open to talk about how surveillance is carried out, how decisions regarding who and how to target, are reached, how agency budgets are allocated and spent, how effective surveillance actions were, etc. While there may be justified security based arguments to not disclose the full extent of the state's surveillance activities, however this cloak of secrecy may be used illegally and in an unauthorized manner to achieve ends more harmful to citizen rights than the maintenance of security and order in the society.

Surveillance and interception/collection of communications data can take place under different legal processes in different countries, ranging from court-ordered requests of specified data from telecommunications companies to broad executive requests sent under regimes or regulatory frameworks requiring the disclosure of information by telecom companies on a pro-active basis. However, it is an open secret that data collection often takes place without due process or under non-legal circumstances.

It is widely believed that transparency is a critical step towards the creation of mechanisms for increased accountability through which law enforcement and government agencies access communications data. It is the first step in the process of starting discussions and an informed public debate regarding how the state undertakes activities of surveillance, monitoring and interception of communications and data. Since 2010, a large number of ICT companies have begun to publish transparency reports on the extent that governments request their user data as well as requirements to remove content. However, governments themselves have not been very forthcoming in providing such detailed information on surveillance programs which is necessary for an informed debate on this issue.[1] Although some countries currently report limited information on their surveillance activities, e.g. the U.S. Department of Justice publishes an annual Wiretap Report (U.S. Courts, 2013a), and the United Kingdom publishes the Interception of Communications Commissioner Annual Report (May, 2013), which themselves do not present a complete picture, however even such limited measures are unheard of in a country such as India.

It is obvious that Governments can provide a greater level of transparency regarding the limits in place on the freedom of expression and privacy than transparency reports by individual companies. Company transparency reports can only illuminate the extent to which any one company receives requests and how that company responds to them. By contrast, government transparency reports can provide a much greater perspective on laws that can potentially restrict the freedom of expression or impact privacy by illustrating the full extent to which requests are made across the ICT industry. [2]

In India, the courts and the laws have traditionally recognized the need for transparency and derive it from the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed in our Constitution. This need coupled with a sustained campaign by various organizations finally fructified into the passage of the Right to Information Act, 2005, (RTI Act) which amongst other things also places an obligation on the sate to place its documents and records online so that the same may be freely available to the public. In light of this law guaranteeing the right to information, the citizens of India have the fundamental right to know what the Government is doing in their name. The free flow of information and ideas informs political growth and the freedom of speech and expression is the lifeblood of a healthy democracy, it acts as a safety valve. People are more ready to accept the decisions that go against them if they can in principle seem to influence them. The Supreme Court of India is of the view that the imparting of information about the working of the government on the one hand and its decision affecting the domestic and international trade and other activities on the other is necessary, and has imposed an obligation upon the authorities to disclose information.[3]

The Supreme Court, in Namit Sharma v. Union of India,[4] while discussing the importance of transparency and the right to information has held:

"The Right to Information was harnessed as a tool for promoting development; strengthening the democratic governance and effective delivery of socio-economic services. Acquisition of information and knowledge and its application have intense and pervasive impact on the process of taking informed decision, resulting in overall productivity gains .

……..

Government procedures and regulations shrouded in the veil of secrecy do not allow the litigants to know how their cases are being handled. They shy away from questioning the officers handling their cases because of the latters snobbish attitude. Right to information should be guaranteed and needs to be given real substance. In this regard, the Government must assume a major responsibility and mobilize skills to ensure flow of information to citizens. The traditional insistence on secrecy should be discarded."

Although these statements were made in the context of the RTI Act the principle which they try to illustrate can be understood as equally applicable to the field of state sponsored surveillance. Though Indian intelligence agencies are exempt from the RTI Act, it can be used to provide limited insight into the scope of governmental surveillance. This was demonstrated by the Software Freedom Law Centre, who discovered via RTI requests that approximately 7,500 - 9,000 interception orders are sent on a monthly basis.[5]

While it is true that transparency alone will not be able to eliminate the barriers to freedom of expression or harm to privacy resulting from overly broad surveillance,, transparency provides a window into the scope of current practices and additional measures are needed such as oversight and mechanisms for redress in cases of unlawful surveillance. Transparency offers a necessary first step, a foundation on which to examine current practices and contribute to a debate on human security and freedom.[6]

It is no secret that the current framework of surveillance in India is rife with malpractices of mass surveillance and instances of illegal surveillance. There have been a number of instances of illegal and/or unathorised surveillance in the past, the most scandalous and thus most well known is the incident where a woman IAS officer was placed under surveillance at the behest of Mr. Amit Shah who is currently the president of the ruling party in India purportedly on the instructions of the current prime minister Mr. Narendra Modi.[7] There are also a number of instances of private individuals indulging in illegal interception and surveillance; in the year 2005, it was reported that Anurag Singh, a private detective, along with some associates, intercepted the telephonic conversations of former Samajwadi Party leader Amar Singh. They allegedly contacted political leaders and media houses for selling the tapped telephonic conversation records. The interception was allegedly carried out by stealing the genuine government letters and forging and fabricating them to obtain permission to tap Amar Singh's telephonic conversations. [8] The same individual was also implicated for tapping the telephone of the current finance minister Mr. Arun Jaitely.[9]

It is therefore obvious that the status quo with regard to the surveillance mechanism in India needs to change, but this change has to be brought about in a manner so as to make state surveillance more accountable without compromising its effectiveness and addressing legitimate security concerns. Such changes cannot be brought about without an informed debate involving all stakeholders and actors associated with surveillance, however the basic minimum requirement for an "informed" debate is accurate and sufficient information about the subject matter of the debate. This information is severely lacking in the public domain when it comes to state surveillance activities - with most data points about state surveillance coming from news items or leaked information. Unless the state becomes more transparent and gives information about its surveillance activities and processes, an informed debate to challenge and strengthen the status quo for the betterment of all parties cannot be started.

Current State of Affairs

Surveillance laws in India are extremely varied and have been in existence since the colonial times, remnants of which are still being utilized by the various State Police forces. However in this age of technology the most important tools for surveillance exist in the digital space and it is for this reason that this paper shall focus on an analysis of surveillance through interception of telecommunications traffic, whether by tracking voice calls or data. The interception of telecommunications actually takes place under two different statutes, the Telegraph Act, 1885 (which deals with interception of calls) as well as the Information Technology Act, 2000 (which deals with interception of data).

Currently, the telecom surveillance is done as per the procedure prescribed in the Rules under the relevant sections of the two statutes mentioned above, viz. Rule 419A of the Telegraph Rules, 1951 for surveillance under the Telegraph Act, 1885 and the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption of Information) Rules, 2009 for surveillance under the Information Technology Act, 2000. These Rules put in place various checks and balances and try to ensure that there is a paper trail for every interception request. [10] The assumption is that the generation of a paper trail would reduce the number of unauthorized interception orders thus ensuring that the powers of interception are not misused. However, even though these checks and balances exist on paper as provided in the laws, there is not enough information in the public domain regarding the entire mechanism of interception for anyone to make a judgment on whether the system is working or not.

As mentioned earlier, currently the only sources of information on interception that are available in the public domain are through news reports and a handful of RTI requests which have been filed by various activists.[11] The only other institutionalized source of information on surveillance in India is the various transparency reports brought out by companies such as Google, Yahoo, Facebook, etc.

Indeed, Google was the first major corporation to publish a transparency report in 2010 and has been updating its report ever since. The latest data that is available for Google is for the period between January, 2015 to June, 2015 and in that period Google and Youtube together received 3,087 requests for data which asked for information on 4,829 user accounts from the Indian Government. Out of these requests Google only supplied information for 44% of the requests.[12] Although Google claims that they "review each request to make sure that it complies with both the spirit and the letter of the law, and we may refuse to produce information or try to narrow the request in some cases", it is not clear why Google rejected 56% of the requests. It may also be noted that the number of requests for information that Google received from India were the fifth highest amongst all the other countries on which information was given in the Transparency Report, after USA, Germany, France and the U.K.

Facebook's transparency report for the period between January, 2015 to June, 2015 reveals that Facebook received 5,115 requests from the Indian Government for 6,268 user accounts, out of which Facebook produced data in 45.32% of the cases.[13] Facebook's transparency report claims that they respond to requests relating to criminal cases and "Each and every request we receive is checked for legal sufficiency and we reject or require greater specificity on requests that are overly broad or vague." However, even in Facebook's transparency report it is unclear why 55.68% of the requests were rejected.

The Yahoo transparency report also gives data from the period between January 1, 2015 to June 30, 2015 and reveals that Yahoo received 831 requests for data, which related to 1,184 user accounts from the Indian Government. The Yahoo report is a little more detailed and also reveals that 360 of the 831 requests were rejected by Yahoo, however no details are given as to why the requests were rejected. The report also specifies that in 63 cases, no data was found by Yahoo, in 249 cases only non content data[14] was disclosed while in 159 cases content [15] was disclosed. The Yahoo report also claims that "We carefully scrutinize each request to make sure that it complies with the law, and we push back on those requests that don't satisfy our rigorous standards."

While the Vodafone Transparency Report gives information regarding government requests for data in other jurisdictions, [16] it does not give any information on government requests in India. This is because Vodafone interprets the provisions contained in Rule 25(4) of the IT (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption of Information) Rules, 2009 (Interception Rules) and Rule 11 of the IT (Procedure and Safeguards for Monitoring and Collecting Traffic Data or Information) Rules, 2009 as well as Rule 419A(19) of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1954 which require service providers to maintain confidentiality/secrecy in matters relating to interception, as being a legal prohibition on Vodafone to reveal such information.

Apart from the four major companies discussed above, there are a large number of private corporations which have published transparency reports in order to acquire a sense of trustworthiness amongst their customers. Infact, the Ranking Digital Rights Project has been involved in ranking some of the biggest companies in the world on their commitment to accountability and has brought out the Ranking Digital Rights 2015 Corporate Accountability Index that has analysed a representative group of 16 companies "that collectively hold the power to shape the digital lives of billions of people across the globe".

Suggestions on Transparency

It is clear from the discussions above, as well as a general overview of various news reports on the subject, that telecom surveillance in India is shrouded in secrecy and it appears that a large amount of illegal and unauthorized surveillance is taking place behind the protection of this veil of secrecy. If the status quo continues, then it is unlikely that any meaningful reforms would take place to bring about greater accountability in the area of telecom surveillance. It is imperative, for any sort of changes towards greater accountability to take place, that we have enough information about what exactly is happening and for that we need greater transparency since transparency is the first step towards greater accountability.

Transparency Reports

In very simplistic terms transparency, in anything, can best be achieved by providing as much information about that thing as possible so that there are no secrets left. However, it would be naïve to say that all information about interception activities can be made public on the altar of the principle of transparency, but that does not mean that there should be no information at all on interception. One of the internationally accepted methods of bringing about transparency in interception mechanisms, which is increasingly being adopted by both the private sector as well as governments, is to publish Transparency Reports giving various details of interception while keeping security concerns in mind. The two types of transparency reports that we require in India and what that would entail is briefly discussed below:

By the Government

The problem with India's current regime for interception is that the entire mechanism appears more or less adequate on paper with enough checks and balances involved in it to prevent misuse of the allotted powers. However, because the entire process is veiled in secrecy, nobody knows exactly how good or how rotten the system has become and whether it is working to achieve its intended purposes. It is clear that the current system of interception and surveillance being followed by the government has some flaws, as can be gathered from the frequent news articles which talk about incidents of illegal surveillance. However, without any other official or more reliable sources of information regarding surveillance activities these anecdotal pieces of evidence are all we have to shape the debate regarding surveillance in India. It is only logical then that the debate around surveillance, which is informed by such sketchy and unreliable news reports will automatically be biased against the current mechanism since the newspapers would also only be interested in reporting the scandalous and the extraordinary incidents. For example, some argue that the government undertakes mass surveillance, while others argue that India only carries out targeted surveillance, but there is not enough information publicly available for a third party to support or argue against either claim. It is therefore necessary and highly recommended that the government start releasing a transparency report such as the one's brought out by the United States and the UK as mentioned above.

There is no need for a separate department or authority just to make the transparency report and this task could probably be performed in-house by any department, but considering the sector involved, it would perhaps be best if the Department of Telecommunications is given the responsibility to bring out a transparency report. These transparency reports should contain certain minimum amount of data for them to be an effective tool in informing the public discourse and debate regarding surveillance and interception. The report needs to strike a balance between providing enough information so that an informed analysis can be made of the effectiveness of the surveillance regime without providing so much information so as to make the surveillance activities ineffective. Below is a list of suggestions as to what kind of data/information such reports should contain:

Reports should contain data regarding the number of interception orders that have been passed. This statistic would be extremely useful in determining how elaborate and how frequently the state indulges in interception activities. This information would be easily available since all interception orders have to be sent to the Review Committee set up under Rule 419A of the Telegraph Rules, 1954.
The Report should contain information on the procedural aspects of surveillance including the delegation of powers to different authorities and individuals, information on new surveillance schemes, etc. This information would also be available with the Ministry of Home Affairs since it is a Secretary or Joint Secretary level officer in the said Ministry which is supposed to authorize every order for interception.
The report should contain an aggregated list of reasons given by the authorities for ordering interception. This information would reveal whether the authorities are actually ensuring legal justification before issuing interception or are they just paying lip service to the rules to ensure a proper paper trail. Since every order of interception has to be in writing, the main reasons for interception can easily be gleaned from a perusal of the orders.
It should also reveal the percentage of cases where interception has actually found evidence of culpability or been successful in prevention of criminal activities. This one statistic would itself give a very good review of the effectiveness of the interception regime. Granted that this information may not be very easily obtainable, but it can be obtained with proper coordination with the police and other law enforcement agencies.
The report should also reveal the percentage of order that have been struck down by the Review Committee as not following the process envisaged under the various Rules. This would give a sense of how often the Rules are being flouted while issuing interception orders. This information can easily be obtained from the papers and minutes of the meetings of the Review Committee.
The report should also state the number of times the Review Committee has met in the period being reported upon. The Review Committee is an important check on the misuse of powers by the authorities and therefore it is important that the Review Committee carries out its activities in a diligent manner.

It may be noted here that some provisions of the Telegraph Rules, 1954 especially sub-Rules 17 and 18 of Rule 419A as well as Rules 22, 23(1) and 25 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Monitoring and Collecting Traffic Data or Information) Rules, 2009 may need to be amended so as to make them compliant with the reporting mechanism proposed above.

By the Private Sector

We have already discussed above the transparency reports published by certain private companies. Suffice it to say that reports from private companies should give as much of the information discussed under government reports as possible and/or applicable, since they may not have a large amount of the information that is sought to be published in the government reports such as whether the interception was successful, the reasons for interception, etc. It is important to have ISPs provide such transparency reports as this will provide two different data points for information on interception and the very existence of these private reports may act as a check to ensure the veracity of the government transparency reports.

As in the case of government reports, for the transparency reports of the private sector to be effective, certain provisions of the Telegraph Rules, 1954 and the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Monitoring and Collecting Traffic Data or Information) Rules, 2009, viz. sub-Rules 14, 15 and 19 of Rule 419A of the Telegraph Rules, 1954 and Rules 20, 21, 23(1) and 25 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Monitoring and Collecting Traffic Data or Information) Rules, 2009.

Overhaul of the Review Committee

The Review Committee which acts as a check on the misuse of powers by the competent authorities is a very important cog in the entire process. However, it is staffed entirely by the executive and does not have any members of any other background. Whilst it is probably impractical to have civilian members in the Review Committee which has access to potentially sensitive information, it is extremely essential that the Committee has wider representation from other sectors specially the judiciary. One or two members from the judiciary on the Review Committee would provide a greater check on the workings of the Committee as this would bring in representation from the judicial arm of the State so that the Review Committee does not remain a body manned purely by the executive branch. This could go some ways to ensure that the Committee does not just "rubber stamp" the orders of interception issued by the various competent authorities.

Conclusion

It is not in dispute that there is a need for greater transparency in the government's surveillance activities in order to address the problems associated with illegal and unauthorised interceptions. This paper is not making the case that greater transparency in and by itself will be able to solve the problems that may be associated with the government's currency interception and surveillance regime, however it is not possible to address any problem unless we know the real extent of it. It is essential for an informed debate and discussion that the people participating in the discussion are "informed", i.e. they should have accurate and adequate information regarding the issues which are being discussed. The current state of the debate on interception is rife with individuals using illustrative and anecdotal evidence which, in the absence of any other evidence, they assume to be the norm.

A more transparent and forthcoming state machinery which regularly keeps its citizens abreast of the state of its surveillance regime would be likely to get better suggestions and perhaps less criticisms if it does come out that the checks and balances imposed in the regulations are actually making a difference to check unauthorized interceptions, and if not, then it is the right of the citizens to know about this and ask for reforms.

[1] James Losey, "Surveillance of Communications: A Legitimization Crisis and the Need for Transparency", International Journal of Communication 9(2015), Feature 3450-3459, 2015.

[2] Id.

[3] Namit Sharma v. Union of India, http://www.judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=39566.

[4] http://www.judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=39566 . Although the judgment was overturned on review, however this observation quoted above would still hold as it has not been specifically overturned.

[5] http://sflc.in/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/SFLC-FINAL-SURVEILLANCE-REPORT.pdf .

[6] James Losey, "Surveillance of Communications: A Legitimization Crisis and the Need for Transparency", International Journal of Communication 9 (2015), Feature 3450-3459, 2015.

[7] http://gulail.com/the-stalkers/ .

[8] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Amar-Singh-phone-tap-accused-tracked-Arun-Jaitleys-mobile/articleshow/18582508.cms .

[9] http://ibnlive.in.com/news/arun-jaitley-phonetapping-case-all-accused-get-bail/394997-37-64.html .

[10] For a detailed discussion of the Rules of interception please see Policy Paper on Surveillance in India, by Vipul Kharbanda, http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/policy-paper-on-surveillance-in-india .

[11] As an example please see http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/rti-on-officials-and-agencies-authorized-to-intercept-telephone-messages-in-india .

[12] https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/countries/ .

[13] https://govtrequests.facebook.com/country/India/2015-H1/ .

[14] Non-content data (NCD) such as basic subscriber information including the information captured at the time of registration such as an alternate e-mail address, name, location, and IP address, login details, billing information, and other transactional information (e.g., "to," "from," and "date" fields from email headers).

[15] Data that users create, communicate, and store on or through Yahoo. This could include words in a communication (e.g., Mail or Messenger), photos on Flickr, files uploaded, Yahoo Address Book entries, Yahoo Calendar event details, thoughts recorded in Yahoo Notepad or comments or posts on Yahoo Answers or any other Yahoo property.

[16] https://www.vodafone.com/content/sustainabilityreport/2014/index/operating_responsibly/privacy_and_security/law_enforcement/country_by_country.html .

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/transparency-in-surveillance

Transparency and Privacy

praskrishna — 2014-02-28T04:54:08Z

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

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

Transparency and MDGs: the Role of the Media and Technology

praskrishna — 2011-04-02T10:16:21Z

Key quotes from sixth panel

“We are thinking globally, acting locally. We take the bottom-up approach with radio for people in the community to tell their government what they need and to partake in decision making process.”
— Lucy Maathai, Slums Information Development and Resource Centers, Kenya

“For HIV/AIDS in Botswana during the 1990s, we tried creating big billboards saying ‘get tested’, we tried working through NGOs, but it was not until we also got local churches and local tribal leaders together, that things changed. We had to focus on getting buy-in from the political leadership and every local leader. UNDEF was set up to fill the gaps between UN agencies like UNICEF, UNDP, etc. What I have seen in botswana and 30 years of experience, is that if we always add information and communication at the end, we will fail. Rather we need to make sure that it is integrated all along. Furthermore, people in Botswana are aware of technologies, but they do not feel that they can use it or are supported to use it. Instead they use traditional methods, such as churches, in bars, and with local tribal leaders. The UN are mostly used to dealing with formal institutions, but in order to help the bottom billion in the world, we need to engage with the informal institutions, sometimes even with the ‘bad guys’”.
— Bjoern Ferde, UNDP Oslo Center, Norway

“If a transparency system is based on suspicion rather than trust, it breeds corruption. If your demand for transparency and accountability undermines social safety nets, you will undermine your entire argument. Transparency may seem to add to accountability, but we must understand that it oftens undermines privacy (in the Gujarat genocide, muslims were found and killed by rioters using tax and electoral records). In addition, in india, a name alone reveals a lot of information on caste, area and religion, so what is normal in the west – disclosing names – is not always a good idea. Finally, in many places, particularly those in conflict, disclosing your income may lead to groups turning up at your door and demanding a share.”

— Sunil Abraham, Centre for Internet and Society, India

“It’s great what ARTICLE 19 is doing. There’s often a lot of discussion within communities, but not so often discussions between communities. I want to connect the media too. So little has been done at the international level on how information and communication help development. We do need to acknowledge that the media has massive advantages as an information and transparency mechanism. If you ask politicians what they are worried about in regards to transparency, they are worried about the media. In peru, a report states that Fujimori bribed media executives 100x the amount that he bribed a judge. Indeed, there are so few people paid within UN organisations to focus on understanding and using communication to effect people’s lives. We are operating in a strategic vaccum. It’s hugely exciting to work out where we can go in the future. This event takes us a long way forward.”
— James Deane, BBC World Trust, UK

“There are simple and creative ways to demonstrate information, such as the ‘stone’ test. In Botswana, each person in a village was asked to place a stone in the middle of the group for every person that died due to HIV/AIDS. It created an immediate and devastating effect when people suddenly visualised the effect on their community and then collectively began to think about what that meant in regards to families and society.”
— Bjoern Ferde, UNDP Oslo Center, Norway

“In the south we call the media the fourth estate – a moral and ethical force to protect democracy and the constitution of our country. In the north however, we have a business model which completely removes any sense of ethics. The Indian Express, for example, will only talk about markets, not about people and their lives in poverty. Furthermore, whilst we want information shared, we do not want the information collected by the state to destroy the people.
— Aruna Roy, MKSS

Read the original

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/transparency-mdgs-key-quotes

Transnational Due Process: A Case Study in Multi-stakeholder Cooperation

praskrishna — 2015-11-07T15:47:41Z

The Internet & Jurisdiction Project is organizing the workshop “Transnational due process: A case study in multi-stakeholder cooperation” at the Internet Governance Forum convened by the United Nations on November 10-13, 2015. Sunil Abraham will be a speaker in this event.

Multi-stakeholder cooperation is necessary to develop and implement operational solutions to Internet Governance challenges. One such challenge is the tension between the cross-border nature of the Internet and diverse national jurisdictions. As a result, direct requests are increasingly addressed by public authorities and courts in one country to Internet platforms and DNS operators in other jurisdictions for domain seizures, content takedowns and user identification.

The roundtable at the Internet Governance Forum 20125 will gather participants in the I&J Project from different stakeholder groups to report on the progress of the Internet & Jurisdiction process and talk about:

the method employed to develop this framework, challenges encountered and solutions found
the potential distribution of roles among the respective stakeholders in the operation of the diverse framework components

Participants

ANNE CARBLANC, Head of Division, Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry, OECD
EILEEN DONAHUE, Director Global Affairs, Human Rights Watch
BYRON HOLLAND, President and CEO, CIRA (Canadian ccTLD)
CHRISTOPHER PAINTER, Coordinator for Cyber Issues, US Department of State
SUNIL ABRAHAM, Executive Director, CIS India
ALICE MUNYUA, Lead dotAfrica Initiative and GAC representative, African Union Commission
Speaker tbc, Google
FRANK LaRUE, Former UN Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression
Speaker tbc, German Federal Foreign Office
HARTMUT GLASER, Executive Secretary, Brazilian Internet Steering Committee
MATT PERAULT, Head of Policy Development, Facebook

This was published on the website of Internet & Jurisdiction Also see this on IGF website.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/transnational-due-process-a-case-study-in-multi-stakeholder-cooperation

Transnational Due Process: A Case Study in MS Cooperation

praskrishna — 2015-11-08T03:27:02Z

nternet Governance Forum (IGF) 2015 will be held at Jao Pessoa in Brazil from November 10 to 13, 2015. The theme of IGF 2015 is Evolution of Internet Governance: Empowering Sustainable Development. Internet & Jurisdiction Project is organizing a workshop on Transnational Due Process on November 13, 2015. Sunil Abraham is a panelist.

Since 2012, the Internet & Jurisdiction Project facilitates a multi-stakeholder dialogue process on this issue. More than 80 entities have collaboratively produced a draft transnational due process framework. Here, the concept of multi-stakeholder cooperation is therefore relevant both as method (the dialogue process) and as outcome (the collaborative framework).

The roundtable will gather participants in the I&J Project from different stakeholder groups to describe:

the method employed to develop this framework, challenges encountered and solutions found
the potential distribution of roles among the respective stakeholders in the operation of the diverse framework components

The expected benefit is to share concrete experiences around innovative approaches for multi-stakeholder cooperation such as issue-based networks, inter-sessional work methods and transnational policy standards.

This session will also present the proposed framework to the IGF community to solicit feedback, reach out to new actors and discuss the way forward. The roundtable will be prepared in 2015 by two dedicated meetings in Germany and Brazil, as well as by a number of other sessions with stakeholders around the world organized by the Internet & Jurisdiction Project.

Click to read the details on IGF website.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/transnational-due-process-a-case-study-in-ms-cooperation