We are anonymous, we are legion

Pranesh Prakash elected as Asia-Pacific Representative to the Executive Committee of NonCommercial Users Constituency

praskrishna — 2014-01-06T02:50:52Z

Pranesh Prakash has been elected as the Asia-Pacific representative to the executive committee of the NonCommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) (part of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, which is in turn part of the Generic Names Supporting Organization, which is in turn part of ICANN).

More information about the NCUC including how to join can be found at http://www.ncuc.org/

Background & Mission Statement:
The purpose of the NonCommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) is to represent, through its elected representatives and its interest groups, the interests and concerns of non-commercial registrants and non-commercial Internet users of generic Top-level Domains (gTLDs).

It provides a voice and representation in ICANN processes to: non-profit organizations that serve non-commercial interests; nonprofit services such as education, philanthropies, consumer protection, community organizing, promotion of the arts, public interest policy advocacy, children's welfare, religion, scientific research, and human rights; public interest software concerns; families or individuals who register domain names for noncommercial personal use; and Internet users who are primarily concerned with the noncommercial, public interest aspects of domain name policy.

Chair
William Drake, U. Zurich, Switzerland

Executive Committee (Europe)
Stefania Milan, Tilburg University, the Netherlands

Executive Committee (Africa)
Grace Githaiga, Kenya ICT Action Network

Executive Committee (Asia and the Pacific)
Pranesh Prakash, Centre for Internet and Society, India

Executive Committee (North America)
Roy Balleste, St. Thomas University, USA

Executive Committee (Latin America)
Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza, Rio de Janeiro Institute for Technology of Society

The election results were as under:

Total Ballots Cast (including duplicates): 146
Ballots Counted (excluding duplicates): 124
Voters Who Haven't Voted: 84

Chair
1: 155 votes: William Drake
2: 22 votes: Abstain

Executive Committee (Europe)
3: 152 votes: Stefania Milan
4: 21 votes: Abstain

Executive Committee (Africa)
5: 37 votes: Hago Dafalla
6: 106 votes: Grace Githaiga
7: 34 votes: Abstain

Executive Committee (Asia and the Pacific)
8: 43 votes: Peter Green (aka Zuan Zhang)
9: 17 votes: Imran Ahmed Shah
10: 38 votes: Walid Al-Saqaf
11: 62 votes: Pranesh Prakash
12: 33 votes: Abstain

Executive Committee (North America)
13: 145 votes: Roy Balleste
14: 32 votes: Abstain

Executive Committee (Latin America)
15:149 votes: Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza
16: 24 votes: Abstain

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/icann-december-24-2013-pranesh-prakash-elected-as-asia-pacific-representative-to-executive-committee-of-nuc

Pranesh Prakash as Resource Person for ITD seminar on Competition

Admin — 2019-07-04T16:23:51Z

Pranesh Prakash represented the Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) as a resource person for a training seminar held by the International Institute for Trade and Development, which is an organization with a UN mandate and funding by the Thai government. The event was held from 24 - 26 June 2019 at Bangkok.

The theme was "Competition Law and Policy for Sustainable Development". The audience was made up of government officials (mostly from competition commissions or from commerce ministries) from Thailand, Bhutan, India, Myanmar, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Vietnam. Click here to view the programme schedule. Pranesh Prakash was also a speaker in the session on Consumer Protection and Digital Rights- Defining Welfare and Fair Competition.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/pranesh-prakash-as-resource-person-for-itd-seminar-on-competition

PPOs save placement-record as Christ Law’s 2nd graduating batch hosts fewer law firms

praskrishna — 2012-06-18T08:33:02Z

The number of recruiting law firms visiting Christ College of Law Bangalore slumped to two this year, but the second batch graduating from the college made it up in terms of pre placement offers (PPOs) to secure 21 total jobs, one short of the college’s debut recruitment record.

This blog post by Prachi Shrivastava was published in Legally India on June 10, 2012

Out of the 14 organisations hiring from a pool of 49 students registered with the recruitment coordination committee of 2012, J Sagar Associates (JSA) and Nishith Desai Associates (NDA) were the only law firms interviewing on campus. JSA hired one and NDA hired two students.

[Correction: The information supplied by the RCC previously, was partially incorrect. It has now clarified that JSA and NDA did not visit campus, but conducted off-campus interviews]

PXV Law Partners, BMR Advisors and Link Legal Advocates, each extending one PPO, and Murli Associates with two PPOs, were the only other law firms figuring in the RCC’s recruitment table this year.

Legal process outsourcing unit (LPO) Pangea3 was the biggest recruiter at the law school, hiring three students through campus and one through PPO. Clutch Group was the other LPO that visited campus and engaged two students.

Insurance companies also paid a visit: Prudent Insurance Brokers hired two students while Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Corporation made one hire.

Three non government organisations (NGOs) and a think tank each recruited the remaining four students. International human rights NGO Justice and Care, and domestic free school-teaching movement Teach for India picked one student each on campus, and wildlife-law enforcement NGO Freeland Wildlife Trust hired one student through PPO.

Bangalore-based think tank Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) engaged a student.

Four more RCC participants in the batch of 77, will pursue an LLM. The University of Singapore accepted two students, while Cornell University and George Washington University accepted one each.

Three students are known to have opted for court practice while one gears up to take the civil services examination.

Previously, at Christ

The first ever class graduating from the Bangalore law school last year, smaller in size by two students, saw 22 jobs for a pool of 52 students registered with the inaugural recruitment coordination committee.

Trilegal and Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan (LKS) were the biggest of the five law firms visiting campus last year, while GMR, Infosys and Roamware were the three local companies interviewing students on campus.

An LPO was the keenest recruiter at Christ last time as well, though CPA Global took the place of Pangea 3 which did not figure in last year’s recruitment table.

HNLU Raipur was the other law school where LPO Pangea3 was the heaviest recruiter this year, being the only one to visit the Abhanpur campus. The LPO hired three student’s from HNLU’s class of 2012.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/ppos-save-placement-record-as-christ-laws-2nd-graduating-batch-hosts-fewer-law-firms

Power to youth

praskrishna — 2012-11-06T06:10:57Z

The inclusion of young politicians in the recent reshuffle saw the average age of the Union Cabinet come down. But this is just the tip of the iceberg. Across sectors, a new order is emerging as the next generation takes over the reigns. It has been one of our biggest paradoxes - a country which has one of the youngest populations in the world has not been harnessing the energy, verve and change-making abilities of its young.

The article published in the Hindustan Times on November 3, 2012 names Sunil Abraham and Lawrence Liang as some of the young people who are shaping the future...

The Cabinet reshuffle saw the elevation of younger politicians to the higher echelons of power, but these new appointments symbolise the coming of age of an entire generation. Across other sectors too - business, entertainment, activism, publishing - the young are slowly but surely assuming power and extending their influence.

These people are in positions to change the way we live, think, work and play. The future is here. Here's a look at some of those who are shaping it...

1) Sachin Pilot, 35, corporate affairs minister
He is the youngest minister in UPA-II and a two-term MP. He recently became an officer in the Territorial Army. In the cabinet reshuffle, he was elevated to minister of state with independent charge of corporate affairs. He promised to look into corporate irregularities and wants corporate affairs to be an enabling ministry that reduces red tape.

2) Jyotiraditya Scindia, 41, power minister
He is a three-time MP. He has done much for his state, Madhya Pradesh, including computerising state post offices, strengthening BSNL services, setting up industries, and constructing roads. He recently took over the power ministry (independent charge) and said that rural electrification and fuel generation are his priorities.

3) Arvind Kejriwal, 44, activist-turned-politician
An IIT-Kharagpur graduate, he worked for the revenue service before becoming an activist. He joined the RTI movement. In 2006, set up his own NGO and was awarded the Ramon Magsaysay award for his contribution to RTI. In 2011, he successfully planned Anna Hazare's Lokpal movement. He recently launched his own political party.

4) Siddharth Roy Kapur, 38, MD, UTV Studios
One of the most powerful people in Indian entertainment, he was responsible for many hit films under the UTV banner including Jodhaa Akbar, Fashion, Dev D, Kaminey, Raajneeti, Udaan, Peepli [Live], Delhi Belly and in 2012, Paan Singh Tomar and India's entry to the Oscars, Barfi. He has also been instrumental in the strategic tie-up with Disney.

5) Manish Tewari, 47, Union I&B minister
Tewari is a first-time MP. He joined the Youth Congress in 1981 and became its president in 1998. After 2008, he became a popular choice to publicly articulate the party's views. In the reshuffle, he was given the information & broadcasting ministry with independent charge. He has set cable digitisation and the problem of paid news high on his agenda.

6) Cyrus Mistry, 43, deputy chairman, Tata Sons
Mistry will be 44 in December when he takes over Ratan Tata's mantle at Bombay House. He joined Shapoorji Pallonji & Co as director in 1991. He is considered more of an 'insider' in the Tata Group. A graduate of Imperial College, UK and London Business School, he has stayed away from the limelight for much of his career, not unlike Tata.

7) JBS Sangha, 44, agricultural entrepreneur
From a mere seven acres, his business has grown to 5500 acres, producing 55,000 tonnes of potatoes annually. A poster boy of Indian agriculture and a student of plant breeding, he took his father's business to a new heights using cutting-edge biotechnology. He uses newer cold storage techniques and opted for eco-friendly pest control.

8) Deepinder Goyal, 29, founder-CEO, Zomato.com
An IIT Delhi graduate, Goyal launched Foodiebay.com in 2008 as an online database of restaurant menus from the NCR. The site, now famous as Zomato.com, is India's largest online restaurant guide covering over 40,000 restaurants in 12 cities. The site even has smartphone applications for Apple, Windows, Android and Blackberry.

9) Anurag Kashyap, 40, film director
One of the most revered new-age directors of Indian cinema, Kashyap has transformed the way Bollywood movies are perceived. He has been instrumental in merging genres of realistic art-house cinema and mainstream commercial song-drama films. With powerful films such as Black Friday, Dev D, Gulaal and Gangs of Wasseypur, Kashyap is now recognised as a bankable film maker.

10) Ajay Dubey, 37, RTI and environmental activist
A Chhatisgarh resident, Dubey took the case of tiger conservation to its logical conclusion - a ban on tiger tourism in core areas. After his management degree, he took up activism and set up his own NGO, Prayatna, which started its first campaign for a ban on polythene. Of late, he has taken to legal advocacy fighting diverse cases such as environmental laws in mining, police reforms and other issues.

11) Shantanu Prakash, 47, founder, Educomp
He founded Educomp Solutions Ltd in 1994 after graduating from IIM-A. He began by setting up computer labs in schools on borrowed money. Educomp is a first-of-its-kind teacher-led educational content-based solution designed to improve learning. Featured in the Forbes 'Best Under a Billion' list, Prakash runs 27 offices worldwide working with over 26,000 schools and 15 million students.

12) Sachin Bansal, 31, CEO and co-founder of Flipkart
In 2007, Sachin and Binny Bansal (29) - pooled together Rs. 4 lakh to start an online bookstore, Flipkart.com. The venture was a high risk. But the Bansals (not related), IIT Delhi graduates, realised that quality of service was key - a lesson they learnt as engineers at Amazon.com. Four years down the line, Flipkart has roped in millions of dollars in investment becoming a successful e-retail store.

13) Hibi Eden, 29, green activist-MLA
Eden is the youngest of Kerala's green brigade of six young legislators who cried foul when the Planning Commission's Montek Singh Ahluwalia said Kerala should utilise its paddy fields for non-agricultural purposes. They started healthy debates on the environment, deforestation and criminalisation of politics. Their persistent campaign has forced the establishment to dump many environmentally hazardous programmes.

14) Akhilesh Yadav, 39, UP chief minister
He is the youngest ever CM of UP and the son of Samajwadi Party chief, Mulayam Singh Yadav. He has been widely credited with the party's thumping victory in the state assembly elections this year increasing their seats from 97 in 2007 to 224. He has attempted to move away from the image of 'goonda raj' (thug rule) which critics thought characterised Samajwadi's earlier regime.

15) Jeh Wadia, 37, managing director, GoAir
Wadia inherited an empire from his parents, Nusli and Maureen, and became one of the youngest chiefs in the aviation sector when he started GoAir, a low-cost airline, in 2005. He is currently the managing director of the 132-year-old textiles and retail business, Bombay Dyeing. He also sits on the boards of Brittania and Bombay Burmah. In 2008, the World Economic Forum elected him as a Young Global Leader.

16) Rakesh Senger, 38, child rights activist
Senger has saved a generation of children from exploitation - child labour, trafficking, organ trade and begging. A decade and a half into his calling, he helps the police raid places involved in child labour, disguises himself as a beggar to crack the children beggar mafia, and lobbies for children-friendly policies. His vision, with his organisation Bachpan Bachao Andolan, is to see every child in school.

17) VK Karthika, 44, chief editor-publisher, Harper Collins India
Karthika began her career as an editorial assistant at Penguin India after dropping out of JNU 15 years ago. She steered Harper Collins to its current position as a leading English-language publisher in India. Under her lead, Harper Collins has published successful writers like Rana Dasgupta (Solo), Manu Joseph (Serious Men) and Hussain Naqvi (Homeboy) and has nurtured a great deal of fresh writing talent.

18) Anurag Thakur, 38, MP and president, Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha
As a cricket administrator, he has put Himachal Pradesh on the world 'cricket map' by aiding the construction of a cricket stadium in Dharamsala, which has hosted three editions of the IPL. He is also promoting other games actively. "I see India as young nation with a billion dreams, ready to lead and inspire the world," he says.

19) Sunil Abraham, 39, executive director, Centre for Internet and Society
He started CIS in 2008 to deal with digital pluralism, public accountability and pedagogic practices. In 1998, he founded Mahiti, an IT and communication solutions firm. He was elected an Ashoka fellow to explore the internet's democratic potential. His activism focuses on limitations of the intellectual property rights regime, emerging alternatives and piracy.

20) Raj Thackeray, 44, founder, Maharashtra Navnirman Sena
He started his political career with his uncle and Shiv Sena-head Bal Thackeray, but left in 2006 to form the MNS. His politics is defined by protests against migrants, particularly from UP and Bihar. Thackeray and his party have been criticised for using violence and he faces several charges for incitement. His popularity rose after he won substantial votes in the recently held municipal elections.

21) Riyaaz Amlani, 37, CEO & MD, Impresario Entertainment & Hospitality
He runs more than 27 establishments including the likes of Salt Water Cafe, Mocha and Smoke House Grill across eight cities. An entertainment management graduate from UCLA, Amlani returned to develop Mumbai's first go-karting track. He worked with Pritish Nandy Communications before starting Impresario Entertainment & Hospitality, the company that owns the Mocha Cafè chain.

22) Lawrence Liang, 37, co-founder, Alternative Law Forum
Liang emerged as a voice against politics of "intellectual property". He is an Indian-Chinese legal researcher based in Bangalore and is known for his legal campaigns on public issues. Started in 2000, his forum provides legal support to people without access to legal services. It also conducts research on globalisation, urban studies, gender and intellectual property.

23) Francisco D'Souza, 43, CEO, Cognizant
D'Souza helped found the Nasdaq-100 company in 1994 and took over as CEO in 2007. During his tenure as Cognizant's CEO, revenues have grown from $1.4 billion to over $6 billion and the company has emerged as one of India's fastest growing tech companies. A son of an Indian diplomat, Francisco has lived in nine different countries and obtained his MBA degree from Carnegie-Mellon University.

24) Rohini Iyer, 32, MD, Raindrop Media
Her company is one of India's largest publicity firms. Most Bollywood A-listers are her clients and she is the publicist for three leading ladies - Katrina Kaif, Kareena Kapoor and Vidya Balan. Her other clients include Ranbir Kapoor, Abhishek Bachchan and John Abraham. Iyer has been featured in the Verve Power List, as well as Femina's list of 25 most powerful women in India, from the field of entertainment.

25) Milind Deora, 35, MoS telecom & IT
One of the youngest members of Lok Sabha, Deora was given additional charge of shipping in the recent Cabinet reshuffle. He says, "I think young people alone can't solve India's problems. There should be a good mix of experienced and young minds to bring about reforms and improve administration." He says he will work for making India a hub for ship maintenance and is also going to push for reforms in the telecom sector.

26) Lakshmi Venu, 29, executive-director, Sundaram Clayton
The daughter of TVS chairman Venu Srinivasan, Lakshmi is a topper from the Sishya School, Chennai, a Yale graduate and a PhD from the University of Warwick. She started as a management trainee in Sundaram Auto Components, a subsidiary of Sundaram Clayton, in 2003. She won her current position the hard way. She also had a stint with TVS Motor, another sub-division of the company.

27) SK Mahto, 38, deputy CM, Jharkhand
Head of the All Jharkhand Students Union Party, an ally in the BJP-led ruling coalition, he has been a minister in each government since Jharkhand's creation in 2000. His biggest achievements have been smooth conduct of the panchayat polls held in the state in 2009 after a gap of 29 long years and the 34th National Games held there last year. He is the undisputed leader of his party, which has six members in the state assembly.

28) Dhruv Ghanekar, 38, co-founder, Blue Frog
A composer by profession, he has co-created 3000 projects for ad films and alternative movies. His 2009 solo album Distance was a huge success. He has performed with famous musicians like Karl Peters, Louis Banks, Adrian D'Souza, Ustaad Zakir Hussain, AR Rahman, Etienne M'Bappe and Louis Banks. He now awaits the release of Broken Thread, an international film for which he has recorded music.

29) Chiki Sarkar, 35, Publisher, Penguin India
An Oxford graduate, Sarkar worked at Bloomsbury Publishing in London for seven years. In 2006, she became Editor-in-Chief of Random House India. Her picks that became award-winners include Shehan Karunatilaka's Chinaman, Mohammed Hanif's A Case of Exploding Mangoes and Aman Sethi's A Free Man. Last year, she took over as head of Penguin Books, India's largest English-language publishing house.

30) Glenn Saldanha, 41, CMD, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals
Saldanha joined the company after his father's demise in 1998 and became MD and CEO in 2001. Within a few years, he has transformed the company from just a local generics business to a research and innovation driven organisation. He has personally strategised the company's emergence as a leader in the discovery of new molecules.

31) Anirban Das Blah, 34, MD, CAA KWAN
KWAN is one of India's largest celebrity management firms. Under Blah's leadership, it tied up with Creative Artists Agency, the world's largest entertainment and sports agency. He specialises in motion films, television, music, commercial endorsements, sports consulting, licensing and merchandising. He represents many rising stars including Frieda Pinto, Dev Patel and other Indian celebrities.

Compiled by: Aurangzeb Naqshbandi, B Vijay Murty, Gaurav Choudhury, KV Lakshmana, Manjula Narayan, Nagendar Sharma, Naveen Ammembala, Neha Sharma, Neyaz Farooquee, Panna Saroopa, Rahul Noronha, Rajeev Bhaskar, Ranjan Srivastava, Samar Khurshid and Swati Chitnis.

This list is not in order of any ranking. The people chosen for this list are below 50 in age (except entertainment, where the cut-off age has been kept at 40 years).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/hindustan-times-india-news-new-delhi-nov-3-2012-power-to-youth

Power to the People

nishant — 2012-03-21T09:35:54Z

The digital revolution has helped make NGOs and civil society more influential, independent and transparent, writes Nishant Shah in this article published in the Indian Express on Sunday, May 15, 2011.

The rise and spread of internet and digital technologies has invigorated the voluntary sector in the country, granting them better mobility, access to resources and wider visibility through digital networks. With the rise of the internet, augmented by easy access, civil society needs to claim its stake in the World Wide Web. Visibility and presence have become the buzzwords. There is a concentrated effort to become a Simple, Moral, Accountable, Responsible and Transparent (SMART) organisation that doesn’t operate in remote silos but reaches out to an audience and a resource base.

While NGOs in the more developed countries have taken to digital technologies more easily, there is no doubt that the digital revolution has finally come to the civil society in India and it is offering unprecedented opportunities for social change and political participation. From the Bell Bajao campaign, which brought to the fore domestic violence in the urban middle class, to the recent demonstrations for Anna Hazare, we see many examples of the ways in which civil society and NGOs can still mobilise support from the public.

What has also been interesting is how collectives rather than registered organisations have played an important role in the public delivery of such campaigns.

Here is a look at three ways in which engagement with digital technologies, has led to new models of making public interventions and processes of initiating change for civil society collectives and NGOs.

Birds of a Feather

With the networked effect of the digital technologies, something as simple as building a Facebook page puts out the concerns and draws the attention and resources of a larger population. NGOs need no longer confine themselves to finding people in immediate environments and are extending their support base to large online networks. The Bangalore-based Blank Noise Project that started off as a public art intervention by Jasmeen Patheja has now emerged as a large volunteer-based network that harnesses the power of peer-to-peer networks to mobilise young urban dwellers, to talk about gender, safety and urban space. Not yet a formal NGO, it uses blogs, Twitter, Facebook, mailing lists etc. in order to bring people together for public interventions as well as digital dissemination. With more than 4,000 volunteers running the project in different cities, BNP proves the power of the Web to find “people like us” for a common cause.

Beyond Patronage

With the kind of outreach and visibility afforded by the internet, NGOs are turning to public support and individual contributions to carry out their work. Take Kickstarter, for example — a site where any NGO wanting to launch a creative project, can put up a project description and a budget. They can then invite people from around the world to “pledge” money by swiping credit cards, beginning with a contribution of $5. If, within a given time-span, enough people pledge enough money to cover the project’s budget, the organisation receives the money through electronic transfers. They become, thus, accountable not to individual donors or private development agencies. Instead, they become transparent and responsible towards the larger public who, as stakeholders and supporters can now endorse, amplify and track the activities of the organisation.

Transparency Unlimited

With the rise of information technologies, citizens have started asking for more details about organisations that seek to represent them in different sectors. It has become necessary for NGOs to become accountable at two levels — one is at the level of financial integrity and the second is at the level of public responsibility. The consortium Credibility Alliance is one example by which the voluntary sector can disclose certain minimum information to its public in order to build transparent governance structures. NGOs have also become more sensitive to the politics of representation and how to involve communities they work with, in their processes rather than becoming self-appointed vanguards. The field of collaboration has opened up and we see the rise of networks rather than individual players in the field.

Digital and internet technologies amplify, augment and enhance the existing processes. In the voluntary sector, like almost any other walk of life, many of these practices already exist. What these systems of the digital age have done is provide new ways by which the everyday citizen can participate and contribute to the processes of change.

Read the original published by the Indian Express here

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

Power over privacy: New Personal Data Protection Bill fails to really protect the citizen’s right to privacy

Nikhil Pahwa — 2019-12-15T05:57:31Z

Nikhil Pahwa throws light on the new personal data protection bill.

The article by Nikhil Pahwa was published in the Times of India on December 12, 2019. CIS report was mentioned.

Earlier this year, in April, a data breach in the Election Commission of Philippines led to the leakage of personal information of over 55 million eligible voters on a searchable website: including names, addresses and date of birth. This was not the first data breach from the Election Commission. After the first, which took place in March 2016, where 340 GB of voter data was published online by a group of hackers called LulzSec Pilipinas, the National Privacy Commission of Philippines found that the Election Commission had violated the Data Privacy Act of 2012, and recommended criminal prosecution of its chairman, finding him liable when the agency failed to dispense its duty as a “personal information controller”.

It’s 2019, and that recommendation has still not been acted upon, because the National Privacy Commission of Philippines only has recommendatory powers for criminal prosecution. Meanwhile, data breaches continue at the Election Commission of Philippines.

Between 2017 and 2018, Aadhaar related personally identifiable data of several Indian citizens, including names, addresses, bank account numbers, in some cases pregnancy information and even religion and caste information of individuals, was published online by Indian government departments. The Centre for Internet and Society, in a report, estimated that personally identifiable data for 130-135 million Indian citizens had been leaked, thus putting them at risk. 210 government websites had made Aadhaar related data public, UIDAI confirmed in response to an RTI in 2017.

No one was held liable. There was no data protection law, no data protection authority, no criminal prosecution was recommended. Around that time, the Indian government was instead arguing in the Supreme Court that privacy isn’t a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution.

What we can learn from these two instances is that for the enforcement of a citizen’s right to privacy, and ensuring that no one takes the protection of data lightly, there needs to be a strong privacy law that holds even the government responsible, and above all, a strong data protection authority that is independent and has powers to penalise even government officials. On some of these counts, the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019, disappoints.

First, members of the Data Protection Authority will no longer be appointed by independent entities from diverse backgrounds: where they were previously going to be appointed by a committee comprising the Chief Justice of India or a Supreme Court judge, the Cabinet secretary, and an independent expert, the power to appoint members to DPA now rests solely with government officials, including the appointment of adjudicating officers. In addition, the central government, in the interest of “national security, sovereignty, international relations and public order, can issue directions to DPA, which DPA will be bound by. Powers of DPA have also been reduced: while in the previous version of the bill, DPA had the sole power to categorise data as sensitive personal data, in the current version, the power rests with the central government, albeit in consultation with DPA. The central government will also notify any social media company as a significant data fiduciary, and not DPA. Only the central government can determine what critical personal data is, and not DPA.

This dependence on the government for appointments, functions and definitions, will invariably impact the independence of DPA, and even though the 2019 version of the bill gives it the authority to fine the state a maximum of Rs 5-15 crore, depending on the offence, i’d be surprised if this ever happens.

The bill does create significant exceptions for the state to acquire and process data, and an opportunity to create a base for surveillance reform in the country has been lost. The previous version of the bill had brought some sense of safety against mass surveillance, when it included the condition that processing of data by the government must be “necessary and proportionate”, drawing from Supreme Court’s historic right to privacy judgment. This is particularly important given that the bill also gives power to the government to exempt any agency from the provisions of the bill for processing of personal data, which includes acquiring data from any public or private entity.

Effectively, this means that government agencies may be exempt from any scrutiny by DPA, and can even collect data from third parties (for example, fin-tech companies, health-tech startups) without the user even knowing. Forget recommending criminal prosecution for mass surveillance, India’s DPA won’t even be able to fine a government agency for such a violation of the fundamental right to privacy. The government also has vast exceptions for data processing: “for the performance of any function of the state authorised by law”.

This aside, one of the more curious clauses in the bill is around non-personal data. The government, a few months ago, constituted a committee led by Infosys co-founder Kris Gopalakrishnan to look into the governance of non-personal data. Non-personal data, as the term suggests, is any data that is not related to an individual. In the bill, the government has given itself the right to acquire this data, which is essentially a company’s intellectual property, to “promote framing of policies for digital economy”. Why non-personal data finds a mention in a Personal Data Protection Bill is beyond comprehension, and this move will not inspire much confidence in businesses operating in India, when the state claims eminent domain over intellectual property.

It’s unfortunate minister Ravi Shankar Prasad is sending the bill to a select committee, given the fact that such significant changes to the bill should have led to another public consultation.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-times-of-india-december-12-2019-power-over-privacy

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

Post-website attack, cops hot on pursuit of Anonymous hackers

praskrishna — 2012-08-06T09:51:11Z

The cyber crime wing has formed special teams to nab the hackers who attacked and stole data from the Tamil Nadu police website.

The article was published in the Times of India on July 11, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

"We have submitted a formal complaint to trace the hacker," said additional director general of police (ADGP-State Crime Records Bureau) Ashish Bhengra after a high-level meeting on Tuesday led by director general of Police K Ramanujam. The meeting discussed the precautionary steps to prevent similar incidents.

The hacktivist collective Anonymous said on Tuesday that they hacked the TN police's website to protest internet censorship by the government of India. On July 8, the group released a set of files containing complaints made by public to the TN police and action taken by officials. "This is less about TN police and more about a continuing protest," said members of the group in an internet relay chat to TOI. The group said apart from certain Internet service providers, the government continued to censor the internet.

"If our protest is not respected for the very real and constitutional questions it raises, then we throw more and more areas open where wrongdoing may be found," said a member.

The group's India wing posted links to the leaked documents under its Twitter handle 'opindia_revenge' on Sunday night. The files show a range of complaints filed by the public -- from fleecing of passengers by autorickshaw drivers, property disputes, grouses from police personnel and instances of missing mobile phones and people. The complaints have been filed from across Tamil Nadu, including Chennai, Coimbatore, Madurai, and even places such as Uttarakhand and Kuwait.

The group has redacted phone numbers and email ids in some cases but has left other data like name and address. The documents also have details of action taken by the police -- from forwarding the case to the respective police station to digging up information on accused persons.

Anonymous India, which has done a series of virtual sit-ins on government and corporate websites, has only a few high-profile hacking operations in India. In May, it hacked the servers of Reliance Communications, preventing users from accessing social media websites. The group also released a list of websites that were allegedly blocked by Reliance. The group started attacking official websites to protest what it called 'censorship' of the internet that snowballed after a Madras High Court 'John Doe' order to prevent movie piracy. Anonymous also organised a protest march on June 9 at various Indian cities.

However, the latest attack inconveniences public and damages the cause, said users. "Anonymous consists of a large bunch of activists who gained some credibility in India after they organised offline protests. But this operation doesn't serve any purpose and brings down their credibility as details of those who filed complaints have been revealed," said Pranesh Prakash, lawyer and programme manager at The Centre for Internet and Society, a Bangalore-based research organisation.

According to a member of Anonymous, people are afraid of thinks that they are not aware of. "Some were angry at us for leaking data from Reliance. But if criticism is justified, we will make sure it doesn't happen again," said the member.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/post-website-attack

Post and be Damned

praskrishna — 2012-11-19T03:40:46Z

Your careless comments online could put you in jail, thanks to Section 66A of the Information Technology Act. Kavitha Shanmugam examines a law that some critics say is vague and unconstitutional

Kavita Shanmugham's column was published in the Telegraph on November 14, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

Two weeks ago, S. Ravi, owner of a small plastic packaging unit in Puducherry, was rudely woken up by the police at 5am, manhandled and arrested. Reason: Ravi had posted a couple of unflattering comments about Karti Chidambaram, son of finance minister P. Chidambaram, on Twitter. He had tweeted that Chidambaram Junior "had amassed more wealth than Robert Vadra".

Ravi was arrested under Section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2008, and hauled up before a judicial magistrate who remanded him to nine days in custody. "It was then that I became really scared," says Ravi, who is out on bail.

A casual tweeter with just 16 followers, Ravi believes he did nothing wrong. “I was using a statement that was already there on the Internet. They could have sent me a lawyer’s notice or investigated the complaint before taking action,” argues Ravi, whose Twitter following has now jumped to 2,518.

"My tweet was retweeted by 20,000 people, who dared the authorities to arrest them too," he adds indignantly, terming Section 66A a “draconian law" with "wide scope for misuse".

Ravi is not alone in denouncing Section 66A of the IT Act. Indeed, there is now a huge outcry against the law, with a section of legal and cyber experts saying that it is nothing but a useful tool in the hands of the powers that be to curb freedom of speech and expression online.

At the same time, there are those who believe that online abuse or defamation cannot masquerade as freedom of speech and that the law is necessary to move against those who commit this offence.

Karti Chidambaram, for one, believes that Ravi’s tweet was motivated and defamatory. "The tweeter made one tweet in 78 days. It was about me. It clearly implied that I am corrupt. That is malicious. So I preferred a complaint to the police. The law exists. I didn’t frame the law," he says.

Section 66A of the IT Act lays down that a person can be punished with up to three years’ imprisonment if he or she sends offensive information or messages through a computer resource or communication device. The problem arises because it fails to clarify what can be termed "offensive". For example, information that is "grossly offensive" or has "menacing character” or information disseminated for the “purpose of causing annoyance and inconvenience" are all brought under the ambit of "offensive". This leaves the law wide open for various interpretations and abuse. "It’s too vaguely worded," insists M. Lenin, a lawyer advising volunteers of India Against Corruption in Chennai. “Any online statement can be declared 'offensive' and any tweet may be deemed ‘inconvenient’. The section has become a convenient tool for the police to harass people."

Section 66A of the IT Act lays down that a person can be punished with up to three years’ imprisonment if he or she sends offensive information or messages through a computer resource or communication device. The problem arises because it fails to clarify what can be termed "offensive". For example, information that is "grossly offensive" or has "menacing character” or information disseminated for the “purpose of causing annoyance and inconvenience" are all brought under the ambit of "offensive". This leaves the law wide open for various interpretations and abuse.

"It’s too vaguely worded," insists M. Lenin, a lawyer advising volunteers of India Against Corruption in Chennai. “Any online statement can be declared 'offensive' and any tweet may be deemed ‘inconvenient’. The section has become a convenient tool for the police to harass people."

Earlier this year, Section 66A was also invoked, among other laws, to arrest Jadavpur University professor Ambikesh Mahapatra for forwarding an email cartoon of West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee.

Indeed, some experts go a step further and call Section 66A patently unconstitutional. Says Pranesh Prakash, policy director, Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, "It’s clearly in violation of Article 19(1)(a) of our Constitution that guarantees freedom of speech. The fact that some information is ‘grossly offensive’ (Section 66A) or that it causes ‘annoyance’ or ‘inconvenience’ while being known to be false (Section 66A(c)) cannot be a reason for curbing freedom of speech unless it is directly related to violating decency, morality or public order, or amounts to defamation."

However, apologists for Section 66A argue that the law has its merits too in that it can be used to move against genuine incidents of harassment or defamation online. Take the case of Chinmayee Sripada, a popular Chennai-based playback singer. Chinmayee, who has one lakh followers on Twitter, was targeted by a group of six men who sent her lewd and threatening tweets for a period of time. Apparently, they were upset with her remarks on reservation and for not joining them in a Twitter campaign against the killing of Tamil Nadu fishermen by the Sri Lankan navy.

Recently, Chinmayee complained to the police with “thousands of pages of ugliness and vulgarity” and the trolls, including a professor at the National Institute of Fashion Technology, Chennai, were identified and arrested under Section 66A.

The offending tweeters apologised to her and closed their accounts after the arrest. "I believe Section 66A belled the cat. The arrest made people realise that Twitter also demands self-regulation. In the name of freedom of speech there is zero control on platforms like Twitter. There should be some boundaries," says Chinmayee’s mother T. Padmahasini.

Ramachandra Murthy, Ravi’s lawyer, too believes that Section 66A is a "good tool" for genuine cases of harassment. "Unfortunately, it is being misused by influential people. Still, if you are innocent the case can never hold up in court," he reasons.

Others question the need for a separate law to deal with cases of online defamation or harassment when the Indian Penal Code already has provisions to tackle them. New Delhi-based lawyer Apar Gupta cites the examples of Section 500, 499 and 294 of the IPC which deal with defamation or committing obscene acts in public. "Section 66A only makes the burden on the accused harsher," he adds.

While some IT experts want Section 66A scrapped, others say that it should at least be amended. “Even if the section is not struck off the statute books, the provisions in it may be read down by the courts and safeguards may be prescribed in its application,” says Gupta.

Until that happens, mistaking social media platforms for online drawing rooms where you can indulge in all kinds of freewheeling chat could be fraught with danger.

Justice A.P. Shah, a former chief justice of the Delhi High Court, echoes that view. "Section 66A is very broad and loosely worded. The scope of such a law has to be restricted. Instead, it is vague and clearly violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution that guarantees freedom of speech and expression," he says.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/telegraphindia-opinion-story-kavitha-shanmugham-nov-14-2012-post-and-be-damned

Portal augurs well for transparency

praskrishna — 2011-07-26T15:16:47Z

Data.gov.in will have meta-data, which will facilitate discovery of data and access from portals of ministries, says T Ramachandra. The article was published in the Hindu on 25 July 2011.

The unveiling of an official data access and sharing policy and the commissioning of a data portal (data.gov.in), which is on the anvil, will pave the way for digitally opening up the Central government data to the public.

"The data portal will be having meta-data [data about data], which will facilitate the discovery of the data and access from the portals of respective government departments/ministries. At present, the data policy is likely to cover the Central government and all activities funded by the Government of India," said R. Siva Kumar, CEO of National Spatial Data Infrastructure, and head of Natural Resources Data Management System, Department of Science and Technology.

Governmental data-holding organisations will prepare a negative list of non-shareable sensitive data, weighing the need to restrict public access given such considerations as security and privacy, against the obligation to share it with civil society and the scientific community. Apart from this, access to certain categories of data will be restricted.

The broad guidelines spelt out in the Right to Information Act will be followed and the list will be periodically reviewed. "All data outside the negative list will be proactively disseminated, and an oversight committee will facilitate policy implementation," said Dr. Kumar.

But does this mean that the public have to make specific requests for the unlocking of data-sets? “Data will be available through the data portal, and there will be no specific unlocking required. However, access to certain data may be through registration/authorisation,” he responded.

The sharing of such data might be tied to a pricing policy. "Pricing will be decided by the respective department/ministry. However, standardised parameters will be made available as guidelines for fixing the price," he said.

The draft of the proposed National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy the government published some time ago indicates that the departments themselves can decide whether the data belongs to the ‘open access', ‘registered access,' or ‘restricted access' categories, with the policy neither mandating nor coming up with guidelines on how to do so, said Pranesh Prakash, programme manager, Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), a Bangalore-based NGO.

The CIS has recommended that the policy have the same scope as the RTI Act, and that all ‘public authorities,' as defined under the Act, be covered by it. Only the restricted categories (laid down in Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act) should be allowable for ‘restricted access.'

In a study on open government data in the Indian context, the CIS suggested that any policy be oriented towards meeting the requirements of a broad spectrum of citizenry. Specifically, sections that do not get to immediately benefit from advances in information technology. “Data mashing and private sector information products are important goals,” but the government itself should be proactive in creating the applications that show potential uses for the data.

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), the global body that sets web standards, has said governments, by putting their data on the Internet, facilitate greater transparency, deliver more efficient public services and encourage greater public and commercial use and re-use of government information.

Anil Bairwal, National Coordinator of the Association for Democratic Reforms, which is involved in disseminating election-related data through its website Electionwatch, says there is “huge public interest” in data, and that accessibility was of prime importance. For instance, election-related data was made available by the authorities in the PDF/image file formats. “This forces us to do a manual interpretation of every affidavit, which consumes a lot of time and energy. It would be helpful if this data was available in a portable open format via an online tool.”

Other countries have already made strides in furthering open data. Prominent examples are the U.K. government website, data.gov.uk, and the U.S. government's www.data.gov website, which is key to President Barack Obama's Open Government Initiative.

Read the original article published in the Hindu here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/portal-augurs-well-for-transparency

Porn. Panic. Ban: A Conversation on Sexual Expression, Pornography, Sexual Exploitation, Consent

praskrishna — 2015-11-29T07:36:58Z

Point of View and the Internet Democracy Project organized a conference to hold and facilitate an informed conversation on sexual expression, pornography, sexual exploitation and consent. Rohini Lakshané was a speaker. Tanveer Hasan also attended this conference held in New Delhi from October 28 to 30, 2015.

The conference was a first attempt to have an in-depth civil society conversation - among activists, lawyers, researchers working on either gender, sexuality or internet rights, or at their intersections. For more information on the event visit the Internet & Democracy website. Rohini presented her research on online amateur pornography and consent.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/porn-panic-ban-a-conversation-on-sexual-expression-pornography-sexual-exploitation-consent

Porn block in India sparks outrage

pranesh — 2015-08-05T02:10:46Z

India’s government has triggered a storm of protest after blocking 857 alleged pornography websites, with privacy and internet freedom campaigners, as well as consumers, condemning the move as arbitrary and unlawful.

The article by Amanda Hodge was published in the Australian on August 5, 2015. Pranesh Prakash gave his inputs.

The order, enforced since Sunday by the country’s main internet service providers, comes amid debate about the influence of pornography on sex crime in India, and as the Supreme Court considers a petition by lawyer Kamlesh Vaswani to ban pornographic websites that harm children.

The government has been forced to defend the move, saying it was taken in response to Supreme Court criticism at inaction against child pornography websites, although the Supreme Court itself has refused to impose any interim ban while it considers the petition. The websites — a fraction of the world’s millions of internet pornography sites — will remain blocked until the government figures out how to restrict access, a spokesman said.

Critics have slammed the measure as unconstitutional and pointed out the list includes adult humour sites that contain no pornographic content. Others have suggested it is another intrusion into the private lives of ordinary Indians by an administration intent on pushing a puritanical Hindu agenda, citing the recent ban on beef in several states and an alleged “Hindu-isation” of school textbooks.

That prompted outrage from Telecom Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad. “I reject with contempt the charge that it is a Talibani government. Our government supports free media, respects communication on social media and has respected freedom of communication always,” he said.

While India has no law preventing citizens accessing internet pornography, regulations do restrict the publishing of “obscene information in electronic form”. Centre for Internet and Society policy director Pranesh Prakash told The Australian yesterday that some elements of that act were welcome — such as prohibition of child pornography and the uploading of a person’s private parts without consent — but “the provisions relating to ‘sexually explicit materials’ are far too broad, with no exceptions made for art, architecture, education or literature”.

Mr Prakash said the pornography ban amounted to an “abdication of the government’s duty”, given the list of sites blocked was provided on request to the government by one of the Vaswani petitioners. “The additional solicitor-general essentially asked one of the petitioners to provide a list of websites, which she passed on to the Department of Information Technology, which in turn passed to Department of Telecommunications asking for them to be blocked or disabled.

“That is not acceptable in a democracy where it is not the government which has actually found any of these websites to be unlawful.” Mr Prakash also criticised the secrecy surrounding the order, which he said contravened Indian law requiring a public declaration of any intended ban so that it might be challenged. The bans were made under “Rule 12” of India’s IT Act, which empowers the government to force ISPs to block sites when it is “necessary or expedient”.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-australian-news-august-5-2015-amanda-hodge-porn-block-in-india-sparks-outrage

Porn ban: People will soon learn to circumvent ISPs and govt orders, expert says

pranesh — 2015-08-05T01:47:52Z

The article by Karthikeyan Hemalatha was published in the Times of India on August 2. Pranesh Prakash gave inputs.

The government used other sections of the Act to circumvent this provision. Sources in the Department of Telecommunication, which comes under the ministry of communications and information technology, said a notification had been issued under Section 79 (b) of IT Act under which internet service providers could be penalized for not following government orders. "Though the section protects an internet service provider (ISP) from legal action for the content it may allow, it can be penalized for not following government orders to ban them," said Prakash.

Last month, the Supreme Court declined to pass an interim order to block websites which have pornographic content. "Such interim orders cannot be passed by this court. Somebody may come to the court and say 'look I am above 18 and how can you stop me from watching it within the four walls of my room?' It is a violation of Article 21 [right to personal liberty]," said Chief Justice H L Dattu.

The judge was reacting to a public interest litigation filed by advocate Kamlesh Vashwani who was seeking to block porn websites in the country. "The issue is definitely serious and some steps need to be taken. The Centre is expected to take a stand. Let us see what stand the Centre will take," the Chief Justice said and directed the Centre to reply within four weeks. Over the weekend, the stance became clear.

Sources also say that Section 19 (2) of the Constitution was used for the ban. The section allows the government to impose "reasonable restrictions in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court."

For netizens, the government could actually be providing crash courses on proxy sites. "This is the best way to teach people on how to circumvent ISPs and government orders," said Prakash, adding that real abusive porn sites might still be available.

"There is no dynamic mechanism to block all sites with pornographic content. The government has to individually pick URLs (uniform resource locator) to ban websites. Right now, only popular websites have been banned and the little known abusive sites like those that propagate revenge porn or child porn," said Prakash. "No ban can be comprehensive," he added.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-times-of-india-august-2-2015-karthikeyan-hemalatha-porn-ban

Poor Guarantee of Online Freedom in India

praskrishna — 2012-06-17T04:18:26Z

The debate over the "Intermediaries Guidelines" as part of the Information Technology Act, 2000 in Parliament brought focus to the issue of censorship and lack of accountability of governing bodies vis-à-vis the internet in the country. This cannot be divorced from the larger questions related to the threats to freedom of expression from both the state and various societal actors today.

This article by Geeta Seshu was published in the Economic & Political Weekly, Vol XLVII No. 24, June 2012.

An annulment motion against the Information Technology (Inter-mediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 moved by Member of Parliament (MP) P Rajeev of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) in the Rajya Sabha, was the first serious attempt by internet freedom activists to get the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000 discussed and reviewed by the country’s lawmakers.

Not unexpectedly, the motion, specifically against the rules governing intermediaries – clause (zg) of subsection (2) of Section 87 read with subsection (2) of Section 79 of the >IT Act, 2000 – was not carried. However, the discussion that preceded it at least demonstrated the concerns of parliamentarians about what internet freedom activists have termed the “draconian” provisions of the IT Act.

It is about time, really, that parliamentarians sit down to review what they very quickly acquiesced to in December 2009. It is also about time that the debate over the provisions of the IT Act be conducted in the public domain, instead of in closed-door meetings with expert groups and committees comprising a narrow set of stakeholders favoured by the government or its various wings.

The discussion in the Rajya Sabha largely centred around the vague and sweeping terminology of the range of content that anyone could take objection to. P Rajeev said that while he supported the regulation of the internet, he was not in favour of its control. The rules were ultra vires the IT Act, he said. Echoing his concern, leader of the opposition Arun Jaitley of the Bharatiya Janata Party, D Raja of the Communist Party of India and N K Singh of the Janata Dal (United) – to name just a few – also said that the internet was different from other media and censoring it was untenable.

Finally, union minister for information technology, Kapil Sibal, was forced to give an assurance to the house that he would call a meeting of MPs, industry and all stakeholders and implement whatever consensus emerges after a discussion on the specific words members had objections to.

There was no mention from the minister on a host of other problem areas in the rules as they are currently framed, including the very sweeping definition of an “intermediary” itself (any entity which on behalf of another receives, stores or transmits any electronic record – which means internet service providers, web hosting providers, search engines, online payment sites, cybercafes and bloggers too). No mention either of the rules for intermediaries to takedown notices within 36 hours of receiving a complaint, irrespective of whether these are fair and reasonable. No mention of whether the rules need to provide procedures for hearing and adjudicating complaints before any content is taken down.

The IT Guidelines

In several ways, the rules have gone way beyond what was laid down in the IT Act, but they also add considerably to the original reasonable restrictions laid down under Article 19 (2) of the Constitution of India. Some of the terms that can invite objections under the guidelines are:

(a) Belongs to another person and to which the user does not have any right to; (b) grossly harmful, harassing, blasphemous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, paedophiliac, libellous, invasive of another’s privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically objectionable, disparaging, relating or encouraging money laundering or gambling, or otherwise unlawful in any manner whatever; (c) harm minors in any way; (d) infringes any patent, trademark, copyright or other proprietary rights; (e) violates any law for the time being in force; (f) deceives or misleads the addressee about the origin of such messages or communicates any information which is grossly offensive or menacing in nature; (g) impersonate another person; (h) contains software viruses or any other computer code, files or programmes designed to interrupt, destroy or limit the functionality of any computer resource; (i) threatens the unity, integrity, defence, security or sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign states, or public order or causes incitement to the commission of any cognisable offence or prevents investigation of any offence or is insulting any other nation.

With this wide-ranging and entirely arbitrary set of potential violations, the possibility of misuse is also immense. In its comments submitted in response to the draft rules, Privacy India and the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) pointed out that Sections 79(1) and (2) of the amended IT Act itself did provide for exemptions for third party liabilities of intermediaries, something that the rules have now virtually set aside.[1]

Other comments submitted by these organisations about security and privacy of cybercafe users deal with minors and with the general architecture of cybercafes. In the first instance, the organisations expressed concern that undue restrictions on the use of the internet by minors (photo identity cards, accompanied by adults, etc) would hamper their access to the internet and would actually discourage poorer children from using the internet.

In the second instance, the detailed restrictions on the layout of the cybercafés – the height of cabins and the directions of the screens, etc, would, they felt, be intrusive and violate the privacy of internet users in cybercafes. Besides, vulnerable sections like sexual minorities or HIV positive patients may even be open to identity theft, they feared.

The discussion on the rules unfortunately did not come close to addressing these fears. While the lawmakers generally accepted the importance of regulation of the internet and electronic communication, there is still very little clarity on exactly how this must be done, the extent to which regulation must take place and the agency that will be entrusted with this task.

The IT Act, 2000 was first passed in an era when the country was transitioning to an electronic age. E-commerce was uppermost in the minds of policymakers, their eyes firmly fixed on the new economy. But soon enough, it was clear that technology was developing rapidly and an expert committee was constituted to revise the act and suggest amendments that would incorporate technological changes.

Lack of Accountability

In the wake of the 26 November 2008 attack in Mumbai, national security and intelligence were powerful emotional catchwords and few questioned some of the sweeping provisions laid down by the rules under the IT Act. While the annulment motion focuses on the pernicious nature of the guidelines for intermediaries, this is only one amongst a series of rules that seek to change the very manner in which Indians can access and use the internet. Other rules relate to decrypting, monitoring and blocking of communication, data security and privacy (Section 69: interception, monitoring and decryption of information, Section 69 A: blocking, Section 69 B: monitoring of traffic data or information) and of course, the complete absence of checks and balances for the powers given to authorities like Computer Emergency Response Team India (CERT-In).

In fact, there has been little or no review of the responsibility vested in an agency like CERT-In, which describes itself as the nodal agency to oversee the security of the nation. Conflating security concerns with content that may be objectionable to some is one thing but also providing this agency with the powers to block sites without even the creators of these sites getting to know about it is another.

Most of our attention today is on the censorship rampant on the internet in India. Most recently, there have been several instances of internet sites being blocked and takedown notices sent to bloggers. In the last few months, we have had the arbitrary blocking of the website cartoonsagainstcorruption.com which was run by Kanpur-based cartoonist Aseem Trivedi, the arrest of Jadavpur University professor Ambikesh Mohapatra and the controversial move last year by the Indian government to get internet service providers to remove so-called objectionable content on Facebook, Orkut and Youtube, apart from other sites. A complaint against these sites by journalist Vinay Rai followed soon after, though it strangely did not invoke provisions of the IT Act, preferring to cite alleged violations under the Indian Penal Code.

Trivedi did not even know that his site was blocked till some friends called him to tell him that they could not access his site. After an exchange of emails with his webhost, the portal “Big Rock”, he was informed that the site was suspended because it contained cartoons that showed disrespect to national emblems. A complaint had been received by Mumbai’s cybercrime cell by a Mumbai-based advocate, R P Pandey. The Kanpur resident also learnt later from newspaper reports that another case, this time under charges of sedition, were lodged against him in Beed district of Maharashtra.

While this method of embroiling someone in cases in far-flung geographical areas is not new (the complaint by the Indian Institute of Planning and Management against New Delhi-based Caravan magazine in Silchar, Assam is a good case in point), Trivedi quickly moved the content on his site onto another blogging platform, also got together friends and supporters to launch “Saveyourvoice”, an online and offline campaign, with a cheeky celebration of All Fool’s Day on 1 April 2012 with a greeting to the minister Kapil Sibal “for his foolish attempts to try censoring internet” and another campaign – “Freedom in a cage” – at Jantar Mantar, Delhi, in April 2012.

Other internet freedom activists have got together to secure information on censorship. Last year, a right-to-information (RTI) application by the CIS revealed that 11 websites were blocked on orders from the department of information technology. A writ petition against the IT Act has been filed in the Kerala High Court and the Software Freedom Law Centre, which was instrumental in campaigning for the annulment motion in the Rajya Sabha, has launched an online petition against the IT Act rules that refers to government authority to censor facebook posts, monitor emails and skype conversations, access private information and mine sensitive personal data.[2]

Governments the world over are exercised about the need to impose restrictions on online freedom and a good indication is the bi-annual Google Transparency Report that monitors the number and categories of requests sent by different governments to take down content. In the last report for the period January to June 2011, the report recorded requests to remove 358 items and 68 content removal requests, 58% of which were fully or partially complied with. In addition, there were government requests to remove Youtube videos that were protests against local leaders or used offensive language against religious leaders, besides 236 communities and profiles from Orkut which were critical of a local politician.

Interestingly, while content removal requests for the Orkut profiles remained as Google maintained it did not fit its own community standards or local law, Google chose to “locally” restrict the videos that may incite enmity between communities. With minor variations, this is a stance adopted by other online companies, like Facebook and Twitter, with the latter coming out with a policy earlier this year that it would remove content that appeared to violate local laws.

In the struggle to keep the internet free and protect communication from surveillance and blocking by governments, it would be naive to expect commercially-driven internet companies to put up much of a stand. Most of these stakeholders have agreed with lawmakers that the internet does need regulation. On their part, the Indian government, which has flexed its desire to regulate the internet, has also been sensitive to criticism of its role in censoring online freedom. Other stakeholders – the vast community of users of the internet, bloggers, website hosts, creators and producers of online videos, file-sharers, software developers, etc, are only engaged in a race to protect their content and shift it to more amenable sites every time they run into trouble.

Threats to Freedom of Expression

However, it must be noted that the censorship of online media is but a reflection of the curbs on freedom of expression in general. The attacks on freedom of expression in “offline” media, the attacks on journalists and the deaths of eight journalists since 2010,[3] the alarming regularity with which we are witnessing a ban on books and cinema, art or theatre, the increasing intolerance of dissenting or differing opinions in society, the abject fear of free and independent debate and discussion and the role of the government in actively furthering this intolerance are suggestive of a dangerous trend.

Almost all these instances are marked by the clear absence of any due procedure in addressing the content that becomes objectionable to someone or some sections of society, instead arbitrarily and speedily removing this content from the public domain. Whether it is the withdrawal of Rohinton Mistry’s book Such a Long Journey, a prescribed textbook by Bombay University, midway through the academic year, or that of recent issue of the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) textbook on the Constitution of India, institutional redressal mechanisms were simply not given a chance.

The woeful absence of similar redressal mechanisms for so-called objectionable content under the rules of the amended IT Act only exacerbates this situation further.

Notes

[1].http://privacyindia.org/2011/03/10/comments-on-the-information-technology-guidelines-for-cyber-cafe-rules-2011/
[2].www.softwarefreedom.org
[3].The Free Speech Hub, which has been tracking violations of freedom of expression as part of a project from the media-watch site, The Hoot (www.thehoot.org), has this list: Hemchandra Pandey (July 2010), Bimala Prasad Talukdar (September 2010), Sushil Pathak (December 2010), Umesh Rajput (January 2011), J Dey (June 2011), Ramesh Singhla (October 2011), Chandrioka (February 2012) and Rajesh Mishra (March 2012).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/poor-guarantee-of-online-freedom-in-india

Political war on the web

praskrishna — 2012-09-05T05:27:24Z

Twitter is not only the ‘people’s voice’. It is also a forum for orchestrated propaganda.Kunal Majumder tracks the BJP-Congress online duel.

Kunal Majumder's article was published in Tehelka Magazine, Vol 9, Issue 36, Dated 08 Sept 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

New battlelines Digvijaya Singh (left) and Sushma Swaraj are active tweeples
Photos: Shailendra Pandey

ON 27 August, as the Congress and the BJP battled it out in Parliament and later through news conferences, the story on Twitter was a bit different. Congress supporters, who had been at the receiving end of the ‘Coalgate’ issue so far, finally started hitting back. Adopting a strategy they had so far been accusing right-wingers of, they launched into an all-out attack on anyone who supported the BJP. Every tweet was hashtagged with #RIPBJP. At the end of the day, #RIPBJP was trending, making it the most successful Congress campaign against the BJP — a first on Twitter.

“The social media battle against the BJP has just begun,” says a Congress supporter associated with the new project. “In the days to come, you will see our volunteers in a more combative mode.” However, he says it will not “replicate the negative campaign of the right-wing”.

The Congress’ social media strategy is spearheaded by its tech-savvy General Secretary Digvijaya Singh. On Twitter for nearly nine months, Singh has been readying to take on the BJP on its own turf and influence the ‘voice of people’. Though serious doubt remains about how much of this voice is real and how much is a result of political propaganda.

The push for the Congress to take the battle online comes from the recent ‘banning’ of Twitter handles of BJP sympathiser and senior journalist Kanchan Gupta. While the government insists that the handles were blocked due to security issues, Gupta claimed political martyrdom and launched a tirade against the Congress for imposing a second Emergency. Hashtags like #Emergency2012 and #GOIBlocks started trending, with BJP supporters turning their display pictures to black. "The fact remains none of the blockings were politically motivated,” says Pranesh Prakash, programme manager with Centre for Internet and Society. Prakash instead points to the UPA’s earlier request to IT companies like Google and Facebook to pull down certain pages, which displayed morphed photos and cartoons of Congress “functionaries” as clear example of politically motivated intervention.

Though no explanation was forthcoming from the government as to why specific handles were blocked temporarily through ISPs (Twitter has still not blocked them), the PMO issued a statement saying it has requested Twitter to take “appropriate action against six persons impersonating the PMO”. Certain handles like @PM0India (with a ‘zero’) were often accused of impersonating the actual @PMOIndia. But that’s another story.

#Emergency2012 and #GOIBlocks started trending, with various BJP supporters turning their display pictures to black	The day Gupta’s handle was ‘blocked’, former bureaucrat B Raman wrote a blog that gave an interesting insight into why the government might have targeted Gupta. Raman describes a meeting that took place in Ahmedabad in 2008 — just before the 2009 General Elections — attended by senior BJP leaders and sympathisers, including Gupta. Raman says the general feeling among BJP participants was that mainstream media was not giving enough opportunities to the BJP and other right-wing activists to air their views. Therefore, “it was suggested by some participants that the BJP could get over this handicap by making good use of the online media”. Raman goes on to point that supporters of Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi and other right-wingers have since then used online media superbly with help of IT-savvy Hindutva supporters.

#Emergency2012 and #GOIBlocks started trending,
with various BJP supporters turning their display pictures to black

The day Gupta’s handle was ‘blocked’, former bureaucrat B Raman wrote a blog that gave an interesting insight into why the government might have targeted Gupta. Raman describes a meeting that took place in Ahmedabad in 2008 — just before the 2009 General Elections — attended by senior BJP leaders and sympathisers, including Gupta. Raman says the general feeling among BJP participants was that mainstream media was not giving enough opportunities to the BJP and other right-wing activists to air their views. Therefore, “it was suggested by some participants that the BJP could get over this handicap by making good use of the online media”. Raman goes on to point that supporters of Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi and other right-wingers have since then used online media superbly with help of IT-savvy Hindutva supporters.

What Raman wrote in his blog is confirmed by the BJP’s IT Cell Convener, Arvind Gupta. The BJP was not only the first political party in India to have a website in 1999, its social media network has been way ahead of any other political group in the country. From posting updates to engaging users, it has a well-oiled social media machinery in place. Arvind calls this the “listen, engage and inform” model. This includes Internet TV, YouTube and messenger chats. In fact, the next big thing on the party’s social media agenda is the interaction with Narendra Modi on Google+ Hangout.

Poli-Tweeting

Poli-Faking

BUT IT is not political agenda that has left Digvijaya Singh singed. Speaking to TEHELKA, Singh points to abusive — and at times, factually incorrect — tweets posted by right-wing supporters. In many cases, the mere mention of anything against Modi or Baba Ramdev would have scores of right-wing supporters bombarding Twitter timelines with counter-criticism, and often, abuses. “Anything that incites hate is a problem,” he says.

Though what can be called ‘hate’ is a very subjective matter, Arvind Gupta feels social media reflects the mood of the young population. “People call themselves Internet Hindus. We, as a party, have nothing to do with this. People are so passionate about Modi that they take up his case (against anyone who posts anti-Modi tweets),” says Gupta. He also points towards a similar trend when it comes to people tweeting against Team Anna.

Many right-wing Twitter users are accused of posting sponsored tweets against specific people who they believe are anti-BJP. This accusation has not been proven so far, though many users claim to have tracked interaction between rightwing Twitter users on coordinated attacks on users with liberal or pro-Congress ideologies. “There is a belief — and let me tell you that it is wrong — that we hire people,” says Gupta. So can the high number of right-wing users be put down to an ideological stance alone? Gupta says it’s got to do with understanding politics better. “Our volunteers are generally more educated and understand the the Congress’ wrong policies. That category also forms a major part of the ecosystem in this new media,” he says.

Within minutes of talking to this correspondent, Gupta posts a new hashtag on Twitter — #MotaMaal — taking a cue from Sushma Swaraj’s accusation of corruption against the Congress in the coal scam. The next day, Twitter became all about #MotaMaal versus #RIPBJP. Handles like @BJP0fficials and @PMAdvani have been created to counter the right wing. Clearly, Congress supporters are hitting back even at the risk of adding to the cacophony of an already-chaotic medium.

Kunal Majumder is a Principal Correspondent with Tehelka.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/www-tehelka-com-kunal-majumder-tehelka-magazine-vol-9-issue-36-sep-8-2012-political-war-on-the-web