We are anonymous, we are legion

Centre blocks 32 websites for security reasons, restores some later

praskrishna — 2015-01-02T14:13:03Z

The Centre on Wednesday asked Internet Service Providers (ISP) to block 32 websites citing national security concerns, especially from terror group ISIS.

The article by S. Ronendra Singh was published in the Hindu Businessline on December 31, 2014. Pranesh Prakash gave his inputs.

The move created a flutter on social networking sites, as most of the Web sites, such as archive.org, vimeo.com, github.com, pastebin.com, codepad.org and paste2.org, were being used by global communities like application developers for free movies and books, coders and text sharing.

By late evening, some sites were restored.

Sources in the Ministry of Telecommunications and Information Technology confirmed the development and told BusinessLine: “It was based on some national security issues, and we cannot compromise with our nation’s security….”

A senior official from the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) said the directive had come from a Mumbai court after the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) had approached it to block some Web sites carrying anti-India content.

The matter came to light after a circular, purportedly sent by DoT to ISPs, showed up on social networking sites, listing the sites, along with some screen shots. Incidentally, the said circular had edited out the letter head, date and the signature below. The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party’s IT cell head, Arvind Gupta, tweeted saying ‘the Web sites that have been blocked were based on an advisory by the Anti-Terrorism Squad, and were carrying anti-India content from ISIS’.

However, later in the evening, Gupta, in his tweet said, some of the Web sites such as vimeo.com have been restored because they have removed ‘objectionable content and/or cooperated with the on going investigations’.

However, the blocked Web sites raised a furore in the social media wherein people said the Government should amend the laws than do such things.

“The problem isn’t just about the specific sites that are blocked; the problem is always about the bad law + process relating to #GoIBlocks,” Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director at Centre for Internet and Society tweeted. He said the 69A Rules (of the IT Act 2000) does not allow for transparency, accountability and time-limits on blocks, so it is easily misused by the Government, the courts and individuals.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-businessline-december-31-2015-s-ronendra-singh-

Central Monitoring System to make government privy to phone calls, text messages and social media conversations

praskrishna — 2013-06-05T09:17:42Z

The government last month quietly began rolling out a project that gives it access to everything that happens over India's telecommunications network—online activities, phone calls, text messages and even social media conversations. Called the Central Monitoring System, it will be the single window from where government arms such as the National Investigation Agency or the tax authorities will be able to monitor every byte of communication.

This article by Indu Nandakumar was published in the Times of India on May 7, 2013. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

But privacy and Internet freedom advocates are worried that in the name of security, the government could end up snooping on people, possibly abusing a system that does not have enough safeguards to protect ordinary citizens.

"In the absence of a strong privacy law that promotes transparency about surveillance and thus allows us to judge the utility of the surveillance, this kind of development is very worrisome," warned Pranesh Prakash, director of policy at the Centre for Internet and Society. "Further, this has been done with neither public nor parliamentary dialogue, making the government unaccountable to its citizens."

After the Mumbai blasts in November 2008, the government has been arming itself with powers and technology to help it eavesdrop on digital communications. The information technology law, enacted in 2000 and amended twice in 2008 and 2011, gives designated government officials the authority to listen in on phone calls, read SMSes, emails, and monitor websites.

Such access is allowed for purposes of "reasonable security practices and procedures".

However, Pavan Duggal, a Supreme Court advocate specialising in cyber law, said the government has given itself unprecedented powers to monitor private Internet records of citizens. "This system is capable of tremendous abuse," he said. The Central Monitoring System, being set up by the Centre for Development of Telematics, plugs into telecom gear and gives central and state investigative agencies a single point of access to call records, text messages and emails as well as the geographical location of individuals.

Duggal, who closely follows New Delhi's battle with Internet firms, said there hasn't been much details from the government on what exactly the system intends to monitor and under what conditions.

In December 2012, the then information technology minister Milind Deora told Parliament that the monitoring system, on which the government is spending Rs 400 crore, will "lawfully intercept Internet and telephone services".

Work on the system has been kept under wraps for nearly two years. Several government agencies have issued tenders seeking specialised equipment and systems for such monitoring.

As part of modernisation, the home ministry is updating all its offices in state capitals with such gear. C-DOT group head Shikha Srivastava declined comment. Information technology ministry spokeswoman Mamta Verma redirected the queries to Gulshan Rai, director of India's Cyber Emergency Response Team, but Rai declined comment.

With over 100 million users, India is one of the fastest-growing Internet markets in the world. The government has come under criticism from activists for increased censorship and tracking of user records. Internet activist group Anonymous has started raising the pitch against the monitoring system, claiming that security is just a pretext for spying on citizens.

Disclosures by Google show that the number of requests from the government seeking personal information has been on the rise. In the second half of 2012, the government made nearly 2,500 requests, Google said.

"Even legitimate conversations could end up being tracked," cautioned Duggal, the Supreme Court lawyer.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/times-of-india-indu-nandakumar-may-7-2013-cms-to-make-govt-privy-to-phone-calls-text-messages-and-social-media-conversations

Censorship makes India fall two places on global internet freedom chart

praskrishna — 2012-09-27T10:37:47Z

A recently released global report on the internet freedom rated India 39th in 2012, a slip from two places last year.

The article by Dilnaz Boga was published in DNA on September 27, 2012.

The report titled, Freedom on the net 2012 (FOTN): A global assessment of internet and digital media by Freedom House, a Washington-based monitoring group conducted a comprehensive study of internet freedom in 47 countries.

Quoting Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society, the report said 309 specific items (URLs, Twitter accounts, img tags, blog posts, blogs, and a handful of websites) have been blocked by the government. But officially, the government has admitted to blocking 245 web pages for inflammatory content hosting of provocative content.

Ketan Tanna, India analyst for Freedom House told DNA, “A reflection of the downward spiral in the freedom on the net that Indians enjoy is evident in the upward revision of scores for India in the FOTN 2012 report. India was one of the only 4 of the 20 countries that “recently experienced declines” and are democracies. The other three are Mexico, Turkey and South Korea.”

Internet usage in India continues to increase, with tens of millions of new users getting online each year. According to the International Telecommunications Union, internet penetration was 10% — or about 120 million people at the end of 2011. Among internet users, 90 million were ‘active,’ accessing it at least once a month (70 million urban and 20 million rural).

The report has mentioned that in India, “amid several court cases regarding intermediaries’ responsibility for hosting illegal content, much evidence has surfaced that intermediaries are taking down content without fully evaluating or challenging the legality of the request”.

Citing an example, Tanna said in December 2011, the website Cartoons against Corruption was suspended by its hosting company after a complaint filed with the Mumbai police alleged that the site’s cartoons ridiculed parliament and national emblems. “As a result of such dynamics, large swaths of online content are disappearing, and the losses are far more difficult to reverse than the mere blocking of a website,” he added.

More common than website blocking is the removal of content based on judicial orders, government directives, and citizen complaints. This phenomenon that has increased in recent years and in some cases, targeted content on political, social, and religious topics, the report said.

The Indian authorities had submitted 68 removal requests covering 358 items between January and June 2011. According to Google, 255 items related to what it categorised as “government criticism,” while 39 involved defamation and 8 pertained to hate speech.

In January, responding to a freedom of information request, the home ministry reported that the government orders 7,500 to 9,000 phone interceptions per month, the report disclosed. Criticising this practice and the government’s disregard for the Constitution, the data revealed, “Established guidelines regulate the ability of state officials to intercept communications, but India lacks an appropriate legal framework and procedures to ensure proper oversight of Intelligence agencies’ growing surveillance and interception capabilities, opening the possibility of misuse and unconstitutional invasion of citizens’ privacy.”

As another method of controlling speech and activism online, governments have imposed temporary shutdowns of the internet or mobile phone networks during protests or other sensitive times. Localised internet shutdowns and mobile phone shutdowns occurred in India due to security concerns, the report said.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/dna-india-sep-27-2012-dilnaz-boga-censorship-makes-india-fall-two-places-on-global-internet-freedom-chart

Censorship and sensibility in India

praskrishna — 2013-03-06T04:09:02Z

The past few weeks in India have seen films, an all-girl rock band, a fashion show, a Booker prize-winning novelist and a reputed academic become targets of harassment, legal action or threats of violence.

This article by Samanth Subramanian was published in the National on February 6, 2013. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

The most prominent case involved Vishwaroopam, a Tamil film that will be released in Tamil Nadu on Friday after a two-week delay. The film was blocked by the state government after some Muslim groups protested that it depicted Muslims in poor light. The director, Kamal Haasan, had to agree to cut seven scenes.

"The culture of taking offence has acquired an epidemic proportion, and we are moving in a direction where nothing, it seems, is a safe topic," said Salil Tripathi, who wrote the 2009 book Offence: The Hindu Case, on how Hindu fundamentalists have succeeded in censoring and banning many cultural works and teachings.

"If India doesn't step back from this abyss, it will begin to resemble the dictatorships where people speak in coded language, where real thoughts go underground," Mr Tripathi added.

On Sunday, a fashion show in the southern city of Visakhapatnam was cancelled after the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), a right-wing Hindu group, protested against women modelling dresses bearing images of Hindu deities.

In Delhi, an art gallery had to temporarily shut down on Monday after the VHP called for a ban on a retrospective of the modern nude because the exhibit included "indecent pictures". The VHP's women's wing, the Durga Vahini, harrassed women who were smoking and drinking in a restaurant in Mangalore last week.

Meanwhile, on Sunday, a Muslim cleric in Kashmir a fatwa against Pragaash, an all-girl high school rock band that was deemed "un-Islamic". The band has dissolved, although Omar Abdullah, the chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir, defended them last weekend on Twitter, saying: "I hope these talented young girls will not let a handful of morons silence them."

Last week, the author Salman Rushdie cancelled a visit to a literary festival in Kolkata, citing security concerns after protests by Muslim groups. The fair's organisers subsequently denied having invited him. Yesterday, the Indian Christian Republican Party complained to the police that Kadal, a new movie set in a Tamil Catholic fishing community, shows a framed picture of Jesus Christ being thrown to the floor.

These instances have sparked widespread criticism of what an editorial last week in The Hindu newspaper called India's "flourishing outrage industry". In the International Herald Tribune, the columnist Manu Joseph called modern India "a paradise for those who take offence".

The Indian constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression, but it is not without caveat. The constitution allows for "reasonable restrictions" on this right, in the interests of "public order, decency or morality".

Further, the Indian Penal Code contains two laws that have been invoked repeatedly to cramp free speech.

Section 295A punishes those who "outrage [the] religious feelings of any class" by spoken, written or visual means, with a fine or a prison term of up to three years.

Section 505(2) promises a similar punishment to those who make "statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes" on grounds of religion, caste, language or race.

Nikhil Mehra, a lawyer who practises in the Supreme Court, said both laws are antiquated holdovers from colonial India.

"The problem is that these laws are so broadly worded that cases can be impossible to quash, because it is difficult for a judge to take the view that some piece of speech does not promote enmity between groups," Mr Mehra said.

"I'd say there's no chance that these laws will be struck off the books," he said. "Politically, nobody will do it, because we have such a huge vacuum of leadership that nobody has the guts to step up and suggest such changes."

Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society, has extensively analysed cases where these laws are applied in conjunction with India's information technology act, which governs online speech.

"Given India's history of communal violence, it would be extraordinary for courts to directly criticise such laws," Mr Prakash said. But these laws are two among many "patently unconstitutional laws" in India's statute books, he pointed out.

"How could it be constitutional to prevent the free broadcast of news over radio, for instance, or to prohibit speech online that causes 'annoyance'?" Mr Prakash said. "Not only are antiquated and speech-restricting laws not being struck off, more such laws are being added to the statute books all the time."

An example, he said, was section 66a of the information technology act, which aims to curtail "offensive messages" online but is often used to target dissidents and even posts on social media.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/the-national-feb-6-2013-samanth-subramanian-censorship-and-sensibility-in-india

CENSORSHIP 2020: The Future of Free Speech Online

praskrishna — 2012-06-28T10:01:00Z

The DC Chapter of the Internet Society, in conjunction with the U.S. Department of State, invite you to an informal discussion on CENSORSHIP 2020: The Future of Free Speech Online on Monday, June 25, 2012.

Published in Communication, Culture & Technology. For more info, visit here.

The Arab Spring demonstrated how Internet technologies such as Twitter, blogs, and Facebook could be used to mobilize protesters, publicize corruption and human rights violations, and connect activists and emigres. But in Iran , Syria , and elsewhere, we have seen repressive governments use the Internet to identify and track dissidents, to spread disinformation, and defame political opponents. Will the technologies of anonymization win out over new digital monitoring tools? Will new wireless data technologies foster democracy--or lead to more effective tracking and surveillance? Join us for an informal discussion with six people fighting for free speech on the Internet in their country--and around the world:

Dlshad Othman (Syria), an activist and IT engineer providing Syrians with digital security tools
Pranesh Prakash (India), a blogger and cyberlaw expert who is promoting a free Internet and online freedom of speech.
Koundjoro Gabriel Kambou (Burkina Faso), a journalist at Lefaso.net, is promoting human rights, democracy particularly among young people.
Sopheap Chak (Cambodia), the Deputy Director of the Cambodian Center for Human Rights (CCHR) and one of Cambodia ’s leading bloggers.
Andres Azpurua (Venezuela) has trained 300 youth on using Web 2.0 tools to publicize human rights violations.
Emin Milli (Azerbaijan), a writer who is using YouTube, Facebook and Twitter to spread information about human rights violations.

Moderator: Ambassador (ret.) Richard Kauzarlich, Deputy Director, Terrorism, Transnational Crime and Corruption Center (TraCCC), George Mason University, http://traccc.gmu.edu/

Hosted by the Communication, Culture and Technology Program of Georgetown University 2nd Floor, Car Barn, 3520 Prospect St., N.W. , Washington , DC (enter from Prospect St.)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/censorship-2020

Censorship — A Death Knell for Freedom of Expression Online

praskrishna — 2011-12-19T10:12:46Z

On December 8, 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.

Sunil said that we need to reflect upon the limitations of freedom of expression which was listed out by Soli Sorabjee and then ask the question whether they are the same limitations in the IT Act. If one reads section 66A, one comes to the conclusion that the IT Act places many additional limitations on the freedom of expression (annoying speech, speech harmful to minors, inconvenient speech) and these are limitations that don’t have existing definitions either in the IT Act or any other statute or case laws.

Sunil further said that through section 79 which is the intermediary liability regime, the government places together a private censorship regime. We did some research at CIS. We sent fraudulent take down notices to seven large international and national intermediaries and through our empirical research we can demonstrate that these intermediaries over-comply with these fraudulent take down notices. So there is already (since the amended IT Act and the notification of the Rules in April this year) a huge chilling effect on the internet thanks to post facto censorship and what the minister is now calling for is preemptive or pro-active censorship which is really going to be the death knell for freedom of expression online.

VIDEO

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

Censoring the Internet: A brief manual

sunil — 2012-08-24T09:39:03Z

Blocking websites on the Internet should be proportionate to harm they intend. However, the government of India's approach is against the principles of natural justice.

Published in Tehelka on August 23, 2012.

When: Speech should be regulated when there is harm, or when there is clear and imminent harm. The extent of regulation must be in proportion to the harm.

The mass exodus of people from the Northeast, from certain Indian-cities is clear indication of a ‘public order’ crisis. The government of India, for the very first time, has legitimate reasons for cracking down on intermediaries such as Google and Facebook and their users, unlike in the past when only the egos of politicians, bureaucrats and others in public office or public life were at stake. In most cases temporary restrictions on speech are sufficient to mitigate harm. When potential for harm has dissipated the restrictions should be lifted. Whilst videos and images related to the violations of the human-rights to the Rohingya community might be sensitive material today, there is no reason why such content should be blocked forever, unlike, for example, in the case of child pornography.

How: Does this mean that the Internet rules that were notified in April last year were future-looking policies justified in retrospect? No. When a block is implemented, or a takedown is complied with, three types of notices are required — either immediately or after the imminent harm has been prevented. First, the censored individuals/groups should be informed, so that they can seek redressal and reinstatement; second, those trying to consume the censored material must be warned; and third, the general public has a right to know either immediately or in due course.

Even in authoritarian states like Saudi Arabia, visitors to blocked websites are given clear reasons why the website was blocked along with contact details to seek redressal. There are, also, safe harbour provisions for intermediaries, meaning that they absolve themselves of liability in exchange for acting upon takedown orders sent by non-state actors. Suitable safeguards are required to prevent over-compliance by intermediaries, and the resulting chilling effect on free speech as demonstrated by CIS's research. The intermediary liability rules under the Indian IT Act 2008 have no such safeguards and therefore does not comply with principles of natural justice.

Who: Block and takedown orders need to be very specific. The advisory note issued to Internet intermediaries by the Department of Electronics and Information Technology, Ministry of Communications & Information Technology on the 17 August did not mention details such as URLs, user accounts, group names and content identifiers. Most of the censored material at first glance, appears to be communal in nature. Unfortunately, there are several URLs from mainstream media publications, a few Wikipedia pages and also at least two blog entries debunking rumours in the list, perhaps because of oversight. Images of unrelated human rights violations featuring people with similar racial features are being used to fuel the current rumours. However, blocking all websites featuring such images will not stop such rumour mongering. Censorship must be targeted and proportionate to the potential harm.

Why: Speaking aloud just once in the analog world could either result in harm or good. Imagine shouting “bomb” in a crowded airport. The network effect of technologies such as SMS, social media and micro-blogging amplifies the impact of speech. Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India lists eight reasons for which reasonable restrictions may be applied to the right to free speech. This applies to both analog and speech mediated via networked technologies. Some of these restrictions such as 'public order' and 'incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence' are part of international treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Fringe phenomenon and exceptional circumstances should not be the basis for formulating policy. For example — knives used as murder weapons does not necessitate regulations on cutlery. Similarly, criminalising rumour mongering will not prevent false information from going viral, online, and disrupting public order. Videos and photos are doctored and manipulated for a wide variety of legitimate reasons. The existing law regulating speech in the interests of public order are sufficient to deal with the circulation of falsehoods on social media.

Sunil Abraham is the Executive Director of Bangalore based research organisation, the Centre for Internet and Society.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/www-tehelka-com-sunil-abraham-august-23-2012-censoring-the-internet

Celebrating One Year of the Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India Judgment

Admin — 2018-08-30T02:53:48Z

Shweta Mohandas was a panelist at the event, "Celebrating One Year of the Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India Judgment", organised by Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, and the Centre for Communication Governance at National Law University Delhi. It took place on Friday, 24 August 2018 at India International Centre, New Delhi.

The event began with Dr. Usha Ramanathan's Opening remarks on the State of Privacy in India & the Challenges to Realising Puttaswamy’s Promise. This was then followed by two panel discussions, the first on Data Protection for a Free and Fair Digital Economy and the second on the Legacy of the Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India Judgment. Shweta participated in the second panel. More details of the event here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/celebrating-one-year-of-the-justice-k-s-puttaswamy-v-union-of-india-judgment

Celebrating 5 Years of CIS

praskrishna — 2014-02-25T09:15:58Z

The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) is celebrating 5 years of its existence with an exhibition showcasing its activities and accomplishments. The exhibition will be held at its offices in Bangalore and Delhi from May 20 to 23, 2013.

Download all the posters exhibited during the recent exhibition here.

As a move to promote transparency, CIS is inviting the general public to be its auditors by throwing open its account books and contracts which show how it has spent the Rs. 13.13 crores received from its donors. The four-day event will see renowned artists like Kiran Subbaiah, Tara Kelton, Navin Thomas and Abhishek Hazra featuring their work and also giving live demonstrations.

Agenda

Open exhibition on all the 4 days from 10.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m., in Bangalore and Delhi. The evening programmes will be held in Bangalore. Dinner will be served right afterwards.

Evening Programmes

May 20, 2013

18.00 19.00	Why did I buy a set-top box?: What we know, don't know and need to know about Digitalisation — A Talk by Vibodh Parthasarathi Why are we being asked to install set-top boxes? How will this change what we want, and pay for, on TV? Grappling with these questions, the talk will evaluate the rationale of the digital migration in cable currently underway, and the less talked about digital migration being planned for the public broadcaster. These scarcely debated and often contentious issues form the core of a recent Country Report on the Media in India, anchored by the speaker. The India Country Report, the first inter-sectoral and policy oriented study of our electronic media landscape, finds the ongoing digitalisation of cable, the infusion of digital tools in the press and the proposed digital switchover of the public broadcaster, posing varied challenges not only to journalism but to public interest at large. This report is part of a global initiative, Mapping Digital Media, examining opportunities and risks amidst the transitions to a digital media ecology across 50 countries. Video
19.00 19.30	Film Screening on Cyber Cafes of Rural India by Video Volunteers Video Volunteers in partnership with CIS have been documenting the cyber cafes of rural India. Kamini Menon and Christy Raj will do the screening of seven 2-minute films: Cyber Cafe Trends Slowly Changing in Imphal by Achungmei Kamei (Manipur) Transgender Interaction with Cyber Cafes by Christy Raj (Karnataka) Cyber Cafes Prevail Over Mobile Phones in Nagaland by Meribeni Kikon (Nagaland) Mobile Technology Threatens Cyber Cafes in HP by Avdhesh Negi (Himachal Pradesh) Cyber Cafe Visit - A Day's Journey by Saroj Paraste (Madhya Pradesh) The Challenges of Establishing Cyber Cafes by Rohini Pawar (Maharashtra) The Community Service Centre - Myth or Reality? by Neeru Rathod (Gujarat) Video
19.30 20.00	Hindustani Classical Performance by Aditya Dipankar
20.00	Dinner
RSVP: Bernadette Längle (bernadette@cis-india.org), Ph: +91 80 4092 6283 Prasad Krishna (prasad@cis-india.org).

May 21, 2013

18.00 19.00	Screening of Sabaka A young elephant trainer in India vows revenge against the cult that killed his family. He seeks help from the local Maharajah who refuses, and he sets out alone to battle the enemy... Sabaka is a 1954 film produced and directed by Frank Ferrin starring Boris Karloff, Reginald Denny, June Foray, et.al.
19.00 20.00	Slouching towards Tlön: An Encyclopedia for the 2nd century of Indian cinema — A Talk by Lawrence Liang Ashish Rajadhyaksha and Paul Willemen’s Encyclopedia of Indian cinema (1994) marked an important moment for the study of Indian film history. In the two decades since its publication we have seen a rise in the academic community working on Indian film history along with the rise of various new archival initiatives online. Materials that were hitherto unavailable have also made their way into the public domain via the efforts of film historians, cinephiles and other enthusiasts. It is perhaps fitting to think about what a collaborative encyclopedia of Indian cinema for the 21st century may look like. Using Rajadhayksha and Willemen’s Encyclopedia as a base, Lawrence has been working on an online version that incorporates moving images, photographs and archival materials and his presentation will open up questions of how one thinks of an online encyclopedia as well as larger conceptual questions of the relationship between the encyclopedias, the internet and moving image archives. Video
20.00	Dinner
RSVP: Bernadette Längle (bernadette@cis-india.org), Ph: +91 80 4092 6283, Prasad Krishna (prasad@cis-india.org).

May 22, 2013

Cybersecurity, Privacy and Surveillance

18.00 18.30	“The Indian Surveillance State”— A Talk by Maria Xynou The Central Monitoring System confirms that, starting from last month ‘Big Brother’ is a reality in India. But how do authorities get the tech to spy on us? Maria has started investigating surveillance technology companies operating in India. So far, 76 companies have been detected which are producing and selling different types of surveillance gear to Indian law enforcement agencies. Join us to see India´s first investigation of who is aiding our watchers! Video
18.30 19.00	Why Privacy and How? A Talk by Bernadette Langle "But I have nothing to hide!" That's what most people think. Are you sure? What about all the services you use for free, don't you think the service provider has to spend money on that, and that he needs to earn it somehow? Bernadette will show some alternatives and also how easy it can be, to put your messages in a virtual private envelope as you use to do with messages on paper. Video
19.00 19.45	Cyber Security Preview — Presentation by Laird Brown and Purba Sarkar CIS in cooperation with Citizen Lab, Munk School of Global Affairs at the University of Toronto, is developing a film project on cyber security in India from a civil society perspective. Laird will show the preview of the project. The preview will include an overview of the project along with a video footage from the first series of interviews. Video
19.45 20.00	Faking of Fingerprints: A Presentation by Bernadette Langle Bernadette will give a brief presentation on how easy it is to fake a fingerprint. Afterwards you can get hands-on. Fake a fingerprint yourself and take it with you to your home. Video Video
20.00	Dinner
RSVP: Bernadette Längle (bernadette@cis-india.org), Ph: +91 80 4092 6283, Prasad Krishna (prasad@cis-india.org).

May 23, 2013

Kannada Language and IT

18.00 18.15	Kannada in Modern Era: A Guest Talk by Dr. Chandrashekhara Kambara Dr. Chandrashekhara will be the chief guest for this session and will give a guest lecture. Video
18.15 19.30	From Palm Leaf to Tablet – Journey of Kannada: A Talk by Dr. U.B. Pavanaja Kannada language which has a history of 2000 years and quite rich in literature started on palm leaves. Kannada advanced with modern times adopting the marvels of Information Technology. This is accomplished by successfully implementing Kannada in various facets of IT. It is being used everywhere from data driven applications to websites to hand held devices like tablets. These aspects will be brought out during the talk. Summary in Kannada: ತಾಳೆಗರಿಯಿಂದ ಟ್ಯಾಬ್ಲೆಟ್ ತನಕ ಕನ್ನಡದ ಪಯಣ ಸುಮಾರು ಎರಡು ಸಾವಿರ ವರ್ಷಗಳ ಭವ್ಯ ಇತಿಹಾಸವಿರುವ ಕನ್ನಡ ಸಾಹಿತ್ಯದ ಉಗಮ ತಾಳೆಗರಿಗಳ ಮೇಲೆ ಆಯಿತು. ಕನ್ನಡ ಭಾಷೆಯು ಆಧುನಿಕ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನದ ಅದ್ಭುತ ಕೊಡುಗೆಗಳನ್ನು ತನ್ನದಾಗಿಸಿಕೊಂಡು ಬೆಳೆಯಿತು. ಮಾಹಿತಿ ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನದ ಎಲ್ಲ ಅಂಗಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಕನ್ನಡವನ್ನು ಅಳವಡಿಸಿ ಬಳಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳುವುದರ ಮೂಲಕ ಇದು ಸಾಧ್ಯವಾಯಿತು. ಆನ್ವಯಿಕ ತಂತ್ರಾಂಶವಿರಲಿ, ಪ್ರತಿಸ್ಪಂದನಾತ್ಮಕ ಜಾಲತಾಣವಿರಲಿ, ಕೈಯಲ್ಲಿ ಹಿಡಿದು ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡುವ ಟ್ಯಾಬ್ಲೆಟ್ ಇರಲಿ –ಎಲ್ಲ ಕಡೆ ಕನ್ನಡದ ಬಳಕೆ ಆಗುತ್ತಿದೆ. ಈ ಎಲ್ಲ ವಿಷಯಗಳ ಕಡೆ ಒಂದು ಪಕ್ಷಿನೋಟವನ್ನು ಈ ಭಾಷಣದಲ್ಲಿ ನೀಡಲಾಗುವುದು. Video
19.30 20.00	Carnatic Music Performance by Nirmita Narasimhan Video
20.00	Dinner
RSVP: Bernadette Längle (bernadette@cis-india.org), Ph: +91 80 4092 6283 Prasad Krishna (prasad@cis-india.org).

About the Speakers

Vibodh Parthasarathi	Vibodh Parthasarathi works with the Centre for Culture and Media Governance, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi. He is also a Board Member at the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore. He maintains a multidisciplinary interest in media and development policy, business history of creative industries, and governance of media infrastructure. At the Centre for Culture, Media & Governance, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, his ongoing research addresses media policy literacy, the TV news industry and the digital switchover in India. He is the co-editor of the critically acclaimed tri-series on Communication Process (Sage).
Lawrence Liang	Lawrence Liang is the Chairman of the Board at the Centre for Internet and Society. He is a graduate of the National Law School. He subsequently pursued his Masters degree in Law and Development at Warwick, on a Chevening Scholarship. His key areas of interest are law, technology and culture, the politics of copyright and he has been working closely with Sarai, New Delhi on a joint research project Intellectual Property and the Knowledge/Culture Commons. A keen follower of the open source movement in software, Lawrence has been working on ways of translating the open source ideas into the cultural domain. He has written extensively on these issues and is the author of The Public is Watching: Sex, Laws and Videotape and A Guide to Open Content Licenses. Lawrence has taught at NLS, the Asian College of Journalism, NALSAR, etc., and is currently working on a Ph.D. on the idea of cinematic justice at Jawaharlal Nehru University.
Maria Xynou	Maria Xynou is a Policy Associate on the Privacy Project at the CIS. She has previously interned with Privacy International and with the Parliament of Greece. Maria holds a Master of Science in Security Studies from the University College London (UCL).
Bernadette Langle	Bernadette Längle recently graduated in social and cultural anthropology, philosophy and computer science. She is also a so-called hacktivist together with one of the oldest hacker associations of the world, the Chaos Computer Club, having a lot of influence in German politics. As one of the core-team organizer of Chaos Communication Congress in Germany she also has a lot of experience in organizing events.
Laird Brown	Laird Brown is a strategic planner and writer. His core competencies are brand analysis, public relations, and resource management. Laird has worked at the United Nations in New York; high-tech ventures in North America, Europe, and India; and, is a guest speaker at ICT conferences internationally. He is currently working on a film project for CIS on cyber security in India with Purba Sarkar.
Purba Sarkar	Purba Sarkar is an associate producer with the cyber security film project. She holds a Bachelor in Technology degree from West Bengal University of Technology. Purba worked as a strategic advisor in the field of SAP Retail for 4 years before joining CIS in January, 2013.
Dr.Chandrashekhara Kambara	Dr. Chandrashekhara Kambara is a prominent poet, playwriter, folklorist, film director in Kannada language. He is also the founder-vice-chancellor of Kannada University in Hampi. He is known for his effective usage of North Karnataka dialect of Kannada language in his plays and poems and is often compared with D.R. Bendre. He has been conferred with many prestigious awards including the Jnanpith Award (the highest literary honour conferred in India) in 2011 for the year 2010, the Sahitya Akademi Award, the Padma Shri by Government of India, Kabir Samman, Kalidas Samman and Pampa Award. After his retirement, Kambara was nominated Member of Karnataka Legislative Council, to which he made significant contributions through his interventions.
Dr. U.B. Pavanaja	Dr U B Pavanaja holds a Master’s degree from Mysore University and Ph.D. from Mumbai University. He was a scientist at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, for about 15 years. He has done advanced research in Taiwan. He resigned from BARC in 1997 and dedicated himself fully for the cause of Computer and Indian languages. He has to his credit many firsts, viz., first Kannada website, first Kannada online magazine, first Indian language (Kannada) website to receive Golden Web Award, first Indian language (Kannada) editor for Palm OS, first Indian language (Kannada) editor for WinCE device (HP Jornado 720), first Indian language version (Kannada) of universally popular Logo (programming language for children) software, etc. His Kannada logo won the Manthan Award for the year 2006. He was a member of the technical advisory committee setup by the Govt. of Karnataka for Standardization of Kannada on Computers (2000). He is also a member of the Kannada Software Committee of Govt. of Karnataka (2008-current).

The Artists

Kiran Subbaiah	Kiran Subbaiah studied sculpture at Santiniketan, MSU Baroda and the RCA London. He was an artist in residence at the Rijksakademie Amsterdam where he worked on art that incorporated informatics and electro-mechanics. He is also known for making videos using custom-built tools that enable him to perform multi-person film-making tasks single-handed. His art is shown extensively in India and abroad. Subbaiah is based in Bangalore and is represented by the Chatterjee and Lal gallery in Mumbai. Kiran will present the Spectator, a robot that can sense the presence of human beings around it. It tries to appreciate them as works of art.
Tara Kelton	Tara Kelton is an artist and designer. She has been living in Brooklyn, USA and Bangalore, India for the last three years. She received her MFA from the Yale School of Art in 2009. Kelton’s video, print, and web-based works investigate moments in which technology alters our perception of the physical world. Kelton has taught at the Srishti School of Art, Design, and Technology and has recently exhibited her work at Vox Populi (USA), Franklin Street Works (USA), GALLERYSKE (Bangalore) and the India Design Forum (Mumbai). Tara will present Trace, a surveillance camera feed drawn in real-time by anonymous online workers.
Navin Thomas	Navin Thomas is a multimedia artist and a professional scrap market junkie, he spends a good quality of his precious time looking for obscure cultural misfits... after destroying most of himself in the 90's, he now spends his time restoring your mother's brother’s tin space toys and other unusual situations.
Abhishek Hazra	Abhishek Hazra approaches his art with a particular emphasis on the study of the historiography of science. He uses videos and prints that often integrate textual fragments drawn from real and fictional scenarios. He has previously exhibited and performed at Science Gallery, Dublin, HEART Herning Museum of Contemporary Art, Denmark, Astrup Fearnley Museum of Modern Art, Oslo, Casino Luxembourg Forum d’art Contemporain, Experiment Marathon Reykjavik, Reykjavik Art Museum and Kunstmuseum Bern. Abhishek was most recently an artist in residence at SymbioticA, the Centre for Excellence in Biological Arts, University of Western Australia, Perth. It was first performed as part of Beam Me Up, curated by Reinhard Storz and Gitanjali Dang, which was acknowledged by Pro Helvetia, New Delhi and German Book Office, New Delhi. Abhishek will be presenting #cloudrumble56 (attempted to re-animate sections of the Indian parliamentary archives — specifically, the transcripts of the scientist M.N. Saha's (1893-1956) interventions — through a performance that was transmitted only through live tweets on Twitter).
Aditya Dipankar	Aditya Dipankar started fiddling with music at the age of 4 when he started learning the tabla and then went on to play it for a long time. Years later, he discovered his strong inclination towards singing. Now, under the noble guidance of Pandit Vijay Sardeshmukh (Senior disciple of Pandit Kumar Gandharva), he is trying to understand the simplicity and spontaneity in the rich tradition of Hindustani classical music.
Nirmita Narasimhan	Nirmita Narasimhan is a Policy Director at CIS and works on accessibility for persons with disabilities. She was awarded the national award for empowerment of persons with disabilities by the President of India and also received the NIVH Excellence Award. Nirmita Narasimhan is a disciple of Dr. Radha Venkatachalam and renowned maestro Prof. T.R. Subramanyam. She began learning music at the age of 5 and went on to complete her Ph.D. in this subject from the Delhi University. Nirmita has been performing since 1995 and received several accolades such as the Sahitya Kala Parishad Scholarship and prizes in several competitions. She received the Gold medal in MA for standing first in the University and also stood first in MPhil. She has released a CD on Ponnayya Pillai compositions and also sung in an album of varnams. Nirmita has performed in different places in India such as Delhi, Chennai, Tirupathi and Bangalore as well as in Singapore and has also given several thematic concerts such as Eka Raga Sandhya and Pallavi concerts.
Sharath Chandra Ram	Sharath Chandra Ram (Sharathchandra Ramakrishnan) has interests in multimodal art, cognitive science, accessibility, digital humanities and network cultures. He is a faculty at the Centre for Experimental Media Arts at the Srishti School of Art Design and Technology. At the Centre for Internet and Society he helped set up and manage activities at the Metaculture Media Lab : an open hackerspace and alternative platform for research and exchange. His writings and musings at CIS maybe found here: http://cis-india.org/author/sharath He graduated from the University of Edinburgh with a degree in Artificial Intelligence specializing in interactive virtual environments. Previously as a Research Associate at the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences he received a special mention award at the International Conference on Consciousness (2012) held at the National Institute of Advanced Studies for his work on ‘Cross modal Integration’. As an amateur radio broadcaster, he is a proponent of the free use of airwaves for relief work, education and transmission art. He has also been a development related radio journalist (PANOS @ Nepal, Voices UNDP@Bangalore), speaker at the International Ham Radio Convention (Port Blair, 2006) and as a film enthusiast has been a Press Reviewer for the Edinburgh International Film Festival.

Locations

Bangalore

Centre for Internet and Society
No. 194, Second 'C' Cross, Domlur,
2nd Stage, Bangalore - 560071,
Karnataka, India
Ph: +91 80 4092 6283
Fax: +91 80 2535 0955

Delhi

Centre for Internet and Society
G 15, Top floor
Behind Hauz Khas, G Block Market
Hauz Khas,
New Delhi 110016
Ph: + 91 011 40503285

Event Brochure

Event Flier

Event Posters/Banners and Videos

Accessibility

National Resource Kit (PDF, PNG)
NVDA E-Speak (PDF, PNG)
International Collaborations (PDF, PNG)
Partners (PDF, PNG)
Publications (PDF, PNG)
Timeline (PDF, PNG)
Inclusive Planet (PDF, PNG)

In the below video Anandhi Viswanathan gives a demo of the National Resource Kit project and Rameshwar Nagar gives a demo of the NVDA and ESpeak (Text-to-Speech) project during the exhibition.

Access to Knowledge

Broadcast Treaty (PDF, PNG)
Copyright (PDF, PNG)
Software Patent 1 (PDF, PNG)
Software Patent 2 (PDF, PNG)
Pervasive Technologies (PDF, PNG)

Access to Knowledge (Wikipedia)

Factsheet (PDF, PNG)
Reaching Out (PDF, PNG)
Outreach (PDF, PNG)
Bridging Gender Gap (PDF, PNG)
Press Coverage (PDF, PNG)
Education Programmes (PDF, PNG)
Team Achievements (PDF, PNG)
Visualization (PDF, PNG)

Openness

Open Access to Scholarly Literature (PDF, PNG)
Open Access to Law (PDF, PNG)
Open Standards (PDF, PNG)
Free/Open Source Software (PDF, PNG)

Internet Governance (Free Speech)

Blocking of Websites (PDF, PNG)
Freedom of Speech (PDF, PNG)
Intermediary Liability (PDF, PNG)
Internet Governance Forum (PDF, PNG)

Internet Governance (Privacy)

Privacy Events (PDF, PNG)
Timeline (PDF, PNG)
UID (1) (PDF, PNG)
UID (2) (PDF, PNG)
DNA (1) (PDF, PNG)
DNA (2) (PDF, PNG)

Telecom

Institutional Framework for Indian Telecommunication (PDF, PNG)
Growth of Telecom Industry in India (PDF, PNG)
Delicensed Spectrum (PDF, PNG)
Spectrum Sharing (PDF, PNG)

RAW Monographs

Archives and Access (PDF, PNG)
Internet, Society and Space in Indian Cities (PDF, PNG)
The Last Cultural Mile (PDF, PNG)
Porn, Law, Video Technology (PDF, PNG)
Re:Wiring Bodies (PDF, PNG)
Community Informatics and Open Government Data (Special Issue) (PDF, PNG)

News and Media

Media Coverage (PDF, PNG)
Organizational Chart (PDF)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/celebrating-5-years-of-cis

CDT Provides Answers to Questions on Internet Neutrality

pranesh — 2012-06-04T05:56:46Z

Pranesh Prakash of CIS asked David Sohn of CDT a few pointed questions on the emerging hot topic of 'Internet neutrality', and received very useful responses. Those questions and Mr. Sohn's responses are documented in this blog post.

As part of the Centre for Democracy and Technology's (CDT's) excellent "Ask CDT" initiative, we were provided the opportunity to clear up some of our doubts around "net neutrality" (which CDT prefers referring to as Internet neutrality rather than network neutrality) by asking an expert: David Sohn, CDT's Senior Policy Counsel. Reproduced below are the questions that I asked (inset and in gray), and David's replies (provided below each question). Some of the questions I asked below were doubts that I had, while some others are instances of donning the roles of devil's advocate. We hope this will be helpful in clarifying doubts that some of the readers of this blog have had as well.

1a. "As far as I can understand, content distribution networks (CDNs) such as Akamai, don't really fall within your understanding of violations of Internet neutrality. Why not? In what cases is 'spending more to get faster speeds' permitted for content hosts? Since not only specialised companies like Akamai, but regular Tier 1 companies like Level3 and AT&T also engage in CDN-like behaviour, does it make it more liable to illicit/underhand/non-transparent service differentiation techniques?"

1a. That's correct, CDNs don't violate either Internet neutrality principles or the FCC's recent rules. I talked about this at some length in a blog post a couple years ago. The short answer is that Internet neutrality does not aim to guarantee that all online content and services will work equally well, but rather to prevent ISPs from exercising "gatekeeper" control with respect to their subscribers. Thus, content providers who have money can purchase various advantages -- for example, more or better servers, upgraded software, or caching services from a CDN such as Akamai. Significantly, things like servers and caching are available from competitive sources; no supplier has gatekeeper control. In contrast, priority treatment on the transmission facilities serving any given Internet user is an advantage that only that user's ISP could provide. Another difference is that when one content provider purchases caching, it doesn't slow anybody else's traffic (indeed, it could speed it up, since it may help reduce overall network congestion). By contrast, when an ISP designates favoured traffic for priority transmission, non-favoured traffic by definition is de-prioritized. Think about a line of "bits" waiting in a router queue -- if you let some bits "cut in line," it inevitably lengthens the wait for those who don't get to cut. Given CDT's general comfort level with CDNs and the existence of competitive offerings in the marketplace, I'm not too concerned about who provides the service (Akamai, Level3, AT&T, etc.). It doesn't seem to be a case of the ISP leveraging its unique control over access to subscribers.

1b. "A large part of the claims of Internet neutrality supporters are founded on the basis of 'dumb networks', which can also be seen as a reformulation of the end-to-end principle. A question arises, which is often posed by the likes of Dave Farber, Bob Kahn and Robert Pepper: why should we stick dogmatically to the end-to-end principle when embedding 'intelligence' in the core is/will soon be a viable option *without* jeopardising the simplicity of the Internet? If you are fine with CDNs, then are you fine with a partial supplanting of the dogmatism of the end-to-end principle (because, after all, CDNs are in a sense, intelligence in the core rather than in the edges)?"

1b. I don't think that supporting Internet neutrality requires a dogmatic opposition to any and all built-in "intelligence" in the network. Certainly a strong case can be made for handling certain network management matters, such as some cyber security issues, at the network level. I get concerned on neutrality grounds not by the mere existence of "intelligence" in the core, but by the use of that intelligence to make judgments and decisions about which applications and services are most important or most in need of special treatment -- as opposed to remaining application-agnositic or, in the alternative, leaving the decision to end users. Intelligence that is put in the service of end users, allowing the users themselves to make judgments about what to prioritize, does not concern me at all. But if the network-level intelligence results in broader reliance on centralized evaluation and categorization of the type or content of Internet communications, and centralized decisions about what to favor or disfavor, then I think it poses a neutrality problem. The bottom line is, the idea that networks could benefit from some built-in intelligence does not argue for giving ISPs unbounded discretion to discriminate among traffic. Indeed, a network that empowered users themselves to determine the relative priority levels of their traffic based on their individual needs would be far "smarter" than on in which ISPs make broad, across-the-board choices.

2. "What is the bright-line rule that separates some IP-based networks that are 'private' (and hence free to do as they please), and others that are part of the 'Internet' (and hence need to follow Internet neutrality)? Where does IPTV fall? (While answering that question, think not only of present-day IPTV, but keep in mind its potential applications.) Where do 'walled gardens' of the WWW fall?"

2. In CDT's view, Internet access service provides a general-purpose ability to send and receive data communications across the Internet. Other services could be exempt from neutrality rules if they serve specific and limited functional purposes and have limited impact on the technical performance of Internet traffic. CDT's comments to the FCC went into considerable detail -- see, for example, the comments we filed in October. The FCC rules took a similar but not identical tack, saying that Internet access services are services that provide the capability to send and receive data "from all or substantially all Internet endpoints" or that provide a functional equivalent of such a service. In any event, the question of how clear the line is between Internet access services that are subject to neutrality rules and other services that are not is an important one that will bear close watching over time. As for IPTV, it offers a specific function -- access to video programming -- rather than general purpose access to the entire Internet. So IPTV can be distinguished from Internet service. As for "walled gardens," it likely would depend how large the garden is. If the garden seeks to offer a wide enough variety of sites that it can be used as a substitute for Internet access, then the FCC could choose to apply neutrality rules. At some point, a garden can become big and general-purpose enough that it is effectively serving as a non-neutral version of an Internet access service. That kind of end-run around neutrality rules shouldn't be allowed.

3a. "Should Internet neutrality be kept at the level of non-enforceable (but still important) enunciation of principles, or should they be enforceable laws? In either case, who has the authority to regulate Internet neutrality, given the non-territoriality of the 'Internet' (and especially keeping in mind the direction that ICANN's been taking with things like the Affirmation of Commitments). Why should the FCC have such powers? Why should any American governmental body have such powers?"

3a. It is important to have some enforceable rules. The FCC enunciated principles back in its 2005 broadband Policy Statement -- but when the agency tried to act after Comcast violated those principles, a court ruled that the FCC had no ability to do so. Enunciated principles are of little value if ISPs are free to violate them without consequence. For U.S. Internet users, I think the FCC is an appropriate agency in which to lodge the authority to police neutrality violations; the FCC has a long history of working to ensure that providers of physical communications infrastructure do not abuse their position. And since the focus is on the provisions of physical communications connections, I don't the the territoriality issue you raise is a major problem. The United States has the authority to establish rules for companies providing last-mile communications links to U.S.-based subscribers. The Internet is of course a global medium, but the endpoint connections have a clear geographic location.

3b. "If Internet neutrality is really about ensuring fair competition (so an ISP doesn't promote one company's content), then why not just allow competition law / anti-trust law to ensure that fair competition? What are the lacunae in global competition laws that necessitate the separate articulation of 'Internet neutrality' principles/rules?"

3b. The ability of antitrust law to protect Internet openness is pretty limited. Absent a clear anticompetitive motive, network operators likely could curtail Internet openness in a variety of ways without running afoul of antitrust law. Antitrust’s prohibition against anticompetitive conduct is a far cry from any kind of affirmative policy to preserve the Internet’s uniquely open network structure. Nor can antitrust law take into account the major non-economic reasons for maintaining an open Internet, such as the impact on independent speech and civic empowerment. Finally, as a practical matter, antitrust cases tend to drag on for many years. Individual innovators and small startup companies – key beneficiaries of Internet openness – are unlikely to be in a position to bring antitrust cases against major network operators.

4a. "One of the strongest arguments of anti-Internet neutrality folks is that adoption of Internet neutrality principles/rules will ensure that it is only the consumers who foot the bill for bandwidth consumption, and bandwidth hogs (like NetFlix) don't ever pay. This, they say, is unfair on consumers. How do you respond to this?"

4a. First, I question the statement that "bandwidth hogs like NetFlix don't ever pay." For starters, NetFlix buys a huge amount of bandwidth connecting its servers to the Internet. Once on the Internet, its traffic is carried onward pursuant to peering agreements between the ISPs and backbone providers. When NetFlix traffic volume grows, it may trigger new payment demands between carriers, as we've seen in the recent dispute between Comcast and Level3. But the bottom line is, nobody is forced to carry any traffic they haven't contractually agreed to handle. Of course, it is true that NetFlix doesn't make payments to (for example) AT&T for delivering NetFlix traffic to AT&T's customers. That might seem unfair if you think of NetFlix as a "bandwidth hog" eating up AT&T's capacity. I believe that is the wrong way to think about it. NetFlix has no ability to forcefeed traffic onto AT&T's network. Every bit it sends was requested by an AT&T subscriber. So if there are "bandwidth hogs" here, they are the end users -- they are the ones that pull all those bits onto AT&T's network. And they have already paid AT&T for the ability to get those bits. I would add that when individual users choose to download huge volumes, I have no problem with the ISP charging them more. Second, you suggest that it may be unfair to ask consumers to foot the full bill for their connectivity. But the Internet is such an open and innovation-friendly platform precisely because it is so user-driven. This user-centric focus could change if ISPs start thinking of themselves as providing services not just to end user subscribers, but also to non-subscribers such as large online content providers to whom the ISPs do not directly provide bandwidth. The ISPs would then have divided loyalties; rather than just focusing on empowering users, they would be collecting fees to steer users in particular directions. Sure, in other contexts there are examples of "two-sided markets" in which end users foot only part of the bill. Newspapers are often cited. But including paid advertising in newspapers doesn't have much impact in how the overall product is perceived or presented to users. In contrast, ISPs charging content providers for special transmission priority would be akin to a newspaper in which advertisers pay not just to place ads, but also to influence where the substantive articles appear -- which ones go on the front page and which on the interior, for example. In turn, content providers of all stripes would need to think about striking deals with multiple ISPs -- something that is not necessary today. In the end, turning the Internet into a two-sided market would make the medium dramatically less open, less innovative, and less empowering of users.

4b. "If a consumer wants a faster connection (to access content faster), she can get that by paying the ISP more and getting more bandwidth. If a business wants a faster connection (to deliver content faster), it can get that by paying the ISP more bandwidth. However, certain kinds of paying for faster delivery of content are sought to be curbed. Where should we draw that line? And Why should we hold on so dearly to a certain model of accounting for costs?"

4b. Consumers and businesses should be able to pay their respective ISPs for more bandwidth. I think that is very different from paying other people's ISPs for preferential treatment. The latter arrangement turns ISPs into gatekeepers with respect to their subscribers -- because once the quality of delivery depends on which content providers have struck a deal with the subscribers' ISP, every content provider needs to negotiate with that ISP in order to keep up with its competitors. We hold on to the Internet's model of accounting for costs because it is part of what makes the Internet such an open, innovative environment: content providers and innovators don't face the hurdle of having to negotiate deals with all their users' ISPs.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cdt-internet-neutrality

CCTVs in Public Spaces and the Data Protection Bill, 2021

Anamika Kundu and Digvijay S Chaudhary — 2022-04-28T02:29:42Z

This article has been authored by Ms. Anamika Kundu, Research Assistant at the Centre for Internet and Society, and Digvijay S. Chaudhary, Researcher at the Centre for Internet and Society. This blog is a part of RSRR’s Blog Series on the Right to Privacy and the Legality of Surveillance, in collaboration with the Centre for Internet & Society.

The article by Anamika Kundu and Digvijay S. Chaudhary was originally published by RGNUL Student Research Review on April 20, 2022

Introduction

In recent times, Indian cities have seen an expansion of state deployed CCTV cameras. According to a recent report, in terms of CCTVs deployed, Delhi was considered as the most surveilled city in the world, surpassing even the most surveilled cities in China. Delhi was not the only Indian city in that list, Chennai and Mumbai also made it to the list. In Hyderabad as well, the development of a Command and Control Centre aims to link the city’s surveillance infrastructure in real-time. Even though studies have shown that there is little correlation between CCTVs and crime control, deployment of CCTV cameras has been justified on the basis of national security and crime deterrence. Such an activity brings about the collection and retention of audio-visual/visual information of all individuals frequenting spaces where CCTV cameras are deployed. This information could be used to identify them (directly or indirectly) based on their looks or other attributes. Potential risks associated with the misuse, and processing of such personal data also arise. These risks include large scale profiling, criminal abuse (law enforcement misusing CCTV information for personal gains), and discriminatory targeting (law enforcement disproportionately focusing on a particular group of people). As these devices capture personal data of individuals, this article seeks data protection safeguards available to data principals against CCTV surveillance employed by the State in a public space under the proposed Data Protection Bill, 2021 (the “DPB”).

Safeguards Available Under the Data Protection Bill, 2021

To use CCTV surveillance, the measures and compliance listed under the DPB have to be followed. Obligations of data fiduciaries available under Chapter II, such as consent (clause 11), notice requirement (clause 7), and fair and reasonable processing (clause 5) are common to all data processing entities for a variety of activities. Similarly, as the DPB follows the principles of data minimisation (clause 6), storage limitation (clause 9), purpose limitation (clause 5), lawful and fair processing (clause 4), transparency (clause 23), and privacy by design (clause 22), these safeguards too are common to all data processing entities/activities. If a data fiduciary processes personal data of children, it has to comply with the standards stated under clause 16.

Under the DPB, compliance differs on the basis of grounds and purpose of data processing. As such, if compliance standards differ, so do the availability of safeguards under the DPB. Of relevance to this article, there are three standards of compliance under the DPB wherein the standards of safeguards available to a data principal differ. First, cases which would fall under Chapter III and hence, not require consent. Chapter III lists grounds for processing of personal data without consent. Second, cases which would fall under exemption clauses in Chapter VIII. In such cases, the DPB or some of its provisions would be inapplicable. Clause 35 under Chapter VIII gives power to the Central Government to exempt any agency from the application of the DPB. Similarly, Clause 36 under Chapter VIII, exempts certain provisions for certain processing of personal data. Third, cases which would not fall under either of the above Chapters. In such cases, all safeguards available under the DPB would be available to the data principals. Consequently, safeguards available to data principals in each of these standards are different. We will go through each of these separately.

First, if the grounds of processing of CCTV information is such that it falls under the scope of Chapter III of the DPB, wherein the consent requirement is done away with, then in those cases, the notice requirement has to reflect such purpose, meaning that even if consent is not necessary for certain cases, other requirements under the DPB would still apply. Here, we must note that CCTV deployment by the state on such a large scale may be justified on the basis of conditions stated under clauses 12 and 14 of DPB – specifically, the condition for the performance of state function authorised by law, and public interest. The requirement under clause 12 of “authorised by law” simply means that the state function should have legal backing. Deployment of CCTVs is most likely to fall under clause 12 as various states have enacted legislations providing for CCTV deployment in the name of public safety. As a result, even if section 12 takes away the requirement of consent for certain cases, data principals should be able to exercise all rights accorded to them under the DPB (chapter V) except the right to data portability under clause 19.

Second, processing of personal data via CCTVs by government agencies could be exempted from DPB under clause 35 for certain cases under the clause. Another exemption that is particularly concerning with regard to the use of CCTVs is the exemption provided under clause 36(a). Section 36(a) says that the provisions of chapters II-VII would not apply where the data is processed in the interest of prevention, detection, investigation, and prosecution of any offence under the law. Chapters II-VII govern the obligations of data fiduciaries, grounds where consent would not be required, personal data of children, rights of data principals, transparency and accountability measures, and restrictions on transfer of personal data outside India respectively. In these cases, the requirement of fair and reasonable processing under clause 5 would also not apply. As a broad justification provided for CCTVs deployment by the government is crime control, it is possible that section 36(a) justification can be used to exempt the processing of CCTV footage from the above-mentioned safeguards.

From the above discussion, the following can be concluded. First, if the grounds of processing fall under Chapter III, then standards of fair and reasonable processing, notice requirement, and all rights except the right to data portability u/s 19 would be available to data principals. Second, if the grounds of processing fall under clause 36, then, in that case, consent requirement, notice requirement, and the rights under DPB would be unavailable as that section mandates the non-application of those chapters. In such a case, even the processing requirements of a fair and reasonable manner stand suspended. Third, if the grounds of processing of CCTV information doesn’t fall under Chapter III, then all obligations listed under Chapter II would have to be followed. Moreover, the data principal would be able to exercise all the rights available under Chapter V of the DPB.

Constitutional Standards

When the Supreme Court recognised privacy as a fundamental right in the case of Puttaswamy v. Union of India (“Puttaswamy”), it located the principles of informed consent and purpose limitation as central to informational privacy. It recognised that privacy inheres not in spaces but in an individual. It also recognised that privacy is not an absolute right and certain restrictions may be imposed on the exercise of the right. Before listing the constitutional standards that activities infringing privacy must adhere to, it’s important to answer whether there exists a reasonable expectation of privacy in CCTV footage deployed in a public space by the State?

In Puttaswamy, the court recognised that privacy is not denuded in public spaces. Writing for the plurality judgement, Chandrachud J. recognised that the notion of a reasonable expectation of privacy has elements both of a subjective and objective nature. Defining these concepts, he writes, “Privacy at a subjective level is a reflection of those areas where an individual desire to be left alone. On an objective plane, privacy is defined by those constitutional values which shape the content of the protected zone where the individual ought to be left alone…hence while the individual is entitled to a zone of privacy, its extent is based not only on the subjective expectation of the individual but on an objective principle which defines a reasonable expectation.” Note how in the above sentences, the plurality judgement recognises “a reasonable expectation” to be inherent in “constitutional values”. This is important as the meaning of what’s reasonable is to be constituted according to constitutional values and not societal norms. A second consideration that the phrase “reasonable expectation of privacy” requires is that an individual’s reasonable expectation is allied to the purpose for which the information is provided, as held in the case of Hyderabad v. Canara Bank (“Canara Bank”). Finally, the third consideration in defining the phrase is that it is context dependent. For example, in the case of In the matter of an application by JR38 for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) 242 (2015) (link here), the UK Supreme Court was faced with a scenario where the police published the CCTV footage of the appellant involved in riotous behaviour. The question before the court was: “Whether the publication of photographs by the police to identify a young person suspected of being involved in riotous behaviour and attempted criminal damage can ever be a necessary and proportionate interference with that person’s article 8 [privacy] rights?” The majority held that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in the case because of the nature of the criminal activity the appellant was involved in. However, the majority’s formulation of this conclusion was based on the reasoning that “expectation of privacy” was dependent on the “identification” purpose of the police. The court stated, “Thus, if the photographs had been published for some reason other than identification, the position would have been different and might well have engaged his rights to respect for his private life within article 8.1”. Therefore, as the purpose of publishing the footage was “identification” of the wrongdoer, the reasonable expectation of privacy stood excluded. The Canara Bank case was relied on by the SC in Puttaswamy. The plurality judgement in Puttaswamy also quoted the above paragraphs from the UK Supreme Court judgement.

Finally, the SC in the Aadhaar case, laid down the factors of “reasonable expectation of privacy.” Relying on those factors, the Supreme Court observed that demographic information and photographs do not raise a reasonable expectation of privacy. It further held that face photographs for the purpose of identification are not covered by a reasonable expectation of privacy. As this author has recognised, the majority in the Aadhaar case misconstrued the “reasonable expectation of privacy” to lie not in constitutional values as held in Puttaswamy but in societal norms. Even with the misapplication of the Puttaswamy principles by the majority in Aadhaar, it is clear that the exclusion of a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in face photographs is valid only for the purpose of “identification”. For purposes other than “identification”, there should exist a reasonable expectation of privacy in CCTV footage. Having recognised the existence of “reasonable expectation of privacy” in CCTV footage, let’s see how the safeguards mentioned under the DPB stand the constitutional standards of privacy laid down in Puttaswamy.

The bench in Puttaswamy located privacy not only in Article 21 but the entirety of part III of the Indian Constitution. Where transgression to privacy relates to different provisions under Part III, the tests evolved under those Articles would apply. Puttaswamy recognised that national security and crime control are legitimate state objectives. However, it also recognised that any limitation on the right must satisfy the proportionality test. The proportionality test requires a legitimate state aim, rational nexus, necessity, and balancing of interests. Infringement on the right to privacy occurs under the first and second standard. The first requirement of proportionality stands justified as national security and crime control have been recognised to be legitimate state objectives. However, it must be noted that the EU Guidelines on Processing of Personal Data through video devices state that the mere purpose of “safety” or “for your safety” is not sufficiently specific and is contrary to the principle that personal data shall be processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to the data subject. The second requirement is a rational nexus. As stated above, there is little correlation between crime control and surveillance measures. Even if the state justifies a rational nexus between state aim and the action employed, it is the necessity part of the proportionality test where the CCTV surveillance measures fail (as explained by this author). Necessity requires us to draw a list of alternatives and their impact on an individual, and then do a balancing analysis with regard to the alternatives. Here, judicial scrutiny of the exemption order under clause 35 is a viable alternative that respects individual rights while at the same time, not interfering with the state’s aim.

Conclusion

Informed consent and purpose limitation were stated to be central principles of informational privacy in Puttaswamy. Among the three standards we identified, the principles of informed consent and purpose limitation remain available only in the third standard. In the first standard, even though the requirement of consent has become unavailable, the principle of purpose limitation would still be applicable to the processing of such data. The second standard is of particular concern wherein neither of those principles is available to data principals. It is worth mentioning here that in large scale monitoring activities such as CCTV surveillance, the safeguards which the DPB lists out would inevitably have an implementation flaw. The reason is that in scenarios where individuals refuse consent for large scale CCTV monitoring, what alternatives would the government offer to those individuals? Practically, CCTV surveillance would fall under clause 12 standards where consent would not be required. Even in those cases, would the notice requirement safeguard be diminished to “you are under surveillance” notices? When we talk about exercise of rights available under the DPB, how would an individual effectively exercise their right when the data processing is not limited to a particular individual? These questions arise because the safeguards under the DPB (and data protection laws in general) are based on individualistic notions of privacy. Interestingly, individual use cases of CCTVs have also increased with an increase in state use of CCTVs. Deployment of CCTVs for personal or domestic purposes would be exempt from the above-mentioned compliances as that would fall under the exemption provision of clause 36(d). Two additional concerns arise in relation to processing of data concerning CCTVs – the JPC report’s inclusion of Non-Personal Data (“NPD”) within the ambit of DPB, and the government’s plan to develop a National Automated Facial Recognition System (“AFRS”). A significant part of the data collected by CCTVs would fall within the ambit of NPD.With the JPC’s recommendation, it will be interesting to follow the processing standards for NPD under the DPB. AFRS has been imagined as a national database of photographs gathered from various agencies to be used in conjunction with facial recognition technology. The use of facial recognition technology with CCTV cameras raises concerns surrounding biometric data, and risks of large scale profiling. Indeed, section 27 of the DPB reflects this risk and mandates a data protection impact assessment to be undertaken by the data fiduciary with respect to processing involving new technologies or large scale profiling or use of biometric data by such technologies, however the DPB does not define what “new technology” means. Concerns around biometric data are outside the scope of the present article, however, it would be interesting to look at how the use of facial recognition technology with CCTVs could impact the safeguards under DPB.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/rssr-anamika-kundu-digvijay-s-chaudhary-april-20-2022-cctvs-in-public-spaces-and-data-protection-bill-2021

CCTV plays Sherlock

praskrishna — 2016-04-24T04:51:04Z

Whether it's the Mercedes hit-and-run in Delhi or the antics of the chaddi baniyan gang in Mumbai, police are increasingly relying on CCTV footage to solve crimes. Sunday Times looks at how the small picture is getting bigger. .

The article by Raj Shekhar, Arun Dev, V Narayan & A Selvaraj with inputs from Sindhu Kannan and Somreet Bhattacharya was published by the Times of India on April 24, 2016. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

In case after high-profile case, cameras have been the big stars of Delhi police investigations in recent months. After the Civil Lines hit-and-run case, where a 17-year-old driving a Mercedes was caught on camera speeding away from his victim, reliable witness to the crime came from a nearby CCTV. A few weeks ago, in the Vikaspuri lynching on Holi eve that threatened to take on communal colours, it was CCTV footage that clinched the case.

Across India, police officials reel off cases where CCTVs have made all the difference in identifying offenders and speeding up investigations. "Petty crimes like snatchings have been brought down by 50% in areas like Chandni Chowk since 2014," estimates Madhur Verma, DCP (north), Delhi Police. "Even if the face cannot be fully recognised, the timing shown on the CCTV grabs, and proof of the accused being present at the spot, can be useful corroborating evidence for the court," says DCP Dhananjay Kulkarni, explaining how CCTV helped nail the infamous "chaddi baniyan gang" in Borivli, Mumbai.

CCTV cameras have proliferated across our public spaces in the last few years, mutely observing our movements. It's not just the police; shops, companies and individuals install them too, and these come in handy for law enforcement. For instance, Delhi has about 1,79,000 CCTV cameras installed around the city, out of which 4,000 have been placed by the Delhi government, and the rest by private agencies who collaborate with the Delhi Police under its 'Eyes and Ears' scheme. "Cameras are a fact of life around the world, there's no going back for the police or for anyone else," says N Ramachandran, a former IPS officer, now president of the Indian Police Academy think-tank.

Whether London, Boston or Bengaluru, it is often a terrorist attack that shocks a city into ramping up its CCTV network. After the Church Street attacks, the police got cracking on surveillance, using crime-mapping techniques and shortlisting vantage points. While they currently use 300 cameras, the police believe the figure must be taken up to 2,500 to keep a better eye on the city.

But does CCTV control crime? To that question, there is only one unsatisfying answer — it depends. The debate is torn between those who see CCTVs as the embodiment of an eerie Orwellian warning, and those who believe that the more cameras there are, the less crime there will be. Studies, though, suggest that CCTV has specific and narrow uses.

Obviously, it helps catch people who have committed an offence, after the event. CCTV networks, though, have no noticeable impact on crime rates according to several reviews in the US and UK. The UK is the most monitored nation in the world, but as a Home Office study in 2005 concluded, there was no statistically significant reduction in crime, once other variables like seasonal and national trends, and other police initiatives, were factored in.

While CCTVs are not easy to isolate as a determining factor in crime control, they are demonstrably effective in some contexts. They can reduce some kinds of disorder and petty crime, particularly in car parks and public transit. Micro-level analyses of aspects like environmental features, camera line-of-sight, enforcement activity, and camera design suggest that the power to deter crime depends greatly on how the CCTV sites are chosen, and police operations designed.

The downsides are well known. The more mundane footage there is, the harder it is for police to sift through. There is often a displacement effect — the presence of a camera pushes the crime off-stage into other areas, or prompting criminals to change tactics in pursuit of the same ends (ie, rather than carry out a drug transaction on the street, arrange online and deliver). What's more, CCTVs can be gamed. In Mumbai, the police has found out that criminals apply toothpaste or flash a torchlight at the lens, or cover up with helmets and burqas, or even steal the digital video recorder in the CCTV. These cameras have to be constantly maintained. "Many believe that CCTV installation is a one-time investment, but it needs to be serviced to yield results," says S. David, who runs an electronics shop and sells CCTV cameras in Chennai's Ritchie Street.

If there is no overwhelming impact on crime prevention, why are India's security forces investing so heavily in CCTVs, and is it worth the inevitable tradeoff with privacy? More worryingly, it is doing so without any comprehensive regulation on their use.

Before this technology of databases and recording, "we seldom had situations where a police official or private detective was trailing you all day, recording your movements, which is more or less the situation with CCTVs now," says Pranesh Prakash of the Centre for Internet and Society. "Yes, you're in a public space, but that doesn't denude you of privacy".

But as Farhad Manjoo, a prominent tech blogger in the US, pointed out, the benefits outweigh our fears about privacy. "When you weigh cameras against other security measures, they emerge as the least costly and most effective choice. In the aftermath of 9/11, it's impossible for you to get into tall buildings, airports, many museums, concerts, and even public celebrations without being subjected to pat-downs and metal detectors. When combined with competent law enforcement, surveillance cameras are more effective, less intrusive, less psychologically draining, and much more pleasant than these alternatives," wrote Manjoo in Slate.

What we need is public oversight over the surveillance apparatus — in other words, we need to watch how they watch us. If there is clear respect for the principles of proportionality, accountability and transparency, "there need not be a conflict between ethical and effective use of these cameras," says Ramachandran.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-times-of-india-raj-shekhar-arun-dev-v-narayan-a-selvaraj-cctv-plays-sherlock

CCTV in Universities

merlin — 2011-09-01T09:50:09Z

Basic Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Infrastructure is used to observe movements from a central room, and consists of one or more video cameras that transmit video and audio images to a set of monitors or video recorders.

A Brief History of CCTV's

Video surveillance as a means of policing gained prominence in the 1950s when the UK police installed two pan-tilt cameras on traffic lights to monitor traffic near the Parliament. Since then the United Kingdom has become the country with the most number of surveillance cameras.[1]

The proliferation of CCTVs has been attributed to the growing radicalization of human behaviour wherein organized groups terrorized entire nations and threatened their internal security. The 1985 terror attack on the then Prime Minister of Britain by the IRA and many such instances thereafter have led many countries to adopt CCTV as a means of policing. In India, terror attacks on the Mumbai stock market and successive instances have pushed the Indian Government to install CCTVs in prominent public areas so that it is possible to monitor suspicious movements.[2]

CCTVs and Public Perspective

Since the 1950'sCCTVs have become ubiquitous and ever present, monitoring our daily movements, and infringing into our personal space. Though governments believe CCTVs are essential security instruments, the public is less convinced. The early anxiety to be safe from an unseen danger has given way to a new unease amongst the people, that of constantly being watched by an unseen eye.

CCTVs in Educational Institutions

CCTVs are typically used by the government or private agencies for surveillance in areas frequented by the public that need monitoring. Recently though, universities across the length and breadth of the country have resorted to the use of CCTVs for policing campus activities and to keep the students in check and under control. Huge budgets are set to wire campuses with CCTV infrastructure, t causing students to protest as well as laud the initiative by the administration. The debate on CCTVs has gained momentum in recent years with students staging huge rallies both in support of and against it.

Example 1:

The most prominent of the agitations against CCTVs was staged by the students of Jadavpur University in Kolkata on the administration’s decision to install 16 CCTVs on the four main exit points of the campus and other strategic locations.[3] The installation cost Rs.20 lakh. The students protested loudly against the decisions and ‘gheraoed’ the office of the vice chancellor for 52 hours. The students claimed that the administration was curbing their individual freedom and robbing the campus of it’s democratic atmosphere. The administration refused to remove the cameras, and claimed that the move was necessitated for the security of the students and to prevent any unforeseen incident.

Example 2:

The girl’s residing in the Women’s Hostel of The University of Pune protested against the setting up of CCTV cameras’ in the entrances of the hostel to check for unauthorized visits from boyfriends and friends. The girl’s vandalized the camera and claimed that they were an infringement to their privacy. The hostel authorities insisted that the cameras did not infringe on the privacy of the women, and were only installed at the entrance gates to keep a tab on visitors.[4] The authorities claimed that this step was taken in congruence with the hostel’s policy of not allowing visitors to stay the night.

Example 3:

The girls of the Churchgate’s Government Law College succeeded in getting the CCTV camera removed from the Girl’s Common Room, as it was seen as an infringement to their privacy. The MNS stepped up the agitation in favor of the students which led the college administration to finally take notice and remove the camera from the common room.[5]

The Flip Side

The issue of CCTVs in campuses takes an interesting turn when the students support the move to install cameras in campuses.

Example 1:

Delhi University installed CCTV cameras in their campuses after the Delhi Police issued an advisory for the same. They claimed that the advisory issued was to monitor the instances of on campus ragging. The Delhi Police also helped fund the setting up of CCTVs in the college. This move was lauded by the students, and the colleges took instant measures to wire their campuses.[6]

Example 2:

Recently, after the murder of a Delhi University student named Radhika Tanwar in broad day light, many student union groups assembled for a candle light vigil. They demanded CCTV cameras near the Satya Niketan bus stop where Radhika was killed which is an isolated stretch of a road. The massive agitation of almost a week brought the National Commission of Women into the foray who seconded the demand put forth by the student body.[7]

Example 3:

The recent instance of an RTI exposing inflated bills for setting up CCTVs in the Punjab University Campus also throws light on an interesting facet to this debate as the students do not mind the CCTVs in their campus. The student’s union of the university demanded the authorities to look into the discrepancies of the budget, and also expressed anger as the CCTVs installed did not work. The students claimed that the rising violence in the campus is because of disinterested security men and non working CCTV cameras.[8]

Conclusion

The decisions to use CCTVs as a means of surveillance evokes mixed responses. On one side of the debate they are seen as a deterrent to crime while on the other side of the debate they are seen as beinggross infringements on privacy. CCTV surveillance remains as a bone of contention amongst students. If they feel that their personal space is being invaded by these cameras then it needs to be addressed by the administration in a manner which appeases their fear. Universities randomly adopt the policy of CCTV surveillance, disregarding any voice of dissent. Kashmir University put up CCTVs in it’s campus to shoo away lovebirds and the Aligarh Muslim University has installed 57 CCTV cameras in it’s campus to keep a check on students. The rise of the CCTVs in colleges relates to not the actual crime but to the fear of crime. Therefore, CCTVs have become a tool of re-assurance [9]which feeds a notion of safety and security to the authority in charge.

There is no black and white regarding the implementation of CCTVs in universities. A policy can only benefit both sides when decisions are taken with the students, and not on behalf of them. Indian Universities have no guidelines and policies regarding the implementation of CCTVs and students remain unaware of any decisions in this regard. The Universities should clearly spell out their take on CCTVs including:

University policy regarding CCTVs policies
The reasons for introducing CCTVs
The proposed uses of CCTV infrastructure
Which areas in the campus will be kept under surveillance
How will the data collected be stored
How long will the data be retained
How will the data be deleted[10]

The Universities should address all these issues to dispel fear from the minds of the students, and the student unions should be included in the discussions regarding the implementation of CCTVs.

Notes

[1].Webster,William; CCTV policy in the UK: Reconsidering the evidence base; sueveillanceandsociety.org.

[2].Norris, Clive;MC Cahill, Mike;Wood, David; The Growth of CCTV: A Global Perspective on the international diffusion of video surveillance in publically accessible space; surveillance-and-society.org.

[3].Timesnow.tv/jadavpuruniversity, www.haata.com.

[4].http://www.ndtv.com/article/cities/female-hostellers-damage-cctv-cameras-to-protect-privacy-83889, http://toostep.com/debate/is-it-right-to-install-a-cctv-in-girls-hostel-to-stop-unauth.

[5].http://www.mumbaimirror.com/index.aspx?page=article§id=2&contentid=201101212011012104560935753ecb888, http://ibnlive.in.com/news/cctv-cameras-in-hostel-rob-pune-women-of-freedom/142681-3.html.

[6].http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/after-delhi-police-advisory-du-to-install-cctv-cameras/761421/.

[7].http://www.indianexpress.com/news/women-constables-cctv-cameras-in-girl-stude/766083/.

[8].http://www.punjabcolleges.com/5526999-itemdisplay-Misappropriation-of-funds-on-CCTV,-RTI-exposed-it-Chandigarh.htm.

[9].www.surveillance-and-society.org/ojs/index.php/journal/article/view/prozac/prozac.

[10].www.ucl.ac.uk/estates/security/documents/cctvpolicy.doc, http://www.wustl.edu/policies/cctv-monitoring-and-recording.html.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/privacy/cctv-in-universities

CCI leaves Google searching for answers

Admin — 2018-02-19T02:26:17Z

If you go to the Google search box and type "nuance", the first result that shows up is "CCIBSE 0.00 % Judgement on Google". No, we just made that up.

The article by Nirmal John was published in the Economic Times on February 13, 2018

The Competition Commission of India's (CCI) landmark ruling enforcing a Rs 135.86-crore fine on Google for "search bias" and abusing its "dominant position" is one of the more finely considered judgements in the technology industry. According to Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bengaluru-based research organisation, the Centre for Internet and Society, "CCI is returning to the roots of the competition law, where it is as important to prevent concentration of power as it is to look at how pricing affects people. The emphasis here is now also on protecting innovation and competition itself."

To begin with, according to the CCI, the rules of engagement are different for early-stage markets and mature markets.

CCI has differentiated between early-stage markets and mature markets. In an earlier judgement when two radio cab operators, FastTrack and Meru, had accused Ola of offering discounts and predatory pricing, the CCI had ruled in favour of Ola. CCI had said a lack of market maturity in the cab-hailing space was central to its decision. "At this stage, it is difficult to determine with certainty the long-term impact of this pricing strategy, as the market is yet to mature," the CCI had ruled.

The search market is different. Google is the 800-pound gorilla and pretty much the entire zoo in this market. The Google judgement, according to a lawyer who chose to remain off the record, "is based on the principle that a higher degree of responsibility is cast on Google because it has a dominant position in the market".

The nub of the argument is that Google, by the showcasing of flights in its search page, has used its role as a gateway to offer a specific service.

As the judgement notes: "Google is leveraging its strong position in various online search markets to enter into and enhance its position in ancillary markets. Not only does that cause direct harm to competitors in vertical markets, it also causes direct harm to other website owners, since their websites are moved down on SERP [search engine results page] and hence, they receive less clicks as a result of lessened traffic. Further, this also harms consumers as they no longer receive the most relevant results at the top of SERP."

But why should the consumers care? After all they are getting the cheapest price.

This is where CCI's second important point comes in. There needs to be a balance between the short-term concerns of consumers with their long-term benefits.

Even if consumers who used Google flights to find options for firming up travel plans may have saved money, the CCI has, in this instance, taken the view that what may be of immediate benefit to the consumer may not be good for them in the long term because of the distortion of the market it creates.

Apart from prices, there is another benefit that comes from Google's search aggregation. Sid Talwar of Lightbox Ventures, a Mumbai-based VC firm, brings into light an interesting paradox: Is the addition of an extra step to the search process in consumer interest? Talwar argues that the consumer may be more interested in the most efficient way to find what he is looking for, which is the import of Google's mission. By aggregating results from various sources and offering it right at the search page, it could be fulfilling a consumer need.

This is where another facet of the judgement -- the pre-eminence of product and user-interface (UI) design and its relationship with controlling user behaviour -- establishes the anti-competitive nature of Google's search results page. The manipulation of UI design has been key to the debate on anti-competitive behaviour across the world. Europe's competition commissioner Margrethe Vestager became one of the most important proponents of this idea when the European Commission fined Google a record $2.9 billion in mid-2017 for "abusing its dominance in Europe by giving prominent placement in searches to its comparison shopping service and demoting rival offerings".

As NS Nappinai, a Mumbai-based lawyer and author of Technology Laws Decoded, points out, the ruling establishes a precedent and helps the CCI build a reputation for itself as a body that shows strength in evaluating technology. "Tech companies will now have to take cognisance of abuse of their dominant position in India," she says.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/economic-times-february-13-2018-nirmal-john-cci-leaves-google-searching-for-answers

Cause and effect Facebook-style

praskrishna — 2011-04-01T15:44:47Z

While the world is crediting Facebook for triggering the Arab revolution, do Facebook groups in India say anything about top of mind causes for young Indians? Crime touches a chord - the pages that have sprung up for Radhika Tanwar and Aarushi Talwar illustrate this - but it's the ideological issues that have made it to our top five list. Anja Kovas, a fellow at the Centre for Internet and Society, a Bengaluru-based research organisation, analyses the success of these causes.

Save the Tiger: The biggest Indian group on Facebook 'Save the Tiger' has a following of over 8,43,663 people.

Content talk: The site tracks news items about the tiger and features comments and quotes about the animal. The group's motto 'Read between the stripes' encourages members to 'like' conservation.

Pages: As the most popular cause, this also links to over 30 pages such as the 'Save the Leopard', Save the Tiger Fund' and 'Only 1411 left in India'

Anja-speak: This campaign was successful because several celebrities were a part of the cause. TV campaigns and celebs always ensure a larger audience. Also world over, environmental issues triggers stronger reactions.
Terrorism: It's a subject that affects every single Indian, and 'Stop Terrorism in India' has already clocked 1, 39, 436 members.

Content talk: "If you want to sleep peacefully then wake up now…" It's comments like these that would best explain what the group is all about. Members of this group share videos of 26/11, violence in Kashmir, Salman Khan, anti-hunger campaign and other subjects like peace, liberty and justice.

Pages: Other related pages are 'Stop terror in India and specially Mumbai'. 'Stop Terror in India, Pakistan'

Anja-speak: The Mumbai attacks shook the nation and touched a chord with everyone across age groups, classes and beliefs.
Kashmir: Over four lakh Kashmiris have been displaced from their state since 1989-90. It's not surprising then that Kashmir comes third in our list of causes. 'Frontline Kashmir' supports the 'freedom movement' and has about 24,000 members.

Content talk: Peppered with calls for freedom, the comments on the walls also speak out against separatists. Pages: For various viewpoints on Kashmir, also check out Amnesty International, Revolt, I Cry, We Love Syed Ali Shah Geelani.

Anja-speak:Facebook played an important role in letting young Kashmiris voice their opinions online. It's obviously a platform for young Kashmiris who want to air grievances.
Corruption: Despite the fact that corruption is one of the foremost issues in India today, the largest group against corruption 'India Against Corruption' has only 16,499 members.

Content talk: From information on marches to news articles, this page deals with anything related to corruption in India. A much talked about issue on this page is the CWG and the 2G scam. Pages: Do check out the 'Commonwealth Jhel' page as well and the 'I Paid A Bribe' and 'Choosna Bandh Campaign'!

Anja-speak: It's a topic that unites people across classes in India. With big scams unfolding every other day, people are definitely interested in such a group.
Free Binayak Sen: With 8,479 'likes', the Facebook page 'Release Dr Binayak Sen: Protest against mockery of justice against him', a cause by the same name that is supported by 7,745 people, stands as the most popular group.

Content talk: The campaign on Facebook is an offshoot of a section of society that believes Dr Sen has been denied justice by the state and speaks of all related matters including the sedition law. Pages: There are 15 groups and 22 pages related to Dr Binayak Sen, including 'Free Binayak Sen! Repeal Section 124A IPC' and 'Free Binayak Sen - Global Campaign'.

Anja-speak: This campaign owes its success, in terms of its outreach, to years of determination and relentless action by those that support Dr Sen.

This article by Malvika Nanda was published in the Hindustan Times on March 13, 2011. Read the original here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/cause-and-effect