We are anonymous, we are legion

BSides Delhi 2019 Security Conference

Admin — 2019-10-20T06:47:26Z

Karan Saini attended the BSides Delhi security conference on October 11, 2019. The event was organized by Bsides Delhi in New Delhi.

Click to view the agenda here. Videos of the event can be viewed here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bsides-delhi-2019-security-conference

Brochures from Expos on Smart Cards, e-Security, RFID & Biometrics in India

maria — 2013-12-26T05:24:39Z

Electronics Today organised a series of expos on smart cards, e-security, RFID and biometric technology in Delhi on 16-18 October 2013. The Centre for Internet and Society is sharing the brochures it collected from these public expos for research purposes.

In Pragati Maidan, New Delhi, many companies from India and abroad gathered to exhibit their products at the following expos which were organised by Electronics Today (India's first electronic exhibition organiser) on 16-18 October 2013:

SmartCards Expo 2013
e-Security Expo 2013
RFID Expo 2013
Biometrics Expo 2013

The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) attended these exhibitions for research purposes and is sharing the publicly available brochures it gathered through the attached zip file. The use of these brochures constitutes Fair Use.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/brochures-from-expos-in-india-2013

Briefing on BBC News pan-India research on how 'fake news' / digital misinformation spreads

Admin — 2018-12-05T14:01:10Z

Amber Sinha participated in a special private briefing on the BBC's pan India research on how misinformation spreads. The briefing was conducted on November 16, 2018 in New Delhi.

The briefing was very useful in understanding both the methodology employed by the researchers, and how they arrived ate certain findings. The report can be accessed here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/briefing-on-bbc-news-pan-india-research-on-how-fake-news-digital-misinformation-spreads

Bridging the gap: Tech giants bring the internet to women in rural India

praskrishna — 2016-10-30T07:23:05Z

This Diwali is going to be a cracker of a festival for Nisha Chanderwal, a second year BA student.

The article by KumKum Dasgupta was published in the Hindustan Times on October 28, 2016. Pranesh Prakash and Rohini Lakshané were quoted.

“I bought a bright red kurta with gold-colour zari dupatta from Snapdeal, my first online purchase,” the 19-year-old resident of Alwar’s Umren village told HT recently.

“No courier service reaches my village. So I gave my aunt’s home address in Alwar. They paid in cash…I paid her when I picked up the parcel,” she added, explaining the circuitous delivery and payment process that is common in rural India.

Nisha is elated for one more reason: She has finally got even with her 20-year-old brother, Ashok. “He has a smartphone, but doesn’t even let me touch it, saying girls should not use the Internet. But now thanks to Google’s Internet Saathi Programme (ISP), I don’t need his phone or his help,” said an elated Nisha.

In July 2015, technology giant Google launched ISP in partnership with Tata Trusts, one of the country’s oldest philanthropic organisations, to bring rural women online in India. Today, the initiative is live in 25,000 villages across 10 states with 1,900 saathis. The final mission is to reach 300,000 villages. Google is adding up to 500 additional ‘saathis’ per week. More than 100,000 women have been trained so far.

Google started this programme because Internet usage by women in rural areas is low.

“Only one in 10 Internet users in rural India is a woman,” Sapna Chadha, marketing head, Google India, told HT. “With ISP, we are creating an enabling environment that empowers them while also bridging the technology gender divide. We believe that easy access to information can transform lives. Our mission is to organise the world’s information and make it universally accessible”.

Along with access to information, getting more and more women online has other benefits: “If women are a minority online, they become vulnerable to harassment and violence. Women can’t only be consumers of the Internet but must contribute their views, and make the space equitable,” said Rohini Lakshané of the Bangalore-based The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), which is funded by the Kusuma Trust.

Google and Tata Trusts are leveraging their core strengths for ISP. While Google provides the hardware (phones and tablets), training and Internet connectivity. Tata Trusts does the identification of saathis and the monitoring.

“We tie up with government departments to roll out the project. For example, in Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh, we are working with the rural livelihood mission. The government helps us to identify villages, set selection criteria and logistics such as venues,” explained Prabhat Pani, project director, Tata Trusts.

The programme first chooses a few women and trains them on how to use a mobile phone, shoot photos and videos and the basics of Internet. Then the women are sent out on bicycles with a smartphone and a tablet to teach others in their villages.

The programme has opened a new world for many. “Google is like a book. You can get whatever information you need. I am illiterate but I use voice search for information,” said Phoolwati, a 45-year-old resident of Nangli Jamawat, Umren.

Her friend Manju is now the village’s undisputed ‘selfie queen’. “I love taking videos and photos,” she said, adding that she also searches for information on MGNREGA or education loans for her children.

According to Google, the new online entrants are searching for news, recipes, designs for clothes, images and information on pilgrimages, farming and cattle-related information and government schemes.

For Google, it makes immense sense to get more people online. “The company is targeting huge and untapped demographics who are entry-level users. Going forward, they will have a huge first-mover advantage if there is scope to monetise Google’s services,” explained Lakshané.

By 2020, about 315 million rural Indians will be connected to the Internet, compared to around 120 million now. That’s about 36% of the country’s online population. By 2020, this share of rural India will jump to 48%, creating a huge opportunity for brands and marketers in places where establishing stores is a challenge,” says a study by the Boston Consulting Group, The Rising Connected Consumer in Rural India.

The first signs of this market potential were evident during the pre-Diwali online festival season sale. E-tailers posted growth in sales compared to last year thanks to growing smartphone penetration in small towns and villages, cheaper data tariffs and free hotspots. While Google did not divulge the exact revenues that it is spending on ISP, Chadha said it has helped the company to understand the needs of users in rural areas and what role the Internet can play.

Along with ISP, Google is also working with the Indian government on two projects that aims to give more people access to the Internet.

First, the Project Loon, which uses high-altitude balloons to create an aerial wireless network with up to 4G speeds for providing Internet access to rural and remote areas.

Second, the company is partnering with RailTel to provide free wi-fi access in stations.

“The ISP has no immediate profits for Google. The average revenue Indian per user is less than say a user in US. But getting more people online helps Google because its search engine is most used,” Pranesh Prakash, policy director, CIS, told HT. “In the long run, the company will earn when people access its services and also from advertising revenue.”

Nevertheless, the ISP is addressing a major problem. “Many are afraid to go online because they don’t know how they can benefit. While the Saathi programme is not a philanthropic effort, it’s good that Google is addressing this issue through its training programmes,” Prakash said.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hindustan-times-october-28-2016-kumkum-dasgupta-bridging-the-gap

Breeding misinformation in virtual space

amber — 2017-12-08T02:24:29Z

A well-informed citizenry and institutions that provide good information are fundamental to a functional democracy.

The phenomenon of fake news has rece-ived significant sc-holarly and media attention over the last few years. In March, Sir Tim Berners Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web, has called for a crackdown on fake news, stating in an open letter that “misinformation, or fake news, which is surprising, shocking, or designed to appeal to our biases, can spread like wildfire.”

Gartner, which annually predicts what the next year in technology will look like, highlighted ‘increased fake news’ as one of its predictions.

The report states that by 2022, “majority of individuals in mature economies will consume more false information than true information. Due to its wide popularity and reach, social media has come to play a central role in the fake news debate.”

Researchers have suggested that rumours penetrate deeper within a social network than outside, indicating the susceptibility of this medium. Social networks such as Facebook and communities on messaging services such as Whats-App groups provide the perfect environment for spreading rumours. Information received via friends tends to be trusted, and online networks allow in-dividuals to transmit information to many friends at once.

In order to understand the recent phenomenon of fake news, it is important to recognise that the problem of misinformation and propaganda has existed for a long time. The historical examples of fake news go back centuries where, prior to his coronation as Roman Emperor, Octavian ran a disinformation campaign against Marcus Antonius to turn the Roman populace against him.

The advent of the printing press in the 15th century led to widespread publication; however, there were no standards of verification and journalistic ethics. Andrew Pettigrew wri-tes in his The Invention of News, that news reporting in the 16th and 17th centuries was full of portents about “comets, celestial apparitions, freaks of nature and natural disasters.”

In India, the immediate cause for the 1857 War of Indepen-dence was rumours that the bones of cows and pigs were mixed with flour and used to grease the cartridges used by the sepoys.

Leading up to the Second World War, the radio emerged as a strong medium for dissemination of disinformation, used by the Nazis and other Axis powers. More recently, the milk miracle in the mid-1990s consisting of stories of the idol of Ganesha drinking milk was a popular fake news phenomenon. In 2008, rumours about the popular snack, Kurkure, being made out of plastic became so widespread that Pepsi, its holding company, had to publicly rebut them.

A quick survey by us at the Centre of Internet and Society, for a forthcoming report, of the different kinds of misinformation being circulated in India, suggested four different kinds of fake news.

The first is a case of manufactured primary content. This includes instances where the entire premise on which an argument is based is patently false. In August 2017, a leading TV channel reported that electricity had been cut to the Jama Masjid in New Delhi for non-payment of bills. This was based on a false report carried by a news portal.

The second kind of fake news involves manipulation or editing of primary content so as to misrepresent it as something else. This form of fake news is often seen with respect to multimedia content such as images, pictures, audios and videos. These two forms of fake news tend to originate outside traditional media such as newspapers and television channels, and can be often sourced back to social media and WhatsApp forwards.

However, we see such unverified stories being picked up by traditional media. Further, there are instances where genuine content such as text and pictures are shared with fallacious contexts and descriptions. Earlier this year, several dailies pointed out that an image shared by the ministry of home affairs, purportedly of the floodlit India-Pakistan border, was actually an image of the Spain-Morocco border. In this case, the image was not doctored but the accompanying information was false.

Third, more complicated cases of misinformation involve the primary content itself not being false or manipulated, but the facts when they are reported may be quoted out of context. Most examples of misinformation spread by mainstream media, which has more evolved systems of fact checking and verification, and editorial controls, would tend to fall under this.

Finally, there are instances of lack of diligence in fully understanding the issues before reporting. Such misrepresentations are often encountered while reporting in fields that require specialised knowledge, such as science and technology, law, finance etc. Such forms of misinformation, while not suggestive of malafide intent can still prove to be quite dangerous in shaping erroneous opinions.

While the widespread dissemination of fake news contributes greatly to its effectiveness, it also has a lot to do with the manner in which it is designed to pander to our cognitive biases. Directionally motivated reasoning prompts people confronted with political information to process it with an intention to reach a certain pre-decided conclusion, and not with the intention to assess it in a dispassionate manner. This further results in greater susceptibility to confirmation bias, disconfirmation bias and prior attitude effect.

Fake news is also linked to the idea of “naïve realism,” the belief people have that their perception of reality is the only accurate view, and those in disagreement are necessarily uninformed, irrational, or biased. This also explains why so much fake news simply does not engage with alternative points of view.

A well-informed citizenry and institutions that provide good information are fundamental to a functional democracy. The use of the digital medium for fast, unhindered and unchecked spread of information presents a fertile ground for those seeking to spread misinformation. How we respond to this issue will be vital for democratic societies in our immediate future. Fake news presents a complex regulatory challenge that requires the participation of different stakeholders such as the content disseminators, platforms, norm guardians which include institutional fact checkers, trade organisations, and “name-and-shaming” watchdogs, regulators and consumers.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/asian-age-amber-sinha-december-3-2017-

Breaking Down Section 66A of the IT Act

pranesh — 2012-12-14T09:51:17Z

Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which prescribes 'punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc.' is widely held by lawyers and legal academics to be unconstitutional. In this post Pranesh Prakash explores why that section is unconstitutional, how it came to be, the state of the law elsewhere, and how we can move forward.

Back in February 2009 (after the IT Amendment Act, 2008 was hurriedly passed on December 22, 2008 by the Lok Sabha, and a day after by the Rajya Sabha[1] but before it was notified on October 27, 2009) I had written that s.66A is "patently in violation of Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India":

Section 66A which punishes persons for sending offensive messages is overly broad, and is patently in violation of Art. 19(1)(a) of our Constitution. The fact that some information is "grossly offensive" (s.66A(a)) or that it causes "annoyance" or "inconvenience" while being known to be false (s.66A(c)) cannot be a reason for curbing the freedom of speech unless it is directly related to decency or morality, public order, or defamation (or any of the four other grounds listed in Art. 19(2)). It must be stated here that many argue that John Stuart Mill's harm principle provides a better framework for freedom of expression than Joel Feinberg's offence principle. The latter part of s.66A(c), which talks of deception, is sufficient to combat spam and phishing, and hence the first half, talking of annoyance or inconvenience is not required. Additionally, it would be beneficial if an explanation could be added to s.66A(c) to make clear what "origin" means in that section. Because depending on the construction of that word s.66A(c) can, for instance, unintentionally prevent organisations from using proxy servers, and may prevent a person from using a sender envelope different from the "from" address in an e-mail (a feature that many e-mail providers like Gmail implement to allow people to send mails from their work account while being logged in to their personal account). Furthermore, it may also prevent remailers, tunnelling, and other forms of ensuring anonymity online. This doesn't seem to be what is intended by the legislature, but the section might end up having that effect. This should hence be clarified.

I stand by that analysis. But given that it is quite sparse, in this post I will examine s.66A in detail.

Here's what s. 66A of the IT (Amendment) Act, 2008 states:

66A. Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc.,
Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device,—
(a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character;
(b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device,
(c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages

shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.

Explanation: For the purposes of this section, terms "electronic mail" and "electronic mail message" means a message or information created or transmitted or received on a computer, computer system, computer resource or communication device including attachments in text, images, audio, video and any other electronic record, which may be transmitted with the message.[2]

A large part of s.66A can be traced back to s.10(2) of the UK's Post Office (Amendment) Act, 1935:

If any person —
(a) sends any message by telephone which is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene, or menacing character; or
(b) sends any message by telephone, or any telegram, which he knows to be false, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, or needless anxiety to any other person; or
(c) persistently makes telephone calls without reasonable cause and for any such purposes as aforesaid;
he shall be liable upon summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month, or to both such fine and imprisonment.

Section 66A bears a striking resemblance to the three parts of this law from 1935, with clauses (b) and (c) being merged in the Indian law into a single clause (b) of s.66A, with a whole bunch of new "purposes" added. Interestingly, the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, was never amended to add this provision.

The differences between the two are worth exploring.

Term of Punishment

The first major difference is that the maximum term of imprisonment in the 1935 Act is only one month, compared to three years in s.66A of the IT Act. It seems the Indian government decided to subject the prison term to hyper-inflation to cover for the time. If this had happened for the punishment for, say, criminal defamation, then that would have a jail term of up to 72 years! The current equivalent laws in the UK are the Communications Act, 2003 (s. 127) and the Malicious Communications Act 1988 (s.1) for both of which the penalty is up to 6 months' imprisonment or to a maximum fine of £5000 or both. What's surprising is that in the Information Technology (Amendment) Bill of 2006, the penalty for section 66A was up to 2 years, and it was changed on December 16, 2008 through an amendment moved by Mr. A. Raja (the erstwhile Minister of Communications and IT) to 3 years. Given that parts of s.66A(c) resemble nuisance, it is instructive to note the term of punishment in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for criminal nuisance: a fine of Rs. 200 with no prison term.

"Sending" vs. "Publishing"

J. Sai Deepak, a lawyer, has made an interesting point that the IT Act uses "send" as part of its wording, and not "publish". Given that, only messages specifically directed at another would be included. While this is an interesting proposition, it cannot be accepted because: (1) even blog posts are "sent", albeit to the blog servers — s.66A doesn't say who it has to be sent to; (2) in the UK the Communications Act 2003 uses similar language and that, unlike the Malicious Communication Act 1988 which says "sends to another person", has been applied to public posts to Twitter, etc.; (3) The explanation to s.66A(c) explicitly uses the word "transmitted", which is far broader than "send", and it would be difficult to reconcile them unless "send" can encompass sending to the publishing intermediary like Twitter.

Part of the narrowing down of s.66A should definitely focus on making it applicable only to directed communication (as is the case with telephones, and with the UK's Malicious Communication Act), and not be applicable to publishing.

Section 66A(c)

Section 66A(c) was also inserted through an amendment moved by Mr. Raja on December 16, 2008, which was passed by the Lok Sabha on December 22, 2008, and a day after by the Rajya Sabha. (The version introduced in Parliament in 2006 had only 66A(a) and (b).) This was done in response to the observation by the Standing Committee on Information Technology that there was no provision for spam. Hence it is clear that this is meant as an anti-spam provision. However, the careless phrasing makes it anything but an anti-spam provision. If instead of "for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages" it was "for the purpose of causing annoyance and inconvenience and to deceive and to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages", it would have been slightly closer to an anti-spam provision, but even then doesn't have the two core characteristics of spam: that it be unsolicited and that it be sent in bulk. (Whether only commercial messages should be regarded as spam is an open question.) That it arise from a duplicitous origin is not a requirement of spam (and in the UK, for instance, that is only an aggravating factor for what is already a fine-able activity).

Curiously, the definitional problems do not stop there, but extend to the definitions of "electronic mail" and "electronic mail message" in the 'explanation' as well. Those are so vast that more or less anything communicated electronically is counted as an e-mail, including forms of communication that aren't aimed at particular recipients the way e-mail is.

Hence, the anti-spam provision does not cover spam, but covers everything else. This provision is certainly unconstitutional.

Section 66A(b)

Section 66A(b) has three main elements: (1) that the communication be known to be false; (2) that it be for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will; (3) that it be communicated persistently. The main problem here is, of course, (2). "Annoyance" and "inconvenience", "insult", "ill will" and "hatred" are very different from "injury", "danger", and "criminal intimidation". That a lawmaker could feel that punishment for purposes this disparate belonged together in a single clause is quite astounding and without parallel (except in the rest of the IT Act). That's akin to having a single provision providing equal punishment for calling someone a moron ("insult") and threatening to kill someone ("criminal intimidation"). While persistent false communications for the purpose of annoying, insulting, inconveniencing, or causing ill will should not be criminalised (if need be, having it as a civil offence would more than suffice), doing so for the purpose of causing danger or criminal intimidation should. However, the question arises whether you need a separate provision in the IT Act for that. Criminal intimidation is already covered by ss. 503 and 506 of the IPC. Similarly, different kinds of causing danger are taken care of in ss.188, 268, 283, 285, 289, and other provisions. Similarly with the other "purposes" listed there, if, for instance, a provision is needed to penalise hoax bomb threats, then the provision clearly should not be mentioning words like "annoyance", and should not be made "persistent". (At any rate, s. 505(1) of the IPC suffices for hoax bomb threats, so you don't need a separate provision in the IT Act).

I would argue that in its current form this provision is unconstitutional, since there is no countervailing interest in criminalising false and persistent "insults", etc., that will allow those parts of this provision to survive the test of 'reasonableness' under Art.19(2). Furthermore, even bits that survive are largely redundant. While this unconstitutionality could be cured by better, narrower wording, even then one would need to ensure that there is no redundancy due to other provisions in other laws.

Section 66A(a)

In s.66A(a), the question immediately arises whether the information that is "grossly offensive" or "menacing" need to be addressed at someone specific and be seen as "grossly offensive" or "menacing" by that person, or be seen by a 'reasonable man' test.

Additionally, the term "grossly offensive" will have to be read in such a heightened manner as to not include merely causing offence. The one other place where this phrase is used in Indian law is in s.20(b) of the Indian Post Office Act (prohibiting the sending by post of materials of an indecent, obscene, seditious, scurrilous, threatening, or grossly offensive character). The big difference between s.20(b) of the IPO Act and s.66A of the IT Act is that the former is clearly restricted to one-to-one communication (the way the UK's Malicious Communication Act 1988 is). Reducing the scope of s.66A to direct communications would make it less prone to challenge.

Additionally, in order to ensure constitutionality, courts will have to ensure that "grossly offensive" does not simply end up meaning "offensive", and that the maximum punishment is not disproportionately high as it currently is. Even laws specifically aimed at online bullying, such as the UK's Protection from Harassment Act 1997, can have unintended effects. As George Monbiot notes, the "first three people to be prosecuted under [the Protection from Harassment Act] were all peaceful protesters".

Constitutional Arguments in Importing Laws from the UK

The plain fact is that the Indian Constitution is stronger on free speech grounds than the (unwritten) UK Constitution, and the judiciary has wide powers of judicial review of statutes (i.e., the ability of a court to strike down a law passed by Parliament as 'unconstitutional'). Judicial review of statutes does not exist in the UK (with review under its EU obligations being the exception) as they believe that Parliament is supreme, unlike India. Putting those two aspects together, a law that is valid in the UK might well be unconstitutional in India for failing to fall within the eight octagonal walls of the reasonable restrictions allowed under Art.19(2). That raises the question of how they deal with such broad wording in the UK.

Genealogy of UK Law on Sending 'Indecent', 'Menacing', 'Grossly Offensive' Messages

Quoting from the case of DPP v. Collins [2006] UKHL 40 [6]:

The genealogy of [s. 127(1) of the Communication Act] may be traced back to s.10(2)(a) of the Post Office (Amendment) Act, 1935, which made it an offence to send any message by telephone which is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character. That subsection was reproduced with no change save of punctuation in s.66(a) of the Post Office Act 1953. It was again reproduced in s.78 of the Post Office Act 1969, save that "by means of a public telecommunication service" was substituted for "by telephone" and "any message" was changed to "a message or other matter". Section 78 was elaborated but substantially repeated in s.49(1)(a) of the British Telecommunications Act 1981 and was re-enacted (save for the substitution of "system" for "service") in s.43(1)(a) of the Telecommunications Act 1984. Section 43(1)(a) was in the same terms as s.127(1)(a) of the 2003 Act, save that it referred to "a public telecommunication system" and not (as in s.127(1)(a)) to a "public electronic communications network". Sections 11(1)(b) of the Post Office Act 1953 and 85(3) of the Postal Services Act 2000 made it an offence to send certain proscribed articles by post.

While the above quotation talks about s.127(1) it is equally true about s.127(2) as well. In addition to that, in 1988, the Malicious Communications Act (s.1) was passed to prohibit one-to-one harassment along similar lines.

The UK's Post Office Act was eclipsed by the Telecommunications Act in 1984, which in turn was replaced in 2003 by the Communications Act. (By contrast, we still stick on to the colonial Indian Post Office Act, 1898.) Provisions from the 1935 Post Office Act were carried forward into the Telecommunications Act (s.43 on the "improper use of public telecommunication system"), and subsequently into s.127 of the Communications Act ("improper use of public electronic communications network"). Section 127 of the Communications Act states:

127. Improper use of public electronic communications network
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he —
(a) sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
(b) causes any such message or matter to be so sent.
(2) A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he —
(a) sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,
(b) causes such a message to be sent; or
(c) persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.
(4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to anything done in the course of providing a programme service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42)).

Currently in the UK there are calls for repeal of s.127. In a separate blog post I will look at how the UK courts have 'read down' the provisions of s.127 and other similar laws in order to be compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Comparison between S. 66A and Other Statutes

Section 144, IPC, 1860

Power to issue order in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger

...obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed, or danger to human life, health or safety, or a disturbance of the public tranquillity

Babulal Parate v. State of Maharastra and Ors. [1961 AIR SC 884] (Magistrates order under s. 144 of the Cr. PC, 1973 was in violation of Art.19(1)(a) of the Constitution).

A special thanks is due to Snehashish Ghosh for compiling the below table.

Section	Term(s)/phrase(s) used in 66A	Term(s)/ phrase(s) used in similar sections
Section 66A (heading)	Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc	Section 127, CA, 2003, "Improper use of public electronic communications network"
Section 66A(a)	Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device	Section 1(1), MCA 1988, "Any person who sends to another person..."
Section 66A(a)	Grossly offensive	Section 1(1)(a)(i), MCA 1988; Section 127(1)(a),CA, 2003; Section 10(2)(a), Post Office (Amendment) Act, 1935; Section 43(1)(a), Telecommunications Act 1984; Section 20, India Post Act 1898
Section 66A(a)	Menacing character	Section127(1)(a),CA, 2003
Section 66A(b)	Any information which he knows to be false	Section 1(1)(a)(iii), MCA 1988 "information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender"; Section 127(2)(a), CA, 2003, "a message that he knows to be false"
Section 66A(b) “purpose of...”	Causing annoyance	Section127(2), CA, 2003
	Inconvenience	Section 127 (2), CA, 2003
	Danger
	Insult	Section 504, IPC, 1860
	Injury	Section 44 IPC, 1860, "The word 'injury' denotes any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or property."
	Criminal intimidation	Sections 503 and 505 (2), IPC, 1860
	Enmity, hatred or ill-will	Section 153A(1)(a), IPC, 1860
	Persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device	Section 127(2)(c), CA, 2003, "persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network."
Section 66A(c)	Deceive or to mislead	-

Notes
MCA 1988: Malicious Communications Act (s.1)
CA: Communications Act 2003 (s.127)
*Replaced by Communications Act 2003

[1]. The Information Technology (Amendment) Bill, 2008, was one amongst the eight bills that were passed in fifteen minutes on December 16, 2008.
[2]. Inserted vide Information Technology Amendment Act, 2008.

This was re-posted in Outlook (November 28, 2012)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/breaking-down-section-66-a-of-the-it-act

Breaking Down ICANN Accountability: What It Is and What the Internet Community Wants

ramya — 2015-11-05T15:29:26Z

At the recent ICANN conference held in Dublin (ICANN54), one issue that was rehashed and extensively deliberated was ICANN's accountability and means to enhance the same. In light of the impending IANA stewardship transition from the NTIA to the internet's multi-stakeholder community, accountability of ICANN to the internet community becomes that much more important. In this blog post, some aspects of the various proposals to enhance ICANN's accountability have been deconstructed and explained.

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, known as ICANN, is a private not-for-profit organization, registered in California. Among other functions, it is tasked with carrying out the IANA function[1], pursuant to a contract between the US Government (through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration – NTIA) and itself. Which means, as of now, there exists legal oversight by the USG over ICANN with regard to the discharge of these IANA functions.[2]

However, in 2014, the NTIA, decided to completely handover stewardship of the IANA functions to the internet’s ‘global multistakeholder community’. But the USG put down certain conditions before this transition could be effected, one of which was to ensure that there exists proper accountability within the ICANN.[3]

The reason for this, was that the internet community feared a shift of ICANN to a FIFA-esque organization with no one to keep it in check, post the IANA transition if these accountability concerns weren’t addressed.[4]

And thus, to answer these concerns, the Cross Community Working Group (CCWG-Accountability) has come up with reports that propose certain changes to the structure and functioning of ICANN.

In light of the discussions that took place at ICANN54 in Dublin, this blog post is directed towards summarizing some of these proposals - those pertaining to the Independent Review Process or IRP (explained below) as well the various accountability models that are the subject of extensive debate both on and off the internet.

Building Blocks Identified by the CCWG-Accountability

The CCWG-Accountability put down four “building blocks”, as they call it, on which all their work is based. One of these is what is known as the Independent Review Process (or IRP). This is a mechanism by which internal complaints, either by individuals or by SOs/ACs[5], are addressed. However, the current version of the IRP is criticized for being an inefficient mechanism of dispute resolution.[6]

And thus the CCWG-Accountability proposed a variety of amendments to the same.

Another building block that the CCWG-Accountability identified is the need for an “empowered internet community”, which means more engagement between the ICANN Board and the internet community, as well as increased oversight by the community over the Board. As of now, the USG acts as the oversight-entity. Post the IANA transition however, the community feels they should step in and have an increased say with regard to decisions taken by the ICANN Board.

As part of empowering the community, the CCWG-Accountability identified five core areas in which the community needs to possess some kind of powers or rights. These areas are – review and rejection of the ICANN budget, strategic plans and operating plans; review, rejection and/or approval of standard bylaws as well fundamental bylaws; review and rejection of Board decisions pertaining to IANA functions; appointment and removal of individual directors on the Board; and recall of the entire Board itself. And it is with regard to what kind of powers and rights are to be vested with the community that a variety of accountability models have been proposed, both by the CCWG-Accountability as well as the ICANN Board. However, of all these models, discussion is now primarily centered on three of them – the Sole Member Model (SMM), the Sole Designator Model (SDM) and the Multistakeholder Empowerment Model (MEM).

What is the IRP?

The Independent Review Process or IRP is the dispute resolution mechanism, by which complaints and/or oppositions by individuals with regard to Board resolutions are addressed. Article 4 of the ICANN bylaws lay down the specifics of the IRP. As of now, a standing panel of six to nine arbitrators is constituted, from which a panel is selected for hearing every complaint. However, the primary criticism of the current version of the IRP is the restricted scope of issues that the panel passes decisions on.[7]

The bylaws explicitly state that the panel needs to focus on a set on procedural questions while hearing a complaint – such as whether the Board acted in good faith or exercised due diligence in passing the disputed resolution.

Changes Proposed by the Internet Community to Enhance the IRP

To tackle this and other concerns with the existing version of the IRP, the CCWG-Accountability proposed a slew of changes in the second draft proposal that they released in August this year. What they proposed is to make the IRP arbitral panel hear complaints and decide the matter on both procedural (as they do now) and substantive grounds. In addition, they also propose a broadening of who all have locus to initiate an IRP, to include individuals, groups and other entities. Further, they also propose a more precedent-based method of dispute resolution, wherein a panel refers to and uses decisions passed by past panels in arriving at a decision.

At the 19^th October “Enhancing ICANN-Accountability Engagement Session” that took place in Dublin as part of ICANN54, the mechanism to initiate an IRP was explained by Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair.[8]

Briefly, the modified process is as follows -

An objection may be raised by any individual, even a non-member.
This individual needs to find an SO or an AC that shares the objection.
A “pre-call” or remote meeting between all the SOs and ACs is scheduled, to see if objection receives prescribed threshold of approval from the community.
If this threshold is met, dialogue is undertaken with the Board, to see if the objection is sustained by the Board.
If this dialogue also fails, then IRP can be initiated.

The question of which “enforcement model” empowers the community arises post the initiation of this IRP, and in the event that the community receives an unfavourable decision through the IRP or that the ICANN Board refuses to implement the IRP decision. Thus, all the “enforcement models” retain the IRP as the primary method of internal dispute resolution.

The direction that the CCWG-Accountability has taken with regard to enhancement of the IRP is heartening. And these proposals have received large support from the community. What is to be seen now is whether these proposals will be fully implemented by the Board or not, in addition to all the other proposals made by the CCWG.

Enforcement – An Overview of the Different Models

In addition to trying to enhance the existing dispute resolution mechanism, the CCWG-Accountability also came up with a variety of “enforcement models”, by which the internet community would be vested with certain powers. And in response to the models proposed by the CCWG-Accountability, the ICANN Board came up with a counter proposal, called the MEM.

Below is a tabular representation of what kinds of powers are vested with the community under the SMM, the SDM and the MEM.

Power	SMM	SDM	MEM
Reject/Review Budget, Strategies and OPs. + Review/Reject Board decisions with regard to IANA functions.	Sole Member has the reserved power to reject the budget up to 2 times. Member also has standing to enforce bylaw restrictions on the budget, etc.	Sole Designator can only trigger Board consultations if opposition to budget, etc exists. Further, bylaws specify how many times such a consultation can be triggered. Designator only possesses standing to enforce this consultation.	Community can reject Budget up to two times. Board is required by bylaws to reconsider budget post such rejection, by consulting with the community. If still no change is made, then community can initiate process to recall the Board.
Reject/Review amendments to Standard bylaws and Fundamental bylaws	Sole Member has right to veto these changes. Further, member also standing to enforce this right under the relevant Californian law.	Sole Designator can also veto these changes. However, ambiguity regarding standing of designator to enforce this right.	No veto power granted to any SO or AC. Each SO and AC evaluate if they want to voice the said objection. If certain threshold of agreement reached, then as per the bylaws, the Board cannot go ahead with the amendment.
Appointment and Removal of individual ICANN directors	Sole Member can appoint and remove individual directors based on direction from the applicable Nominating Committee.	Sole Member can appoint and remove individual directors based on direction from the applicable Nominating Committee.	The SOs/ACs cannot appoint individual directors. But they can initiate process for their removal. However, directors can only be removed for breach of or on the basis of certain clauses in a “pre-service letter” that they sign.
Recall of ICANN Board	Sole Member has the power to recall Board. Further, it has standing to enforce this right in Californian courts.	Sole Designator also has the power to recall the Board. However, ambiguity regarding standing to enforce this right.	Community is not vested with power to recall the Board. However, if simultaneous trigger of pre-service letters occurs, in some scenarios, only then can something similar to a recall of the Board occur.

A Critique of these Models

SMM:

The Sole Member Model (or SMM) was discussed and adopted in the second draft proposal, released in August 2015. This model is in fact the simplest and most feasible variant of all the other membership-based models, and has received substantial support from the internet community. The SMM proposes only one amendment to the ICANN bylaws - a move from having no members to one member, while ICANN itself retains its character as a non-profit mutual-benefit corporation under Californian laws.

This “sole member” will be the community as a whole, represented by the various SOs and ACs. The SOs and ACs require no separate legal personhood to be a part of this “sole member”, but can directly participate. This participation is to be effected by a voting system, explained in the second draft, which allocates the maximum number of votes each SO and AC can cast. This ensures that each SO/AC doesn’t have to cast a unanimous vote, but each differing opinion within an SO/AC is given equal weight.

SDM:

A slightly modified and watered down version of the SMM, proposed by the CCWG-Accountability as an alternative to the same, is the “Sole Designator Model” or the SDM. Such a model requires an amendment to the ICANN bylaws, by which certain SOs/ACs are assigned “designator” status. By virtue of this status, they may then exercise certain rights - the right to recall the Board in certain scenarios and the right to veto budgets and strategic plans.

However, there is some uncertainty in Californian law regarding who can be a designator - an individual or an entity as well. So whether unincorporated associations, such as the SOs and ACs, can be a “designator” as per the law is a question that doesn’t have a clear answer yet.

Where most discussion with respect to the SDM has occurred has been in the area of the designator being vested with the power to “spill” or remove all the members of the ICANN Board. The designator is vested with this power as a sort of last-resort mechanism for the community’s voice to be heard. However, an interesting point raised in one of the Accountability sessions at ICANN54 was the almost negligible probability of this course of action ever being taken, i.e. the Board being “spilled”. So while in theory this model seems to vest the community with massive power, in reality, because the right to “spill” the Board may never be invoked, the SDM is actually a weak enforceability model.

Other Variants of the Designator Model:

The CCWG-Accountability, in both its first and second report, discussed variants of the designator model as well. A generic SO/AC Designator model was discussed in the first draft. The Enhanced SO/AC Designator model, discussed in the second draft, also functions along similar lines. However, only those SOs and ACs that wanted to be made designators apply to become so, as opposed to the requirement of a mandatory designator under the SDM model.

After the second draft released by the CCWG-Accountability and the counter-proposal released by the ICANN Board (see below for the ICANN Board’s proposal), discussion was mostly directed towards the SMM and the MEM. However, the discussion with regard to the designator model has recently been revived by members of the ALAC at ICANN54 in Dublin, who unanimously issued a statement supporting the SDM.^{^[9]} And following this, many more in the community have expressed their support towards adopting the designator model.[10]

MEM:

The Multi-stakeholder Enforcement Model or MEM was the ICANN Board’s counter-model to all the models put forth by the CCWG-Accountability, specifically the SMM. However, there is no clarity with regard to the specifics of this model. In fact, the vagueness surrounding the model is one of the biggest criticisms of the model itself.

The CCWG-Accountability accounts for possible consequences of implementation every model by a mechanism known as “stress-tests”. The Board’s proposal, on the other hand, rejects the SMM due to its “unintended consequences”, but does not provide any clarity on what these consequences are or what in fact the problems with the SMM itself are.[11]

In addition, many are opposed to the Board proposal in general because it wasn’t created by the community, and therefore not reflective of the community’s views, as opposed to the SMM.[12]

Instead, the Board’s solution is to propose a counter-model that doesn’t in fact fix the existing problems of accountability.

What is known of the MEM though, gathered primarily from an FAQ published on the ICANN community forum, is this: The community, through the various SOs and ACs, can challenge any action of the Board that is CONTRADICTORY TO THE FUNDAMENTAL BYLAWS only, through a binding arbitration. The arbitration panel will be decided by the Board and the arbitration itself will be financed by ICANN. Further, this process will not replace the existing Independent Review Process or IRP, but will run parallely.

Even this small snippet of the MEM is filled with problems. Concerns of neutrality with regard to the arbitral panel and challenge of the award itself have been raised.[13]

Further, the MEM seems to be in direct opposition to the ‘gold standard’ multi-stakeholder model of ICANN. Essentially, there is no increased accountability of the ICANN under the MEM, thus eliciting severe opposition from the community.

What is interesting to note about all these models, is that they are all premised on ICANN continuing to remain within the jurisdiction of the United States. And even more surprising is that hardly anyone questions this premise. However, at ICANN54 this issue received a small amount of traction, enough for the setting up of an ad-hoc committee to address these jurisdictional concerns. But even this isn’t enough traction. The only option now though is to wait and see what this ad-hoc committee, as well as the CCWG-Accountability through its third draft proposal to be released later this year, comes up with.

[1]. The IANA functions or the technical functions are the name, number and protocol functions with regard to the administration of the Domain Name System or the DNS.

[2]. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/21/icann-internet-us-government

[3]. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/19/congress_tells_icann_quit_escaping_accountability/?page=1

[4]. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/21/icann-internet-us-government

[5]. SOs are Supporting Organizations and ACs are Advisory Committees. They form part of ICANN’s operational structure.

[6]. Leon Sanchez (ALAC member from the Latin American and Caribbean Region) speaking at the Enhancing ICANN Accountability Engagement Session !, ICANN54, Dublin (see page 5) https://meetings.icann.org/en/dublin54/schedule/mon-enhancing-accountability/transcript-enhancing-accountability-19oct15-en

[7]. Leon Sanchez (ALAC member from the Latin American and Caribbean Region) speaking at the Enhancing ICANN Accountability Engagement Session !, ICANN54, Dublin (see page 5) https://meetings.icann.org/en/dublin54/schedule/mon-enhancing-accountability/transcript-enhancing-accountability-19oct15-en

[8]. Thomas Rickert (GNSO-appointed CCWG co-chair) speaking at the Enhancing ICANN Accountability Engagement Session !, ICANN54, Dublin (see page 15,16) https://meetings.icann.org/en/dublin54/schedule/mon-enhancing-accountability/transcript-enhancing-accountability-19oct15-en

[9]. http://www.brandregistrygroup.org/alac-throws-spanner-in-icann-accountability-discussions

[10]. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/22/internet_community_icann_accountability/

[11]. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/07/icann_accountability_latest/

[12]. http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150923_empire_strikes_back_icann_accountability_at_the_inflection_point/

[13]. http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/09/06/icann-accountability-a-three-hour-call-trashes-a-year-of-work/

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/breaking-down-icann-accountability-what-it-is-and-what-the-internet-community-wants

Breach Notifications: A Step towards Cyber Security for Consumers and Citizens

Amelia Andersdotter — 2017-11-14T15:38:15Z

Through the Digital India project the Indian government is seeking to establish India as a digital nation at the forefront. Increasingly, this means having good cyber-security policies in place and enabling a prosperous business environment for companies that implement sound cyber-security policies. This paper will look at one such policy, which enables investments in cyber-security for IT products and services through giving consumers a way to hold business owners and public authorities to account when their security fails.

Electronic data processing has awarded societies with lots of opportunities for improvements that would not have been possible without them. Low market entrance barriers for new innovators have caused a flood of applications and automations that have the potential to improve citizens’ and consumers’ lives, as well as government operations. But while the increasing prevalence of electronic hardware and programmable software in many different parts of society and industry, combined with the intricate value chains of international communications networks, devices and equipment markets and software markets, have created a large number of opportunities for economic, social and public activity, they have also brought with them a number of specific problems pertaining to consumer rights.

Read full report here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/breach-notifications-a-step-towards-cyber-security-for-consumers-and-citizens

Brazil’s experience a red flag for WhatsApp in Indian polls, say experts

Admin — 2018-10-28T06:06:19Z

Data shows that the share of active WhatsApp users in rural India has doubled since 2017, according to a survey by the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies.

The article by Vidhi Choudhary was published in Hindustan Times on October 21, 2018. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

Instant messaging service WhatsApp will have to put more safeguards in place to avoid its misuse in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections,experts say. Some point to the experience in the recent elections in Brazil,where the Facebook-owned platform battled allegations on its use to influence the popular vote, with mass-WhatsApp messages pushing anti-leftist propaganda.

“There is no easy way to say this but the likelihood of a WhatsApp scandal in the run-up to the 2019 elections in India is imminent. I won’t be surprised if there is already something similar taking place in India. That’s because there is no way to control the message that is being shared on the platform. The only way to stop this is by revoking the end-to-end encryption which will impair the privacy WhatsApp users enjoy,” said lawyer Rahul Matthan, partner at the law firm Trilegal and author of Privacy 2.0, which traces the historic origin and current debates on privacy.

WhatsApp has over 200 million users in India, its largest market. The absence of a data protection law in India (one is in the works but is unlikely to be passed before the elections) only adds to this problem, although this transcends WhatsApp.

“The large scale sale of phone numbers, and subsequent bombardment of messages, without seeking consent is also a reminder that we urgently need rules to limit the use of personal data for political campaigns. Europe’s law, the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation), for example, puts strict limits on direct marketing, including by political parties and campaigners. Yet India is approaching its own elections without any effective data protection rules in place,” said Amba Kak, public policy adviser at web browser Mozilla.

The election commission is aware of the challenge. In an interview to Hindustan Times, chief election commissioner OP Rawat said the biggest challenge for the ECI right now is posed by technology firms that have wherewithal to influence voters.

According to a survey conducted by the Digital Empowerment Foundation (DEF) and reported by the HT earlier this week, 40% of rural users of the messaging platform were part of WhatsApp groups created by members or representatives of political parties. A third of the users spend between one hour and four hours on the app daily, the survey found. “This reflects the level of campaigning and penetration of political parties. Villages are always politically sensitive and also interested in politics,” the HT report said, quoting DEF’s Osama Manzar.

The survey noted that 63% of the respondents were not on the service in 2014. The share of active WhatsApp users in rural India has doubled since 2017, according to the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies.

A possible solution is to make sure voters are consistently informed about the issue of misinformation and fake news in India, added Matthan. “WhatsApp should continue to build a concerted marketing campaign against fake news to make voters aware, so that they exercise restraint while sending and sharing messages received from other users. The only trouble is if the message is received from a trusted ally, then one is likely to believe it. That’s why there is no absolute way to ensure shadow campaigns are not circulated on WhatsApp,” he explained.

The Facebook-owned platform has said in an earlier statements that it believes this is a challenge that requires government, civil society and technology companies to work together. “Our strategy has been twofold. First, to give people the controls and information they need to stay safe; and second, to work proactively to prevent misuse on WhatsApp,” WhatsApp said in the statement in July.

In July, WhatsApp launched a label to identify forwarded messages in a bid to combat fake news and the spread of misinformation globally, including India. It later set a limit to the use of forwarded messages to five chats in India. After that WhatsApp took out full-page advertisements in Indian newspapers offering “easy tips” to distinguish between fact and fiction as it battles rising pressure to curb the spread of misinformation in India after the lynching of at least 30 people in the country since May, with at least some being caused by rumours forwarded over phones.

Sunil Abraham, director at the think tank Centre for Internet and Society said WhatsApp could employ a network of fact checkers and explore “in application education”.

Local authorities in various parts of the country have resorted to Internet shutdowns to counter incidents of violence triggered by rumours on WhatsApp. Law firm Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC), based in New Delhi, has tracked down 116 Internet shutdowns across India in 2018 alone. In 2017, India reported 79 shutdowns; in 2016, the number was 31 and in 2012 it was just three. The rise from three shutdowns in 2012 to more than 100 this year marks a 3,766% surge. “State and central government and local authorities might consider this a solution. But a shutdown is completely against freedom of speech and that’s our view,” said an SFLC spokesperson. WhatsApp users in rural India do not blindly trust messages they receive on the messaging service, according to the DEF survey.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hindustan-times-vidhi-choudhary-october-21-2018-brazil-s-experience-a-red-flag-for-whatsapp-in-indian-polls-say-experts

Brazil passes Marco Civil; the US-FCC Alters its Stance on Net Neutrality

geetha — 2014-04-24T10:05:32Z

Hopes for the Internet rise and fall rapidly. Yesterday, on April 23, 2014, Marco Civil da Internet, the Brazilian Bill of Internet rights, was passed by the Brazilian Senate into law.

Marco Civil, on which we blogged previously, includes provisions for the protection of privacy and freedom of expression of all users, rules mandating net neutrality, etc. Brazil celebrated the beginning of NETmundial, a momentous first day about which Achal Prabhala blogs, with President Rousseff’s approval of the Marco Civil.

At about the same time, news broke that the US Federal Communications Commission is set to propose new net neutrality rules. In the wake of the Verizon net neutrality decision in January, the proposed new rules will prohibit Internet service providers such as Comcast from slowing down or blocking traffic to certain websites, but permit fast lane traffic for content providers who are willing to pay for it. This fast lane would prioritise traffic from content providers like Netflix and Youtube on commercially reasonable terms, and result in availability of video and other content at higher speeds or quality. An interesting turn-around, as Marco Civil expressly mandates net neutrality for all traffic.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/brazil-passes-marco-civil-us-fcc-alters-stance-on-net-neutrality

Braitenberg Cybernetic Vehicles: Workshop, Film Screening & Discussion

praskrishna — 2012-07-30T13:13:31Z

The Metaculture Media Lab at the Centre for Internet & Society, Bangalore is organizing a fun event, next Saturday, April 14, 2012. The event will begin at 2.30 p.m. and will end at 6.00 p.m.

A tentative schedule of the event in three parts:

A short presentation about Braitenberg Vehicles :
It is based on a thought experiment by Italian cyberneticist, in his book : ''Vehicles: Experiments in Synthetic Psychology'' where 'vehicles' with simple sensorimotor capabilites display interesting life-like behaviour WITHOUT the need for internal memory, representation of the environment, or inference. (Basically none of the task based hyper robotic coding/processing) Read more about it here on the wiki page : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braitenberg_vehicle
This will be followed by a quick Hands-on-proactive-workshop, where we will build some simple Braitenberg Vehicles, using common motors, wheels, and light sensors, and watch them interact and play with each other.
- The Technically inclined might ( Well If you don't know electronics, the block digram will be self explanatory anyway) have fun teaching eachother how to couple motors with light sensors. Designers can also contribute to the interaction paradigm/visuals. While others may chill in the shady part of the lawn with juice, until the vehicle action starts)
Finally, a film screening followed by a short discussion about it , revisiting our ideas about robots, autonomous vehicles, transport, society and policy, possibly moderated by volunteers/students/citizen researchers in this field, in a dialogue with the rest of the audience.

Additionally , if anyone want to build their own vehicles to take home, please email yelena@cis-india.org (by April 10) for instructions on what to pick up from SP Road.

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

[···]

kaeru — 2026-03-14T04:30:47Z

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

Bowing to public pressure, govt withdraws draft encryption policy

praskrishna — 2015-10-01T02:15:17Z

Bowing to pressure from the public, the government on Tuesday withdrew a draft policy that sought to control secured online communication, including through mass-use social media and web applications such as WhatsApp and Twitter.

The article was published by the Hindustan Times on September 22, 2015. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

Communications and information technology minister Ravi Shankar Prasad announced the government’s decision at a news conference, saying the draft National Encryption Policy will be reviewed before it is again presented to the public for their suggestions.

“I read the draft. I understand that the manner in which it is written can lead to misconceptions. I have asked for the draft policy to be withdrawn and reworded,” Prasad said. He said the draft would be re-released, but did not say when it would be made public.

“Experts had framed a draft policy...This draft policy is not the government’s final view,” he added. “There were concerns in some quarters. There were some words (in the draft policy) that caused concern.”

The draft will be reviewed and experts will be asked to specify to whom the policy will be applicable, Prasad said. He did not say when the new draft will be made public.

Those using social media platforms and web applications fell outside the scope of an encryption policy, Prasad said.

Several countries have felt the need for an encryption policy because of the boom in e-commerce and e-governance, he remarked. “Cyber space interactions are on the rise. There are concerns about security. We need a sound encryption policy,” he said.

Before Prasad announced the withdrawal of the draft policy, the government had issued an addendum early on Tuesday to keep social media and web applications like WhatsApp, Twitter and Facebook out of its purview.

Secure banking transactions and password protected e-commerce businesses too will be kept out of the ambit of the proposed policy, the addendum said.

The climb down by the government came following a storm of protests from users who objected to any stringent state controls on the use of email, social media accounts and apps.

According to the original draft, users of apps such as WhatsApp and Snapchat would be required to save all messages for up to 90 days and be able to produce them if asked by authorities.

Experts told Hindustan Times the draft policy, if implemented in its current form, could compromise the privacy of users and hamper the functioning of several multi-national service providers in India.

Nikhil Pahwa, editor of the MediaNama website that tracks cyber issues and tech news, said there were several problems even with the addendum to the draft policy.

“The usage of the phrase ‘currently in use’ renders the policy vague: Firstly, when is ‘currently’?” he questioned in a post on his website.

“Will a new service that uses a different kind of encryption to protect its users, still be covered? Why should users be ‘restricted to encryption currently in use’? Why should services like Whatsapp, Facebook and Twitter define our security standards?” said Pahwa, who also volunteers for savetheinternet.in.

Pranesh Prakash, policy director for The Centre for Internet and Society, tweeted that even the addendum “does not clarify anything, but further muddles the encryption policy”.

Social media users called the draft “draconian” and “delusional”, and Congress leader Manish Tewari too attacked the Union government.

“The encryption policy (draft) is a snooping and spying orgy. After net chats, the government may want you to keep a video record of what you do in your bedroom for 90 days,” the Congress spokesperson told reporters.

The draft policy had been posted online last week to seek suggestions from the public.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hindustan-times-september-22-2015-bowing-to-public-pressure-govt-withdraws-draft-encryption-policy

Bouquets & brickbats for Google's new privacy policy

praskrishna — 2013-10-25T05:40:56Z

Google's recent privacy policy change that allows the internet search company to use names, photographs and endorsements by its users in online advertisements is getting mixed reviews in India - advertisers love it, and activists love to hate it.

This article by Indu Nandakumar was published in the Economic Times on October 18, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

Internet rights activists called it another incursion into individual privacy by the California-based company that uses 'Don't be evil' as an informal corporate motto. Brand advisers and marketers praised the ingenuity of personalisation that can make advertising much more effective.

"From a user perspective, there is a higher chance of them buying a product if it is endorsed by a friend," said Kunal Jeswani, chief digital officer at Ogilvy & Mather India. To his mind, the argument about user privacy is "naive" because when a user enters a social network, he/she should know his/her personal information, such as profile photographs and names, is already on the web.

Google announced its policy change regarding user information will be effective on November 11, giving the company the right to use profile names, photos and comments alongside advertisements by clients who use its online advertising network of over 2 million websites.

For instance, if a user has endorsed a product by giving it a "+1" or rated a product on the Google Play app store, his/her image will appear next to the ad when it is displayed to people who are part of his/her social circle on the social networking service Google Plus. The move is seen as Google's attempt to catch up with rival Facebook, which first introduced the concept of 'social ads' that let corporations use the power of influence of people within a person's social network to sell products.

Internet rights activists said such practices raise privacy concerns as they do not take prior consent of users.

"We are not comfortable with user information being used without their permission, especially since Google's privacy standards are not very high," said Uday Mehta, associate director at Consumer Unity and Trust Society (CUTS International).

Last year, the agency complained to Competition Commission of India to investigate Google's alleged anti-competitive practices here. An investigation is ongoing.

In an emailed response, Google said it is notifying users about the change in policy, so that if a user does not like it, he/she can turn it off.

"Since we're updating an existing setting, we will continue to respect the choice you made about the old setting. That means if you already told us that you didn't want your +1s to appear in ads, none of your other shared endorsements will appear in ads," a Google spokesman said.

For example, Google said, if a user reviewed a restaurant, people who aren't in his/her Google Plus Circles of friends would not see that review in an ad that the restaurant might run through Google.

The latest ad strategy comes at a time when companies such as Google and Facebook have been attempting to increase their ad revenues by personalising advertisements to attract user attention. Over 90% of Google's $46-billion revenue in 2012 came from advertisements.

Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Center for Internet and Society said the issue highlights the need for a stronger internet privacy statute in India. The absence of clear privacy laws makes it impossible for government officials to understand the harm caused to personal rights because of the default settings of Google, he observed.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/economic-times-october-18-2013-indu-nandakumar-bouquets-brickbats-google-new-privacy-policy

Book Review: Apocalypse Now Redux

nishant — 2016-08-06T04:16:07Z

My review for Arundhati Roy and John Cusack's new book that captures their encounter with Edward Snowden, 'Things that can and cannot be said' is now out. It's an engaging, if somewhat freewheeling, political critique of the times we live in.

The review was published in the Indian Express on August 6, 2016.

Book: Things That Can and Cannot Be Said
Authors: Arundhati Roy & John Cusack
Publication: Juggernaut
Pages: 132
Price: Rs 250

The title of the book — Things That Can and Cannot be Said — demands an imperative. It is as if Arundhati Roy and John Cusack, aware of their internal turmoil in dealing with a world that is rapidly becoming unintelligible, though not incomprehensible, are demanding an order where none exists. Hence, they are advocating for certainty and assurance, only to undermine it, ironically, through their own freely associative writing that mimics linear time and causative narrative. This deep-seated irony of needing to say something, but knowing that saying it is not going to shine a divining light on the sordid realities of the world that is being managed through the production of grand structures like valorous nation states, virtuous civil societies, the obsequious NGO-isation of radical action, and the persistent neutering of justice through the benign vocabulary of human rights, defines the oeuvre, the politics and the poetics of the book. Written like a scrap book, filled with excerpts from long conversations scattered over time and space, annotated by reminiscences of books read long ago that have seared their imprints on the mind, and events that are simultaneously platitudinous for their status as global landmarks and fiercely personal for the scars that they have left on the minds of the authors, the book remains an engaging, if a somewhat freewheeling, ride into a political critique that makes itself all the more palatable and disconcerting for the levity, irreverence and the dark sense of humour that accompanies it.

Composed in alternating chapters, the first half of the book is about Cusack and Roy laying themselves bare. They spare no words, square no edges, and put their personal, political and collective wounds on display with humble pride and proud humility. Cusack’s experience as a screenplay writer comes in handy — he rescues what could have been a long tirade, into a series of conversations. The familiar narratives are rehistoricised and de-territorialised, put into new contexts while eschewing the older ones, thus providing a large landscape that refers to state-sponsored genocide, structural reorganisation of nation states, the dying edge of political action, the overwhelming but invisible presence of capital, and the dithering state of social justice that treats human beings like things. Cusack, identifying the poetic genius of Roy, gives her centre stage, making her the voice in command.

Roy, for her part, seems to have enjoyed this moment in the soapbox — something that she has been doing quite effectively and provocatively to a national and global audience — and gives it her all. There are moments when the text feels indulgent, when the voice feels a little relentless, when the almost schizophrenic global and historical references become a litany of mixed-up events that might have required further nuance and deeper interpretation. However, the whimsical style of Roy’s narrative, with her sense of what is right, and her demeanour that remains friendly, curious and disarming, saves the text from being heavy handed, even when it does dissolve into cloying poignancy and makes you pause, just so that you can breathe.

Surprisingly, it is the second part of the book, where the two encounter Edward Snowden along with Daniel Ellsberg, the “Snowden of the 1960s” who had leaked the Pentagon papers, that falters. Snowden had jocularly mentioned that Roy was there to “radicalise him”. She does that, but in a way that doesn’t give us anything more than what we already know. While Cusack and Roy were committed to getting to know Snowden beyond his systems-man image, there wasn’t much that they could uncover, either in dialogue or in discourse, that could have told us more, endeared us further to possibly the most over-exposed person in recent times. However, one realises that the genius of the narrative is actually in reminding us how transparent Edward Snowden has become to us. We know all kinds of things about this young man — from his girlfriends past to his actions future, from his values and convictions to his opinion on the NSA watching people’s naked pictures — and yet, what has been missing in the Snowden files, has been the larger arc of global politics, social reordering, and perhaps, a glimpse of the post-nation future that Snowden might have seen in his act of whistleblowing that is going to remain the landmark moment that defines the rest of this century.

Once you have gotten over the fact that this is not a book about Snowden, the expectations are better tailored for what is to come, and suddenly, the long prelude to the meeting falls into place. Snowden matches Roy and Cusack in whimsy, irony, political conviction, and the sacred faith in human values that make you want to give them all a fierce hug of hesitant reassurance. What Snowden says, what Roy and Cusack make of it, and how they leave us, almost abruptly at the end, breathless, unnerved, and severely conflicted about some of the 20th century structures like society, activism, nation states, governance, communication, technologies, sharing and caring is what the book has to be read for. The tight screen-writing skills of Cusack meet the perfect timing of Roy’s prose, and all of it becomes surreal, futuristic and indelibly real when it gets anchored on the physical presence of Snowden, who, in exile, talks achingly of the home that has thrown him out and the home that he can never really call his own.

And while there are lapses — fragments, translations and evocations which might have needed more explanations to have their pedagogic intent shine through — there is no denying that, in all its flaws, much like the narrators, the book manages to first immerse you in the cold shock of a sobering reality, clearly positioning the apocalypse as the now, and then drags you out and wraps you up in a warm blanket, opening up forms of critique, formats of intervention, and functions of political commitment towards saying things that have and have not been said. The book should have, perhaps, been titled what could, would, should have been said, but can’t, won’t, shan’t be said — not because of anything else, but because it seems futile.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/indian-express-nishant-shah-august-6-2016-book-review-apocalypse-now-redux