Centre for Internet and Society

India, Egypt say no thanks to free Internet from Facebook

praskrishna — 2016-02-03T01:49:25Z

ALWAR, India — Connecting people to the Internet is not easy in this impoverished farming district of wheat and millet fields, where working camels can be glimpsed along roads that curve through the low-slung Aravalli Hills.

The article by Annie Gowen was published in Washington Post on January 28, 2016. Sunil Abraham gave inputs.

So when Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg helicoptered in about a year ago to visit a small computer lab and tout Internet for all, Osama Manzar, director of India’s Digital Empowerment Foundation, was thrilled.

But when Manzar tried Facebook’s limited free Internet service, he was bitterly disappointed. The app, called Free Basics, is a pared-down version of Facebook with other services such as weather reports and job listings.

“I feel betrayed — not only betrayed but upset and angry,” Manzar said. “He said we’re going to solve the problem with access and bandwidth. But Facebook is not the Internet.”

Zuckerberg launched his sweeping Internet.org initiative in 2013 as a way to provide 4 billion people in the developing world with Web access, which he says he sees as a basic human right.

But the initiative has hit a major snag in India, where in recent months Free Basics has been embroiled in controversy — with critics saying that the app, which provides limited access to the Web, does a disservice to the poor and violates the principles of “net neutrality,” which holds that equal access to the Internet should be unfettered to all.

Activist groups such as Save the Internet, professors from leading universities and tech titans such as Nandan Nilekani, the co-founder of Infosys, have spoken out against it. Another well-known Indian entrepreneur dubbed it “poor Internet for poor people.”

The debate escalated in recent weeks after India’s telecommunications regulator suspended Free Basics as it weighs whether such plans are fair, with new rules expected by the end of the month.

A week later, Free Basics was banned in Egypt with little explanation, prompting concern that the backlash could spread to other markets. More recently, Google pulled out of the app in Zambia after a trial period. An estimated 15 million people are using Free Basics in 37 countries, including 1 million in India.

[India’s Modi wants to woo Silicon Valley, but privacy fears grow at home]

“It’s a very important test case for what will be India’s network neutrality regime,” said Sunil Abraham of the Center for Internet and Society in Bangalore.

India’s debate could affect the way other countries address the question of whether it is fair for Internet service providers to price websites differently. The U.S. Federal Communications Commission’s rules on net neutrality went into effect only in June.

Officials at Facebook launched an advertising blitz to counteract the negative publicity. “Who could possibly be against this?” Zuckerberg wondered in a Times of India editorial on Dec. 28.

“I think we’ve been a bit surprised by the strong reaction,” said Chris Daniels, Facebook’s vice president for Internet.org. “Fundamentally, the reason for the surprise is that the program is doing good. It’s bringing people online who are moving onto the broader Internet.”

India, a country of 1.2 billion, has the second-highest number of Internet users in the world, but an estimated 80 percent of the population does not have Internet access.

India’s tech-savvy prime minister, Narendra Modi, is trying to combat this with an ambitious “Digital India” plan to link 250,000 village centers with fiber-optic cable and extend mobile coverage. He has turned to the Indian tech community as well as Silicon Valley for help, securing an agreement with Google to provide free WiFi in railway stations.

India has 130 million Facebook users, second only to the United States, and is a key market as the social-media giant looks to expand beyond the developed world, where its growth has slowed.

“If Facebook manages to get another half a billion users in India, that’s a valuable set of eyeballs to sell to a political party or corporation,” Abraham said.

[Is India the next frontier for Facebook?]

Facebook has long said that its program is about altruism, not eyeballs.

But it does reap new customers. Those who buy a SIM card from Facebook’s local mobile partner, Reliance Communications, are then prompted to pay for additional data. About 40 percent who sign up for Free Basics buy a data plan to move to the wider Web after 30 days, Daniels said.

The service is still running despite the India suspension. A Reliance spokesman said it is in “testing mode” and is not being promoted.

“The thing people forget about Free Basics is that it’s intended to be a temporary transition for people to give them a taste of the Internet and sign up. It’s a marketing program for the carrier in some sense,” said David Kirkpatrick, author of “The Facebook Effect.” But he added: “The idea that it’s some kind of alternative Internet that’s a discriminatory gesture to the poor is the prevailing view among the Indian intelligentsia. It’s fundamentally misunderstood.”

Facebook has pledged to open up to new scrutiny the selection process for companies with new applications, Daniels said. That is a response to concerns by many in India’s tech community that Facebook’s process put India’s fledgling start-ups at a disadvantage.

The project’s proponents say that India’s needs are so great it cannot afford to suspend one program that could help.

Mahesh Uppal, a telecommunications consultant, notes that more than 10 percent of the country does not have mobile phone coverage and that India’s progress in extending fiber-optic cable to village centers is proceeding at a glacial pace. Modi had set a goal of linking all 250,000 by 2016, but only 27,000 have cable so far and it is ready for use in only 3,200, according to a government report.

In comparison, some 80 percent of China’s villages are linked by broadband.

[Inside the Indian temple that draws America’s tech titans]

In Alwar district in the northern state of Rajasthan, many remember when Zuckerberg came to visit but fewer know about Free Basics.

“I’ve heard it’s free and by Facebook and you don’t have to pay for it,” said Umer Farukh, 43, a folk musician. “But I don’t think Facebook should control it. The Internet should be for everybody.”

Farukh has only been computer literate for two years, but he’s already emailing and using YouTube to post videos and promote his band.

He’s become such a proponent that he has donated space for one of Manzar’s computer centers — part of a government initiative to build cyber-hubs in minority communities — and encouraged the female members of his family to take classes, which is rare in his conservative community.

Farukh says that challenges to connecting India go far beyond data plans and fiber-optic cable or the government broadband that often sputters out. Wages are low, and hours are long. Only about half of the women in his state are literate, and about a quarter of the young women in his neighborhood are kept at home and not educated.

“This place is very backward,” he said. “India as a society is lagging far behind in terms of Internet.”

In the small nearby community of Roja Ka Baas, ringed by fields of blooming mustard greens, residents are still awaiting the opening of their planned WiFi center. They are struggling along on cheap mobile phones with slow 2G spectrum until then, they said.

Sakir Khan, 14, said that once the Internet finally arrived in this village, the first thing he would do would be to sign up for Facebook.

Farheen Fatima and Subuhi Parvez contributed to this report.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/washington-post-annie-gowen-january-28-2016-india-egypt-say-no-thanks-to-free-internet-from-facebook

A Megacorp’s Basic Instinct

praskrishna — 2016-02-04T13:53:05Z

Bolstered by academia and civil society, TRAI stands its ground against FB’s Free Basics publicity blitz.

The article by Arindam Mukherjee was published in Outlook on February 8, 2016. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

Hours before the January 31 deadline for telecom regulator TRAI to give its opinion on Facebook’s controversial and expensive Free Basics pitch—which seeks to give India’s poor “free” access to certain partner websites—the consensus seems to be building up against the social media giant. “If there is cannibalising of the internet through services like Free Basics, the internet will be split; it will parcel out and slice the internet. Its future is at stake,” says a senior government official on condition of anonymity.

In a climate where the tech-savvy Modi government is seen to be close to the online trinity of Facebook, Google and Twitter, TRAI’s defiant stance in favour of net neutrality stands out. There’s a lot at stake. India’s position becomes crucial as few countries in the world have clearly defined laws on net neutrality or have taken a stand on it. For Facebook, there’s a lot more at stake. India is its second-largest user base after the US (it is banned in China), so it is leaving no stone unturned. The massive Rs 300-crore electronic and print media campaign is an indication of that.

TRAI sources say they are ready for any adverse onslaught and they are under no pressure from the PMO. The view gaining ground in government is that FB is trying to create a walled garden where it controls what people see and surf and what they can access online. While this will be offered to consumers for free—the technical term is differential pricing—the websites part of Free Basics will have to pay for being on the platform. Outlook’s queries to FB remained unanswered at the time of going to press.

At an ‘open house’ meeting to discuss TRAI’s consultation paper on differential pricing last week, regulator Ram Sevak Sharma stood firm against the barrage of pro-Free Basics opinions that flowed from FB, telecom operators and some members of the public. TRAI’s message was clear: FB’s tactics of moulding public opinion by stealth will not be acceptable in India. In the past few weeks, there have been bitter exchanges between TRAI and FB over the latter’s responses to a consultation paper on differential pricing.

TRAI’s defiant stand draws from an unprecedented show of strength by civil society against Free Basics and FB’s intentions. Says former Aadhar man Nandan Nilekani, “Free Basics is certainly against net neutrality. How can a solution be neutral, if it disproportionately benefits a particular website or business on the internet? Today, 400 million Indians are online. They came online because of the inherent value the internet offers. How can a walled garden of 100-odd websites provide the same value?”

What does Free Basics mean for PM Modi’s Digital India campaign? Being a walled garden, thousands of start-ups without adequate budgets to pay for such dedicated service will be forced to stay out of it. Similar questions are being raised about government services that are increasingly coming online. The concern is that all government traffic will have to pass through FB servers. The senior government official quoted above agrees, “In such a scenario, the government will have to approach FB to make its websites accessible on the free service which is neither desirable nor safe.”

The other fear is what happens to public data if it goes through a service like Free Basics. There is fear that a lot of government and public data will be put through Free Basics once government services start coming online. If Free Basics is for the poor who are also beneficiaries of government services, FB too can access this data. Says Prabir Purkayastha, chairman, Knowledge Commons, “FB says public service will be available through Free Basics but can public service be given through a private initiative? Public data is valuable and can’t be handed over to a private company.”

Few again are convinced by FB’s claim that Free Basics aims to make the internet accessible to the poor, with the many services offered through it. “The claim that the poor will get access to the internet is false,” warns Sunil Abraham, executive director, Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore. “Free Basics gives access to less than 100 of the one billion plus websites on the world wide web. Those in the walled garden will be treated quite differently.”

What gives TRAI a shot in the arm is that, for the first time, academia has put its weight behind Free Basics opponents. In a signed statement, several IIT and IISc Bangalore professors have said that Free Basics won’t serve the purpose FB is proposing and is not good for the country. “The problem is the internet being provided (via Free Basics) is a shrunken and sanitised version of the real thing. Free Basics is not a good proposal for the long-term development of a healthy and democratic internet setup in India,” says Amitabha Bagchi, IIT Delhi professor and one of the signatories to the memo.

Of course, many of the experts Outlook spoke to say that the government, and not FB, should be responsible for providing free internet to the people. Says Parminder Jeet Singh, executive director, IT for Change, “The government is sitting on Rs 40,000 crore of USO funds. It can surely utilise that to provide a free basic data package to people in India. Basic government services and emergency services should essentially be free.” Nilekani is also in favour of the government providing free internet to people. “The internet is a powerful poverty alleviation tool.... Government can do a direct benefit transfer for data, a more market-neutral way of achieving the goal of getting everyone on the internet,” he told Outlook.

Legally, though, there may be issues in stopping FB from introducing its Free Basics platform in India. Says Singh, “Technically, the Indian government may not be able to stop FB from introducing Free Basics in India as it is just a platform. What the government has to do is to stop telcos from collaborating with it for free internet because Indian telcos, not FB, mediate access to the internet.”

The demand for the government and TRAI to come clean on net neutrality has reached fever pitch. Experts like Nilekani feel that net neutrality, which does not allow zero rating and differential pricing based on telcos looking at the contents of the subscriber’s data packets, should be enshrined in law through an act of Parliament, the way countries like the US have done. TRAI has also proposed two models where the internet is provided free initially and charged at a later stage and another where content providers and websites reimburse the cost of browsing directly to consumers. Both these proposals have not found favour with experts who say that these are unworkable and only the government should disburse free internet.

In any case, all this is a matter of detail—important, no doubt. The key question is, what happens to Free Basics if TRAI rules in favour of net neutrality and goes against FB? “This is going to be a long-drawn-out battle as FB will certainly challenge this in court,” says the government official. After spending Rs 300 crore on publicity, there is no way it will roll over and die.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/outlook-february-8-2016-arindam-mukherjee-a-megacorps-basic-instinct

India bans Facebook’s ‘free’ Internet for the poor

praskrishna — 2016-02-10T02:53:49Z

India’s telecom regulator said Monday that service providers cannot charge discriminatory prices for Internet services, a blow to Facebook’s global effort to provide low-cost Internet to developing countries.

The article by Annie Gowen was published in Washington Post on February 8, 2016. Sunil Abraham gave inputs. The article was also mirrored by NDTV.

Facebook’s “Free Basics” program provides a pared-down version of Facebook and weather and job listings to some 15 million mobile-phone users in 37 countries around the world.

When it debuted in India in April, however, Free Basics immediately ran afoul of Internet activists who said it violated the principle of “net neutrality,” which holds that consumers should be able to access the entire Internet unfettered by price or speed.

On Monday, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India agreed, prohibiting data service providers from offering or charging different prices for data — even if it’s free. The Free Basics program has run into trouble elsewhere in the world recently — with Egypt banning it and Google clarifying that it pulled out of the application during a testing phase in Zambia.

In a statement, Facebook said that while the company was “disappointed with the outcome, we will continue our efforts to eliminate barriers and give the unconnected an easier path to the Internet.”

In an interview before the ruling, Chris Daniels, Facebook’s vice president for Internet.org — the umbrella organization of the global effort — said India’s negative reaction has been “unique versus other markets we’ve seen. We’ve been welcomed with open arms in many countries.”

Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg launched the program to great fanfare in 2013, partnering with other international tech firms on a mission to connect the 4 billion people in the world without Internet access — which he says is a basic human right.

India has 300 million mobile Internet users but still has close to 1 billion people without proper Internet access. But it is second only to the United States in number of Facebook users, with 130 million, with vast expansion potential as Facebook works to increase its user base beyond the developed world.

Yet the Free Basics program was controversial from the start in India, where critics accused Facebook of creating a “walled garden” for poor users that allowed them access to only a portion of the web that Facebook controlled.

Dozens of well-known tech entrepreneurs, university professors and tech industry groups spoke out against it, saying that the curated app, with its handpicked weather, job and other listings, put India’s scrappy start-ups and software developers at a disadvantage.

On Monday, Vijay Shekhar Sharma, the founder and creator of India’s payment application PayTM, applauded the regulator’s move.

He had been among the program’s fiercest critics, dubbing Free Basics “poor Internet for poor people” and comparing Facebook’s actions to that of British colonialists and their East India Co.

“India, Do u buy into this baby internet?” Sharma tweeted in December. “The East India company came with similar ‘charity’ to Indians a few years back!”

“In a country like India that’s just taking off, it’s important that there is an equal playground for every app developer,” he said in an interview.

In December, India’s regulator put out a position paper on differential pricing and asked for public comment on whether such programs were fair.

In response, Facebook launched a public relations blitz, with television and newspaper advertisements, billboards and an opinion piece by Zuckerberg in the Times of India in which he argued against criticism that the social-media giant was providing the service simply to expand its user base.

Facebook also engineered a prompt to users that sent “robo” letters of support for Free Basics to India’s telecommunications regulator. The regulator, flooded with form letters, was not amused.

Facebook’s behavior may not have helped its cause, some analysts said.

“Facebook went overboard with its propaganda [and] convinced ‘the powers that be’ that it cannot be trusted with mature stewardship of our information society,” said Sunil Abraham of the Center for Internet and Society in Bangalore.

Yet David Kirkpatrick, the author of “The Facebook Effect,” says that Zuckerberg is determined to see the program succeed.

“Facebook is relentless,” he said. “Zuckerberg has said from the beginning his goal is to make the world more open and connected. And that’s a phrase he continues to repeat 10 years later.”

The regulator had asked Facebook, and its local telecom partner, Reliance Communications, to suspend Free Basics’ operations during the public comment period. But the social-media giant and its partner appeared to flout the suspension order, with the program continuing to be operational on Reliance SIM cards.

A spokesman for Reliance earlier said that the applications was in “testing mode” and that it was not commercially promoting the product.

The regulatory body said Monday that anybody violating the order in the future will be subject to a fine of about $735 a day. It will return to review the policy in two years to see if it is effective.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/washington-post-annie-gowen-february-8-2016-india-bans-facebooks-free-internet-for-the-poor

India Sets Strict New Net Neutrality Rules

praskrishna — 2016-02-11T01:53:19Z

In India, advocates of net neutrality have welcomed new rules by the telecom regulator that have blocked efforts by Facebook to offer free but limited access to the web in the country’s fast growing Internet market.

The article by Anjana Pasricha was published in Voice of America on February 9, 2016. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

In a widely awaited ruling, the Telecom Regulator Authority of India (TRAI) said on Monday that “no service provider shall charge differential pricing on the basis of application, platforms or websites or sources." It will impose penalties of $735 a day if the regulations are broken.

Kiran Jonnalagadda, who was among a group of 10 that launched an impassioned campaign called Save the Internet, says they have won a “fabulous” victory against large corporations to ensure equal web access for millions.

“We were up against the most powerful companies in the world, we had no chance of fighting Airtel last year, we had no chance of fighting Facebook. I think the only reason it worked is that we were on the side of facts, the opposition was not,” says Jonnalagadda.

Debate on Airtel

The campaign on net neutrality snowballed into a nationwide public debate after an Indian telecom company, Airtel, launched a marketing platform last April on which it planned to offer customers access with no data charges to certain Internet services and sites.

In recent weeks, the focus turned to “Free Basics”, a service being offered by Facebook on mobile phones to a handful of sites in areas such as communication, healthcare, and education.

Saying it wanted to vastly expand Internet access in poor, rural areas, Facebook had launched a massive advertising campaign in support of the platform. Only about 300 million in the country of 1.2 billion people have access to the net, many just through mobile devices.

But campaigners slammed Free Basics as “poor Internet for poor people” and said it would create a “walled garden” in which Facebook would control the content it offered users. Leading Indian technology entrepreneurs and university professors also called on the government to guard against attempts by Internet giants to turn the country into a “digital colony.”

Many of them have applauded the regulator’s move to strengthen net neutrality.

Ban on differential pricing

However, some are raising questions about the the complete ban on differential pricing announced by the regulator. That includes the Bangalore-based Center for Internet and Society research group, which says India has put in place the most stringent net neutrality regulations across the world. Its executive director, Sunil Abraham, says TRAI cited the examples of the Netherlands and Chile, but the ban on differential pricing in those countries is not as absolute as the one notified in India.

“We think that if proper technological safeguards and other market safeguards are put in place, it would be possible to have both — to have rapid growth in Internet access and reduced harm that emerge[s] from network neutrality violations,” says Abraham.

Indeed, the last word may not have been said on net neutrality in India as big telecom operators are expected to mount legal challenges to the regulator’s ruling in the coming months.

Expressing disappointment with India’s ruling, the Cellular Operators Association of India has called the ban on differential pricing a “welfare reducing measure” that could block an avenue for “less advantaged citizens to move to increased economic growth and prosperity by harnessing the power of the Internet.”

In a statement, Facebook has said “we will continue our efforts to eliminate barriers and give the unconnected an easier path to the Internet.”

But after having tasted victory, the volunteers at Save the Internet, who have grown from about 10 to 100 in the last year, have already set their sights on another aspect of net neutrality besides differential pricing.

“The campaign is not going to retire because this is not the end of it. There is also discrimination on the basis of speed, which the regulator has not taken up yet,” says Jonnalagadda.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/voice-of-america-anjana-pasricha-february-9-2016-india-sets-strict-new-net-neutrality-rules

Now trending: Regional Indian language social media networks

praskrishna — 2016-02-15T01:44:56Z

How many languages did you speak today? Chances are there was a lot of English at work and at home, but at least a sprinkling of Hindi (or Marathi, Gujarati, Bengali, Tamil or Kannada) when you were chatting, gossiping or joking with friends and family.

The article by Kanika Sharma was published in the Hindustan Times on February 14, 2016. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

You toggle so effortlessly that you probably don’t notice it, except when the option is no longer available — when arguing with a non-English-speaking cabbie while on vacation, for instance, or trying to write a heartfelt message to a faraway friend on Facebook.

And that’s the key reason for the host of regional Indian-language social media platforms that have been popping up over the past four years—Shabdanagari and Mooshak in Hindi, in 2015; ejibON for Bengali, in 2014; Prasangik for Assamese, in 2013; Muganool in Tamil, in 2012; with an early start made by Vismayanagari (Kannada; 2008).

“I set up Muganool.com out of love for the language and culture, and of course because it is so much easier to express oneself in one’s mother tongue,” says Sathish Kumar, 31, a software solutions company owner. “On Muganool, the feed is much better, you get relevant news and people’s views making them a delight to read. On Facebook, there’s just too much of timepass.”

Read: Facebook and WhatsApp top social networking apps in India, says report

Most of these platforms are modelled on Facebook. You can post updates, links and videos on a newsfeed, share and repost links, form groups and live chat.

Some are even named after their inspiration — Muganool, for instance, comes from the Tamil Mugam for Face and Nool for Book.

Many go a step further. Shabdanagari has discussion forums, Prasanagik has a crowd-sourced encyclopedia section and ejibON has a crowd-funding tab.

For users, the differentiator has been this sense of community.

“It’s too much of a crowd on Facebook,” says Umashankara BS , 39, a Bengaluru-based marketing professional and Vismayanagari user. “Here, I feel like I know who I’m talking to, and they know me. We share opinions about politics and literature, and once a month 15 of us meet at a Bengaluru café. That’s not something I would dream of doing via Facebook.”

Property consultant Siddharth Bora, 35, who left Assam for Delhi a decade ago, describes Prasangik as his home away from home.

Read: Logged in generation next requires digital de-addiction

“It takes me back more than an STD call can,” he says. “Prasangik feels intimate, almost private. While on Facebook it is considered rude to post content in the vernacular or go on about elements of your culture, here that is exactly what a lot of us do. From other homesick migrants to my mother in Assam, a 67-year-old retired lecturer.”

It seems strange to hear the word ‘intimacy’ when talking about interaction on social media, but it’s a concept that keeps coming up among users of the regional-language sites.

“Users take pains to give feedback and comment on post, unlike Facebook, where most content is lost in the crowd and clamour,” says Pankaj Trivedi, 53, a college staffer from Gujarat and a Shabdanagari user. “Also, since it is a language the users are confident in, conversations tend to sound more courteous. People are polite to one another. I know that there is a certain kind of audience that enjoys reading my posts and that makes me more comfortable posting on Shabdanagari.”

On ejibON (meaning ‘e-life’), a community has been formed across borders, with 10,000 users in India and Bangladesh bonding over their love of the language — and the idea of an undivided Bengal.

“Language can be such a great unifier,” says Bangladesh-based Maruf Sunny, 28, web developer and founder of ejibON. “The aim of this website is to build a sense of community across borders and religions to celebrate the Bengali community online.”

Thinking vs Feeling

These days, we think in one language and feel in another, says, Sunil Abraham, executive director of The Centre for Internet and Society. “Whether it is music, literature or even relationships — it feels truer and more ‘authentic’ in our mother tongue. So, despite a lot of English content and services online, we still yearn for our own languages in the online world. This is precisely why Wikipedia in regional languages has become so popular.”

For greater representation of Indian languages online, Gaur’s website actively encourages people to embrace and personalise their Hindi as they do their English.

“I want users to coin and combine words, use hashtags,” he says. “Eventually, I want more Indians to voice their opinions online so that the English-speaking elite are not counted as the voice of the nation. Today, whatever trends on Twitter is taken as the opinion of the majority. That’s just inaccurate.”

With thrice as many people offline in India as online, and most of them non-English-speakers, the potential of such websites is immense, Abraham points out. The stumbling block, of course, will be the resources — internet access and electricity.

Meanwhile, the money is already flowing in. Last month, Shabdanagari.com raised $200,000 (about Rs 1.35 crore) from Indian investors.

The way forward lies in governmental support, says Abraham.

“Indic language technologies are not sufficiently developed because of insufficient investment by the government,” he adds. “Existing work needs to be promoted and technology infrastructure developed to protect and promote India’s linguistic heritage.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/hindustan-times-kanika-sharma-february-14-2016-now-trending-regional-indian-language-social-media-networks

Why the Internet is Making India Furious

praskrishna — 2016-02-28T03:01:59Z

The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) in Bangalore is a kind of hacker club for wonks and lawyers obsessed with issues of digital rights and global development. Not exactly the mainstream kids’ lunch table. But the Center was brought into sudden relief this week, thanks to … Mark Zuckerberg.

Read Sanjena Sathian's blog post published by Ozy on February 19, 2016

In a splashy bit of news, India’s telecom authority rejected a program called Free Basics, which the Facebook team had been promoting as a way to get free Internet to the masses. (Here on the subcontinent, more than 300 million people use the Internet — but that’s only about a quarter of the population.) The idea: Facebook would allow free access to a handful of websites (the “basics”) to everyone; users would pay for further content. The objections: On the dramatic end came comparisons to colonialism; on the wonkier, objections based on the principles of net neutrality, or the idea that all Internet content should be treated the same. The threat the critics saw in Free Basics was that of the Web as a two-lane highway — the free stuff for the poor folks, and the good stuff for those who can afford it.

Mumbai-based Sanjena Sathian spoke to CIS cofounder and policy director Pranesh Prakash about the changing landscape of web rights that led up to the news.

OZY:

Tell us what you’re thinking in the wake of India’s decision.

Pranesh Prakash:

The order seemed to fix the issue with a sledgehammer rather than a scalpel. It over-regulates and bans things that are beneficial along with that that aren’t. They should have aimed for discriminatory pricing, but they’ve instead eliminated all differential pricing, even when it’s not discriminatory.

What should come next, in my opinion — it is imperative to ensure that governmental resources are used to provide free access to the Internet. If you’ve taken away something that could have helped and said no, no, no, it’s not good for you, then you are under an obligation to provide a replacement.

OZY:

How do you think the larger political conversations going on in India right now seep into the debates about digital rights?

PP:

Many people think the largest divider is between those who are from a developing country or a developed country. I think the larger divide is between those who are politically skeptical of states — more libertarian — versus those who are more trusting of states and see states as having a role to play in Internet governance. How you think the poor in India should get Internet — should that be provided by government or by market mechanisms — well, your political philosophies will play a role. In India, one tends to find fewer free-market fundamentalists than one would meet in, say, San Francisco.

OZY:

I think, increasingly, post-Snowden in particular, people think of digital rights as human rights. Where do you see things going wrong on a rights front here in India?

PP:

Oh, wow … so many ways. In India we have a situation where, right now, more than 3,000 websites were blocked by the government, but no one knows what these sites are. No one knows whether they were blocked through mechanisms that ensure accountability. There is no transparency around any of these. And this is just the visible tip of the iceberg. And how do I know this? I sent a right-to-information request to the government and they gave me this answer. But beyond this, they put in place a few years ago a law which allows for websites and any kind of web content to be censored by anyone. And all they have to do is send a request to any “intermediary,” which could be anything from your ISP to your web host to your DNS provider.

OZY:

Wait, so what does that mean? I get annoyed at a site — where do I go to lodge my complaint?

PP:

All these websites are required by the law to appoint a particular person as a “grievance redressal officer.”

OZY:

What a title!

PP:

Yes … and there are more than 40 grounds for grievances that have been listed in the law, including things such as “causing harm to minors” and certain speech being “disparaging.” Now, I engage in disparaging speech at least 12 times a day. And that’s perfectly legal under Indian law!

OZY:

Eep. Any good news, though?

PP:

A case went all the way up to the Supreme Court, [involving a young woman named] Shreya Singhal. There was a section 66A, quite an odious provision, that allowed for any kind of “offensive” or “annoying” speech to cause that person to be put in prison for up to three years.

Two teenage girls in Maharashtra, upon the death of a politician, put out a comment on social media. The death had caused a bandh, a curfew of sorts in Mumbai, and done not officially by the government but by political party workers. One girl said on Facebook, sure, go ahead, respect this politician, but why inconvenience so many citizens? Her friend liked this. And a case was launched against them. Similarly, some cartoons by an anticorruption activist were challenged and he was imprisoned briefly and released on bail.

OZY:

It’s always the cartoonists.…

PP:

Yes, and one professor in Calcutta — for forwarding a cartoon, he was placed under this law too. Many cases of perfectly fine political speech were made illegal thanks to this law. Eventually, though, in a landmark decision, the Supreme Court struck down this law, and this is the first time in almost three decades that the Supreme Court has struck off an entire law for being unconstitutional.

But, yes. Mostly? It’s not been pretty.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/ozy-february-19-2016-sanjena-sathian-why-internet-is-making-india-furious

The Curious Case of Poor Security in the Indian Twitterverse

udbhav — 2016-12-17T00:28:05Z

What are the technical, legal and jurisdictional issues around the recent Twitter and email hacks claimed by the ‘Legion Crew’, and what can targeted entities do to better protect themselves?

The article was originally published in the Wire on December 15, 2016.

The term legion, an oft-referred identity in popular culture, has begun to attain recent notoriety in Indian cyberspace due to the spate of hacks being carried out by a group of hackers calling themselves ‘Legion Crew’. The group has compromised four Twitter and/or email accounts in the past two weeks, with confirmed hacks of Rahul Gandhi, Vijay Mallya, Barkha Dutt and Ravish Kumar. Lalit Modi, Apollo Hospitals and the parliament (sansad) have been singled out as future targets, with dire warnings of catastrophic data leaks if the group were to be investigated by the authorities. The ethical impression of the hacks have been divided, with some segments of the public supporting the supposedly hacktivist outlook of the group while others condemning their actions as reckless and invasive. In the meantime, no individuals or entities have been accused of the hacks by the police, with most reports claiming the foreign origin of the hacks being the biggest impediment to the investigations.

A technical and legal perspective

The hacks first began against the politician Gandhi, whose Twitter account was hacked almost two weeks ago, with various demeaning tweets being posted for a few hours before access to the account was restored to the rightful owner. The same hacks were then carried out on business tycoon Mallya’s Twitter account last Friday but this time around, his bank details (apparently obtained from his compromised email accounts) were also leaked to the public via Twitter. Similar hacks targeting both the Twitter and email accounts of Dutt and Kumar were also carried out the past weekend. Sensitive details and data dumps (around 1.5 GB in size) of the journalists were released to the public, along with escalating warnings about future attacks. The data dumps released by the hackers seemed to be indicative that the hackers obtained far more information than they had disclosed via the Twitter hacks and were willing to leverage this data as ransom. Twitter, via both their Indian policy representatives and their international office, has denied any compromise to their systems and has claimed that all accounts were legitimately accessed with valid credentials at the time of the hacks. This leads to three main questions: How were the Twitter and email accounts hacked? What is the recourse, especially in terms of investigation, available to the afflicted parties and the authorities? What can potential targets do to secure their online presence from such attacks?

Regarding their technical nature, all of these hacks were sustained compromises that lasted for a few hours each (a long time in cyberspace) and seemed to be reflective of only a fragment of the power the hackers held over the individual’s online presence. Considering Twitter’s denial that the attacks were due to a security flaw on their end as well as the fact that legitimate login details were used to gain access to the accounts, a rather simple investigation can show that the most likely attack vector used by the Legion Crew for these hacks was a DNS Hijacking attack in combination with a Man in the Middle (MITM) attack. These methods abuse the rather simple and (by default) insecure DNS system that is responsible for directing the world’s Internet traffic including email. While the use of DNS to map websites to the IP address of the systems where they are physically hosted (for instance, www.thewire.in maps to 52.76.81.135 at the time of writing this article) is fairly well known, the DNS system also directs most of the world’s email. Similar to DNS A and AAA name records regarding websites, DNS MX records direct email sent to domain names to the correct email servers where they are processed for storage or forwarding, as required. If these MX records are compromised, then hackers can easily redirect emails sent to legitimate email address of the domain name (for instance, xyz@thewire.in) to whatever system they want, including other compromised email addresses.

The original operator of the email account is unaware of any email that is redirected in such a way and has no way of knowing the account has been hacked until they notice they are not consistently receiving emails sent to them, which in well planned hacks can be as for many weeks or even months. These attacks can also be further augmented if the hackers also decide to implement an MITM. In an MITM attack, hackers can redirect all traffic attempting to reach an email account via the MX records to a system they operate by changing the MX records on the domain name server to a malicious system. They can access and store all these emails (along with attachments) via the malicious system and also manipulate the information contained in these emails. Then, either in bulk or selectively, they can re-send the emails to the original email accounts they were intended for from their own servers. The owner will then receive the emails in their inboxes with the apparent impression they are private and being received for the first time. This entire MITM process can be setup in a manner that the emails are rerouted to compromised servers by MX records changes, stored for future analysis and then forwarded to the original recipient account in a matter of seconds.

Given the reliance placed by most websites on email IDs being a primary form of identity authentication, compromising an email ID can give access to most of the social networking, entertainment and even banking websites’ login details of the owner to any individual who has the login details of the account. This is because of the password reset or forgotten password feature available in most services that use only email IDs by default as a form of authenticating account ownership and allowing the user to reset their passwords by setting a reset email to their registered email accounts. Once they gain access to the compromised accounts, hackers can perform these resets with impunity, granting them unrestricted access to the online presence of the owner. In fact, hackers can use these attacks to perform password resets on the email accounts themselves, allowing them unlimited access to past conversation, records and login details that may be stored in the email accounts.

Keeping this background in mind, the most likely methodology behind the hacks is quite simple to explain. The Legion Crew most likely first compromised the email systems of these celebrities by changing the DNS MX records of the email IDs which were registered with Twitter as login IDs for these accounts. This allowed them to redirect emails sent to these email IDs to an alternative system of their choosing. They then used the password reset feature of Twitter, which is similar to those provided by most social networking services, to reset the password of these accounts. However, due to the compromise of the MX records of the domain names used by these celebrities, instead of reaching the inboxes of the entities operating the accounts, the password reset emails were sent to the alternative systems set up by the hackers solely for receiving such emails. After receiving this email, it was a simple matter of resetting the account credentials by clicking on the password reset link on the email and changing the passwords of these accounts to unique passwords only known to the hackers.

The hackers then would (and did) have complete control of the account until the service provider itself intervened and provided an emergency reset along with recommending rectifying the MX records from the malicious one’s inserted by the hackers. The only question left to be answered in the methodology followed by the hackers is how they gained access to the MX records, as DNS records can only be changed using the dashboard of the domain name provider, which in turn is protected by a login password. Allegations have arisen that most (if not all) of the compromised accounts used ‘Net4india’ as their domain name provider. Therefore, it is very possible either that it is a vulnerability on the Net4india systems, an internal compromise of the personnel Net4india and so on leading to access detail to domain name accounts from being compromised. Such security and personnel breaches could have been responsible for providing access to the domain name management dashboard of the hacked celebrities email IDs, after which the attack would have followed the methodology described above by changing the MX records to a malicious system.

Jurisdictional issues

The legal avenues available to the affected parties are fairly clear within the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Indian Penal Code, 1862. Section 66 and Section 66C of the IT Act, which govern hacking and misuse of passwords respectively, would apply along with possible application of the provisions concerning mischief (Section 425), cheating (Section 420) and extortion (Section 383) of the IPC. However, recent investigations have already begun to show that the various jurisdictional symptoms that plague cybercrimes investigations are also hindering investigations for these hacks. The global nature of the internet ensures that the operating servers, attackers, compromised users and unwitting intermediaries are more often than not all located in different jurisdictions, each with their own set of protections, vulnerabilities and laws. For example, investigations by the Delhi police into IP addresses that accessed Gandhi’s Twitter account during the hack have shown that in the period of few hours the account was accessed from the US, Sweden, Canada, Thailand and Romania. Of course, given the pervasive availability of IP spoofing tools, none of these countries is indicative of the actual location of the hacker. Gaining information from these different servers, in order to trace a route of the hacker’s digital geographical journey, is a bureaucratic and legal nightmare with long delays, unanswered Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty requests and unresponsive service providers being the norm. Like in most cybercrime investigation, if the hackers take certain basic steps to mask their identities and geographical location, their odds being caught by traditional law enforcement are negligible. Investigations that have successfully managed to catch such hacker groups, such as the Project Safe Childhood by the FBI against child pornography on the Tor web, take millions of dollars, months of efforts and a high level of skill. Whether these Twitter hacks will generate the sustained, multijurisdictional effort across law enforcement agencies in India required to catch such crimes remains to be seen. Until then, the questions of attribution, liability and justice will remain unanswered like in a majority of large scale cyber hacks.

Possible measures

Given that various other targets have already been singled out by the hacker group, the need for vigilance and improved security is greater than ever. One basic measure, easily available within Twitter and most other services, that should be carried out is enabling two factor authentication (2FA) on both email and social media accounts. 2FA ensures that the user has to input a One Time Password (OTP) generated on a separate device (such as a mobile phone) at the time of logging in or resetting the password for the account. This would mean that even if the hackers obtain the password or compromise the emails being sent to an account, they will be unable to login into an account without also being in physical possession of the device with the OTP generation application. If this option, which is already available within Twitter, was enabled for the four accounts that were hacked, for example, they would have remained protected despite the email account compromise. Further, domain name service providers should also implement Domain Name System Security Extensions and Domain Keys Identified Mail to prevent DNS and email hijacking, as was carried out on Net4India servers in these Twitter attacks. Using HTTPS on all pages on websites will also go a long way in preventing spoofing and securing user information in transit. Finally, nothing can replace customer education and awareness as the most effective tool to combat the growing cyber threats faced by the average netizen. The weakest link in a digital system is often the end user. A core set of security measures that can be percolated into common practice will serve as the first and best line of defence against such attacks in the future, for both the common man and celebrities alike.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-wire-udbhav-tiwari-december-15-2016-curious-case-of-poor-security-in-indian-twitterverse

India’s ruling party takes online abuse to a professional level

praskrishna — 2016-12-31T02:19:14Z

Indian prime minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) employs an army of trolls to harass and intimidate critics through social media, a new book claims.

The article by Samanth Subramanian was published in the National on December 31, 2016. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

I Am a Troll: Inside the Secret World of the BJP’s Digital Army, by the journalist Swati Chaturvedi, alleges that the party’s social media warriors carry out organised harassment, threatening critics of the BJP with assault, sexual violence and even murder.

Although other parties also have social media units, the BJP’s is particularly well organised and vociferous, Chaturvedi wrote.

The BJP social media cell is active on Twitter and Facebook, as well as in the comments sections of articles on news websites, Chaturvedi found. Some of the abusive PRO-BJP Twitter handles are still followed by Mr Modi’s official Twitter account.

I Am a Troll is based largely upon the account of Sadhavi Khosla, now an activist but formerly a volunteer for two years in the BJP’s social media cell, which went into top gear during the parliamentary elections in 2014 when Mr Modi beat the incumbent Congress party led by Sonia Gandhi and her son Rahul.

Mr Modi campaigned on a platform of fervent nationalism, drawing upon the BJP’s Hindu chauvinist credentials to attract votes. His party’s social media cell responded accordingly.

"It was a never-ending drip feed of hate and bigotry against the minorities, the Gandhi family, journalists on the hit list, liberals, anyone perceived as anti-Modi," Ms Khosla told Chaturvedi.

The BJP has responded to the claims made in the book by accusing Ms Khosla of political bias, saying she "supports the Congress [and] has all reasons to publish unsubstantiated claims". -In fact, she has never revealed her own political leanings, or even whether she has any.

Arvind Gupta, the head of the BJP’s information technology cell, denies the party encouraged trolling or that Ms Khosla had been a member of any BJP unit.

By way of evidence, Ms Khosla shared with Chaturvedi screenshots of instructions that were purportedly sent by Mr Gupta to the operators of the social media cell. "If there was even an unfavourable mention of [Modi] anywhere, Gupta’s digital tracking tools would pick it up and the pack of hyena-like trolls would descend," Ms Khosla said.

One specific campaign cited in I Am a Troll took place in November last year, after the actor Aamir Khan, speaking as the chief guest at a journalism awards ceremony, remarked upon the growing intolerance in India. "There is a growing sense of disquiet and despondency," he said.

Ms Khosla said the BJP’s social media cell was instructed to launch an all-out attack on Khan. She and her colleagues were also asked to spread a petition calling upon SnapDeal, a shopping website, to drop Khan as its brand ambassador.

"I realised that my hero had become a ‘Muslim’," Ms Khosla said in the book. "For me he had just been an Indian actor. I felt like my country was changing."

SnapDeal cut its ties with Khan in February. Ms Khosla, who said she had been growing increasingly uncomfortable with the social media cell’s tactics, quit not long after.

"I simply could not follow directions anymore when I saw rape threats made against female journalists," she said. "Every day some new person was a target and they would attack like a swarm of bees with vile sexual innuendoes, slander, rape and death threats."

Chaturvedi’s book calls for social media companies and police agencies to take such threats more seriously.

"In the United States, which is a beacon for free speech laws, thousands are arrested each year — and the courts uphold these allegations as ‘actionable’ — based on complaints from people who have received violent threats on social media," she wrote.

"Hate speech, targeted harassment, threats of rape with graphic details of assault, incitement to violence — all this is ‘actionable’ too but our police does not act."

Pranesh Prakash, the policy director at the Centre for internet and Society, a Bengaluru-based non-profit organisation, noted that although there are no Indian laws specifically against abusive online behaviour, the general laws that deal with verbal assault cover online cases as well.

"But I’m not sure how much these cases can be taken forward, given jurisdictional problems," Mr Prakash told The National.

When a person complains to police about online abuse, "the first step would be to establish against whom the case is being made, and doing that is difficult", he said.

Since most social media companies are based in the US, police agencies would have to approach India’s foreign ministry which could then invoke a bilateral treaty to gain this information.

"This can take several months if not longer," Mr Prakash said. "And most police stations are not equipped to handle such treaty-based cases."

"Even if the police takes such complaints seriously — and it’s not always clear that they do — there’s no easy way to proceed."

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-national-december-31-2016-samanth-subramanian-indias-ruling-party-takes-online-abuse-to-a-professional-level

Social Media Monitoring

amber — 2017-01-16T14:23:13Z

We see a trend of social media and communication monitoring and surveillance initiatives in India which have the potential to create a chilling effect on free speech online and raises question about the privacy of individuals. In this paper, Amber Sinha looks at social media monitoring as a tool for surveillance, the current state of social media surveillance in India, and evaluate how the existing regulatory framework in India may deal with such practices in future.

Social Media Monitoring: Download (PDF)

Introduction

In 2014, the Government of India launched the much lauded and popular citizen outreach website called MyGov.in. A press release by the government announced that they had roped in global consulting firm PwC to assist in the data mining exercise to process and filter key points emerging from debates on Mygov.in. While this was a welcome move, the release also mentioned that the government intended to monitor social media sites in order to gauge popular opinion. Further, earlier this year, the government set up National Media Analytics Centre (NMAC) to monitor blogs, media channels, news outlets and social media platforms. The tracking software used by NMAC will generate tags to classify post and comments on social media into negative, positive and neutral categories, paying special attention to “belligerent” comments, and also look at the past patterns of posts. A project called NETRA has already been reported in the media a few years back which would intercept and analyse internet traffic using pre-defined filters. Alongside, we see other initiatives which intend to use social media data for predictive policing purposes such as CCTNS and Social Media Labs.

Thus, we see a trend of social media and communication monitoring and surveillance initiatives announced by the government which have the potential to create a chilling effect on free speech online and raises question about the privacy of individuals. Various commentators have raised concerns about the legal validity of such programmes and whether they were in violation of the fundamental rights to privacy and free expression, and the existing surveillance laws in India. The lack of legislation governing these programmes often translates into an absence of transparency and due procedure. Further, a lot of personal communication now exists in the public domain which renders traditional principles which govern interception and monitoring of personal communications futile. In the last few years, the blogosphere and social media websites in India have also changed and become platforms for more dissemination of political content, often also accompanied by significant vitriol, ‘trolling’ and abuse. Thus, we see greater policing of public or semi-public spaces online. In this paper, we look at social media monitoring as a tool for surveillance, the current state of social media surveillance in India and evaluate how the existing regulatory framework in India may deal with such practices in future.

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

Supreme Court issues notice to WhatsApp, Centre on data privacy

praskrishna — 2017-01-17T15:06:08Z

Analysts said India lacked data protection laws.

The article by MJ Antony, Ayan Pramanik and Apurva Venkat was published in the Business Standard on January 17, 2017. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

The Supreme Court on Monday issued notices to the Centre and WhatsApp over an appeal alleging the instant messaging service did not ensure the privacy of its users and seeking regulations to protect personal information.

Chief Justice J S Khehar granted urgent hearing when Harish Salve, counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the service provided free by the platform to 155 million subscribers violated constitutional provisions protecting privacy.

The government and WhatsApp would file their replies within two weeks, the court directed after Salve sought its intervention to protect consumer data till India enacted data protection laws.

The Supreme Court heard the petition after the Delhi High Court in September directed WhatsApp not to share its users’ data with its parent Facebook and asked it to provide users with the option to opt out. The court was hearing a public interest litigation over a change in WhatsApp’s user policies that explicitly allowed Facebook to access to WhatsApp users’ data.

A Facebook spokesperson said the company could not comment immediately.

Analysts said India lacked data protection laws that prohibit global Internet firms from harvesting user data for their business. “We used to think that we had some privacy jurisprudence in the country. If you asked a lawyer 1.5 years ago, he would say privacy in India was a constitutionally guaranteed right,” said Sunil Abraham, director of the Centre for Internet Society. “It is not explicitly referenced into the law.”

Saroj Kumar Jha, partner, SRGR Law Offices, said, “Along with the lack of policies and laws, there are very few judgments on privacy issues based on constitutional rights. Thus, it makes it very difficult to judge a case.”

Salve argued that till the government enacted legislation to protect user data, the court should provide protection. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India should introduce a clause in telecom licences that if calls were intercepted the licence would be cancelled, he said.

The court sought the assistance of Attorney-General Mukul Rohatgi to sort out the issues.

Rohatgi, while arguing an earlier case related to alleged violation of privacy, had taken the stand that the Constitution did not protect the right to privacy. According to him, neither the fundamental rights nor Supreme Court judgments recognises a citizen’s right to privacy. The bench hearing that case referred the question to a constitution bench last year.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-mj-antony-ayan-pramanik-apurva-venkat-supreme-court-issues-notice-to-whatsapp-centre-on-data-privacy

For India’s complaints department, visit Facebook Live

praskrishna — 2017-01-25T02:03:03Z

Notebook: Social media cuts through red tape in a country beset by inertia.

The article by Amy Kazmin was published in the Financial Times on January 23, 2017. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

Rarely has a soldier’s lament about bad food received such attention. But Tej Bahadur Yadav, of India’s Border Security Force, made national headlines with Facebook videos complaining about his rations along India’s tense line-of-control with neighbouring Pakistan.

Standing against a landscape of desolate, snow-covered mountains, Mr Yadav bemoaned the fried flatbread and tea that constitutes breakfast, and the watery lentils, seasoned only with salt and turmeric, of his lunch. It was unclear whether his main complaint was about the poor cooking quality or limited food quantity but the video of the offending meals, including a burnt chapati, suggested both.

“I do not want to blame the government,” he said calmly in Hindi. “The government provides everything for us but these higher officers sell everything. Sometimes, we soldiers go hungry.”

Reaction to the videos, which were covered widely by the mainstream media, came fast and furious. The BSF publicly accused Mr Yadav of indiscipline, saying he was a chronic malcontent previously subjected to a court martial for aiming his weapon at a superior. It also noted he was taking voluntary retirement soon.

But many Indians found it easy to believe that their country’s troops are short-changed on food and they rallied to the disgruntled soldier as a courageous whistleblower. Prime Minister Narendra Modi ordered an investigation, and a dietitian was reportedly sent to the border to assess the soldiers’ food.

Analysts pointed out that Mr Yadav’s gripe echoed official critiques of deficiencies in the army’s food procurement. “One can imagine the toil our jawans [junior soldiers] go through while guarding the border in chilling conditions. And the least they can expect is a good meal after long hours of hard duty,” an Indian Express editorial declared.

That a soldier posted in a remote border area could unleash such a kerfuffle via a video highlights how Indians armed with mobile phones are taking to social media to hold to account the traditionally non-responsive political and bureaucratic establishment.

Smartphones make up nearly 30 per cent of phones in use in India and that number is rising fast, according to the Asian research group CLSA. Sushma Swaraj, India’s foreign minister, has garnered attention for her rapid responses to individual Twitter pleas for help — whether from Indians in trouble abroad or those struggling to renew a passport or secure a visa for a visitor.

Now other ministers and government agencies, including local police forces, have begun to respond personally to pleas for help and public complaints on Twitter. It’s a big change from a time I recall well, when Indians tangled in red tape had no option but to find those with connections to try to influence, or prod, the seemingly impenetrable bureaucracy.

“Bureaucrats and politicians are now active and available on social media — ordinary citizens tweet politicians and there is a spectacle of immediate redress of complaints,” Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society, told me. When New Delhi’s police department set up an office to receive complaints against corrupt officers, for example, many citizens provided audio or visual recordings of the alleged wrongdoing. It’s only a matter of time before such footage finds its way to social media — or beyond. Ironically, those whose plights gain traction on social media, and are then amplified by mainstream media, are sometimes low-ranking civil servants harassed by their superiors.

This week brought news of a female railway clerk punished for dereliction of duty after she refused to sing “one particular” duet with her senior manager at his farewell party. A friend who works for a major western social media platform here in India (who ironically can’t be identified as he wasn’t authorised to speak to me), tells me that “the power structures that governed who used to be heard and who wouldn’t be heard have changed”. As technology spreads further and deeper in India, we can expect that noise to amplify.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/financial-times-amy-kazmin-january-23-2017-for-indias-complaints-department-visit-facebook-live

India WhatsApp Privacy Fight May Affect Multinationals

praskrishna — 2017-02-02T02:28:23Z

The Indian Supreme Court’s review of Facebook Inc.'s and WhatsApp Inc.'s data security practices may lack teeth but also presages a desire for a stronger privacy regime and oversight of multinationals, internet and privacy specialists told Bloomberg BNA.

The article by Nayanima Basu was published by Bloomberg BNA on February 1, 2017. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

WhatsApp revised its privacy policy in August 2016 to share data with owner Facebook and allow targeted ads and messages from businesses, laying the groundwork for the free messaging service to monetize such data. But a public interest complaint, akin to a class action in the U.S., filed by two Indian students and regulatory inquiries have resulted in India’s top court asking Facebook and WhatsApp about their data protection practices.

The court’s move Jan. 17 to seek the information may make multinational companies jittery, Rahul Khullar, former secretary of commerce for India’s Ministry of Commerce and Industry, told Bloomberg BNA. Although stronger data privacy enforcement is needed, all the high court has done is aggravate Facebook and other large multinationals, he said.

Facebook is the second largest media company in the world with a $367 billion market capitalization, Bloomberg data show. It acquired WhatsApp in 2014 for approximately $18 billion, data show. Facebook didn’t immediately respond to Bloomberg BNA’s e-mail request for comments.

Khullar, who is also the former chairman of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, said multinationals need to be more careful in sharing their data because of the “distinction between digital non-commercial data and digitally sensitive data,” he said. A strong national data privacy law would resolve some of these issues, he said.

An U.S. official based at the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi, speaking on background, told Bloomberg BNA that any maneuver that restricts the free flow of data may harm the operations of U.S.-based multinationals and similar companies.

Clarity, Stronger Laws Needed

Some internet and privacy specialists say that Facebook and WhatsApp failed to provide effective data protection under Indian law.

Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the nonprofit digital technologies advocate Centre for Internet and Society, told Bloomberg BNA that Facebook and WhatsApp are in violation of Section 43A of the Information Technology Act that lays out “reasonable security practices and procedures.”

Indian citizens are reaching out to the courts for data protection enforcement because lawmakers have “failed to do so,” he said. That highlights the need for robust data protection laws in India and, he said, hopefully “goads the government and Parliament into enacting a privacy and data protection law.”

In lieu of further legislative action, companies may be able to resolve some issues by establishing clearer privacy policies, Niraj Gunde, a Mumbai-based attorney and consumer advocate, told Bloomberg BNA. Most software agreements have a clandestine clause that allows companies to access user data, but those agreements should also state how the data will be used, stored and eventually disposed of, he said.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bloomberg-bna-february-1-2017-nayanima-basu-india-whatsapp-privacy-fight-may-affect-multinationals

Government blocks over 60 websites including github & sourceforge on anti-terror advisory

praskrishna — 2015-01-02T14:22:58Z

Over 60 websites and links, including popular online tools like Github and Sourceforge used by thousands of programmers have been blocked in India, triggering angry protests by Internet users.

The article by P.K. Jayadevan and Neha Alawadhi was published in the Economic Times on December 31, 2014. Pranesh Prakash gave his inputs.

The websites were blocked for hosting content that is pro terrorist group ISIS and not cooperating with government investigations, officials said.

Arvind Gupta, the head of IT Cell, BJP Tweeted: "The websites that have been blocked were based on an advisory by Anti Terrorism Squad, and were carrying Anti India content from ISIS. The sites that have removed objectionable content and/or cooperated with the on going investigations, are being unblocked."

Based on an order issued by the country's telecom department, in a letter dated December 17 and a subsequent letter on December 19, over 60 websites have been blocked by various internet service providers in the country.

While some internet service providers are yet to block these websites, many users have been reporting frequent outages in these web services over the last two weeks.

Websites like Pastebin don't host any content but are a platform for users to paste text. Popular video networks like Vimeo and Dailymotion are among the websites that have been blocked.

Officials from the department of Information Technology and the department of telecom were not available for comment. "These are all providing very dangerous kind of cut and paste services..You can take code, cut it, paste it, remove it, delete it," said one government official who requested anonymity.

The government has invoked section 69A of the Information technology Act (2000) and Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules ("Blocking Rules") to ban these websites.

Many websites have been blocked in India from time to time on various grounds. In September, following the Muzaffarnagar riots, over 80 websites and links on social media were blocked.

However, the inclusion of services like Github and Sourceforge that host code for open source software are causing much anger among the developer community. "Sometimes they might need to block specific URLs, but blocking the entire website is wrong or they haven't thought through it," said Thejesh GN, the co-founder of Datameet and an open source developer.

"There is also a lack of transparency where people don't get to know why their sites were blocked," he added.

"We're aware of reports of connectivity issues in India. We're looking into it, and will update with more information when we have it," a Github spokesperson said.

In June 2014, the Delhi High Court ordered a block of 472 file sharing websites including Google Docs and Pirate Bay following a complaint filed by Sony Entertainment. The entertainment company was hacked and contents from its servers were shared by hackers on various file sharing websites. In earlier instances, many websites have been blocked for copyright infringement as well.

"Courts unfortunately are not exercising restraint and are indulging ignorant copyright lawyers," said Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director at the Centre for Internet and Society. Prakash said that most of the sites on the list don't host copyrighted material themselves and a case can not be made against them.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/economic-times-december-31-2014-jayadevan-neha-alawadhi-december-31-2014-govt-blocks-over-60-websites

Govt blocks 32 websites, including Vimeo and Github

praskrishna — 2015-01-02T16:09:24Z

The websites that have been blocked were based on an advisory by Anti Terrorism Squad, and were carrying anti-India content from ISIS.

The article by Moulishree Srivastava was published in Livemint on December 31, 2014. Pranesh Prakash gave his inputs.

The Indian government has blocked access to 32 websites based on the advice of an anti-terrorism team. The blocked URLs (uniform resource locator, an address to any website on the Internet) include files, videos and source code-sharing websites such as dailymotion.com, github.com, vimeo.com and archive.org.

In an order, tweeted by Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Bengaluru-based research organization Centre for Internet and Society on Wednesday, the department of telecom said the 32 URLs had been blocked under Section 69 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and under Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009. “The websites that have been blocked were based on an advisory by Anti Terrorism Squad, and were carrying anti-India content from ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria),” Arvind Gupta, head of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party’s information technology cell, said in a message on Twitter.

His tweet came in response to a backlash to the move from Internet users. “The sites that have removed objectionable content and/or cooperated with the ongoing investigations, are being unblocked,” he added. If Internet service providers (ISPs) don’t comply with the demand, they are liable to being penalized, the order said.

The rules give the central government powers to block access to information if it is in the interest of the “sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above.” Intermediaries failing to comply with the rules are punishable with fines and prison terms of up to seven years, it notes. “Pastebin is still blocked in India.

We are getting many reports about this. The Indian government has blocked us...,” said one of the source code sharing websites, Pastebin.com, in a tweet. This is not the first time the government has cracked down on websites. A recent report by Freedom House, an independent watchdog, said the information ministry received a total of 130 court orders to block Web content between February 2009 and December 2013.

In February 2014, the then minister of communication and information technology told Parliament that 62 URLs were blocked in 2013 under Section 69A for hosting objectionable information with the potential to disturb public order. As many as 82 URLs were blocked on 18 September 2013 in addition to 26 blocked a week earlier after violence escalated between Hindu and Muslim communities in Muzaffarnagar district of Uttar Pradesh. A total of 362 URLs were blocked in response to communal violence in the northeast, the report said. “The problem isn’t just about the specific sites that are blocked; the prob(lem) always about the bad law...,” tweeted Prakash. “The 69A rules don’t allow for transparency, accountability, time-limits on blocks, etc. So easily misused by govt. + courts + individuals.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/livemint-december-31-2014-moulishree-srivastava-govt-blocks-32-websites

India 'jihadi' web blocking causes anger

praskrishna — 2015-01-03T02:48:48Z

A government block on more than 30 high-profile websites has caused anger across India.

The story was published in BBC on January 2, 2015. It was also mirrored in the Puffington Post the same day. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

India's Department of Telecoms ordered the blocking of the sites in order to prevent the publicising of "jihadi activities".

After considerable pressure, four of the sites - Weebly, Vimeo, Daily Motion and Github - were unblocked.

Officials said the other sites would have their blocks lifted if they complied with the "law of the land".

The Indian Ministry for Communication and Information Technology said in a statement: "It was stated that Anti National group are using social media for mentoring Indian youths to join the Jihadi activities."

It went on to say that the primary concern was that users posting material on the sites did not require any authentication, and that identities could be hidden.

The four websites that have been unblocked were said to have worked with the Indian government to address concerns - although it is unclear what changes, if any, have been made.

Some users were reporting that they were still unable to reach the apparently unblocked sites.

Pranesh Prakash, from the India-based Centre for Internet and Society, said: "Any intelligent person can see these sites don't incite terrorism."

'Many complaints'

Ahead of the ban lifting, a Vimeo spokeswoman said: "It is Vimeo's longstanding policy not to allow videos that promote terrorism, and we remove such videos whenever we become aware of them.

"We have not received notice from the Indian government concerning such videos and have contacted them requesting the blocking order to identify, and evaluate the video in question."

Many internet users in the country are angry that other sites remain blocked, in particular Pastebin - a site used for "dumping" text online anonymously - and The Internet Archive, a US organisation that offers a database of old websites.

The Internet Archive said on Twitter that it had received "many complaints" from users who were unable to access the service.

India has a history of sporadically blocking websites, or issuing warnings about online content.

In August 2012, 245 sites were blocked by the government in an attempt, it said, to quell violence.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bbc-january-2-2015-india-jihadi-web-blocking-causes-anger