We are anonymous, we are legion

Sense and Censorship

sunil — 2012-01-31T06:15:38Z

The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA) bills, at the US House of Representatives and Senate, respectively, appear to enforce property rights, but are, in fact, trade bills. This article by Sunil Abraham was published in the Indian Express on 20 January 2012.

In developed countries like the US, intellectual property (IP) plays a dominant role in the economy, unlike in economies like India. Countries that have significant IP are keen to increase global and national enforcement activities, while countries with little domestic IP are keen to reduce outgoing royalties in the balance of payments and therefore, keen to expand alternatives, limitations and exceptions like copyleft licensing, compulsory/statutory licensing and fair dealing.

The loss of generic medicines, hardware based on open standards, public domain content, free and open source software, open access journal articles, etc will equally impoverish consumers in the US and in India. SOPA and PIPA, therefore, do not represent the will of the average American but rather the interests of the IP sector, which has tremendous influence in the Hill. There is one more layer of complication for policy-makers to consider as they work towards a compromise of interests in Internet governance — the tension between the old and the new. The incumbents — corporations with business models that have been rendered obsolete by technological developments — versus emerging actors who provide competing products and services, often with greater technological sophistication, higher quality, at a lower cost.

The US, in terms of policy and infrastructure, still controls the global Domain Name System (DNS) and consequently, post-SOPA/PIPA, can take unilateral trade action without worrying about national variations enabled by international law. These bills directly undermine the business models of many Indian companies — generic drug manufacturers like Ranbaxy, software service providers like Infosys, electronics manufacturers like Spice and players in many other sectors dominated by IP rights. So it is baffling that they have not added their voices to the global outcry.

SOPA and PIPA, if passed, will enable the US administration to take three-pronged action against IP infringers — seizure of domain names and DNS filtering, blocking of transactions by financial intermediaries and revocation of hosting by ISPs. While circumvention may still be possible, it will get increasingly laborious — something like the Great Firewall of China, but worse. Unfortunately, the implementation of these blunt policy instruments will require more and more public-funded surveillance and censorship.

The censorship potential of efforts like SOPA and PIPA may appeal to others, as autocratic and democratic regimes across the world have been keen to try technology-mediated social engineering — these efforts have been multiplied in the post-Arab Spring and Occupy Wall Street world. Organised religion, social conservatives and those who have been at the receiving end of free speech would all want to shut down platforms like WikiLeaks and political movements like Anonymous and the Pirate Party.

These are equally dismal times for Internet governance in India. Google, Facebook and 20-odd other intermediaries are trying to avoid jail time at the hands of a Delhi court. However, ever since the IT Act amendments were put in place three years back, digital activists have been requesting intermediaries to register their protests early and often, regarding draconian provisions in the statute and in the associated rules. Their silence is going to be very expensive for all of us. We cannot depend on the private sector alone to defend our constitutional rights. As yet unpublished research from CIS demonstrates that private intermediaries only bother with defending freedom of expression when it undermines their business interests. Working with an independent researcher, we conducted a policy sting operation — faulty take-down notices were served to seven intermediaries asking for legitimate content to be taken down. In six of those cases, the intermediaries over-complied, in one case deleting all comments on a news article instead of just those comments identified in the notice. The only take-down that was resisted was one claiming that sale of diapers was “harmful to minors” under the Indian IT Act (because they caused nappy rash). It is clear that the IT Act and its associated rules have already had a chilling effect on online participation by Indians.

Fortunately for us, during the previous parliamentary session — Jayant Chaudhary, Lok Sabha MP from the Rashtriya Lok Dal, asked for the revision of rules concerning intermediaries, cyber-cafes and reasonable security practices. The next Parliament session is the last opportunity for the House to reject these rules and intervene for a free Internet.

The writer is executive director of the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society

Read the original published in the Indian Express

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

Twitter’s Censorship Move Aimed at Regaining China?

praskrishna — 2012-01-30T04:54:51Z

Twitter, the popular social networking site for micro-blogging, has announced it is open to content censorship and region-based filtering, if required by law. The service boasts nearly 300 million users from across the world. Vinod Yalburgi writes this in the International Business Times.

In a Twitter post - "Tweets Must Still Flow", the service's management has stated: "Starting today, we give ourselves the ability to reactively withhold content from users in a specific country, while keeping it available in the rest of the world."

Twitter's drastic move comes in the wake of recent U.S. government allegations against Internet sites like Google, Yahoo and Facebook, regarding the need to regulate and filter controversial user-generated content. Both Google and Facebook have made similar commitments.

Like us on Facebook

However, it must be seen if either of the three do follow through with those commitments.

Meanwhile, experts quoted in a report by The Times of India, where too social networking Web sites are coming under the scanner, suggest the lack of clarity in laws in countries like India means Twitter can only act reactively; the situation in Germany or France, for example, where laws about pro-Nazi propaganda are codified, they can act proactively.

Another post by Twitter speaks of a new feature that will allow the site's administrators to enable region-based selective content blocking, thereby allowing region-sensitive information to remain hidden from users in those areas. The post also cited the example of Germany and France: "Some countries differ so much from our ideas that we will not be able to exist there. Others restrict certain types of content, such as France or Germany, which ban pro-Nazi content."

There is also speculation that one reason for this decision could be Twitter's plans to re-enter the Chinese market, where the micro-blogging service has been banned since 2009. Incidentally, China boasts the largest number of Internet users in the world, at this moment.

The hope, for Twitter, must be the promise to block sensitive tweets (or those the Chinese government deems offensive) without affecting the global audience. Twitter has rarely resorted to such censorship practices. However, the company does not seem unwilling to shy away from that responsibility.

"...if and when we are required to withhold a tweet in a specific country, we will attempt to let the user know, and we will clearly mark when the content has been withheld," the company's statement said.

"The region-specific blocking was already being used on video hosting websites like Youtube and Hulu, where due to the wishes of copyright owners many videos are not available in India. Twitter is extending this technology to its tweets," said Pranesh Prakash at the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore, India.

"We have to take care of the sensibilities of our people. Cultural ethos is very important to us," Kapil Sibal, the Indian Telecom Minister, said last month, during his request to both Google and Facebook to filter offensive content.

The trend of social networking Web sites resisting censorship seems a thing of the past. Prakash recalls an incident in 2011, when the U.S. government sought detailed information about a Twitter user, only to be challenged, by the Internet company, in court.

Read the original published by International Business Times on 28 January 2012. Pranesh Prakash was quoted in it.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/twitter2019s-censorship-move-aimed-at-regaining-china

Google’s privacy policy raises hackles

praskrishna — 2012-01-30T03:58:57Z

Have you ever used Google to search for a restaurant while you were logged in its network using your Google id? Or shared information about your trip to Goa with your friends on Google +? Or watched belly dance on YouTube? Or looked for Sunny Leone pictures on Google images? If yes, Google knows about it. Javed Anwer wrote on article on this. It is published in the Times of India on 26 January 2012.

And according to its new privacy policy it is going to put this information to some use.

The web giant says the new privacy policy will allow it to offer better services, including more relevant search results. But web experts have raised concerns over potential misuse of data and breach of privacy. According to Google's new privacy policy that will come into effect from March 1, the company is "getting rid of over 60 different privacy policies across Google services and replacing them with one that's shorter, easier to read" and something that will enable it to "create intuitive experience across Google" . Unlike in the past when Google had allowed users to choose personalized services, this time there is no option to opt out.

For an end-user this means that whatever information he shares through Google searches, Gmail, Google +, Picassa etc will be used to customize Google services for him. That the move is significant can be gauged from the fact that Google has provided a link to the new policy directly under its search engine on main page, something that the company rarely does. Google users will also be notified about the policy change through an email. "Our new privacy policy makes clear that, if you're signed in, we may combine information you've provided from one service with information from other services. In short, we'll treat you as a single user across all our products, which will mean a simpler, more intuitive Google experience," said Alma Whitten, Google's director of privacy, in a post on the company's official blog.

Whitten gave some example of how this information will be used. "We can make search better - figuring out what you really mean when you type in Apple, Jaguar or Pink. We can provide more relevant ads too," she wrote. "We can provide reminders that you're going to be late for a meeting based on your location , your calendar and an understanding of what the traffic is like that day. Or ensure that our spelling suggestions, even for your friends' names, are accurate because you've typed them before."

The privacy policy from Google is at the heart of its new business strategy as it works to keep the search engine relevant and its services fresh in the face of social networking websites like Twitter and Facebook. It is also prompted by the proliferation of devices like smartphones and tablets. However, privacy experts are not amused. Sunil Abraham, director of Centre for Internet and Society, said the new changes are not good for a consumer's privacy.

"I understand that Google collects the data so that it can build a 360 degree profile of a user and based on the information serve relevant advertisements . But there is no reason for them to store this data for long. Storing data makes it prone to misuse by authorities as well as corporations," said Abraham. Another, problem, he said is that different services are used for different purposes. "I don't want my bakery shop owner to know what kind of medicines Ibuy from the nearby medical store," said Abraham.

Are you being watched?

What |

For an end-user the new policy means that whatever information he shares through Google searches, Gmail, Google+, Picassa, etc will be used to customize Google services for him

Why |

The privacy policy is at the heart of Google's business strategy as it tries to keep the search engine relevant in the face of social networking websites like Twitter and Facebook

Concerns |

It's instrusive as online activity is tracked; storing data makes it prone to misuse by authorities as well as corporations

The original was published in the Times of India. Sunil Abraham has been quoted in it.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/google2019s-privacy-policy-raises-hackles

Our Internet and the Law

nishant — 2012-03-26T09:28:22Z

Nishant Shah was interviewed by the BBC Channel 5 (Radio) for its Outriders section. Jamillah Knowles reports this through this blog post published by BBC Radio on 24 January 2012.

Hello Outriders!

This week on the podcast we look at some of the problems netizens are facing when it comes to access and sharing online. SOPA, the stop online piracy act and PIPA - protect IP bills have been making headlines from the United States, where the bills were designed and all over the web where protesters showed that they did not want this sort of legislation to be passed.

It's a tricky topic as there are many protesters raising their voices against the laws and there are plenty of people who support these ideas too.

Indian internet

Along with these headlines about legislation in America, there are many other places around the world that are debating how best to manage a population that has an increasing presence on the internet.

In India, a court case is continuing that may affect how social networking websites work. Not in relation to copyright material, but as a reaction to offensive content being spread and shared.

So, what do they mean by offensive content and who are the big names in this case?

Friend of Outriders, Nishant Shah, is the Co-Founder and director of research at the Bangalore based Centre for Internet and Society, he explained the case and more about the effects of a possible outcome.

Friend of Outriders, Nishant Shah, is the Co-Founder and director of research at the Bangalore based Centre for Internet and Society, he explained the case and more about the effects of a possible outcome.

Last week also saw a huge story of the web as content sharing website Megaupload was taken down and the site's owners were charged with copyright violation.

As a response, the loose network of hackers and activists known as Anonymous activated their own take down campaign, targeting the Department of Justice, the FBI and the Motion Picture Association of America.

Upload down

Many users of the MegaUpload site watched countless hours of video posted by other people with accounts on the site, copyright or otherwise, but the shut down does not just mean that people are no longer able to watch videos, it also means that people who had put files on that site, are currently unable to access them.

One such customer is Jay Springett, who is a technology consultant, photographer and musician. I asked him how he came to use the site and if he had heard anything about getting his files back.

Well, we hope that Jay does get his raw files back and I grateful to him for talking to us about his experience - it's good to have a reminder about our information and files online. Take care of what you own and think twice about the reliability of the cloud. Though you may never be in this situation - and we hope this is the case, it's always a very good idea to keep copies of your own files, you never know what might be ahead as the internet changes.

Well, thanks to our guests as ever and of course you too can share your internet adventures or experiments with electrical things. Drop me a line at outriders at bbc dot co dot uk, tweet at me on Twitter where we are @BBC_Outriders or search for Outriders on Facebook and Google+ to add us to your feed.

Until next week!
~ Jamillah

Listen the Podcast here

The original blog post was published by BBC Radio

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

Privacy Matters — Analyzing the Right to "Privacy Bill"

natasha — 2012-02-15T04:27:28Z

On January 21, 2012 a public conference “Privacy Matters” was held at the Indian Institute of Technology in Mumbai. It was the sixth conference organised in the series of regional consultations held as “Privacy Matters”. The present conference analyzed the Draft Privacy Bill and the participants discussed the challenges and concerns of privacy in India.

The conference was organized by Privacy India in partnership with the Centre for Internet & Society, International Development Research Centre, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, the Godrej Culture Lab and Tata Institute of Social Sciences. Participants included a wide range of stakeholders that included the civil society, NGO representatives, consumer activists, students, educators, local press, and advocates.

Comments to the Right to Privacy Bill

Welcome

Prashant Iyengar was the Lead Researcher with Privacy India, opened the conference with an explanation of Privacy India’s mandate to raise awareness, spark civil action and promote democratic dialogue around privacy challenges and violations in India. He summarized the five “Privacy Matters” series previously organised across India in Kolkata on January 23, 2011, in Bangalore on February 5, 2011, in Ahmedabad on March 26, 2011, in Guwahati on June 23, 2011 and in Chennai on August 6, 2011.

Keynote Address

Na. Vijayashankar (popularly known as Naavi), a Bangalore based e-business consultant, delivered the key note address on the quest of a good privacy law in India.

He described the essential features of good privacy legislation. In analyzing the Draft Privacy Bill’s definition of the right to privacy, he suggested it should be defined through the “right to personal liberty” rather than through what constitutes “infringements”. Mr. Vijayashankar went on to explain that the “privacy right” should be taken beyond “information protection” and defined as a “personal privacy or a sense of personal liberty without constraints by the society”. He explained the various classifications and levels of protection associated with the availability and disclosure of data. He expressed concerns regarding monitoring of data processors and suggested that data controllers have contractual agreements between data processors, so as to ensure an obligation of data security practices. He also called for the simplification and division of offences and suggested numerous reasons as to why the Cyber Appellate Tribunal would not be an ideal monitoring mechanism or authority. See Naavi's presenation here

Session I: Privacy and the Legal System

Dr. Sudhir Krishnaswamy, Assistant Professor at the National Law School of India

Dr. Krishnaswamy started off the presentation by questioning the normative assumptions the Draft Privacy Bill makes. He referred to the controversy of Newt Gingrich's second marriage, to question the range of moral interests that were involved. The Bill falls short in accounting for dignity in relation to privacy.

He described the Draft Privacy Bill as a reasonable advance, given where privacy laws were before. Although, he feels that it does fall short, in terms of a narrow position, on what privacy law should do. He also questioned if it satisfies constitutional standards. He stressed the importance of philosophical work around the Draft Privacy Bill considering that the nature of privacy is not neat and over-arching.

Privacy and the Constitutional Law

N S Nappinai, Advocate, High Court, Mumbai,

Nappinai spoke on the constitutional right to privacy. She explained the substantial development of Article 21 of the Constitution of India to include the ‘right to privacy’ with regards to its interpretation and application. She described the different shift of the application of the right to privacy in the West in comparison to India. The West has moved from the right to privacy pertaining to property to the right to privacy concerning personal rights, whereas India moved from personal rights to property rights. She outlined three aspects of privacy: dignity, liberty and property rights.

Ms. Nappinai dissected the Bill in its major components: interception, surveillance, method and manner of personal data, health information, collection, processing and use of personal data. Using these components, she questioned what precedence exists? What should be further protected or reversed? What lessons should legislators draw from?

Shortcomings of the Draft Right to Privacy Bill falls include:

The objects and reasons section in the Draft Privacy Bill declares the right to privacy to every citizen as well as delineates the collection and dissemination of data. Nappinai dismisses the need for this delineation on the grounds that data protection is an inherent part of the right to privacy, it is not exclusive.
Large focus on transmission of data. The provisions do not account for property rights pertaining to the right to privacy. Therefore, the ‘knock-and-enter’ rule, the ‘right to be left alone’ and the ‘right to happiness’ should be included.
Applicability of the Bill should extend to all persons as well as data residing within the territory. It would be self-defeating if it only includes citizens, considering that the Constitution extends to all persons within the territory.
The right to dignity is unaccounted for.

See Nappinai's presentation here

Session II: Privacy and Freedom of Expression

Apar Gupta, Advocate, Delhi

Apar Gupta is an advocate based in Delhi who specializes in IP and electronic commerce law, spoke predominantly on the interplay between privacy and freedom of expression. He used the example of an advocate tweeting about his criticism of a judges’ ruling, to illustrate how different realms of online anonymity enable freedom of speech. He went beyond the traditional realm of journalistic architecture such as television channels or newspapers and explained online community disclosure.

Mr. Gupta provided a practical example of Indian Kanoon, a popular online database of Indian court decisions. Because Indian Kanoon is linked to the Google search engine, many individuals involved in civil and criminal matters have requested Indian Kanoon to remove the court judgments, under privacy claims. This particularly occurs with individuals involved in matrimonial cases. However, as court judgment constitute public records India Kanoon only removes court judgments when requested by a court order.

He described the several ways legislators can define privacy and freedom of expression. Considering that the privacy of an individual may border upon freedom of speech and expression, he questioned whether or not privacy should override the right to freedom of speech and expression. In addition, Mr. Gupta discussed the debate on whether or not the Privacy Bill should override all existing provisions in other laws.

Additionally, he analyzed the provisions of the Draft Privacy Bill using three judgments. In these judgments, different entities sought of various forms of speech to be blocked under privacy claims. He spoke about the dangers of a statutory right for privacy that does not safeguard freedom of speech and expression. Considering that the privacy statute may allow for a form of civil action permitting private parties to approach courts to stop certain publications, he stressed the importance for legislators to ensure balanced privacy legislation inclusive of freedom of speech and expression.

Sexual Minorities and Privacy

Danish Sheikh, researcher at Alternative Law Forum

Danish examined the status of sexual minorities in the light of privacy framework in India. The tag of decriminalization has served to greatly alter the way institutions approach the question of privacy when it comes to sexual minorities. He used the Naz Foundation judgment as a chronological marker to map the developments in the right to privacy and sexual minorities over the years.

He outlined four key effects on the right to privacy due to the Naz Foundation judgment:

Prepared the understanding of privacy as a positive right and placed obligations on the state,
Discussed privacy as dealing with persons and not just places, it took into account decisional privacy as well as zonal privacy,
Connected privacy with dignity and the valuable worth of individuals, and
Included privacy on one’s autonomous identity.

He described various incidents that took place before the Naz Foundation judgment, pre-Naz, that altered the way we conceived of queer rights in general and privacy in particular, including the Lucknow incidents, transgender toilets, passport forms, the medical establishment and lesbian unions. Post-Naz, he described two incidents including the Allahabad Muslim University sting operation as well as the TV9 “Expose” that captured public imagination.

He concluded by asking: “What do these stories tell us about privacy?” The issues faced by the transgender community tell us that privacy doesn’t necessarily encompass a one-size-fits-all approach, and can raise as many questions as it answers. The issues faced by the Lucknow NGOs display the institutionalized disrespect for privacy and that has marginally more devastating consequences for the homosexual community by the spectre of outing. The issues faced by lesbian women evidence yet another need for breaching the public/private divide, demonstrating how the protection of the law might be welcome in the family sphere. Alternate sexual orientation and gender identity might bring the community under a common rubric, but distilling the components of that rubric is essential for engaging in any kind of useful understanding of the community and the kind of privacy violations it suffers – or engage with situations when the lack of privacy is empowering.

Session III: Privacy and National Security

Menaka Guruswamy, Advocate, Supreme Court of India

Menaka explored national security and its relationship to privacy. In her presentation, she compared the similar manner in which the courts approach national security and privacy issues. The courts feel national security and privacy issues are too complex to define, therefore, they take a case-by-case approach.

Ms. Guruswamy described three incidents that urged her to question national security and privacy. First, she was interested in the lack of regulation surrounding intelligence agencies and was involved in the introduction of the Regulations of Intelligence Agencies Bill as a private members bill. Second, national security litigation between the Salwa Judum judgment and the State of Chhattisgarh is an example of how national security triumphs constitutional rights and values. Third, privacy in the context of the impending litigation of Naz Foundation in the Supreme Court. She described the larger conversation of national security focus on values of equality and privacy. She discussed the following questions that serve in advancing certain conception of rights:

How do we posit privacy which necessarily, philosophically as well as judicially, is carved out as the right of an individual to be left alone?
What are the consequences when national security, which is posited as the rights of the nation, is in conflict with the right of the individual to be left alone?
Considering that constitutional rights are posited as a public facet of citizenship how does a right to privacy play in that context?

Privacy and UID

R. Ramakumar, professor at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences

Prof. Ramakumar spoke on UID, its collection of information and the threat to individual privacy. First, he provided a historical trajectory of national security that has led to increased identity card schemes. He described the concrete connection between UID and national security.

He briefed the gathering on the objectives of the UID project. He described several false claims as proposed by the UIDAI. He explicitly disproved the UIDAI claim that Aadhaar is voluntary. He did this by comparing various legislations associated with the National Population Registrar that had provisions mandating the inclusion of the UID number.

He went on to explain that the misplaced emphasis of technology to handle large populations remains unproven. He described two specific violations of privacy inherent in the UID system: convergence of information and consent. The UID database makes it possible for the linking or convergence of information across silos. In addition, consent is unaccounted for in the UID system. The UID enrollment form requires consent from a person to share their information. However, the software of the enrollment form automatically checks ‘yes’, therefore you are not asked. Even if you disagree, it automatically checks ‘yes’. Default consent raises the important question, “to what extent are we the owners of our information?” and “what are the privacy implications?”

Mr. Ramakumar was once asked, by Yashwant Sinha in a Parliamentary Standing Committee meeting, “Is the Western concept of privacy important in developing country like India?”. Using this question posed to him, he stressed the importance of privacy to be understood as a globally valued right, entitlement and freedom. He also referred to Amartya Sen’s work on individual freedoms.

Conclusion

During the daylong consultation numerous questions and themes relating to privacy were discussed:

How is the right to privacy defined?
How can the Draft Privacy Bill redefine the right to privacy?
How can reasonable deterrence mechanisms be included?
Does duplication of the right to privacy exists in different statutes?
Is the Cyber Appellate Tribunal an ideal monitoring mechanism or authority?
What are the circumstances under which authorized persons can exercise the Right of privacy invasion?
How can the Draft Privacy Bill account for the right to dignity?
How much information should the State be allowed to collect?
How can citizens become more informed about the use of their information and the privacy implications involved?
What would be the appropriate balance or trade-off between security and civil liberties?
What are the dangers with permitting the needs of national security to trump competing values?
What are the consequences for the homosexual community, when faced with institutionalized disregard for privacy?

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/privacy-matters-analyzing-the-right-to-privacy-bill

Google to change privacy policy to use personal info of users

praskrishna — 2012-01-30T05:03:55Z

It is a warning for users of Google and other Social Networking sites. Who are using these sites for searching anything they want to know and sharing their personal life with friends, colleagues and relatives. If you have ever used Google for searching any place, restaurant or shared information about your personal life with your friends on Google and other social networking sites, or you have watched adult stuff on YouTube, if your answer is yes, Google knows about it. And according to its new privacy policy Google is going to put this information to some use. Sheetal Ranga's article was published in Punjab Newsline on 27 January 2012.

It is claimed by the web enormous that according to new privacy policy, better service will be provided to its users, including more relevant search results. And other side the web experts have expressed their concerns over potential misuse of data and defy of privacy. Google's new privacy policy will come into effect from 1 March 2012, said by Google.

Google provide service which will be shorter and easier to read and something that will enable it to create spontaneous experience across Google. Google had allowed users to choose personalized services; “unlike” this time there is no option to pick for the users.

The new policy of Google has made some people anxious over their privacy issues. The new policy is being adopted by Google, SafeGov monitors security issues for federal, state and local government is not happy with it.

A security analyst, Jeff ( SafeGov) said, "Google should not be data-mining information in e-mails, text messages, searches and documents that workers are putting into Google services. It’s a matter of not making government workers unnecessarily exposed to hackers and to inadvertent disclosures of information."

The Vice President of Google ,Amit Singh claims that Google’s new privacy policy for consumer data is antiquated by data privacy provisions in contracts with government agencies and other organization that use the paid version of Google Apps. Google will maintain our endeavor customers’ data in conformity with the confidentiality and security obligations provided to their domain, he said.

The new policy of Google has made some people edgy over their privacy issues. SafeGov monitors security issues for federal, state and local government agencies are very unhappy with the new policy of Google. It is also said by Sunil Abraham, director of Centre for Internet and Society that the new changes are not good for a consumer's privacy.

Director of privacy Alma Whitten has given some example of how this information will be used. "We can make search better - figuring out what you really mean when you type in Apple, Jaguar or Pink. We can provide more relevant ads too," she wrote. "We can provide reminders that you're going to be late for a meeting based on your location, your calendar and an understanding of what the traffic is like that day. Or ensure that our spelling suggestions, even for your friends' names, are accurate because you've typed them before."

Other side after the cross-checked the contract between Google and the city of Los Angele by Gould, claimed that he didn’t think through the consequences for government users.

Punjab Newsline published this story. Sunil Abraham was quoted in it.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/google-to-change-privacy-policy

How India Makes E-books Easier to Ban than Books (And How We Can Change That)

pranesh — 2012-02-21T11:50:56Z

Without getting into questions of what should and should not be unlawful speech, Pranesh Prakash chooses to take a look at how Indian law promotes arbitrary removal and blocking of websites, website content, and online services, and how it makes it much easier than getting offline printed speech removed.

E-Books Are Easier To Ban Than Books, And Safer

Contrary to what Mr. Sibal's recent hand-wringing at objectionable online material might suggest, under Indian laws currently in force it is far easier to remove material from the Web, by many degrees of magnitude, than it is to ever get them removed from a bookstore or an art gallery. To get something from a bookstore or an art gallery one needs to collect a mob, organize collective outrage and threats of violence, and finally convince either the government or a magistrate that the material is illegal, thereby allowing the police to seize the books or stop the painting from being displayed. The fact of removal of the material will be noted in various records, whether in government records, court records, police records or in newspapers of record. By contrast, to remove something from the Web, one needs to send an e-mail complaining about it to any of the string of 'intermediaries' that handle the content: the site itself, the web host for the site, the telecom companies that deliver the site to your computer/mobile, the web address (domain name) provider, the service used to share the link, etc. Under the 'Intermediary Guidelines Rules' that have been in operation since 11th April 2011, all such companies are required to 'disable access' to the complained-about content within thirty-six hours of the complaint. It is really that simple.

"That's ridiculous," you think, "surely he must be exaggerating." Think again. A researcher working with us at the Centre for Internet and Society tried it out, several times, with many different intermediaries and always with frivolous and flawed complaints, and was successful six out of seven times . Thus it is easier to prevent Flipkart or Amazon from selling Rushdie's Midnight's Children than it is to prevent a physical bookstore from doing so: today Indira Gandhi wouldn't need to win a lawsuit in London against the publishers to remove a single line as she did then; she would merely have to send a complaint to online booksellers and get the book removed. It is easier to block Vinay Rai's Akbari.in (just as CartoonsAgainstCorruption.com was recently blocked) than it is to prevent its print publication. Best of all for complainants: there is no penalty for frivolous complaints such as those sent by us, nor are any records kept of who's removed what. Such great powers of censorship without any penalties for their abuse are a sure-fire way of ensuring a race towards greater intolerance, with the Internet — that republic of opinions and expressions — being a casualty.

E-Book Bans Cannot Be Challenged

In response to some of the objections raised, the Cyberlaw Division of the Department of Information Technology, ever the dutiful guardian of free speech, noted that if you have a problem with access to your content being 'disabled', you could always approach a court and get that ban reversed. Unfortunately, the Cyberlaw Division of the Department of Information Technology forgot to take into account that you can't contest a ban/block/removal if you don't know about it. While they require all intermediaries to disable access to the content within thirty-six hours, they forgot to mandate the intermediary to tell you that the content is being removed. Whoops. They forgot to require the intermediary to give public notice that content has been removed following a complaint from person ABC or corporation XYZ on such-and-such grounds. Whoops, again.

So while records are kept, along with reasons, of book bans, there are no such records required to be kept of e-book bans.

E-Book Censors Are Faceless

Vinay Rai is a brave man. He is being attacked by fellow journalists who believe he's disgracing the professional upholders of free-speech, and being courted by television channels who believe that he should be encouraged to discuss matters that are sub judice. He is viewed by some as a man who's playing politics in courts on behalf of unnamed politicians and bureaucrats, while others view him as being bereft of common-sense for believing that companies should be legally liable for not having been clairvoyant and removing material he found objectionable, though he has never complained to them about it, and has only provided that material to the court in a sealed envelope. I choose, instead, to view him as a scrupulous and brave man. He has a face, and a name, and is willing to openly fight for what he believes in. However, there are possibly thousands of unscrupulous Vinay Rais out there, who know the law better than he does, and who make use not of the court system but of the Intermediary Guidelines Rules, firmly assured by those Rules that their censorship activities will never be known, will never be challenged by Facebook and Google lawyers, and will never be traced back to them.

Challenging Invisible Censorship

Dear reader, you may have noticed that this is a bit like a trial involving Free Speech in which Free Speech is presumed guilty upon complaint, is not even told what the charges against it are, has not been given a chance to prove its innocence, and has no right to meet its accusers nor to question them. Yet, the Cyberlaw Division of the Department of Information Technology continues to issue press releases defending these Rules as fair and just, instead of being simultaneously Orwellian and Kafkaesque. These Rules are delegated legislation passed by the Department of Information Technology under s.79 of the Information Technology Act. The Rules were laid before Parliament during the 2011 Monsoon session. We at CIS believe that these Rules are *ultra vires* the IT Act as well as the Constitution of India, not only with respect to what is now (newly) proscribed online (which in itself is enough to make it unconstitutional), but how that which is purportedly unlawful is to be removed. We have prepared an alternative that we believe is far more just and in accordance with our constitutional principles, taking on best practices from Canada, the EU, Chile, and Brazil, while still allowing for expeditious removal of unlawful material. We hope that the DIT will consider adopting some of the ideas embodied in our draft proposal.

As Parliament passed the IT Act in the midst of din, without any debate, it is easy to be skeptical and wonder whether Rules made under the IT Act will be debated. However, I remain hopeful that Parliament will not only exercise its power wisely, but will perform its solemn duty — borne out of each MP's oath to uphold our Constitution — by rejecting these Rules.

Photo credit: Lynn Gardner, under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.0 licence*

This was reproduced in Outlook Magazine on 27 January 2012

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-ebooks-easier-to-ban-than-books

Tangled Web

praskrishna — 2012-01-23T08:42:01Z

Government and social networking sites at loggerheads as debate rages over freedom of expression, writes Kumar Anshuman and Nikita Doval in this story published in the Week on Saturday, 21 January 2012.

Journalist-turned-activist Vinay Rai has succeeded where Information Technology Minister Kapil Sibal failed—putting the fear of law in the minds of India's bloating community of bloggers, surfers, plain e-wayfarers and inter(net)lopers.

Blogs haven't yet been blocked, but a Delhi High Court bench asked 21 internet firms, including Google, Facebook and YouTube, to look at China and have stringent checks on their content on January 19. It was enough to set the net on fire. Compulsive tweeter Shashi Tharoor, who lost his ministerial berth for over-tweeting, wondered whether phone companies could "be sued if someone sends a defamatory, obscene SMS". Said IT expert Niyam Bhushan: "If you fall on the ground and hurt your nose, you can't sue gravity. At a time when people in autocratic countries are using social media to bring in democracy, a democratic country like India is trying to restrict it!"

When the summons for the case was first sent to the companies in December, a number of respondents who were based outside India failed to answer. Said cyber crime expert Pavan Duggal: "Companies are observing the IT Act more in breach than in observance."

The debate was originally kick-started by Sibal last December when he summoned the chiefs of social networking sites and showed them offensive material from their sites. However, they pleaded helplessness. Sibal's subsequent press conference drew more flak, and he retreated saying, "The government does not believe in interfering in the freedom of the press, but we have to take care of the sensibilities of our people."

It was then that Rai petitioned a Delhi criminal court, accusing 21 social networking sites of hosting objectionable and inflammatory content which would create enmity and violence among religious communities. In a sealed envelope, he presented 62 items downloaded from different web sites and got three witnesses.

Though the companies were ordered to appear before court on January 13, they challenged the order in the Delhi High Court, saying that curbing the content is technically impossible. "Human interference is not possible, and it is not feasible to check such incidents given that billions of people across the globe are posting articles and other material on their web sites," argued Mukul Rohatgi, former additional solicitor general, representing Google India. "Certain keywords can be blocked or not allowed," said Yogesh Bansal, founder and CEO of ApnaCircle.com. "However, filtering or having 100 per cent control over the content posted is technically not possible."

According to the Information Technology (Intermediaries guidelines) Rules, 2011, if the companies receive complaints about unlawful or objectionable online material, they have 36 hours to remove it, failing which the aggrieved party can approach court or the Cyber Law Appellate Tribunal. "The rules purportedly try to regulate and control the intermediaries like interactive web sites and social media sites, but, in effect, regulate content generated or posted by users," said Prasanth Sugathan, legal counsel, Software Freedom Law Center.

The 'intermediaries', as defined in the Information Technology Act, 2000, include a broad list of players ranging from internet service providers like Airtel and MTNL to blogging platforms like Blogspot and WordPress to auction sites like eBay and search engines like Google to cyber cafes. The new rules mandate the intermediaries to impose a set of rules and regulations on users.

The rules specify the terms of regulations, which include a broad list of unlawful content—information that is grossly harmful, harassing, blasphemous, defamatory, obscene, related to paedophilia, libellous, invasive of privacy, hateful, racially objectionable, disparaging, encourages money laundering or otherwise unlawful in any manner whatever.

"These are very broad terms which have not been defined very well," said Duggal. "The service provider is not even required to come to a judgment. Only after they receive a complaint or are notified by the government can they act." According to Delhi-based cyber law consultant Karnika Seth, it will be helpful if illustrations are given to explain the nature of the crime, as in the Indian Penal Code. "This is missing in the IT Act which leaves terms like 'blasphemy' and 'obscenity' open to wide interpretations."

The companies claim they stick to the rules. "We have a review committee, which decides on complaints in case of any content posted on our sites," said a representative of one of the accused companies. In the current case, the official claimed that they were not shown the content presented before court. "The current accusation is baseless," he said.

There have been several instances in the past when social networking companies acted on complaints. In 2009, a young Keralite was booked for posting offensive remarks against Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray and his party on a social networking site and the material was removed. In May 2010, the controversial 'Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!' in Facebook was blocked in India, following protests from Muslims.

In August last year, the cyber wing of the Punjab Crime Branch charge-sheeted a Sunny Dhiman for allegedly uploading a pornographic video of a female student from Chandigarh on YouTube. Following complaints, the video was removed.

According to Sunil Abraham of the Centre for Internet and Society, the companies are over-compliant. "We did a policy sting operation wherein we sent fraudulent notices to big web sites," he said. "They never bothered to check the veracity of the complaints, but complied with everything we asked for. In one case where we asked for the removal of three comments, they removed all 13. So there is already a private censorship underway. The existing IT Act is draconian and has led to great dilution of privacy."

According to Google Transparency Report, Google received government requests for removing 358 items from its services between January and June last year. Fifty-one per cent of the requests were partially or fully complied with. "In addition, we received a request from a local law enforcement agency to remove 236 communities and profiles from Orkut that were critical of a local politician. We did not comply with it as the content did not violate our community standards or local law," said the report.

Both Duggal and Seth said the government's demand for pre-screening and monitoring content was not feasible. "In the IT Act there is not a single phrase which requires pre-screening or moderation under the law," said Duggal. The government has a right to stop a company from displaying content which it deems perverse to Indian standards. But, as Seth said, "How do you define Indian standards? They are ever changing."

Web sites can put certain filters in place, but even they have limitations. As the counsel for the companies argued in court, the word 'sex' even comes up in documents like ration cards and passports. So blocking them is not feasible.

Though freedom of expression is a fundamental right, it is not absolute. Article 19(2) states that the state may make a law imposing "reasonable restrictions” on the right to freedom of speech on eight grounds mentioned in Clause (2)—security of state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation, incitement to an offence and sovereignty and integrity of India.

The evidence presented before court clearly points to violation of some of these rules. "Freedom of expression doesn't mean mutilating or morphing pictures of leaders of different religious beliefs,” said Zafaryab Jilani, a lawyer. “This is a crime and the persons responsible should be accused under Section 153(A)."

Said BJP leader Shahnawaz Hussain: "Anything hurting religious sentiments should not be allowed. But the government is trying to stop certain political viewpoints, which is wrong." Senior Congress leader Shakeel Ahmed said freedom of expression should be "in a proper, democratic way without demeaning anyone."

Team Anna member Kumar Vishwas blamed social networking sites for hosting his videos without consent. "The main part of my speech has been deliberately removed and hence it doesn't present the fact which I said." Though he has complained, the videos have not been removed. However, he said that social networking was the voice of young India and it shouldn't be curbed in any way.

According to columnist and social analyst Syed Mubin Zehra, "There should be a check or verification process to have an internet identity." However, she is against a total ban. "We are not China, and think about the good things which the internet has contributed to society."

The corporate sector is increasingly using social networking sites to build stronger ties with consumers. For brands like Airtel, having a Facebook page meant reaching out to Generation Y, who spend a large amount of time with computers. "With Facebook there is dialogue, it becomes a barometer of customer satisfaction level," said Marzin Shroff, CEO (direct sales) and senior vice-president (marketing), Eureka Forbes, which started using Facebook in 2010 and has more than 1.6 lakh 'likes' on its page.

Cleartrip.com, a major online travel company, heavily uses the social networking platform. "We have always been early adopters of social media tools with a blog, customer forum, Twitter presence and a Facebook page," said Hrush Bhatt, co-founder and director (product & strategy), Cleartrip. "There are multiple cases where extremely irate customers have been vocal on their blogs or Twitter and our team has successfully reached out to them, taken care of their problems and turned them from complainers to evangelists."

Corporate honchos are worried over the ongoing controversy. "Banning social networking sites will hurt business as social media is now becoming a source of business for many," said Mohandas Pai, former director (HR) at Infosys Ltd. The worry is equally troubling a real estate company like Prestige Group. "As we have a very strong NRI customer base, such sites also make it possible for us to address their every need and give them an opportunity to clarify their queries with us,” said Uzma Irfan, executive director, corporate communications, Prestige Group. “Hence, ban of any free media such as Facebook shall only create a void in the marketing efforts of companies."

Some experts, however, are of the opinion that a ban or restriction on social networking sites will only have a short-term impact on some companies as many of them will change their online advertising strategy to deal with the situation. "Companies are smart enough to design new innovative advertising strategies," said Sridhar Ramanujam, CEO of brand-comm, a Bangalore-based brand communications consultancy. "Take, for instance, the liquor companies. Though liquor advertisements are banned in different places, such companies are doing more and more of surrogate advertising in the form of mineral water."

The only kind of censorship that can work on the net is self-imposed and, perhaps, a few guidelines in netiquette might not be out of line, said Seth. "Netiquette culture needs to be developed. The common man has to be explained what is legal and illegal. Otherwise there will be rampant cyber crime without people even realising that they are indulging in it."
with Abhinav Singh and Sharmista Chaudhury

Sunil Abraham was quoted in this story.

Read the original published in the Week

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/tangled-web

The Quixotic Fight to Clean up the Web

sunil — 2012-01-26T20:53:02Z

The ongoing attempt to pre-screen online content won’t change anything. It will only drive netizens into the arms of criminals, writes Sunil Abraham in this article published in Tehelka Magazine, Vol 9, Issue 04, Dated 28 Jan 2012.

GOOGLE AND Facebook’s ongoing case in the Delhi High Court over offensive online content is curious in three ways. First, the complaint does not mention the IT Act, 2000. Prior to the 2008 amendment, intermediaries (in this case, Google, Facebook, etc) had no immunity. But after the amendment, intermediaries have significant immunity and are not considered liable unless takedown notices are ignored.

Second, it is curious that the complaint does not mention specific individuals or groups directly responsible for authoring the allegedly offensive material. Only intermediaries have been explicitly named. If specific content items have been submitted in court then it is curious that specific accounts and users have not been charged with the same offences.

Three, Delhi-based journalist Vinay Rai claims that takedown notices and requests for user information were ignored by the intermediaries. As yet, unpublished research at the Centre for Internet and Society has reached the exact opposite conclusion. We sent fraudulent takedown notices to seven of the largest intermediaries in India as part of a policy sting operation. Six of them over-complied and demonstrated no interest in protecting freedom of expression. Our takedown notices were complied with even though they were largely nonsensical. It is therefore curious that Rai’s takedown notices were ignored.

Under Section 79 of the IT Act, the intermediary must not “initiate the transmission”, “select the receiver of the transmission” and “select or modify the information contained in the transmission”. In other words, they must not possess “actual knowledge” of the content. This would be absolutely true if intermediaries acted as “dumb pipes” or “mere conduits”. But today, they have reactive “human filters” ensuring conformance to community guidelines that often go beyond constitutional limits on freedom of expression.

For example, Facebook deletes breastfeeding photographs if a certain proportion of the breast is visible, despite numerous protests. Intermediaries also use proactive “machine filters” to purge their networks of pornography and copyright infringing content. In order to retain immunity under the IT Act, intermediaries would have to demonstrate that they have no “actual knowledge”. This would also imply that they cannot proactively filter or pre-screen content without becoming liable for illegal content.

More sophisticated “machine filters” will continue to be built for social media platforms as computing speeds increase and costs decrease dramatically. But there will be significant collateral damage — the vibrancy of online Indian communities will be diminished as legitimate content will be removed and this in turn will retard Internet adoption rates. Free media, democratic governance, research and development, culture and the arts will all be fundamentally undermined. So whether pre-censorship is technically feasible is an irrelevant question. The real question is what limits on freedom of expression are reasonable in the Internet age.

The legal tussle is yet another chance for reflecting on the shortcomings of the IT Act

Censorship is like prohibition, illegal content will persist, the mafia will profit and ordinary citizens will be implicated in criminal networks. Use of anonymising proxies, circumvention tools and encryption technologies will proliferate, frustrating network optimisation efforts and law enforcement activities.

This is yet another opportunity for reflecting on the shortcomings of the ITAct. A lot of the confusion and anxiety today emerges from vague language, unconstitutional limits on freedom of expression, multi-tiered blanket surveillance provisions, blunt security policy measures contained in the statute and its associated rules. The next Parliament session is the last opportunity for MPs to ask for the rules for intermediaries, cyber cafes and reasonable security practices to be revisited. The MP who musters the courage to speak will be dubbed a superhero.

As told to Shonali Ghosal. Sunil Abraham is Executive director, centre for internet and society and can be contacted at sunil@cis-india.org. The original article was published in Tehelka.

Illustration by Sudeep Chaudhuri

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/quixotic-fight-to-clean-the-web

POV: Should user-generated content be monitored?

praskrishna — 2012-01-19T12:46:26Z

After being in the dock for carrying 'objectionable' content, Google and Facebook, along with15 other websites, are fighting for what they call internet freedom. Wikipedia went dark to protest the Web Piracy Bill being introduced in the US. afaqs! speaks to industry experts to find out if a move to monitor content can backfire.

Paritosh Joshi
CEO, STAR CJ Live

When asked to offer my two-bit on whether user-generated content can be monitored, my immediate response was laden with invective expressions. Any publication that caters to people of refined and/or delicate tastes would find it hard to publish. For what it is worth, here it is, with bits bleeped out: "Only a *bleep*er, would reasonably suggest monitoring user-generated content. Or else, her/his name is Wen JiaBao or Kim Jong Number Un or something".

How big is this UGC thing anyway? Take a relatively small example. Twitter crossed 200 million tweets a day in June, 2011. At even 5 per cent compounded monthly growth rate, that should have ballooned to 280 million a day now. And, we haven't even begun talking about Facebook. Unless, of course, you choose to do a PR China and simply firewall it right out of reach.

Guess what! It isn't going to work because everyone will start figuring our proxy servers. Or perhaps you, or someone called Sybil or Sillable or Sibaling Rivalry (whatever) decided to say, to hell with Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. In which case, there is, quite literally, nothing left to say.

My 13-year-old figured out how to beat Net Nanny when she was 10. And someone thinks he can have a Net Supernanny to cover everyone? That ship has sailed. Deal with it.

Bharat Kapadia,
Founder, ideas@bharatkapadia.com

Gone are the days when a piece of news could be vetted and an editor could control what was being published. In these modern times, content generation has become real-time, making it practically impossible to monitor it. With the scope of the internet being so large and new ways to publish content coming up rapidly, it becomes physically and technically impossible to keep a check.

This is a classic case of shoot the messenger who brings bad news. Just because a website brings up objectionable content on a search does not make it punishable. What is right and wrong is a matter of judgment, and is totally subjective.

On a lighter note, to know why Wikipedia was blacked out for a day, one will have to probably refer to Wikipedia itself!

Sunil Abraham

Executive director, Centre for Internet and Society

User-generated content is already heavily monitored. Be it Facebook or Wikipedia, these sites are heavily monitored by persons and machines. Bots monitoring pornography via image processing, intellectual property via watermarking and pattern recognition, and ban-lists via semantic analysis are already used to ensure that content is compliant with the law of the land, and with the usually even more restrictive site or community "terms of use".

The World Wide Web has, for most parts, gone extinct. Under the Information Technology Act 2000, amended in 2008, take-down notices can be sent to remove illegal content. Our research indicates that even the largest national and international intermediaries happily over-comply with frivolous complaints and only bother about freedom of expression when it undermines their business models. Unfortunately, the IT Act and its associated rules have severely diluted free speech rights for Indians. Now, the government hopes to convince intermediaries to dilute their own terms of reference and step-up enforcement levels.

We should not fool ourselves into thinking that private sector companies like Google will defend our fundamental rights. The next Parliament session is the last opportunity for parliamentarians to ask for the revocation of the rules for intermediaries, cyber-cafes and reasonable security practices.

Alok Kejriwal

CEO, Games2win

I feel that user-generated content should not be monitored, but moderated. And, this responsibility lies with the users or consumers. The reason for this is simple - wisdom of the crowd is more powerful than the wisdom of one.

On the other hand, sites like Google and Facebook, which are in the dock for carrying objectionable content, are being plain arrogant. They have forgotten their purpose for being here. These companies must realise that just because we Indians have a great press and judicial system, they do not have the freedom to publish anything that is derogatory to our culture. In my view, they are behaving like spoilt American brats, who have no respect for another culture, mythology and values.

Anupam Mukerji

The fake IPL player

Co-founder, Pitch Invasion

There are few amongst us who wouldn't want to be amused by a speaking parrot which regales us with stuff it's trained to speak. But, what would you do if your speaking parrot refused to toe your line, spoke only the truth with scant regard to diplomacy and political correctness, spilling your beans to visitors every day?

For far too long, the political class has survived and thrived by keeping the media in covert and overt control, thereby directing public opinion where they wanted. Online social media has changed the rules of this game.

The medium isn't the criminal. Acting against a medium is worse than even shooting the messenger.

The new age citizen is a different animal from any of the past. More aware, more travelled, more opinionated and more demanding. This is a species you try to control at your own peril. But, if you try to embrace it in the right spirit, it will reciprocate in kind.

The constitution gives us the right to voice our opinions without fear. The same constitution also prohibits us from spreading lies, defaming people, inciting violence or acting in an anti-national manner.

India needs an environment of freedom and fearlessness because without this, we will be nothing but 'a China with poor infrastructure'.

Nisha Menon's blog post was originally published in afaqs! on 19 January 2012

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/pov-should-user-generated-content-be-monitored

Indian Internet Lawsuit Puts Spotlight on Freedom of Expression

praskrishna — 2012-01-19T08:59:15Z

In India, Internet giants such as Google and Facebook are fighting a lawsuit after the government authorized their prosecution for online content on their sites deemed to be offensive. The case has put the spotlight on free speech in the world’s largest democracy.

The criminal lawsuit filed by the editor of New Delhi-based Urdu weekly Akbari accuses 21 Internet companies of violating Indian law. Vinay Rai alleged that online material on their websites has the potential to incite religious conflict.

Rai said his colleagues brought to his attention images of Prophet Muhammad which could offend Muslims. He cited other images and text which could hurt sentiments of Hindus and Christians. Rai wants Internet companies to screen content before it is posted.

Google and Facebook have asked the Delhi High Court to dismiss the case against them. In an appeal, they said it is impossible to filter all content or stop individuals from posting material online.

Editor Rai filed the case after the government indicated its approval for the prosecution. The official go-ahead came weeks after the government also raised a similar demand.

Voluntary framework

Telecommunications Minister Kapil Sibal told Internet company representatives to come up with a voluntary framework to keep offensive material off the net. After confronting them with photos and material derogatory of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Congress Party leader Sonia Gandhi, he said the companies had not cooperated.

Both the court case and the government’s demands have stoked fears of net censorship in the world’s largest democracy.

Advocacy groups say the dispute between authorities and websites began simmering last year when India tightened laws to block content which could be deemed offensive. Citizens and officials can ask sites to block objectionable material and failure to comply within 36 hours can attract penalties or imprisonment of up to seven years.

Sunil Abraham, with the Center for Internet and Society in India, said these rules have the potential to curtail debate and discussion on the net.

“These limits are vague. They allow for all sorts of subjective tests by private parties and we predicted they would have a chilling effect on freedom of expression online," Abraham said. "Policy in India has been headed in a very worrisome direction."

Abraham pointed out that one of his organization’s recent studies indicates that, faced with the threat of stiff penalties, most service providers removed content when asked to do so, even when it was not offensive or controversial.

Free media?

The government insists its objective is not to encroach on the fundamental right of free speech guaranteed by India’s democratic constitution. The clarification came from Minister Kapil Sibal after his meetings with Internet companies last month.

"This government does not believe in censorship," noted Sibal. "This government does not believe in either directly or indirectly interfering in the freedom of the press, and we have demonstrated that time and again."

India does have a vibrant free media and Internet access is largely free, unlike in China. But in a country with a history of religious violence, authorities have long tussled with the dilemma of balancing free speech with the need to not inflame sentiments among religious groups. India was one of the first countries to ban Salman Rushdie’s “The Satanic Verses.”

Other books and articles have also faced bans. Many are challenged in courts and several have been overturned. Now the focus is on the Internet and questions are being raised about whether the web should or can be policed.

Online freedom

In a remark widely quoted in the domestic media, a judge hearing the case had warned websites that like China, India might be compelled to block some of them if they did not create means to curb material seen as offensive.

However, Abraham from the Center of Internet and Society hopes that, as the latest case navigates its way through Indian courts, online freedom will come up the winner.

"I think the executive in India has always been very conservative in freedom of expression. It is usually the courts in India that protect freedom of expression, the precedent," Abraham said. "So we are every hopeful that the current case is in the appropriate venue, and we are confident that, as in the past, the judiciary in India will stand on the side of freedom of expression."

With 100 million people surfing the web, India has the world’s third largest number of Internet users after China and the United States.

Published in the Voice of America on 19 January 2012. Sunil Abraham is quoted in this.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/indian-internet-lawsuit-puts-spotlight-on-freedom-of-expression

Janhit Manch & Ors. v. The Union of India

praskrishna — 2012-01-18T11:57:04Z

The petition sought a blanket ban on pornographic websites. The NGO had argued that websites displaying sexually explicit content had an adverse influence, leading youth on a delinquent path.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI

CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE

PIL NO. 155 OF 2009

Janhit Manch and Ors. ... Petitioners
Versus
The Union of India ... Respondents
Mr. Sandeep Jalan for Petitioner in person.
Mr. A.M. Sethna for R. No. 1.

CORAM : F.I. REBELLO &
J.H. BHATIA, JJ.
DATED : MARCH 03, 2010

P.C.

Petitioner by the present petition has approached this court, seeking relief to direct the respondents to make coordinated and sustained efforts, to have a blanket ban on websites which according to Petitioners are displaying material pertaining to sex and which in their opinion is harmful to the youth of this country in their formative years.

Mr. Jalan, Petitioner No. 2 appearing in person draws our attention to amongst others to Section 67 and 67A of the Information & Technology Act, 2000. Under Section 67 if any person publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted in the electronic form any material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regarding to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it, shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and fine which may extend to five lakh rupees. Section 67A pertains to publishing or transmitting or causing to be published or transmitted in the electronic form any material which contains sexually explicit act or conduct can be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees.

The Act therefore, makes provision for punishment of a person against whom a complaint is filed, if such person commits the offence which falls within the purview of section 67 or 67A as the case may be. Such person can be tried and convicted. For that prosecution will have to establish that an offence has been committed.

By the present petition what the petitioner seeks is that this court which is a protector of free speech to the citizens of this country, should interfere and direct the respondents to make a coordinated and sustained efforts to close down the websites as aforestated. Once Parliament in its wisdom has enacted a law and has provided for the punishment for breach of that law any citizen of this country including the Petitioner who is aggrieved against any action on the part of any other person which may amount to an offence has a right to approach the appropriate forum and lodge a complaint upon which the action can be taken if an offence is disclosed. Courts in such matters, the guardian of the freedom of free speech, and more so a constitutional court should not embark on an exercise to direct State Authorities to monitor websites. If such an exercise is done, then a party aggrieved depending on the sensibilities of persons whose views may differ on what is morally degrading or prurient will be sitting in judgment, even before the aggrieved person can lead his evidence and a competent court decides the issue. The Legislature having enacted the law a person aggrieved may file a complaint.

In the light of that we are not inclined to interfere in the exercise of our extra ordinary jurisdiction. If the petitioner comes across any website/s which according to him publishes or transmits any act which amounts to offence under section 67 or 67A of the Information & Technology Act, 2000, it is upto him to file a a complaint.

With the above observations, Petition disposed of.

(J.H. BHATIA,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/janhit-manch-ors.-v-union-of-india

Karthikeyan R v Union of India

praskrishna — 2012-01-18T11:51:59Z

The court refused to direct the government to take proactive steps to curb access to Internet pornography stating that such matters require case-by-case analysis to be constitutionally valid under Article 19(1)(a) (Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression).

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED :01-04-2010
CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. SASIDHARAN
WRIT PETITION NO.20344 OF 2009 and M.P.No.l of 2009

Karthikeyan. R.
Advocate .. Petitioner
Vs.

Union of India,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Department of Telecommunications,
Sanchar Bhavan,
20, Ashoka Road,
New Delhi 110 001.
The Secretary,
Department of Information Technology,
Electronics Niketan,No.6, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110 003.
The Secretary,
Department of Legal Affairs,
4th Floor, A-Wing, Shastri Bhavan,
New Delhi 110 001.
The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Mahanagar Doorsanchar Bhawan,
Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, New Delhi 110 002.
The Secretary,
Department of Women and Child Development,
New Delhi.
State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Ministry of Information Technology,
Secretariat, Chennai 9.
The Asst. Commissioner of Police,
Cyber Crime Wing, Central Crime Branch,
Egmore, Chennai 8.
The Central Bureau of Investigation,
Rep. by its Director,
Block No.3, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi 110 003.
Internet Service Provider's Association of India,
612-A, Chiranjiv Tower,
43, Nehru Place,
New Delhi 110 019.
Google India Private Limited,
No.3, RM2 Infinity Tower-E,
Old Madras Road,
Bangalore 560 016.
Yahoo Web Services India Private Limited,
801, Nicholas Piramal Towers,
Peninsula Corporate Park,
Lower Prel, Mumbai 400 013.
Microsoft Corporation India Private Ltd.,
Tower-A, DLF Cyber Greens,
DLF Cyber Citi, Sector 25A,
Gurgaon 122 002.
Rediff.com India Limited,
Mahalaxmi Engineering Estate,
L.J. Road No.1, Mahim (West),
Mumbai 400 016. .. Respondents

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to forthwith formulate censor rules and regulations and appoint a regulatory body to strictly enforce those rules monitoring online publications in internet, prohibiting obscene and pornographic publications and penalising the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and search engine companies for offences and violations of licence conditions committed by them.

For Petitioner: Mr.P.T. Perumal

For Respondents 1 to 5: Mr.J. Ravindran, Asst.Solicitor General of India

For Respondents 6 & 7 : Mr. G. Desingu, Special Govt. Pleader

For Respondent 8: Mr. N. Chandrasekaran, Special Govt. Pleader

For Respondent 10: Mr. G. Balasubramanian for M/s. Poovayya & Co.

Respondents 9,11 to l3: No Appearance

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J)

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
The present writ petition has been filed in public interest for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to forthwith formulate censor rules and regulations and appoint a regulatory body to strictly enforce those rules monitoring online publications in internet, prohibiting obscene and pornographic publications and penalising the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and search engine companies for offences and violations of licence conditions committed by them.
Though no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondents 1 to 5, the learned Assistant Solicitor General by placing reliance upon a recent unreported decision of the Mumbai High Court in Janhit Manch and Others v. Union of India IPI1 No. 155 of 2009), disposed of on 3.3.2010, submitted that the prayer in the writ petition before the Mumbai High Court is very much similar to the present writ petition and, as has been observed in the said decision, the present writ petition may also be disposed of.
We have carefully gone through the aforesaid decision relied on by the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India. In the said decision, the prayer made by the petitioners therein was to direct the respondents therein to make co-ordinated and sustained efforts, to have a blanket ban on websites which according to them are displaying material pertaining to sex and harmful to the youth of the country. The Division Bench, after hearing the contentions made on either side, observed as follows :

"By the present petition what the petitioner seeks is that this court which is a protector of free speech to the citizens of this country, should interfere and direct the respondents to make a coordinated and sustained efforts to close down the websites as aforestated. Once Parliament, in its wisdom has enacted a law and has provided for the punishment for breach of that law any citizen of this country including the Petitioner who is aggrieved against any action on the part of any other person which may amount to an offence has a right to approach the appropriate forum and lodge a complaint upon which the action can be taken if an offence is disclosed. Courts in such matters, the guardian of the freedom of free speech, and more so a constitutional court should not embark on an exercise to direct State Authorities to monitor websites. If such an exercise is done, then a party aggrieved depending on the sensibilities of persons whose views may differ on what is morally degrading or prurient will be sitting in judgment, even before the aggrieved person can lead his evidence and a competent court decides the issue. The Legislature having enacted the law a person aggrieved may file a complaint.

In the light of that we are not inclined to interfere in the exercise of our extra-ordinary jurisdiction. If the petitioner comes across any website/s which according to him publishes or transmits any act which amounts to offence under section 67 or 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, it is upto him to file a complaint.

With the above observations, Petition disposed of."
From the facts of the Janhit Manch case and the observations made therein, we are of the considered opinion that the ratio of the said decision squarely applicable to the facts of the present case inasmuch as in the present writ petition the relief sought for by the petitioner is to strictly enforce the rules monitoring online publications in internet and punish the persons violating such rules, which is indirectly made in the Janhit Manch case. Therefore, applying the ratio of the aforesaid decision, the present writ petition is disposed of. Moreover, we make it clear that if any complaint is made against the publishing or transmitting any obscene or pornographic publications, necessary steps should be taken by the respondents in accordance with law.
The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

With the above observations, Petition disposed of."
Sd/
Asst.Registrar
/true copy/
Sub Asst.Registrar

The Secretary,
Union of India,
Department of Telecommunications,
Sanchar Bhavan, 20, Ashoka Road,
New Delhi 110 001.
The Secretary,
Department of Information Technology,
Electronics Niketan,
No.6, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi 110 003
The Secretary,
Department of Legal Affairs,
4th Floor, A-Wing, Shastri Bhavan,
New Delhi 110 001.
The Secretary,
The Telecom Regulatory Authority of Indie,
Mahanagar Doorsanchar Bhawan,
Jawaharlal Nehru Marg,New Delhi 110 002.
The Secretary,
Department of Women and Child Development,
New Delhi.
The Secretary,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Ministry of Information Technology,
Secretariat, Chennai 9.
The Asst. Commissioner of Police,
Cyber Crime Wing, Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai 8.
The Director
Central Bureau of Investigation,
Block No.3, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110 003.

1 cc To M/s.P.T.Perumal i E.Bdwing, Advocates, SR.22010

1 cc To Mr.J.Ravindran, Asst.Solicitor, SR.22034

1 cc To M/s.Poovayya & Co., Advocates, SR.22221

1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.21929

W.P.No.20344/2009
GR(CO)

srs 15/04/2010

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/r-karthikeyan-v-union-of-india

Whose Data is it Anyway?

praskrishna — 2012-04-28T04:12:15Z

Tactical Technology Collective and the Centre for Internet & Society invite you to the second round of discussions of the Exposing Data Series at the CIS office in Bangalore on 24 January 2012. Siddharth Hande and Hapee de Groot will be speaking on this occasion.

Like countless others, this title is a convenient adaptation of a 1972 play by Brian Clark, Whose Life is it Anyway?, a meditation on 'euthanasia' and the extent to which governments or the law can determine the private life of an individual. In a similar sense we use the title to help frame the second set of conversations in the Exposing Data Series, to zero in on the idea of data and who has the right to decide what happens with it. Philosophically, and also at the level of code, computing and the law, the ownership of data can be a somewhat odd and a contentious thing to grapple with. The only other understandings of 'ownership' we really have are those of property and identity and these get imputed onto the intangibility of data. And, in some senses now, many aspects of one's identity exist as data.

There are a range of experiences of data ownership that we talk about and experience daily. On the one hand you can hoard hard disks with favourite content to retrieve memories and experiences. On the other end of things, you can aggregate your experiences and memories with that of thousands of others, that then gets treated almost like a private hard disk belonging to some mysterious X. Who is this Mysterious X? Is there a Y? Or an XY? What is the trajectory of data in its movement from the individual to a larger, shadowy infrastructure that harvests it? What happens to our idea of data in its reconfiguration from intangible code to an idea of politics and rights? To introduce another provocation, do our existing ideas of data ownership objectify individuals? What does this objectification imply for the notion of personal privacy? For example, does the fetishization of 'things' called data obfuscate the idea of personal privacy?

One of the ways in which we may consider looking at open data initiatives for transparency and accountability is to assess it as discourse, and in relation to what happens when communities aggregate data. Open Government Data usually involves a top-down approach in terms of how it is aggregated, collated, shared, whilst community based approaches are more particular, contextual and local. What do these different approaches give us when we bring them to the same table?

The second event in the Exposing Data Series will focus on data ownership, looking into open government data and community-based data aggregation, to explore the various levels of data collection, the movement of data and its exchange, its representation, and dissemination in different contexts.

Speakers

Siddharth Hande, Transparent Chennai
Hapee de Groot, Hivos, Netherlands

This event is free and open to everyone. However, we would appreciate a confirmation of attendance ahead of time so as to ensure that your space is reserved. To confirm your attendance please write to: yelena.gyulkhandanyan@gmail.com

Photo Source: http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/view_photog.php?photogid=2000

VIDEOS

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/whose-data-is-it

India: obscene pics of gods require massive human censorship of Google, Facebook

praskrishna — 2012-01-17T09:46:25Z

It's hardly the sort of Internet policy statement one hopes to hear from judges in major democracies. "Like China, we can block all such websites [who don't comply]," Justice Suresh Cait told Facebook and Google lawyers in India yesterday. "But let us not go to that situation."

No, let's not. But it's what the government wants if Internet companies won't start screening and censoring all user-generated material on social network and user-generated content sites. And they'd better do their screening by hand, not with machines.

The New York Times reported last December that India's Telecommunications and Human Resources Development Minister, Kapil Sibal, has been battling hard with Internet companies on pre-emptive screening and censorship.

About six weeks ago, Mr. Sibal called legal representatives from the top Internet service providers and Facebook into his New Delhi office, said one of the executives who was briefed on the meeting.

At the meeting, Mr. Sibal showed attendees a Facebook page that maligned the Congress Party’s president, Sonia Gandhi. “This is unacceptable,” he told attendees, the executive said, and he asked them to find a way to monitor what is posted on their sites.

In the second meeting with the same executives in late November, Mr. Sibal told them that he expected them to use human beings to screen content, not technology, the executive said.

The Internet companies insist that they can't possibly pre-screen everything that goes up. If something truly is illegal under local laws, they are generally willing to take it down when a court rules.

The main concern is obscenity (though criticism of government officials appears to touch a sore spot, too); in the current case against Facebook, Google, and others, the obscenity involves pictures of gods, goddesses, and Mohammed.

"At present it's obscene images of Gods and Goddesses, tomorrow it can be an image of someone in your family posted online. There has to be some control," Justice Cait said at yesterday's hearing. He allowed the case against the Internet companies to proceed.

Who's pressing for the court case? A journalist. NDTV has a new interview with him, in which the man presses for quick action. (Note: the actual interview portion is not in English.)

Can we censor dissent while we're at it?

Between January and June 2011, India requested that Google remove 358 bits of content by filing 68 different complaints. One was from Google Maps (for "national security"); almost every other was from YouTube, social network Orkut, and Google's Blogger platform. Almost none came with a court order.

"We received requests from state and local law enforcement agencies to remove YouTube videos that displayed protests against social leaders or used offensive language in reference to religious leaders," Google explained.

"We declined the majority of these requests and only locally restricted videos that appeared to violate local laws prohibiting speech that could incite enmity between communities. In addition, we received a request from a local law enforcement agency to remove 236 communities and profiles from Orkut that were critical of a local politician. We did not comply with this request."

This is hardly an inspiring track record. While in public the companies are criticized for obscenity, Google's most recent records show only 3 requests to remove pornographic material. Government criticism and defamation were actually the two largest categories of requested material.

As the Financial Times "beyondbrics" blog notes, the Internet companies are coming under increasing attack for content they host, despite the vagueness of the demands for censorship. For instance, "Last month, a lower court had ordered the sites to remove all 'anti-social' or 'anti-religious' content by February 6. As Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet & Society, told beyondbrics last month, it’s difficult to establish exactly what is anti-religious: for example, the Hindu profession of belief in multiple gods is blasphemous to Muslims, Christians and Jews."

Photograph by Diganta Talukdar

The blog post by Nate Anderson was published in ars technica on 14 January 2012

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/obsecene-pics-of-gods-require-massive-human-censorship