We are anonymous, we are legion

Press Coverage of Online Censorship Row

pranesh — 2011-12-08T11:31:30Z

We are maintaining a rolling blog with press references to the row created by the proposal by the Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology to pre-screen user-generated Internet content.

Monday, December 5, 2011

India Asks Google, Facebook to Screen Content | Heather Timmons (New York Times, India Ink)

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

Sibal warns social websites over objectionable content | Sandeep Joshi (The Hindu)

Hate speech must be blocked, says Sibal | Praveen Swami & Sujay Mehdudia (The Hindu)

Won't remove material just because it's controversial: Google | (Press Trust of India)

Any Normal Human Being Would Be Offended | Heather Timmons (New York Times, India Ink)

After Sibal, Omar too feels some online content inflammatory | (Press Trust of India)

Online uproar as India seeks social media screening | Devidutta Tripathy and Anurag Kotoky (Reuters)

Kapil Sibal for content screening: Facebook, Twitter full of posts against censorship | (IANS)

India May Overstep Its Own Laws in Demanding Content Filtering | John Ribeiro (IDG)

Kapil Sibal warns websites: Mixed response from MPs | (Press Trust of India)

Websites must clean up content, says Sibal | (NewsX)

Kapil Sibal warns websites; Google says won't remove material just because it's controversial | Press Trust of India

Censorship By Any Other Name... | Yamini Lohia (Mint)

Kapil Sibal: We have to take care of sensibility of our people | Associated Press

Kapil Sibal gets backing of Digvijaya Singh over social media screening | Press Trust of India

Sibal Gets What He Set Out To Censor | (Hindustan Times, Agencies)

Objectionable Matter Will Be Removed, Censorship Not in Picture Yet: Kapil Sibal | Amar Kapadia (News Tonight)

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

Kapil Sibal Doesn't Understand the Internet | Shivam Vij (India Today)

'Chilling' Impact of India's April Internet Rules | Heather Timmons (New York Times, India Ink)

Screening, not censorship, says Sibal | (Business Standard)

Chandni Chowk to China | Salil Tripathi (Mint)

Kapil Sibal vs the internet | Sandipan Deb (Mint)

No Need for Censorship of the Internet: Cyber Law Experts | (Times News Network)

Protest with flowers for Sibal | (The Hindu)

Kapil Sibal cannot screen this report | Team DNA, Blessy Chettiar & Renuka Rao (Daily News and Analysis)

Kapil Sibal warns websites, but experts say prescreening of user content not practical | (Reuters)

Sibal's Remarks Brought Disgust | Hitesh Mehta (News Tonight)

BJP backs mechanism to curb objectionable content on websites | (The Hindu)

Move to regulate networking sites should be discussed in Parliament: BJP | (Press Trust of India)

Sibal under attack in cyberspace | (Press Trust of India)

Kapil Sibal's web censorship: Indian govt wanted 358 items removed, says Google | (Press Trust of India)

Kapil Sibal gets BJP support but with rider | (Indo-Asian News Service)

Sibal's way of regulating web not okay, says BJP | (Indo-Asian News Service)

Censorship in Blasphemy's Clothings | Gautam Chikermane (Hindustan Times, Just Faith)

India wants Google, Facebook to screen content | Sharon Gaudin (Computer World)

Should we be taming social media? | Swati Prasad (ZDNet, Inside India)

Kapil Sibal gets lampooned for views on Web control | (Daily News and Analysis)

'We don't need no limitation' | Asha Prakash (Times of India)

Five reasons why India can't censor the internet | Prasanto K. Roy (Indo-Asian News Service)

We Are the Web | (Indian Express)

Thursday, December 8, 2011

Kapil Sibal under attack in cyberspace, (Press Trust of India)

Speak Up for Freedom | Pranesh Prakash (Indian Express)

Newswallah: Censorship | Neha Thirani (New York Times, India Ink)

No Question of Censoring the Internet, Says Sachin Pilot | (NDTV)

Mind Your Netiquette, or We'll Mind it for You | A.A.K. (The Economist)

Take Parliament's view to regulate social networking sites, BJP tells govt | (Times News Network)

India wanted 358 items removed | Priscilla Jebaraj (The Hindu)

Indian Government v Social Networking sites: Expert Views | (Bar & Bench News Network)

Can Government Muzzle Websites? | Priyanka Joshi & Piyali Mandal (Business Standard)

US concerned over internet curbs, sidesteps India move | (Indo-Asian News Service)

Why Internet Companies Are Upset with Kapil Sibal | (Rediff)

Why Censor Facebook When You Don't Censor Sunny Leone? | (Indo-Asian News Service)

Online content issue: Talks with India on, says U.S. | (Press Trust of India)

US calls for Internet freedom amid India plan | Agence France-Presse

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/press-coverage-online-censorship

Is the govt bid to regulate content on the Internet a good thing?

praskrishna — 2011-12-08T07:12:24Z

The recent move by Union Minister Kapil Sibal to engage leading Internet platform providers like Google, Facebook, etc in regulating content has seen netizens react in different manners. The question of freedom of expression vis-a-vis objectionable content has come to the fore. Pranesh Prakash who deals with such issues on a regular basis at the Centre for Internet and Society was answering questions (more like comments) live on CNN-IBN's chat feature on December 7, 2011.

Q: OK... then how about this... People report abuse against a page...and after some hits that report will go to the governmental organization, and they will decide on what action to take... this may include hiring of some IT services company to do that and gives more employment to people too. Anyways thanks for replying to my questions.

Asked by: Tilak Kamath

A: How about just approaching courts, who are in a far better position to judge what is legal and what is illegal under Indian law than any IT services company or government organization.

Q: Suppose a group of rabble rousers does indeed use a forum and become violent, (the group being identifiable) would the state have the right to ask the forum to be discontinued?

Asked by: Zeus

A: Of course (if what you meant is 'the right to ask the forum to remove the violence-inciting content'). Indeed, this is how ultra-left wing and ultra-right wing publications that advocate violence (which is an imminent threat) are proscribed in India. And the same laws already apply for online fora. But just as you wouldn't ban a newspaper like DNA for carrying an offensive article (such as the anti-Muslim screed written by Subramanian Swamy a few months back), and just as the postal service wouldn't be discontinued for carrying Maoist letters, a forum shouldn't be banned for offensive content. There is no need for a new 'self-regulation code', since the 'report abuse' links found on many of these sites are exactly that: self-regulation.

Q: Article 19(2) of our constitution places arbitrary and subjective restrictions on free speech - public order, decency, morality are all subjective, according to the whims and fancies of those who are in control. Aren't you concerned this is going down the exact path (ignoring that this is impractical to begin with)?

Asked by: Karunakaran

A: No, because there is a rich jurisprudence laid down by the Supreme Court of what is and what isn't a "reasonable restriction". While I do believe that our Constitution does go beyond what the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (to which India is a signatory) allows for, Article 19(2)'s interpretation by the Supreme Court and the High Courts have been very progressive for the most part.

Q: The government has a mandate to govern and keep the society in harmony and take care of law & order... If no check on the expressions of netizens the chances of a spark generating debate can escalate to violence given the extremism we see today. The media in print as well as electronic we know & see does it's CENSORING, calling it as editing and publishing only what it likes and wants.This style is for all including CNN-IBN.The difference is in media, the EDITOR gets responsible in case of offensive or blashphemous material gets published. Social network the responsibility seems missing. Freedom always needs to be enjoyed with discipline. How do you the minority indisciplined netizens, who are there and no denying on that ?

Asked by: sundar1950in

A: I believe that killing speech is not the right way to prevent violence. Indeed, a newspaper editor in the Maldives recently noted that they have had less violence committed against the newspaper office ever since they allowed for online comments. Speech often allows people to vent out violence instead of acting it out. Violence should be curbed by reining in those who're committing it, and those who're inciting it on the ground. At any rate, the laws that apply to inciting violence in print apply to the Web also, and no new rules need to be drafted.

Q: Thanks for the information on the report abuse button. but can't we have a Governmental agency regulating websites like FB or Google... they can't say no, cos India is a Huge market for such companies.. and why don't we find many ultra offensive posts about the U.S. or other countries, as we find for Indians..

Asked by: Tilak Kamath

A: That would be a very bad idea. Governments don't have a regulatory agency to dictate what letters post-offices shouldn't carry, nor what articles newspapers shouldn't publish. They should definitely not have a regulatory agency dictate what status updates Facebook or Google+ should and shouldn't carry. You don't find ultra-offensive posts about the U.S. because you aren't looking around. They're *everywhere*, even more so than those that bad-mouth India. Yet, such offensive speech is the price we have to pay (gladly, I should add) for democracy and the freedom of speech.

Q: The idea to ban any post on something that would lead to communal strike is fine however, I feel this is not the intention. The intention is clearly political and due to the Anna movement becoming popular thanks to the posts on the internet as also certain remarks on the Gandhi family in particular and Congress leaders specifically has led to this decision. Kapil Sibal is a smart alec and he knows that this can be used against any adverse comments against them.

Asked by: Arun

A: I am less suspicious of Mr. Sibal. I believe, especially after speaking with some senior lawyer friends of his, that he genuinely believes what he is doing to be required and legal and constitutional, and not for the appeasement of one or two Congress leaders. That, however, does not make his suggested solution correct. Multiple High Courts' decisions have held otherwise, and the Supreme Court's decision in Ajay Goswami v. Union of India also provides them support.

Q: One best possible thing is to advertise the Report Abuse button on the Internet, don't you think so? again there should be proper authentication to do so to avoid miscreants blocking some good pages unnecessarily.

Asked by: Tilak Kamath

A: I believe that the "Report Abuse" option available on most large social media and social network websites is useful, but it is also potentially dangerous since it allows a private party (such as Facebook or Google), rather than a court, to dictate what content is and isn't acceptable, to the possible detriment of larger society.

Q: Good evening sir, my question is that it is legal to pre-screen the private data of users by sites and to interfere between their privacy.

Asked by: Shrey Goswami

A: Whether this proposal by Shri Sibal necessarily involves an invasion of privacy is an open question, since the details of the proposal as as yet not fully sketched out. On Google Plus and Facebook, one can restrictedly share information. Will such restricted sharing also have to be pre-screened, or only information that is going to be available to all members of the public? The proposal still consists only of press articles and a press conference held by the Minister. Even assuming it only require pre-screening of information that is going to be publicly accessible, it imposes too high a burden on intermediaries, and is impractical. And, as you might be aware, only very limited pre-censorship is allowed in India, and such a general requirement of pre-censorship does not seem to be constitutional, in my opinion.

Q: Yes, we were browsing FB yesterday and some content in there, could not be opened in front of my children. So Content is not always good, and there must be some kind of screening. Again, the current trend in India, to think that whatever the government does is not at all a good one. Governing must be left to government and not to news channels/civil society, etc. This looks dangerous, and sad no one is realising this.

Asked by: Narayanan S

A: Perhaps I should allow former Supreme Court Justice Hidyatullah's words speak for themselves: "Our standards must be so framed that we are not reduced to a level where the protection of the least capable and the most depraved amongst us determines what the morally healthy cannot view or read." - Justice Hidyatullah in K.A. Abbas v. Union of India. In the Janhit Manch case, the Bombay High Court held: "By the present petition what the petition 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 effort 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. Court in such matters, the guardians of the freedom of 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 view 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."

Q: Kapil Sibal has not been able to give conviction to objectionable content as social unrest can't take place through web and it needs well oiled machinery and as far as using offensive language against politicians is concerned it won't be curtailed through web and it will require better self regulation among politicians rather than being irresponsible

Asked by: Rij

A: I agree completely.

Q: Do you feel that Government (Congress in particular ) is trying to impose restrictions on social media to stifle the peoples anger against the Government and its leaders due to various scams and corruption?

Asked by: Santosh

A: No. I am taking Mr. Sibal's words at face value, that what they are trying to prevent is hate speech, inciting speech. Still, the means of doing so are undemocratic, ignorant of how the Internet functions, and liable to have very harmful consequences on our polity.

Q: Are our laws going to be like those in gulf countries with respect to censorship? In the name of communal messages, is there a motive to censor something else?

Asked by: Gaurav

A: It doesn't matter what the 'ulterior motive' is, and I'm not sure there is one. The touchstone should should be that of our Constitution and Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees freedom of speech and expression with the Article 19(2) laying down the reasons for which reasonable restrictions can be laid down. And in many ways our laws are worse than those in Saudi Arabia. There at least when a website is blocked or content removed the public is notified when they try and access the content. In India, there is no such notification.

Q: Is this being done as the politicians on the whole and congressmen in particular are not upon notwithstanding how true the comment is. Is it particular so when they are charry if any adverse comment is made on the Gandhis. All these politicians who have opted for public life need to be open for adverse comments as they are in the public limelight and or it is their privilege.

Asked by: Arun

A: The examples being cited by Kapil Sibal are of harming religious sentiments and inciting hatred. Be that as it may, even if the content deserves to be removed—and I can't comment until I see the content he finds offensive—doing so by mandating pre-censorship by intermediaries with liability fixed on them otherwise is a wrong way of going about it.

* The chat is over. Read the original published in IBN Live Chat here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/ibn-live-chat-with-pranesh

‘Chilling’ Impact of India’s April Internet Rules

praskrishna — 2012-01-27T04:32:51Z

Kapil Sibal’s demand that Internet companies self-censor users’ content is just the latest move by the Indian government to restrict information on Facebook and other social media Web sites. This article by Heather Simmons was published in the New York Times on December 7, 2011.

The most stringent government push came in April, when the “Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules 2011” were introduced.

The rules require “intermediaries,” companies like Facebook, Google and Yahoo that provide the platform for users to comment and create their own content, to respond quickly if individuals complain that content is “disparaging” or “harassing,” among other complaints. If the complainant’s claim is valid, these companies must take down the offensive information within 36 hours.

So, what impact have these rules had so far?

A yet-to-be-published study by the Center for Internet and Society in Bangalore concludes that free speech on the Internet in India is already being curtailed in a “chilling” manner.

Rather than carefully studying take-down notices, intermediaries are erring “on the side of caution,” the report says, and over-complying after complaints are filed, perhaps because they don’t have the legal or administrative manpower to examine every complaint.

In the study, a researcher working for C.I.S. sent notices to intermediaries in seven different situations, saying he found specific user-generated material offensive. In six of the seven, these companies took down the “offensive” material, and often removed more than was asked for. (In the seventh case, the researcher asked a shopping portal to remove information on one brand of diapers, saying they caused diaper rash and were therefore harmful to minors. The shopping site rejected the request, calling it frivolous.)

The study does not name the specific intermediaries involved, but they are understood to be the big social media and Internet companies that dominate the industry.

Two examples:

The researcher objected to a comment below an article on a news Web site about the Telangana movement, which aims to create a separate state in Andhra Pradesh. The comment, which was well-written and not obscenity-laced, condemned the violence in the Telangana movement and called its leaders selfish, but supported the cause over all. The researcher wrote the intermediary that the comment was “racially and ethnically objectionable” and “defamatory.”

The researcher received no written response, but within 72 hours the intermediary had taken down not just the “offensive” comment, but all 15 comments that were published below the article.
The researcher sent a take-down notice to another intermediary, defined as a “host and information location tool,” asking that it remove three links provided on its search engine after entering the words “online gambling.” The links, the researcher complained, were “relating or encouraging money-laundering or gambling,” which is illegal under the April rules.

The intermediary wrote back to the complainant, saying that the intermediary’s search engine was a “mere conduit” with no control over the information passing through its platform.

But it subsequently removed the three links mentioned in the take-down notice, and all other URLs of the three Web sites, including their subdomains.

The rules seem to encourage “privately administered injunctions to censor and chill free expression,” C.I.S. says. A third party whose information has been removed is not informed about the take-down request or given a chance to defend itself.

The study’s results show the “rules are procedurally flawed as they ignore all elements of natural justice,” C.I.S. concludes.

The original was published in the New York Times

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/chilling-impact-of-indias-april-internet-rules

Twitter, Facebook take the lead in blogosphere as blog searches fall by half

praskrishna — 2011-12-07T15:43:11Z

Blogging is old hat. A prominent trend-tracking tool shows that blog searches around the globe have halved, while micro-blogging platforms Twitter and Facebook have grown, suggesting a seminal shift in online communication.

Google Insights, which tracks search terms on Google search engine worldwide, shows a 50% decline for blogs in 2010. On the other hand, micro-blogging sites Twitter and Facebook logged exponential rise in users.

While the number of blogs on the Internet, as tracked by BlogPulse, rose just 21% from 126 million in 2009 to 152 million in 2010, the Tweets on Twitter were up 160% over the same period, according to Internet monitoring website pingdom.com.

A comparative figure for Facebook was not available, but the social networking site showed a 74% rise in users during the period.

Celebrities such as Aamir Khan, Salman Khan, and even the more regular Ramgopal Verma haven't blogged for over six months now. Maverick politician Lalu Prasad hasn't updated his blog either.

"We live in an era of short attention, where Hindi movies have reduced to 90 minutes, emails are shorter, and the books we read are slimmer and faster to skim through," said Mahesh Murthy, founder of social media company Pinstorm Technologies. "The move from blogging to micro-blogging is just part of (this) larger trend. Even our clients are investing more in social media than in blogs," he said, adding blogging declined by 30% in India in 2010.

Blogging, which requires ideas to be bunched to make paragraphs, gained popularity in the early 2000s. But it now appears to have hit the skids, as micro-blogging platforms offer a quicker and easier way of sharing thoughts, either as a few sentences or even mere fragments.

Blogging is also getting more network-driven, as on shared networks like Twitter, Facebook or Google Plus, in contrast to independent blogs on independent domains.

"Blogs have definitely become less noticeable. At the same time, they have become more mainstream, that is, blogs run by newspapers, companies etc," said Pranesh Prakash, programme manager at Bangalore-based Center for Internet and Society. Personal blogging, too, has seen a dip, he added.

Twitter and Facebook, the popular social networking platforms that allow users to post comments via mobiles, have caught the attention of firms that manage the online visibility of organisations and individuals. These social media companies have almost stopped maintaining blogs for their clients.

"Companies, too, are planning their ad campaigns keeping social media in mind, forcing bloggers to switch to the micro format," said Deepak Gopalkrishnan, a blogger and cartoonist who works with social media marketing firm Windchimes Communications. Earlier, revenues for blogs came from Google's AdSense system. Today, say people in the social media, Facebook revenues have eclipsed AdSense's revenues for blogs.

Facebook has over 34 million users in India while Twitter has over 13 million.

"Humour bloggers such as Ramesh Srivats and Anand Ramakrishnan haven't updated their blogs for a year. But they are perpetually active on Twitter," Gopalkrishnan said.

This article by Ameya Chumbhale was originally published in the Economic Times on 17 November 2011. Pranesh Prakash has been quoted in this article. Read it here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/twitter-facebook-lead-in-blogosphere

Online Pre-Censorship is Harmful and Impractical

pranesh — 2011-12-12T17:00:50Z

The Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology, Mr. Kapil Sibal wants Internet intermediaries to pre-censor content uploaded by their users. Pranesh Prakash takes issue with this and explains why this is a problem, even if the government's heart is in the right place. Further, he points out that now is the time to take action on the draconian IT Rules which are before the Parliament.

Mr. Sibal is a knowledgeable lawyer, and according to a senior lawyer friend of his with whom I spoke yesterday, greatly committed to ideals of freedom of speech. He would not lightly propose regulations that contravene Article 19(1)(a) [freedom of speech and expression] of our Constitution. Yet his recent proposals regarding controlling online speech seem unreasonable. My conclusion is that the minister has not properly grasped the way the Web works, is frustrated because of the arrogance of companies like Facebook, Google, Yahoo and Microsoft. And while he has his heart in the right place, his lack of knowledge of the Internet is leading him astray. The more important concern is the IT Rules that have been in force since April 2011.

Background

The New York Times scooped a story on Monday revealing that Mr. Sibal and the MCIT had been in touch with Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft, asking them to set up a system whereby they would manually filter user-generated content before it is published, to ensure that objectionable speech does not get published. Specifically, he mentioned content that hurt people's religious sentiments and content that Member of Parliament Shashi Tharoor described as 'vile' and capable of inciting riots as being problems. Lastly, Mr. Sibal defended this as not being "censorship" by the government, but "supervision" of user-generated content by the companies themselves.

Concerns

One need not give lectures on the benefits of free speech, and Mr. Sibal is clear that he does not wish to impinge upon it. So one need not point out that freedom of speech means nothing if not the freedom to offend (as long as no harm is caused). There can, of course, be reasonable limitations on freedom of speech as provided in Article 19 of the ICCPR and in Article 19(2) of our Constitution. My problem lies elsewhere.

Secrecy

It is unfortunate that the New York Times has to be given credit for Mr. Sibal addressing a press conference on this issue (and he admitted as much). What he is proposing is not enforcement of existing rules and regulations, but of a new restriction on online speech. This should have, in a democracy, been put out for wide-ranging public consultations first.

Making intermediaries responsible

The more fundamental disagreement is that over how the question of what should not be published should be decided, and how that decision should be and how that should be carried out, and who can be held liable for unlawful speech. I believe that "to make the intermediary liable for the user violating that code would, I think, not serve the larger interests of the market." Mr. Sibal said that in May this year in an interview with the Wall Street Journal. The intermediaries (that is, all persons and companies who transmit or host content on behalf of a third party), are but messengers just like a post office and do not exercise editorial control, unlike a newspaper. (By all means prosecute Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft whenever they have created unlawful content, have exercised editorial control over unlawful content, have incited and encouraged unlawful activities, or know after a court order or the like that they are hosting illegal content and still do not remove it.) Newspapers have editors who can take responsibility for content published in the newspaper. They can afford to, because the number of articles in a newspaper is limited. YouTube, which has 48 hours of videos uploaded every minutes, cannot. One wag suggested that Mr. Sibal was not suggesting a means of censorship, but of employment generation and social welfare for censors and editors. To try and extend editorial duties to these 'intermediaries' by executive order or through 'forceful suggestions' to these companies cannot happen without amending s.79 of the Information Technology Act which ensures they are not to be held liable for their user's content: the users are. Internet speech has, to my knowledge, and to date, has never caused a riot in India. It is when it is translated into inflammatory speeches on the ground with megaphones that offensive speech, whether in books or on the Internet, actually become harmful, and those should be targeted instead. And the same laws that apply to offline speech already apply online. If such speech is inciting violence then the police can be contacted and a magistrate can take action. Indeed, Internet companies like Facebook, Google, etc., exercise self-regulation already (excessively and wrongly, I feel sometimes). Any person can flag any content on YouTube or Facebook as violating the site's terms of use. Indeed, even images of breast-feeding mothers have been removed from Facebook on the basis of such complaints. So it is mistaken to think that there is no self-regulation. In two recent cases, the High Courts of Bombay (Janhit Manch v. Union of India) and Madras (R. Karthikeyan v. Union of India) refused to direct the government and intermediaries to police online content, saying that places an excessive burden on freedom of speech.

IT Rules, 2011

In this regard, the IT Rules published in April 2011 are great offenders. While speech that is 'disparaging' (while not being defamatory) is not prohibited by any statute, yet intermediaries are required not to carry 'disparaging' speech, or speech to which the user has no right (how is this to be judged? do you have rights to the last joke that you forwarded?), or speech that promotes gambling (as the government of Sikkim does through the PlayWin lottery), and a myriad other kinds of speech that are not prohibited in print or on TV. Who is to judge whether something is 'disparaging'? The intermediary itself, on pain of being liable for prosecution if it is found have made the wrong decision. And any person may send a notice to an intermediary to 'disable' content, which has to be done within 36 hours if the intermediary doesn't want to be held liable. Worst of all, there is no requirement to inform the user whose content it is, nor to inform the public that the content is being removed. It just disappears, into a memory hole. It does not require a paranoid conspiracy theorist to see this as a grave threat to freedom of speech. Many human rights activists and lawyers have made a very strong case that the IT Rules on Intermediary Due Diligence are unconstitutional. Parliament still has an opportunity to reject these rules until the end of the 2012 budget session. Parliamentarians must act now to uphold their oaths to the Constitution.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/online-pre-censorship-harmful-impractical

Kapil Sibal to sterilise Net but undercover sting shows 6 of 7 websites already trigger-happy to censor under ‘chilling’ IT Act

praskrishna — 2011-12-07T06:02:29Z

The Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) has carried out an undercover investigation into the "chilling effects" of new information technology laws on freedom of expression online, with six out of seven major websites removing innocent content online without proper investigation, creating a "private censorship regime".

CIS’ still unpublished draft report, a copy of which Legally India has seen, was prepared before yesterday’s controversial announcement by India’s minister of communications and IT Kapil Sibal, who said that he was talking to major intermediaries on the web, such as Facebook, Google and Yahoo, to actively prevent “blasphemous” content from being posted online by users.

Earlier this year a CIS researcher and lawyer had sent "fraudulent" takedown letters to seven internet companies making claims without providing any evidence that certain third-party content violated provisions under the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, explained Sunil Abraham, executive director of CIS.

The rules, which were came into force in April 2011, aimed to limit the liability of web sites acting as intermediary publishers of information, if they comply to a takedown mechanism, but CIS said in its report that the rules were “procedurally flawed” because they ignored all principles of “natural justice”.

The researchers sent a notice to two Indian news website claiming without evidence that a reader’s comment related to the Telengana movement under a news article was “disparaging”, “racially and ethnically objectionable”, “hateful” and “defamatory”. One website removed two comments, while the other went even beyond the researcher’s request to remove only one comment and within 72 hours removed all 15 comments left by readers on the article.

The researchers also successfully convinced other websites, including a search engine, to remove content and links that they claimed encouraged money laundering or gambling,

The only response that was rejected outright was a facetious takedown request to a shopping portal that an ad for baby’s diapers “harmed minors” by potentially causing babies’ rashes.

"Of the 7 intermediaries to which takedown notices were sent, 6 intermediaries over-complied with the notices, despite the apparent flaws in them," stated the draft report on the research. "From the responses to the takedown notices, it can be reasonably presumed that not all intermediaries have sufficient legal competence or resources to deliberate on the legality of an expression."

"This is just the tip of the iceberg,” commented Abraham, adding that he was told by at least one major international intermediary company operating in India that it was "constantly" receiving takedown requests.

"Our empirical research demonstrates that intermediaries are unable to make the subjective test that is required of them," he added. "They are highly risk averse and they often choose to completely comply with the person sending a takedown notice."

"There is clear anecdotal evidence that […] the recently notified rules have a chilling effect on freedom of speech and expression, and that there is no transparency or accountability."

"What we have is a private censorship regime that is alive and kicking in India."

This blog post by by Kian Ganz was published in Legally India on 7 December 2011. Sunil Abraham has been quoted in this. Read it here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/chilling-it-act

Facebook, Google tell India they won’t screen for derogatory content

praskrishna — 2011-12-07T05:25:52Z

In the world’s largest democracy, the government wants Internet sites like Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Google to screen and remove offensive content about religious figures and political leaders as soon as they learn about it. But those companies now say they can’t help.

India’s minister of communications Kapil Sibal began discussions with the online companies in September. On Tuesday, he told reporters the government will have to create new guidelines to disable such content from the Internet sites on its own.

"We will not allow intermediaries to say that ‘we throw up our hands, we can’t do anything about it,’" Sibal said.

Sibal had shown company executives derogatory images of the Prophet Mohammed and morphed pictures of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Congress Party chief Sonia Gandhi that appeared on their platforms. Sibal said these images would offend "any reasonable person" and also hurt religious sentiments of Indians.

But on Monday, according to Sibal, the company executives said they cannot do anything.

Soon after Sibal’s news conference, Facebook said in a statement: “We will remove any content that violates our terms, which are designed to keep material that is hateful, threatening, incites violence or contains nudity off the service.” Those parameters are unlikely to include all the images the government of India wants screened out.

Sibal’s move did not come as a surprise for some observers in India, which has the third-largest Internet-user community in the world--more than 100 million people. Earlier this year, India introduced new rules that called on Web sites, service providers and search engines to not host information that could be regarded as “harmful, “blasphemous” or “disparaging.” The rules also called on Web sites to remove offensive material within 36 hours of a complaint.

"I can’t believe a democracy is doing this," said Sunil Abraham, executive director of India’s Center for Internet and Society. He said recent, unpublished research conducted by the group showed that "such rules have a chilling effect on the freedom of expression on the Internet." Researchers sent mock take-down notices to seven sites, complaining about their content. Abraham said six sites immediately deleted content. "They did not even verify the validity of our flawed complaint. They over-complied," he said.

Sibal’s announcement also sparked a debate on Twitter, where Member of Parliament Shashi Tharoor and Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir Omar Abdullah weighed in:

The Streisand effect is an online phenomenon in which an attempt to censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information further. (It is named after Barbara Streisand, who attempted in 2003 to hide pictures of her giant home; that only created more interest.)
But a blogger who calls himself the “Pragmatic Desi” argued that India had its own constraints:

But Member of Parliament Varun Gandi said that’s precisely why the Internet shouldn’t be censored:

The article written by Rama Lakshmi was originally published in the Washington Post on 6 December 2011. Sunil Abraham has been quoted in this. Read it here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/facebook-google-tell-india-they-won2019t-screen-for-derogatory-content

FTN: Should social networking sites be censored?

praskrishna — 2011-12-08T05:32:41Z

Telecom Minister Kapil Sibal met the representatives of Facebook, Google and others seeking to device a screening mechanism. Sunil Abraham was on CNN-IBN from 10.00 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. speaking about freedom of expression in India.

VIDEO

Watch the original video on IBN Live here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/censor-social-networking-sites

Govt wants to scrub the Internet clean

praskrishna — 2011-12-07T04:07:03Z

Web advocacy groups, experts say govt’s move to evolve content guidelines amounts to censorship. This article by Surabhi Agarwal & Leslie D’monte was published in Livemint on 7 December 2011. Sunil Abraham has been quoted in this article.

India, the world’s largest democracy, may force companies such as Google Inc., Microsoft Corp., Yahoo Inc. and Facebook Inc. to take down online content that it deems offensive because they haven’t been able to come up with an effective self-censorship mechanism governing millions of users.

The Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government had no option but to "evolve guidelines" to ensure that "blasphemous content on the Internet or television is not allowed", with Internet and social networking sites such as those above "failing to respond to and cooperate with" the government’s request to keep "objectionable" content out of their websites, Kapil Sibal, minister of communications and information technology (IT), said in New Delhi on Tuesday.

His comments unleashed a firestorm of criticism by Internet advocacy groups and experts, who said the move amounted to censorship and was anti-democratic, impractical and unwarranted since existing laws were comprehensive enough to remove "objectionable" content. The move, they argued, would also stem the growth of user-generated content sites, and thus the Internet itself.

The government has been battling a series of corruption scandals and criticism of its inability to move forward on policy reforms. A campaign against corruption fuelled by online support has also challenged the government’s authority to legislate, forcing its own version of an anti-graft legislation onto the agenda.

The latest move by the government follows the introduction of new rules to the Information Technology Act, 2008, that were published earlier this year, also heavily criticized, that called on Internet service providers (ISPs) along with other entities to police online postings, including blogs.

Sibal referred to what he considered objectionable content as a "matter of grave concern", which affects the "sensibility of our people and is against our cultural ethos".

Once the new policy framework is implemented, companies “will be duty-bound to share information about those who post content, even if it (the content) is posted outside India”. He didn’t say by when the policy would be put in place.

Discussions with executives from the firms mentioned above had begun in September, Sibal said. They had been asked to come up with solutions to address the perceived problem in a month’s time and had failed to do so, he said.

According to local media reports, the move follows posts about some senior Congress leaders, including party president Sonia Gandhi. The minister, who is also one of India’s top lawyers, did not refer to any specific "objectionable" material during his press briefing, but rued that “the content has still not been removed".

Google India defended the right of free speech, while saying that it didn’t condone illegality.

"Even where content is legal but breaks our own terms and conditions, we take that down too, once we’ve been notified about it," Google India said in a release. "But it also means that when content is legal but controversial, we don’t remove it because people’s differing views should be respected, so long as they are legal."

Facebook India also said that it would remove any content that crossed the line.

It "has policies and onsite features in place that enable people to report abusive content", the company said. "We will remove any content that violates our terms, which are designed to keep material that is hateful, threatening, incites violence or contains nudity off the service."

While Yahoo India declined to comment, Microsoft did not respond to an email till press time.

Internet censorship is a rising trend, with approximately 40 countries filtering the Web in varying degrees, including democratic and non-democratic governments. Governments are using increasingly sophisticated censorship and surveillance techniques, including blocking social networks, to restrict a variety of types of content, says the 2010 Global Network Initiative (GNI) report. GNI seeks to protect freedom of speech online.

This August, for instance, the Centre had written to the department of telecommunications, asking it to "ensure effective monitoring of Twitter and Facebook", which minister of state for communications and IT Milind Deora acknowledged a few days later in a written reply to a question in the Rajya Sabha. He mentioned access to “encrypted data” on social networking sites, but did not elaborate on the subject.

Currently, the Indian Telegraph Act and the IT Act, 2008, (amendments were introduced in IT Act, 2000) give the government the power to monitor, intercept and even block online conversations and websites. The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) has put up a list of 11 such websites blocked by a government order. The data was received from the department of information technology (DIT).

Moreover, under section 79 of the IT Intermediary (Rules and Guidelines), 2011, intermediaries (comprising telcos, ISPs, network services providers, search engines, cyber cafes, Web-hosting companies, online auction portals and online payment sites) are mandated to exercise "due diligence" and advise users not to share/distribute information violative of the law or a person’s privacy and rights. Intermediaries are expected to act on a complaint within 36 hours of receiving it, and remove such content when warranted.

In case the intermediary doesn’t find the content objectionable, the matter will have to be contested in a court of law.

"Currently, you need a court of law to direct a company in case something has to be removed. That takes a lot of time. So there has to be a mechanism that is faster in dealing with such content as (it) can be very damaging," said a DIT official, who did not want to be named.

"The Indian government can, and should, monitor conversations and websites if it believes the content can harm the security, defence, sovereignty and integrity of the country," said Pavan Duggal, a Supreme Court lawyer and cyber law expert. However, he wondered how the government would go about implementing the task of monitoring each and every conversation on an unstructured Internet.

Bangalore-based CIS, an Internet advocacy group, said "this pre-emptive manual screening of content, if implemented, would sound the death knell of freedom of expression in India".

"This screening is worrisome. Companies will err on the side of caution in a bid to please the government, and the courts will not be involved," said Sunil Abraham, executive director of CIS. “This is not only unconstitutional, but technically impossible too. Speech and words have nuances. Can humans decipher these with accuracy?"

The move will undermine key principles on which the Internet was built, said Nikhil Pahwa, editor and publisher of digital industry news and analysis blog MediaNama.

"It is completely impossible to enforce this. There is no way that content can be prescreened before it is placed online," he said. “It also kills the concept of immediate communication, which the Internet stands for."

Cyber law expert NA Vijayashankar, who runs cyber law information portal Naavi, said: "The government has valid reason to control anti-national activities on the Internet. But there are existing laws for it. The current proposition is impractical since pre-scrutiny of content on the Internet is not possible. It will affect the growth of user-generated content, which is helping Internet penetration grow in India."

Internet censorship happens frequently in countries such as Myanmar, Cuba, China (which had blocked keyword searches of the word "Egypt" on the Internet as well as on Weibo, the Chinese equivalent of Twitter), Iran, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. On the very day the Egyptian government set out to block Internet services in the country (in January), US Republican senator Susan Collins floated the COICA Bill, popularly called the "kill switch" Bill, which, if approved, would give the US president similar powers.

Read the original published in Livemint here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/scrub-the-internet-clean

Debate: Online content row-1

praskrishna — 2011-12-07T11:06:19Z

In a debate moderated by TIMES NOW's Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami, panelists Chandan Mitra, Editor-in-Chief, 'The Pioneer' & MP, BJP; Sabeer Bhatia, Co-founder, Hotmail; Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, Centre for Internet and Society; Ankit Fadia, Ethical Hacker; Suhel Seth, Managing Partner Counselage; Pradeep Gupta, Chairman, Cyber Media and Rajesh Charia, President, Internet Service Providers Association of India discuss the issue if the Government should make clear definition of what is objectionable to internet/social media companies and draw a clear distinction between communally incitable material and political censorship.

Telecom Minister Kapil Sibal today (Dec 6) vowed to stop offensive and defamatory content on internet sites as a controversy raged over government's move to monitor content in cyber space. Maintaining that the government does not want to interfere with the freedom of the press, he said if the social networking sites are not willing to cooperate with the government on stopping incendiary material "then it is the duty of the government to think of steps that we need." Sibal's hurriedly-called press conference came against backdrop of government's meetings with the officials from Google, Microsoft, Facebook and Yahoo over last few weeks after offensive material particularly against Congress leader Sonia Gandhi and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was put on the net. He said his request for cooperation from them fell on "deaf ears" and "we will not allow intermediaries to say that the throw up our hands and we cannot do anything about it."

Facebook in its reaction said it will cooperate in removing any content that violates its terms which are designed to keep material that is hateful, threatening, incites violence or contains nudity off the service. Google said it will abide by local law and take any material if it violates its policies but asserted that it will not remove any content just because it is controversial. Google said that when content is illegal it abides by local law and removes it. And even where the content is legal but violates "our terms and conditions, we take that down too, once we have been notified." However, it says, when content is legal and does not violate its policies, it will not remove just because it is controversial.

Even as Sibal defended the government's move, criticism poured in the cyber space that India should not emulate countries like China in attempting to gag freedom of expression. However, the Minister got support from Shashi Tharoor, Congress MP, who is popular in cyber world. "Have to say I support Kapil Sibal on the examples he gave me: deeply offensive material about religions & communities that could incite riots," Tharoor tweeted. But his political rivals and MPs Varun Gandhi and Jayant Choudhary differed. Gandhi said Internet is the only truly democratic medium free of "vested interests, media owners & paid-off journos. Can see why Sibal wants to gag it," he said. Chaudhary said "Censorship of the internet - Forget the desirability issue for a minute, IS IT EVEN POSSIBLE??!!!"

Sunil Abraham was on Times Now from 9.05 p.m. to 9.45 p.m. on December 6, 2011 speaking about freedom of expression in India.

See the debate on Times Now

VIDEO

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/online-content-row

India’s dreams of web censorship

sunil — 2012-03-26T06:59:36Z

If you are offended by this post, please contact Kapil Sibal, India’s telecoms and IT minister, and he will make sure it is promptly taken down.

Actually, if Sibal has his way and you are offended by this post, the armies of people to be employed by internet companies operating in India to monitor their sites for potentially offensive material – whether it originates in India or abroad – will ensure that it is removed before it can even be published. And good luck to all of them with that.

That, anyway, was the gist of Sibal’s combative press conference in the courtyard of his Delhi home on Tuesday, the day after the New York Times reported he had met executives from Google, Facebook, Yahoo and Microsoft to discuss the preemptive removal of “offensive material”.

The press conference was prompted by uproar that swept Twitter on Monday night – one of the sites, incidentally, that Sibal would like to monitor – and was carried live on all major news channels.

Social networking sites have gained a lot of traction in India and are much used by politicians, celebrities and the burgeoning, young middle class.

"I believe that no reasonable person aware of the sensibilities of large sections of communities in this country and aware of community standards as they are applicable in India would wish to see this content in the public domain," Sibal said, referring to "offensive material" he had shown some reporters prior to the conference. He added that the government did not believe in censorship.

According to the NYT, Sibal showed a group of IT execs a Facebook page that criticized Sonia Gandhi, president of the Congress Party, calling it "unacceptable".

"We will remove any content that violates our terms, which are designed to keep material that is hateful, threatening, incites violence or contains nudity off the service," Facebook said in a statement.

Microsoft did not respond to requests for comment. Google said it would issue a statement later in the day.

Sibal first approached the companies on September 5, giving them four weeks to present proposals for how they might comply with his request, he said. With no response by October 19, the ministry sent a reminder. On November 29, Sibal again met with the IT execs. They responded on Monday, saying they could not comply.

An Indian employee of one of foreign tech company, when asked about Sibal’s demand that each outfit set up dedicated teams to monitor content in real time, let out an extended, almost hysterical laugh, before regaining composure and asking: "Do you know how many users we have?"

Indeed, even in a country with low internet penetration like India – 100m people regularly use the internet, less than 10 per cent of India’s 1.2bn population – the task of monitoring real-time content generated on millions of sites opens up legal wormholes and is technically impossible, Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet & Society, told beyondbrics.

"Technically what he’s asking for is an impossibility: it’s not possible in the age of web 2.0 to manually curate or censor social media content," he said. “This is obvious to all of us. Isn’t it strange that the minister of IT, who seems to understand a lot of complex issues, is actually in favour of something like this?"

Abraham warned that the focus on blasphemous and vaguely defined "offensive" speech was dangerous, noting that the Hindu profession of belief in multiple gods is blasphemous to Muslims, Christians and Jews.

But Sibal was defiant.

Asked what would be deemed "offensive", he said: “We will define it, don’t worry, certainly, we will evolve guidelines…to ensure that such blasphemous content” is not publicly available in India.

Asked whether his idea was technically feasible, he responded: "It is a feasible proposition, and we will inform you how as and when, we will inform you as and when."

When it was pointed out that the internet was a global phenomenon and that content originating outside of India might be hard to control, Sibal said: "We will certainly ask [companies] to give us information even on content posted outside of India – we will ask them for information, we will evolve guidelines and mechanisms to deal with the issue."

So, again, if you are offended by this post, feel free to drop him a line. And good luck.

The original blog post was published by the Financial Time's beyondbrics on December 6, 2011. Sunil Abraham was quoted in this blog post. Read it here

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

‘Any Normal Human Being Would Be Offended’

praskrishna — 2011-12-06T13:11:46Z

The Indian government has asked social media operators to delete information on the Internet that might offend the ‘‘sensibilities’’ of people in India, Kapil Sibal, India’s minister of communications and information technology, said Tuesday, confirming an earlier India Ink report.

"We have to take care of the sensibilities of our people," Mr. Sibal told more than 100 reporters during a press conference on the lawn at his home in New Delhi. ‘‘Cultural ethos is very important to us."

He denied such a demand was censorship.

There is some content on the Internet that ‘‘any normal human being would be offended by,’’ he said. The government has asked social media companies to develop a way to eliminate offensive content as soon as it is created, no matter what country it is created in, he said.

The news conference was called in response to an India Ink blog post Monday about private meetings with executives from Google, Facebook, Yahoo and Microsoft, in which Mr. Sibal asked the companies to prescreen content in India before it is posted. The idea caused an outpouring of criticism for Mr. Sibal on social media sites in India on Monday night that intensified after the press conference on Tuesday.

Industry analysts and activists deemed it unrealistic and unconstitutional.

"It is technically impossible and places unconstitutional limits on the freedom of expression in India," said Sunil Abraham, the executive director of the Center for Internet and Society, a research group based in Bangalore, India. "Shutting the Internet hasn’t worked in China or Saudi Arabia, and it won’t work in India," he said.

India now has an estimated 100 million Internet users, the fourth largest online population in the world behind China, the United States and Japan, and over 25 million Facebook users. Those figures are well behind India’s 850 million registered mobile phone users, but Internet use is expected to mushroom in coming years as inexpensive tablet computers enter the market.

Facebook was the only company to reply publicly Tuesday. "We will remove any content that violates our terms, which are designed to keep material that is hateful, threatening, incites violence or contains nudity off the service," the company said in a statement.

In recent months, the Indian government held several meetings with social media companies, and asked them to develop a ‘‘mechanism’’ to screen out offensive content, Mr. Sibal said. So far, he said, these companies have been uncooperative.

Mr. Sibal declined to define what, exactly, was offensive content, but said he had found on the Internet "subject matter which was so offensive that it hurt the religious sentiments of large sections of the community."

Before the news conference, he showed examples of that content to some journalists, who described it as pornography combined with images of Mecca and Hindu gods. Mr. Sibal also said there were images of Congress party personnel that were "ex facie objectionable."

The Indian government has been tightening the leash on Internet freedom, and in April issued rules demanding demanding Internet service providers delete information posted on Web sites that officials or private citizens deemed disparaging or harassing. Last year, the government threatened to shut down BlackBerry service in the country unless the smartphones’ manufacturer, Research In Motion, allowed government officials greater access to users’ messages.

In a meeting Monday, executives from social media companies told Mr. Sibal they believed that American law applies to them, not the Indian government’s rules issued in April.

"Even if U.S. law applies, the community standards of India have to be taken into account," Mr. Sibal said. "We will not allow Internet companies to throw up their hands and say, ‘We cannot do anything about it."

Regulation of the Internet, particularly across country boundaries, remains a murky and hard-to-define area, said Mr. Abraham of the Center for Internet and Society. "Indian law seems to state that it has global jurisdiction," he said, "but that is not really true. An Indian court might give an order that is unenforceable in the United States or anywhere else," he said.

This article by Heather Timmons was published in the New York Times on December 6, 2011. Sunil Abraham has been quoted in this article. Read the original story here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/any-normal-human-being-would-be-offended

Why this ‘kolaveri di' is India's coming of age

praskrishna — 2011-12-05T10:03:40Z

In the last two weeks, two videos have gone viral on the Internet in India. One, the catchy Tanglish-folksy ‘Why this kolaveri di' video, and two, the flash mob at the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus (CST) in Mumbai where a few hundred Mumbaikars were seen shaking a leg to the Bollywood hit, ‘Rang de basanti'. Nishant Shah, Director-Research has been quoted in this article by Deepa Kurup which was published in the Hindu on 4 December 2011.

If you logged on to any social avatar of the World Wide Web, these videos, the ‘shares', the ‘likes' and the instantly-trending tweets were unmissable. While the flash mob at CST, a tribute to those who lost their lives on 26/11, has around 11.45 lakh views on YouTube, ‘Kolaveri di', a promo for Tamil hero Dhanush's upcoming film 3 uploaded by Sony Music on November 16, has been viewed 1.43 crore times.

On the Web, a world that is constantly on the look out for the ‘next cool thing', that Kolaveri's viewership continues to grow by the day, has made commentators christen it the first viral marketing campaign in India. Perhaps more interesting than the song itself are the over two dozen versions of it that you will find on YouTube. There's an anti-inflation version featuring Sharad Pawar; a group of boys from Kerala using the song to appeal to Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa on the Mullaperiyar dam issue; a talented young girl presenting a “female version” reply to the song that's arguably gender-biased, and many others have done remix versions and videos of the song. Like the song's appeal, the rip-offs too are pan-national.

While Bollywood trailers and content have always been popular online, film-makers have not actively tapped into this medium. Earlier this year, the makers of the Shah Rukh Khan starrer Ra.One became the first film to have its own YouTube channel, featuring songs, promos, footage, ‘behind the scenes', and cast interviews, supplemented by a fairly effective social media campaign. Add to this, the potential of revenue generation offered by music downloads and caller ring-back tone subscriptions; this form of marketing is cheap, easy, instant and a potential recipe for success.

Indeed, mobile value-added service provider, Techzone, which holds the exclusive rights for music tracks, videos and digital entertainment formats for the ‘Kolaveri' movie 3, has seen a “phenomenal” number of subscriptions, downloads and ‘live-in' requests. Techzone reportedly saw 22,000 downloads of the song in the first five days. While refusing to share numbers, marketing representatives from Techzone told The Hindu that the response has been overwhelming. TechZone deployed the content through its entire distribution network, which includes all telecom operators.

“Generally, for Tamil songs, 90 per cent of the demand comes from Tamil Nadu, but with this song we have received a sizable amount of requests from different parts of the country. This is a first for us,” the Techzone representative said.

A Vibrant Medium

So are we witnessing a change in cinema's relationship with cyberspace, asks Nishant Shah, a researcher from the Centre for Internet and Society. A campaign like Ra.One does not compare to ‘Kolaveri' because a movie trailer simply offers people a chance to be spectators, unlike the simple and catchy ‘Kolaveri', which has people remixing, editing the footage and using the video to create their own narratives.

Mr. Shah feels that indeed this is the first viral online video campaign that India has had. Most viral videos so far, he points out, were invariably pornographic or even voyeuristic in nature. “Like the Delhi MMS video — that was perhaps one of the earliest videos to go viral — to other pornographic clips of movie stars. Later on, we saw interesting remixes or spoofs, mostly regional; this is the first time that we have home-grown content that has gone viral simply because it is fun, simple and addictive. In that sense it's an intelligent campaign,” he explained. He also feels that this could be the coming of age of video as a medium, particularly so because the campaign has become a pan-India phenomenon.

Tried and Tested

Viral marketing is quite big abroad. In that sense, this has all been ‘tried and tested' abroad — from commercials for beer and sunglasses to selling computers and even presidential campaigns; online videos and viral marketing plans are indeed the mainstay of many publicity strategies.

Marketing campaigns can no longer ignore the Internet. Neither can they treat it as an also-ran, says Prashanth, a social media junkie and marketing professional. “Campaigns now have to start thinking of making promotional content for the new media. Currently, a shorter version of regular campaigns are edited for the Web; there are some successful ones in this category too. But a campaign such as the ‘Kolaveri' has the industry sitting up and taking notice. In some sense, the logic is simple: you have your audience cut-out, and the reach is pretty much pan-national,” he explains.

Read the original story published in the Hindu

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

On the net, red herring

praskrishna — 2011-12-05T09:49:30Z

They are often the first clue in cyber crimes.But IP addresses may not be totally foolproof, writes Javed Anwer. Sunil Abraham has been quoted in this article published in the Times of India on 4 December 2011.

It was one morning that changed the life of Lakshmana Kailash K forever.In the wee hours of August 31,2007, Kailash,a techie in Bangalore,was woken up by cops from Pune.They told him he had posted images derogatory to Chhatrapati Shivaji on Orkut,and whisked him away to Maharashtra.The police had used the IP address provided by the internet service provider and information from Google,to find that the image was posted from a computer owned by Kailash.

It was one morning that changed the life of Lakshmana Kailash K forever.In the wee hours of August 31,2007,Kailash,a techie in Bangalore,was woken up by cops from Pune.They told him he had posted images derogatory to Chhatrapati Shivaji on Orkut,and whisked him away to Maharashtra.The police had used the IP address provided by the internet service provider and information from Google,to find that the image was posted from a computer owned by Kailash.

The Maharashtra cops are not the only ones to get it wrong.There is a widespread belief that IP addresses are akin to a smoking gun in most cyber crime cases.Tracing the IP address is also considered one of the easiest ways to crack a case.The result: even four years after what Kailash went through,investigators,internet service providers,private companies filtering web traffic and social networking websites,continue to jump to a conclusion on the basis of IP addresses.

There is a tendency to oversimplify the process, says Sunil Abraham,executive director of Centre for Internet and Society.While I have seen that courts have been always careful in cases where IP addresses are involved as a tool of investigation,I cant say the same about the local police.

In theory,IP addresses can be useful since they provide a link to individual computers.The address is a numerical string for example,192.168.1.1 that is assigned to any computing device connected to a network.However,given the dynamic and interlinked nature of the internet,using them as clinching evidence is fraught with dangers.

The second reason,according to Patnaik,is the presence of open wi-fi networks.Most people have no clue about technology.This means unsecured or poorlyconfigured wi-fi networks are common.The result: someone may park his car in a residential colony,scan for open wi-fi networks and use the open connection for sending a threatening or abusive email to his boss before leaving, he says.If the mail is traced,it will lead to the person who owns the wi-fi network and not the guy who used it illegally.

But police officers say that,to start with,the IP address is often the only clue thats there.Investigating cyber-crime is difficult because its all virtual, says Ranjit Narayan,special commissioner (crime).There are no clues other than the IP address.The investigation starts with it. Now,though,after their widespread abuse,there is a growing realization about the fallacy of the IP approach.A judge in the US recently said there was a very real disconnect between an IP address and a copyright infringer.Organizations like Electronic Frontier Foundation,which deals with matters related to cyber liberty and free speech on the web,have also taken up the issue in earnest. Perhaps,there is hope for the Kailashs of the future.

The original story was published in the Times of India, it can be read here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/red-herring

Privacy Matters — Analyzing the "Right to Privacy Bill"

Natasha Vaz — 2012-04-28T04:10:12Z

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

The conference will focus on the questions and dilemmas posed by privacy in India today, with a concentration on the "Right to Privacy Bill". The right to privacy in India has been a neglected area of study and engagement. Although sectoral legislation deals with privacy issues, India does not as yet have a horizontal legislation that deals comprehensively with privacy across all contexts. The absence of a minimum guarantee of privacy is felt most heavily by marginalized communities, including HIV patients, children, women, sexuality minorities, prisoners, etc. — people who most need to know that sensitive information is protected.

Privacy India was established in 2010 with the objective of raising awareness, sparking civil action and promoting democratic dialogue around privacy challenges and violations in India. One of our goals is to build consensus towards the promulgation of comprehensive privacy legislation in India through consultations with the public, legislators and the legal and academic community.

The event will focus on discussing the challenges and concerns to privacy in India. We invite you to attend the meeting and contribute your views. Please confirm your participation by getting in touch with Natasha (natasha@cis-india.org). We sincerely hope that you will be able to attend and look forward to your participation.

Agenda

09:30- 10:00	Registration
10:00- 10:30	Welcome- Privacy in India Prashant Iyengar is a practicing lawyer and lead researcher for Privacy India. He will present who Privacy India is, and the objectives of Privacy India's research. His presentation will focus on discussing privacy in India.
10:30- 11:15	Key Note Address- Draft Privacy Bill Critique Na. Vijayashankar is an e-business consultant. He established the premier Cyber Law information portal in India. He is the founder secretary of Cyber Society of India, Founder Trustee of International Institue of Information Technology Law, and Founder Chairman of Digital Society Foundation. He will present a critique of the Draft Privacy Bill.
11:15- 11:30	Tea Break
11:30- 12:15	Session I Privacy and the Legal System Sudhir Krishnaswamy is an Assistant Professor at the National law School of India University and is currently writing a Doctoral Thesis at the Faculty of Law, Oxford University on ‘The Basic Structure Doctrine in Indian Constitutional Adjudication’. His presentation will look at the trajectory of privacy through the years from a legal perspective.
12:15- 13:00	Privacy and Constitutional Law N. Nappinai is an advocate who specializes in IP and technology laws. She is a founder member of Technology Law Forum (TLF). She has spearheaded and driven several initiatives of TLF with various organization including NASSCOM, FICCI, IMC etc., and has also conducted several workshops and training sessions for the Mumbai Police, Public Prosecutors & Industry verticals in Cyber Laws. Her presentation will define the scope of Article 21 under the Indian Constitution, which protects the right to privacy.
13:00- 13:15	Discussion
13:15- 14:00	Lunch Break
14:00- 14:45	Session II Privacy and Freedom of Expression Apar Gupta is an advocate who specializes in intellectual property, electronic commerce law and technology media and telecoms. He holds a master from Columbia Law School and has authored a Commentary on the Information Technology Act, 2000. His presentation will focus on the limits of a privacy right when it competes and conflicts with the freedom of speech and expression. He will examine certain provisions of the Draft Privacy Bill questioning how privacy arguments may be used to stifle debate or disclosure made in the public interest.
14:45- 15:30	Sexuality Minorities and Privacy Danish Sheikh graduated from Nalsar University of Law with a B.A., LL.B. (Hons.). Currently, he is a researcher at the Alternative Law Forum in Bangalore. He will examine the status of sexual minorities in the light of privacy framework in India. Culling out some real life examples based on various studies, media reports and judgments from the Supreme Court and the High Courts of Delhi and Allahabad, he will bring to light the privacy violations being committed by both individuals as we all state authorities.
15:30- 15:45	Discussion
15:45- 16:30	Session III Privacy and National Security Menaka Guruswamy practices law at the Supreme Court of India. She was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University, a Gammon Fellow at Harvard Law School, and a gold medalist from the National Law School of India and has law degrees from all three schools. Menaka has advised the United National Development Program and the United Nations Development Fund for Women. She will discuss the relationship between national security and privacy, from the perspective of surveillance by the state etc.
16:30- 17:15	Privacy and UID R. Ramkumar is a Professor at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences. He is advocate as well as a patent and trademark attorney. His presentation will focus on what standards of privacy are afforded within the UID system.
17:15- 17:30	Tea Break
17:30- 18:00	Discussion and Questions

	Organizers
	Privacy India Privacy India was established in 2010 with the objective of raising awareness, sparking civil action and promoting democratic dialogue around privacy challenges and violations in India. One of our goals is to build consensus towards the promulgation of comprehensive privacy legislation in India through consultations with the public, legislators and the legal and academic community.
	Privacy International (https://www.privacyinternational.org/) Privacy International’s mission is to defend the right to privacy across the world, and to fight surveillance and other intrusions into private life by governments and corporations. PI has been providing citizens and policy-makers with the tools and perspectives to enable them to hold to account those who threaten privacy since 1990. PI has active associates and networks in 46 countries.
	The International Development Research Centre (www.idrc.ca/) Canada’s International Development Research Centre (IDRC) is one of the world’s leading institutions in the generation and application of new knowledge to meet the challenges of international development. They help developing countries use science and technology to find practical, long-term solutions to the social, economic, and environmental problems they face.
	The Centre for Internet & Society (http://cis-india.org/) The Centre for Interenet & Society brings together a team of practitioners, theoreticians, researchers and artists to work on the emerging field of Internet and Society to critically engage with concerns of digital pluralism, public accountability and pedagogic practices, with particular emphasis on South-South dialogues and exchange.
	Partners
	The Godrej India Culture Lab (www.godrej.com) The Godrej India Culture Lab is an interdisciplinary space which aims to build knowledge networks and interpret the changes rapidly taking place in contemporary India by bringing together the best minds from global academia, business and the creative worlds working on different aspects of Indian society.
	IIT, Bombay (www.iitb.ac.in/) Established in 1958, IIT is recognised worldwide as a leader in the field of engineering education and research. It is reputed for the quality of its faculty and the outstanding calibre of students graduating from its undergraduate and postgraduate programmes. Over the years, there has been dynamic progress at IIT Bombay in all academic and research activities, and a parallel improvement in facilities and infrastructure, to keep it on par with the best institutions in the world.
	Tata Institute of Social Sciences (http://www.tiss.edu/) Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) offers higher professional education in the field of human service and applied social science research. The institute has gone beyond the initial concern of social work education, since its inception in 1936, to consistently contribute to the promotion of sustainable, participatory development and social justice. Through its work, the Institute facilitates strong linkages between education, research, field action and policy advocacy.

Speakers

1. Apar Gupta

2. Danish Sheikh, Alternative Law Forum

3. NA Vijayashankar, E-Business Consultant, Founder Secretary of Cyber Society of India, Founder Trustee of International Institute of Information Technology Law, and Founder Chairman of Digital Society Foundation

4. N S Nappinai, Advocate and Founder Member of Technology Law Forum

5. Prashanth Iyengar, Assistant Professor & Assistant Director, Centre for Intellectual Property Rights Studies, Lead Researcher with Privacy India, Bangalore; Legal Aid Manager with Rural Development Institute, Hyderabad; Researcher & Lawyer with Alternative Law Forum

6. R. Ramkumar, Assistant Professor, School of Social Sciences, Tata Institute of Social Sciences

7. Shishir Jha, Project Lead at Creative Commons India and Associate Professor at Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay

8. Menaka Guruswamy, practices law at the Supreme Court of India.

9. Sudhir Krishnaswamy, is an Assistant Professor at the National law School of India University.

Download the invitation [PDF, 988 kb]

Download the event poster [PDF, 2155 kb]
IIT Bombay Map http://www.iitb.ac.in/campus/howto/howtoget.html

VIDEOS

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

We are anonymous, we are legion

Press Coverage of Online Censorship Row

Monday, December 5, 2011

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

Thursday, December 8, 2011

Is the govt bid to regulate content on the Internet a good thing?

‘Chilling’ Impact of India’s April Internet Rules

Twitter, Facebook take the lead in blogosphere as blog searches fall by half

Online Pre-Censorship is Harmful and Impractical

Background

Concerns

Secrecy

Making intermediaries responsible

IT Rules, 2011

Kapil Sibal to sterilise Net but undercover sting shows 6 of 7 websites already trigger-happy to censor under ‘chilling’ IT Act

Facebook, Google tell India they won’t screen for derogatory content

FTN: Should social networking sites be censored?

Govt wants to scrub the Internet clean

Debate: Online content row-1

India’s dreams of web censorship

‘Any Normal Human Being Would Be Offended’

Why this ‘kolaveri di' is India's coming of age

A Vibrant Medium

Tried and Tested

On the net, red herring

Privacy Matters — Analyzing the "Right to Privacy Bill"

Agenda

Session I

Session II

Session III

Organizers

Partners

Speakers