Centre for Internet and Society

Will Facebook, Twitter relocate servers to India?

praskrishna — 2016-04-23T15:26:39Z

The debate to relocate offshore servers of internet and social media firms including Google, Facebook and Twitter has revived.

The article by Taru Bhatia was published in Governance Now on April 23, 2016. Pranesh Prakash gave inputs.

Home minister Rajnath Singh has requested the social media companies, located outside India, to maintain servers in the country, in order to expedite the process of getting information on accounts which spread mischievous messages posing a threat to law and order situation. The move has come in the backdrop of delayed or no response to the government’s requests to these companies, for extracting information of some of its users on security grounds.

In February, the minister claimed Jamaat-ud-Dawa chief Hafiz Saeed’s involvement in the anti-national slogans that were allegedly raised in the campus of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU). The claim was based on a tweet that appeared on a fake twitter account of Saeed (@HafeezSaeedJUD), which was later deactivated by Twitter. But the US-based social media company has still not replied to the Indian government as to who was running the account.

It is interesting to note here that India shares mutual legal assistance treaty with the US, wherein, the duo can share information for the purpose of criminal investigation, via judicial route. The process, however, is lengthy.

“Given the nature of the content, sometimes the government cannot afford to wait. The process of issuing direction to get information or blocking certain content from public view is lengthy. The Indian government under the IT law is empowered to ask these companies to maintain servers in India,” says senior advocate, supreme court, and cyber law expert, Pavan Duggal, terming it as a legitimate concern related to national security. As India is a big market for all these companies, it shouldn’t be a problem for them to have servers in India, he says.

“If the police or security agencies want information from these companies, it becomes tall orders since they are not operating from India. They step back and say they are not accountable,” says Virag Gupta, a senior supreme court lawyer, adding that ministries of telecom and finance must join the home ministry in its request and spearhead the matter.

Gupta has filed a petition in the Delhi high court asking such offshore companies to register themselves under the Indian law. On the other hand, Pranesh Prakash, policy director at center for internet and society (CIS), a non-government research organisation supported by Google, feels that instead of requesting these companies to maintain servers in India, it is best for the government to figure out ways to speed up judicial process of the treaty, when it comes to internet governance.

From July to December 2015, India issued 141 requests to Twitter to retrieve information of its users’ accounts for criminal investigation purpose, as per the company’s transparency report. But the compliance rate was only 42 percent, the report says.

While India seeks information on national security grounds, the law here does not clearly define national security, which is still vast and ambiguous.

“I do believe that there is a need for a much clear definition of national security. If the government really wants to have servers of these companies in India then appropriate guidelines must exist, so that companies should not be taken by surprise,” says Duggal.

Security concerns

Data localisation is witnessing a growing trend among many countries. Last year, Russia enforced law to mandate internet companies to store its citizens’ data within the country. The move is generally taken in fear of losing country’s data to hackers. It also means that it would be easier for the government to get information from these internet companies.

And so protecting data and privacy of individuals within the country is also a matter of concern. Not having a strong data privacy law in place could lead to violation of internet rights of citizens.

“Privacy is a legitimate concern but at the end of the day the government is well empowered in the interest of protecting cyber security under the IT Act. But it is necessary for the government to look at the issue from a holistic perspective. There is a need for balancing privacy and security of an individual on one hand and national security on the other hand,” adds Duggal.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/governance-now-april-23-2016-taru-bhatia-will-facebook-twitter-relocate-servers-to-india

Ayodhya trending on Twitter sparks censorship concerns

praskrishna — 2012-12-12T10:38:01Z

On the 20th anniversary of the Babri Masjid demolition, the ShauryaDiwas, Ayodhya and Babri Masjid hashtags were trending on Twitter all day, with almost 2,500 messages sent over 48 hours.

Surabhi Agarwal's article was published in LiveMint on December 6, 2012. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

The tag ShauryaDiwas was used by supporters of the demolition and was used in half the total number of tweets.

Experts said the public display of extreme views on a social networking platform has the potential to create social unrest, leaving the government with few options but to regulate content, in turn fuelling the Internet censorship debate further.

A senior government official said that in a situation in which there are serious national security implications, the government has no option but to "block content" in order to stop communal sentiment from flaring up.

According to social web analytics firm Social Hues, the tweets reached an audience of 456,000 followers. However, according to Vinita Ananth, chief executive of Social Hues, there were also messages that "condemned the call for ShauryaDiwas” tagging it ShameDiwas. "New platforms like Twitter are providing real-time feedback on public sentiment, which is unprecedented."

Ashis Nandy, political and social analyst, said that even though very few Indians are on platforms such as Twitter, communications over them give a hint of what a certain section of the society is thinking about.

"It is a small representation of the middle class, which is driven by ideology and some of the people with extreme opinions may also belong to this group, so perhaps it could have some security implications," he said.

Fringe groups such as those above tend to take extreme positions to get attention, said Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bangalore-based research organization, the Centre for Internet and Society.

Having learnt their lessons after the recent Assam-related panic, intelligence agencies are now keeping a close watch on the Internet, another government official said.

"If necessary, posts will be removed through legitimate ways," the official said, adding that a debate was underway about how to strike a balance between freedom of speech and the lawful requirement of agencies. "Mischief by a few people creates nuisance in society. The government is now looking for ways through which it can regionally block or remove inflammatory tweets. We don’t want to curb freedom of speech and the government doesn’t have any such intentions either," the official said.

Hate messages on social media had sparked a panic exodus of people from the north-east from cities such as Bangalore, Pune and Chennai in August.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/livemint-december-6-2012-surabhi-agarwal-ayodhya-trending-on-twitter-sparks-censorship-concerns

Tulu Wikipedia Tutorial

praskrishna — 2015-12-15T07:50:52Z

Dr. U.B. Pavanaja trained the people involved in the creation of the videos.

Tutorial video on starting with Tulu Wikipedia which is in incubation:

Tutorial video explaining how to start with Tulu Wikipedia which is in incubator:

Tutorial video explaining how to add new article to Tulu Wikipedia:

Tutorial video explaining how to type in Tulu Wikipedia:

Tutorial video explaining how to format articles in Tulu Wikipedia:

The people behind these videos:

Prof. Vishwanatha Badikana for Script
Lasya Shetty for Voice
Abhishek Shetty, Saarang Community radio at St Aloysius College Mangaluru for Audio Recording
Soundarya Shetty for Mixing and Editing
Dr. U.B. Pavanaja for Conception, Direction, Mixing and Editing

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/tulu-wikipedia-tutorial

Net Neutrality Advocates Rejoice As TRAI Bans Differential Pricing

subha — 2016-02-23T02:10:42Z

India would not see any more Free Basics advertisements on billboards with images of farmers and common people explaining how much they benefited from this Facebook project.

The article by Subhashish Panigrahi was published by Odisha TV on February 9, 2016.

Because the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has taken a historical step by banning differential pricing without discriminating services. In their notes TRAI has explained, “In India, given that a majority of the population are yet to be connected to the internet, allowing service providers to define the nature of access would be equivalent of letting TSPs shape the users’ internet experience.” Not just that, violation of this ban would cost Rs. 50,000 every day.

Facebook planned to launch Free Basics in India by making a few websites – mostly partners with Facebook—available for free. The company not just advertised aggressively on bill boards and commercials across the nation, it also embedded a campaign inside Facebook asking users to vote in support of Free Basics. TRAI criticized Facebook’s attempt to manipulate public opinion. Facebook was also heavily challenged by many policy and internet advocates including non-profits like Free Software Movement of India and Savetheinternet.in campaign. The two collectives strongly discouraged Free Basics by moulding public opinion against it with Savetheinternet.in alone used to send over 2.4 million emails to TRAI to disallow Free Basics. Furthermore, 500 Indian start-ups, including major names like Cleartrip, Zomato, Practo, Paytm and Cleartax, also wrote to India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi requesting continued support for Net Neutrality – a concept that advocates equal treatment of websites – on Republic Day. Stand-up comedians like Abish Mathew and groups like All India Bakchod and East India Comedy created humorous but informative videos explaining the regulatory debate and supporting net neutrality. Both went viral.

Technology critic and Quartz writer Alice Truong reacted to Free Basics saying; “Zuckerberg almost portrays net neutrality as a first-world problem that doesn’t apply to India because having some service is better than no service.”

The decision of the Indian government has been largely welcomed in the country and outside. In support of the move, Web We Want programme manager at the World Wide Web Foundation Renata Avila has said; “As the country with the second largest number of Internet users worldwide, this decision will resonate around the world. It follows a precedent set by Chile, the United States, and others which have adopted similar net neutrality safeguards. The message is clear: We can’t create a two-tier Internet – one for the haves, and one for the have-nots. We must connect everyone to the full potential of the open Web.”

There are mixed responses on the social media, both in support and in opposition to the TRAI decision. Josh Levy, Advocacy Director at Accessnow, has appreciated saying, “India is now the global leader on #NetNeutrality. New rules are stronger than those in EU and US.”

Had differential pricing been allowed, it would have affected start-ups and content-based smaller companies adversely as they could never have managed to pay the high price to a partner service provider to make their service available for free. On the other hand, tech-giants like Facebook could have easily managed to capture the entire market. Since the inception, the Facebook-run non-profit Internet.org has run into a lot of controversies because of the hidden motive behind the claimed support for social cause.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/odisha-tv-february-9-2016-subhashish-panigrahi-net-neutrality-advocates-rejoice-as-trai-bans-differential-pricing

Social media undermining journalistic credibility?

praskrishna — 2013-03-06T04:41:15Z

The line separating journalists and bloggers is being increasingly blurred due to the growth of social media, said Nelson Moses, who was a panelist at a discussion on the credibility of social media as a journalistic tool.

The article was published in the New Indian Express on March 4, 2013. Snehashish Ghosh was a panelist.

The talk titled, “Is social media credible?” comprising a panel of professionals from various media houses from across India, was held as a part of the alumni reunion at the Indian Institute of Journalism and New Media (IIJNM) recently.

The panel included Snehashish Ghosh, a policy associate at the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, Nelson Moses, who has had stints with numerous media houses and now works at Yahoo, Subhash Rai, web editor of the Economic and Political Weekly, and Tresa Morera, the deputy editor of the global online desk at Reuters, Bangalore.

The discussion, moderated by Professor Mark Austin of IIJNM, revolved around the crucial issues surrounding the Indian media industry and the use of social media.

Talking points included the role social media like Twitter and Facebook played in populist movements across the Middle East, such as the Arab Spring and also the exodus of people of Manipuri and Assamese descent from Bangalore last year, due to a series of phone messages which purportedly threatened them with violence.Other issues covered in the discussion were whether bloggers could be cited as credible sources of information and also if their roles in shaping public perception was influencing how media houses and journalists function.

During the course of the discussion, which centered around the drawbacks of a digitally interlinked media landscape, Subhash Rai, said that though it was clearly the work of “right-wing fundamental elements” which led to the circulation of provocative messages against people from the north eastern part of the country, the incident also pointed to the failure of neoliberalism in the Indian context.

“Journalists are one of the beneficiaries of neoliberalism,” said Shubash Rai, while arguing that often, urban concerns take precedence over more

pressing issues occurring outside the big cities, leading to these issues either not being reported or not given the same importance. “For example, nobody is reporting the agrarian crisis,” he said.

Tresa Morera, an IIJNM alumna, said that she believed that “transparency” in the Indian media, and a series of “checks and balances” within media organizations could help in better reporting by the media.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/new-indian-express-march-4-2013-social-media-undermining-journalistic-credibility

Chidambaram to Talk Budget on Google+ Hangout

praskrishna — 2013-03-11T04:14:29Z

Indian politicians are slowly warming up to social media.

This article by Dhanya Ann Thoppil was published in the Wall Street Journal on March 4, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

In a first for a cabinet minister, Indian Finance Minister P. Chidambaram tonight is hosting a Google+ Hangout, a Web video chat, to answer citizens’ questions on the budget he presented last week.

At 8 p.m. on Monday India time, Mr. Chidambaram will be joined by a group of experts to discuss the state of India’s economy, which looks set to grow at its weakest pace in a decade this financial year.

On the panel are also Amit Singhal, senior vice president at Google Inc., Anand Mahindra, chairman and managing director of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Jahangir Aziz, chief economist for India at J.P. Morgan and Manish Chokhani, chief executive officer at Axis capital.

The online chat, which the Ministry of Finance in a statement described as “a powerful communication platform,” is an attempt to engage India’s tech-savvy, middle-class youth in the political process.

“It is an attempt by the government to reach out to gen-next,” ahead of the general elections scheduled in 2014, said S. Chandrasekharan, the director of South Asia Analysis Group, a Delhi-based think tank.

Improving opportunities for the country’s younger generations was a major focus of Mr. Chidambaram’s budget speech to lawmakers Thursday. “My budget has before it one overarching goal: to create opportunities for our youth to acquire education and skills that will get them decent jobs or self-employment,” he said, adding, “Their concern are my concerns, too.”

But Mr. Chidambaram won’t be interacting with citizens directly. He will answer questions submitted by citizens in advance through video uploads on this YouTube channel or on this Google + page. The session will be streamed live on both websites.

Social media is only beginning to emerge as a tool Indian politicians use to reach out to the country’s citizens.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, often criticized for not being accessible to the media, set up a Twitter profile about a year ago. But the account is managed by his office staff, not by Mr. Singh himself, and it’s mostly used to share links to pictures or speeches of the Prime Minister.

Narendra Modi, chief minister of the state of Gujarat and possible prime ministerial candidate for the opposition Bhartiya Janata Party, has embraced digital media more than other politicians. In August he hosted a Google + Hangout session to answer questions from citizens and in December had a holographic image of himself projected live at rallies in four different locations to communicate with his supporters during his election campaign.

The government last year also came up with a series of guidelines for its various arms on the effective use of social media to reach out to people and to ensure public participation in policy framing.

Still, the government often views social media with suspicion, and has taken steps to regulate user-generated content on websites more tightly.

There are 14 million broadband connections in India, meaning that only a small portion of the country’s 1.2 billion population has reliable Internet access, says Sunil Abraham, executive director at the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society.

“So, unlike in the U.S., where you can fault the government for not being online, in India you can’t really fault the government,” says Mr. Abraham.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/wsj-march-4-2013-dhanya-ann-thoppil-chidambaram-to-talk-budget-on-google-hangout

Hacktivists deface BSNL website

praskrishna — 2012-12-14T05:20:56Z

The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) website, www.bsnl.co.in, was hacked and defaced on Thursday afternoon.

The article by Kim Arora was published in the Times of India on December 13, 2012. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

A message on the home page said the attack was carried out by the hacktivist group, Anonymous India, as a protest against section 66 A of the IT Act and in support of cartoonist Aseem Trivedi, on an indefinite hunger strike at Jantar Mantar since Dec 8 for the same. The website was restored around 7 pm.

Trivedi said he had received a call from Anonymous around 1.30 in the afternoon informing him that the website has been defaced. On being asked if such a form of protest was valid, Trivedi said, "When the government doesn't pay heed to people's protests against its laws and arrests innocent people for Facebook posts, then such a protest is absolutely valid."

For most of the afternoon and early evening, the BSNL website wasn't available directly. A cached version of the BSNL home page showed an image of cartoonist Trivedi with text that read "Hacked by Anonymous India. support Aseem trivedi (cartoonist) and alok dixit on the hunger strike. remove IT Act 66a databases of all 250 bsnl site has been d Hacked by Anonymous India (sic)". While this message was repeated over and over on the page, it ended with the line "Proof are (sic) here" followed by a link to a page containing the passwords to BSNL databases. BSNL officials were unaware of the attack until Thursday evening.

Late in the evening, Anonymous India tweeted from their account @opindia_revenge: "BSNL Websites hacked, passwords and database leaked... Anonymous India demands withdrawal of Sec 66A of IT Act."

In an open letter to the Government of India posted on alternate media website Kafila in June this year, Anonymous had explained they only carried out Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks on Indian government websites, which is different from the act of hacking per se.

Contrary views too exist. Sunil Abraham, executive director, Centre for Internet and Society, says the attack was unwarranted. "Speech regulation in India is not a lost cause, the Minister is holding consultations, MPs are raising the issue in Parliament, courts have been approached and there is massive public outcry on social media. Therefore I would request Anonymous India to desist from defacing websites," said Abraham. A group of MPs, including Baijayant Jay Panda from Odisha, are scheduled to present a motion in Parliament on Friday morning for the amendment of section 66A of the IT Act.

Last month, two young girls were arrested in Palghar, Maharashtra, for criticizing on Facebook the bandh that followed the death of Shiv Sena supremo Balasaheb Thackeray. Before that, Karti Chidambaram, son of finance minister P Chidambaram, took a man to court for commenting on his financial assets on Twitter. In both cases, the complainant 'used' section 66 A of the IT Act. The section and the Act have since come in for wide debate regarding freedom of speech.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/times-of-india-india-times-december-13-2012-kim-arora-hacktivists-deface-bsnl-website

When the war’s on WhatsApp

praskrishna — 2016-09-25T16:36:01Z

Slick, jingoistic videos are whipping up pro-war rhetoric on social media after the Uri terror attack.

The article by Manju V was published in the Times of India on September 25, 2016. Nishant Shah was quoted.

It packs a meaner punch than any 140-character tweet. In 140 jingoistic seconds, the cleverly packaged YouTube film veers from Mohammed Rafi to Chandra Shekhar Azad drumming up pro-war rhetoric to avenge the Pathankot attack. Set to the tone of chirping crickets on a moonlit night somewhere along the western border that India shares with its neighbour, the short film has two armymen in fatigues deliberate over the absolute need to respond with a counter attack. It ends in a staccato military drumbeat with a voiceover quoting Azad: "If yet your blood does not rage, then it is water that flows in your veins."

Posted about 10 days after the Pathankot attack in January, the video was resurrected last week after the country woke up to the Uri attack that killed 18 Indian soldiers in the deadliest assault on security forces in Kashmir in over two decades. Even as photographs of a grenade smoke-filled valley, tricolour-draped coffins, grieving sons, daughters and widows made the rounds in media outlets scores of Indians marched onto social media, some armed with incendiary prose and other with slick videos that expressed more anger than anguish.

In another video doing the rounds, a jawan, or someone in uniform, sings a poem warning Pakistan. His mates join in the refrain: "Kashmir toh hoga, lekin Pakistan nahi hoga."

These videos of jawans threatening to decimate Pakistan were shared by thousands. WhatsApp profile pictures and statuses were changed, Facebook posts got longer and vitriolic, Twitter #UriAttack exploded with expletives as the enough-is-enough sentiment peaked. It heralded the beginning of an era where the dynamics of Indo-Pakistan relations will play out not just in the diplomatic corridors of Delhi and Islamabad, the valley of Kashmir or the barracks of security forces; but also on the mobile phones, tablets and laptops of millions of Indians.

When contacted for a comment, the makers of the war-mongering 'Pathankot Tolerance' video didn't endorse war outright. "My individual opinion is that war is not a solution," said producer Santosh Singh, who heads the Mumbai-based V Seven Pictures. "Before we resort to war, we have to solve our internal problems. How can we let infiltration take place so blatantly?" he asked. Why then does the video not talk about this? Singh said that when one hears about such attacks, the instant reaction is to retaliate. "The video is based on that sentiment."

An electronics engineer, Singh also owns an IT recruitment firm. His film production company, which he runs along with his friend Vivek Joshi, made the Mauka Mauka World Cup video that went viral and also produces short films and videos for clients. "We have no political affiliations, in fact we turned down a couple of political parties who approached us," says Singh, adding that his company has made 30-35 films in less than two years. "Of these, about 10 are on issues close to our heart, like those on Afzal Guru and the Pathankot attack. We upload them on YouTube, they are aired without ads. We don't earn money from them," he adds.

Ugly gets outlet

Nitin Pai, director of Takshashila Institution, an independent centre for research and education in public policy, says that social media and some television studios have enabled people to express their subconscious fears and desires. "It is not just today that the people of India have been angry with Pakistan for fomenting terrorism in our country. But it is only now that they have ways to express this anger; unfortunately, social media dynamics amplify this anger in a grotesque, distorted manner, allowing the ugly and less-sensible views to rise to the top of the public discourse," said Pai.

Tracing the many origins of this phenomenon, psychiatrist Harish Shetty says that in an angst-ridden, globalized world, we need a whipping boy. "With the Uri attacks, the entire nation had a common enemy. In expressing collective anger, there's catharsis." The current outpouring is not just over the deaths of soldiers; such an incident also opens up older wounds, he says. "For a long time, Indians have found their leaders to be helpless. It's like a family that is attacked again and again by a neighbour, but the father does nothing about it. There has been a lack of strong response from 'papa figures' across time, which has led to a sense of anger and rage. After the Uri attacks, the collective self-esteem of the country took a beating, and people felt a need to assert themselves on social media. At such times strong action is viewed as legitimate, valid and free of guilt," he adds.

Amplifying angst

If social media brought together protesters in Tunisia and Egypt during the Arab spring, in democratic India it has turned into a platform for expressing mass disenchantment with the government, especially in the wake of such attacks.

Social media plays several roles in times of crises, says Nishant Shah, professor of digital media and co-founder of the Centre for Internet & Society, Bengaluru. One, it amplifies what is already being said in friend circles and living-room conversations in front of the telly, but spreads it to a larger audience. "The second role it plays is distribution: social media allows people to inherit other people's opinions, thus exposing them to new ways of thinking but also find corroborators for their own viewpoints," he says. The third is catalysis — social media also has the capacity to generate new information. "The format creates new kinds of truths. Things that can be caught in Snapchat videos, or visuals which can be remixed, all become a part of this zeitgeist," Shah says.

Virtual wars

But in India at least, social media is no indicator of considered public opinion, points out Pai. Shah adds: "What we are seeing is a filter bubble of a privileged set of people who are engaging in this debate."

Then again, what's said on social media needn't be endorsed in real life. Vivek Joshi, who wrote and directed the Pathankot video, says nobody in the world would want a war. "But when it comes to the lives of our soldiers, an answer has to be given. If the government had taken any visible action, then there would have been no need to put out a video like this," Joshi adds. And therein probably comes the new-age heuristic of venting out on social media.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/times-of-india-september-25-2016-manju-vi-when-the-war-is-on-whatsapp

Services like TwitterSeva aren’t the silver bullets they are made out to be

sunil — 2016-10-06T16:31:51Z

TwitterSeva is great, but it should not be considered a sufficient replacement for proper e-governance systems. This is because there are several serious shortcomings with the TwitterSeva approach, and it is no wonder that enthusiastic police officers and bureaucrats are somewhat upset with the slow deployment of e-governance applications. They are also right in being frustrated with the lack of usability and scalability of existing applications that hold out the promise of adopting private sector platforms to serve citizens better.

Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society, wrote this in response to the FactorDaily story on TwitterSeva, a special feature developed by Twitter’s India team to help citizens connect better with government services. Sunil's article in FactorDaily can be read here.

Let’s take a look at why the TwitterSeva approach is not adequate:

1. Vendor and Technology Neutrality: Providing a level ground for competing technologies in e-governance has been a globally accepted best practice for about 15 years now. This is usually done by using open standards policies and interoperability frameworks.

India does have a national open standards policy, but the National Informatics Centre (NIC) has only published one chapter of the Interoperability Framework for e-Governance .

The thing is, while Twitter might be the preferred choice for urban elites and the middle class, it might not be the choice of millions of Indians coming online. By implicitly signaling to citizens that Twitter complaints will be taken more seriously than e-mail or SMS complaints, the government is becoming a salesperson for Twitter. Ideally, all interactions that the state has with citizens should be such that citizens can choose which vendor and technology they would like to use. Ideally, the government should have its own work-flow so that it can harvest complaints, feedback and other communications from all social media platforms be it Twitter or Identica, Facebook or Diaspora, and publish responses back onto them.

By implicitly signalling to citizens that Twitter complaints will be taken more seriously than e-mail or SMS complaints, the government is becoming a salesperson for Twitter

Apart from undermining the power of choice for citizens, lack of vendor and technology neutrality in government use of technology undermines the efficient functioning of a competitive free market, which is the bedrock of future innovation.

When it comes to micro-blogging, Twitter has established a near monopoly in India. There are no clear signs of harm and therefore it would not be wise to advocate that the Competition Commission of India investigate Twitter. However, if the government helps Twitter tighten its grip over the Indian market, it is preventing the next cycle of creative destruction and disruption. Therefore, e-governance applications should ideally only “loosely couple” with the APIs of private firms so that competition and innovation are protected.

2. Holistic Approach and Accountability: Ideally, as the Electronic Service Delivery Bill 2011 had envisaged, every agency within the government was supposed to (within 180 days of the enactment of the Act) do several things: publish a list of services that will be delivered electronically with a deadline for each service; commit to service-level agreements for each service and provide details of the manner of delivery; provide an agency-level grievance redressal mechanism for citizens unhappy with the delivery of these electronic services.

Notwithstanding the 180-day commitment, the Bill required that “all public services shall be delivered in electronic mode within five years” after the enactment of the Bill with a potential three-year extension if the original deadline was not met. The Bill also envisaged the constitution of a Central Electronic Service Delivery Commission with a team of commissioners who “monitor the implementation of this Bill on a regular basis” and publish an annual report which would include “the number of electronic service requests in response to which service was provided in accordance with the applicable service levels and an analysis of the remaining cases.”

The Electronic Service Delivery Bill 2011 had a much more comprehensive and accountable plan for e-governance adoption in the country

Citizens suffering from non-compliance with the provisions of the Bill and unsatisfied with the response from the agency level grievance redressal mechanism could appeal to the Commission. The state or central commissioners after giving the government officials an opportunity to be heard were empowered to impose a fine of Rs 5000.

Unlike the piecemeal approach of TwitterSeva, the Bill had a much more comprehensive and accountable plan for e-governance adoption in the country.

3. Right To Transparency: Some of the interactions that the government has with citizens and firms may have to be disclosed under the obligation emerging from the Right to Information Act for disclosure to the public or to the requesting party. Therefore it is important that the government take its own steps for the retention of all data and records — independent of the goodwill and lifecycles of private firms.

Twitter is only 10 years old. It took 10 years for Orkut to shut down. Maybe Twitter will shut down in the next 10 years. How then will the government comply with RTI requests? Even if the government is not keen on pushing for data portablity as a right for consumers (just like mobile number portability in telecom, so that consumers can seamlessly shift between competing service providers), it absolutely should insist on data portability for all government use.

Twitter is only 10 years old. It took 10 years for Orkut to shut down. Maybe Twitter will shut down in the next 10 years. How then will the government comply with RTI requests?

This will allow it to shift to a) support multiple services, b) shift to competing/emerging services c) incrementally build its own infrastructure and also comply with the requirements of the Right to Information Act.

4. Privacy: Unfortunately, thanks to the techno-utopians behind the Aadhaar project, the current government is infected with “data ideology.” There is an obsession with collecting as much data as possible from citizens, storing it in centralized databases and providing “dashboards” to bureaucrats and politicians. This is diametrically opposed to the view of the security community.

Unfortunately, thanks to the techno-utopians behind the Aadhaar project, the current government is infected with “data ideology”

For example, Bruce Schneier posted on his blog in March this year (in a piece titled ‘Data is a Toxic Asset‘) saying: “What all these data breaches are teaching us is that data is a toxic asset and saving it is dangerous. This idea has always been part of the data protection law starting with the 2005 EU Data Protection Directive expressed as the principle of “Data Minimization” or “Collection Limitation”. More recently technologists and policy makers also use the phrase “Privacy by Design”. Introducing an unnecessary intermediary or gate-keeper between what is essentially transactions between citizens and the state is an egregious violation of a key privacy principle.”

5. Middle Class and Elite Capture: The use of Twitter amplifies the voices of the English-speaking, elite, and middle class citizens at the expense of the voices of the poor. While elites don’t exhibit fear when tagging police IDs and making public complaints from the comforts of their gated communities with private security guards shielding them the violence of the state, this might be a very intimidating option for the poor and disempowered.

While elites don’t fear tagging police IDs and making public complaints from the comforts of their gated communities, it’s intimidating for the disempowered

While the system may not be discriminatory in its design, it will have disparate impact on different sections of our society. In other words, the introduction of TwitterSeva will exacerbate power asymmetries in our society rather than ameliorating them.

The canonical scholarly reference for this is Kate Crawford’s analysis of City of Boston’s StreetBump smartphone, which resulted in an over-reporting of potholes in elite neighbourhoods and under-reporting from poor and elderly residents. This meant that efficiency in the allocation of the city’s resources was only a cover for increased discrimination against the powerless.

6. Security: The most important conclusion to draw from the Snowden disclosure is that the tin-foil conspiracy theorists who we used to dismiss as lunatics were correct. What has been established beyond doubt is that the United States of America is the world leader when it comes to conducting mass surveillance on netizens across the globe. It is still completely unclear how much access the NSA has to the databases of American social media giants. When the complete police force of a state starts to use Twitter for the delivery of services to the public, then it may be possible for foreign intelligence agencies to use this information to undermine our sovereignty and national security.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/factordaily-sunil-abraham-october-6-2016-services-like-twitterseva-are-not-the-silver-bullets-they-are-made-out-to-be

Behind Modi’s Heartwarming Diwali Ad for Soldiers, An App That’s Primed for Political Messaging

praskrishna — 2016-10-30T07:33:57Z

The campaign, which allows users to send Modi quotes on themes like Ayodhya and the perfidy of the Opposition, raises questions about the boundaries between government, party and personal promotion.

The article by Sangeeta Barooah Pisharoty was published in the Wire on October 29, 2016. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

On October 22, Prime Minister Narendra Modi launched a public campaign, Sandesh2Soldiers, urging the people to be a part of it. The prime minister prodded people to express their gratitude to soldiers guarding the borders through the campaign by sending them personalised messages on the occasion of Diwali.

Such messages can be sent through the Narendra Modi mobile app, the “official app of the prime minister”, or by logging on to www.mygov.in, a central government platform launched by the prime minister in 2014 to facilitate participatory governance by engaging the public. One can also send a message by recording it after dialing a 10-digit number – which would then be aired by All India Radio (AIR).

Media reports said a special module had been created within the mobile app to not only enable people to send text messages to soldiers but also to upload handwritten letters, decorated cards and videos to them expressing their Diwali wishes and feelings for the armed forces.

A special video that carried Modi’s appeal to the public to send messages to the armed forces was shared on social media along with a few other videos to promote the prime minister’s idea. One such video features a child sending a ‘thank you rocket’ to soldiers for defending the nation under hostile circumstances. That the call to send a personal message has come from the prime minister has upped the profile of this campaign.

Bollywood stars like Akshay Kumar, Aamir Khan and Salman Khan, and cricketers such as Virat Kohli, Virendra Sehwag and Mohammad Kaif have also posted their messages to soldiers on Twitter by using the prime minister’s campaign hashtag #Sandesh2Soldiers. Many Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) politicians and ministers have also joined in.

As per a tweet by AIR on October 26, “Around 9,800 persons sent their good wishes to jawans of security forces so far during this festive season”. Last checked, www.mygov.in, run by the National Informatics Centre under the the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, showed 13,000 messages and video uploads recorded. The number is going up by the minute.

While the registration requirement at the government’s www.mygov.in portal only requires the sender to provide her or his name and e-mail address to be able to send a message or upload a video – a usual cyber safety procedure – those who want to use the Modi app for the purpose will have to do more: they will first have to agree to be personally profiled by the prime minister’s “official” mobile application.

Personally identifiable information

This is how things work: to register oneself through the app and send a message, a user not only has to disclose her name, mobile number and email address but also profession, the state and the district she belongs to, her voter identification card number, specific areas of interests and a personal description within “500 characters”.

This has left many potential senders and experts flummoxed. Why does a citizen, in order to express her gratitude to the armed forces on the occasion of Diwali at the call of her prime minister need to share additional information with the app, which amounts to profiling? At a time when the Supreme Court is hearing a bunch of petitions on the mandatory use of Aadhar cards by the government, some of which deal with issues of privacy and the possible misuse of the collected data, this is a relevant question.

“There was absolutely no need for the app to ask for additional information from a user just to send a message to the armed forces. As far as the additional information sought from a user is concerned, it allows the data collector to build a profile of the user but it is not profiling in the modern big data sense wherein multiple data sources are combined to create a complete profile of the data subject,” says Sunil Abraham, director of the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society.

Abraham adds, “There is no guarantee that the data collected (through the app) won’t be used illegally by some commercial enterprise, etc. because our data protection law, Section 43A of the Information and Technology Act, doesn’t apply to the state but only to the private sector. In other words, if the personal information is shared with the government, then it is perfectly legal for the government to disclose the personal information to other government or commercial entities.”

Unlike the MyGov portal, where a user can type or upload a message, the Narendra Modi mobile app also automatically adds a quote from the prime minister below the one typed by the user. It expresses the prime minister’s pride over “the indomitable valour and supreme sacrifice of our armed forces etched in the memory of every Indian”.

The prime minister launched his official mobile app in August last year at a function reportedly organised by MyGov, thus making him the first prime minister to have a mobile app named after him. Designed by a team of six students from Delhi Technical University after winning a two-phased contest launched by MyGov in March last year, the app has been described as “a one-stop destination for knowing about all the latest day-to-day activities of the prime minister.”As per media reports, the app would correspond to the prime minister’s official website, www.pmindia.gov.in.

Obviously then, information on how to access the app and take part in the campaign have been publicised through his portal, www.pmindia.gov.in.

This raises another question. Even though www.pmindia.gov.in is not directly accepting public messages for the armed forces but is only promoting the campaign and giving information on how to download the mobile app for it (thereby proving that it corresponds to the app), it does direct an interested user to the prime minister’s personal website, www.narendramodi.in on clicking its publicity window designed for the campaign.

The user can then download the Modi app from his personal website, which was used extensively during the run-up to the 2014 parliamentary elections by Modi to reach out to voters. So the app not only corresponds to the official website of the prime minister but also with his personal website through the official website. Curiously, it is not possible to access the app from the MyGov portal even though the entity under the Ministry of Electronics and Information launched the app at a function on August 6 in New Delhi reportedly organised by it.

Thus, while the app that seemed to have been developed and launched by a government department can’t be accessed directly through a government portal, it can be accessed through the prime minister’s personal portal. Also, features in the app like “forget password” are handled by his personal website, which communicates with an app user as its “Admin”.

So who runs the app? Is it not the official app of the prime minister of the country? Who owns it? Is it his personal app that he considers “official”? These are questions to which answers are not easily available.

No answers

The Wire made multiple attempts to get an official response, both from the government and the BJP Cyber Cell, about these queries but failed to get an answer. The Wire also failed to get any official clarification to why the app seeks personal details of a user to just send messages to the armed forces.

Calls and text messages to the social media cell of the Press Information Bureau (PIB) – the government’s media interface in the digital space – the office of Anurag Jain, listed in the www.pmindia.gov.in as the “web information office”, and to MyGov, which launched the app at the second anniversary function of the Modi government on August 6 last year in New Delhi, failed to receive a reply. All that a PIB official was willing to say on condition of anonymity to this correspondent, “I think it has been outsourced, we don’t deal with it. May be you can contact the PMO.”

Anurag Jain’s office at the PMO said, “You won’t get any information here on the app and the response of the people for the campaign through it. Call the appointments section, it might know.” But that section didn’t respond.

A mail sent to Arvind Gupta of the BJP’s Cyber Cell too has so far remained unanswered. A BJP source, however, pointed out, “If you go to @narendramodi_in, it clearly mentions that it is the twitter account of narendramodi.in, the personal website of Narendra Modi and also of the Narendra Modi mobile app. So it is his personal app.”

The question of why a personal app of the prime minister is then called his “official” app remains unanswered. Also, why is it then that the bulk text messages sent by a government entity, MyGov, direct the public to the prime minister’s personal app to send a message to the armed forces? Is it personal or official?

Meanwhile, the traffic directed by the prime minister’s official website to his personal portal can make use of the e-greeting section in it to send a Diwali e-card to family, relatives, colleagues, etc.

To send such an e-card, the user needs to follow four mandatory steps – choosing a card from the available options, selecting a pre-written Diwali message; selecting a quote of the prime minister from an exhaustive list made available to the user, and adding the name, salutation and email address of the recipient of the card.

The list of quotes – in English and Hindi – have been culled out of the prime minister’s speeches that straddle a variety of categories including Pakistan, terrorism, ASEAN, Nepal, Bhutan, Swacchh Bharat mission, the idea of India, secularism, disability, caste, dalits, governance, yoga, youth, et al.

It also has “motivation” as a category of prime minister’s sayings. Clicking it will give a user the choice of a long list of the prime minister’s quotes which begins with the need for the world to recognise the sacrifice made by Indian soldiers in the two world wars and ends with a quote on the 2010 judgment given by the Allahabad high court on the disputed site at Ayodhya:

Diwali greetings that can be sent along with the prime minister’s quote on the Ayodhya judgement which has been stayed by the Supreme Court

The quote said, “The Ayodhya judgment will work as a catalyst to maintain peace and unity in the country. This judgment has given a respect to belief and self esteem of the people of India, and it should be linked to self esteem of the country.”

Reacting to the judgment in 2010, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh chief Mohan Bhagwat had expressed “satisfaction”, adding, “The judgment has paved the way for the construction of Ram temple in Ayodhya. The judgment is not a win or loss for anybody. We invite everybody, including Muslims, to help build the temple.”

Constructing the Ram temple in Ayodhya was also in the manifesto of the BJP for the 2014 Lok Sabha polls with Modi as the party’s prime ministerial candidate.

So, even if the Supreme Court had put a stay on the judgment and has been hearing some petitions for and against it, this Diwali, if you wish to send an e-card using that quote of the prime minister to express his mind on the issue, you can.

“I think it is not only improper of the prime minister to allow such a quote to feature in an e-card with his name but it is also contempt of court. Being the prime minister of the country, he has to maintain neutrality. As per the constitution, there is separation of the state from religion. So being the prime minister, he can’t possibly allow someone to use that quote of him,” says well-known constitutional expert and senior Supreme Court lawyer Rajeev Dhavan.

Dhavan points out a precedent: “In 1969, the Supreme Court held as contempt a comment made by the then West Bengal chief minister P.C. Sen in a speech aired by All India Radio. The speech was made at a time when someone had challenged an order of the state government on milk production. Sen’s adverse comment supporting the order was presented first in front of the West Bengal High Court which took cognisance of it and termed it contempt of court. Thereafter, the case came to the SC which also termed it contempt of court as the comment was made while the case was pending in the court.”

Swaying public opinion

As per media reports, the comment on the September 30, 2010, HC order was made by Modi, then the Gujarat chief minister, on the same day, before the SC stayed that order in May, 2011.

Dhavan felt, “That he, as the prime minister, is now openly allowing a user to circulate that quote after the SC has begun hearing the case will attract criminal contempt of court as it can be seen as interfering with the working of the judiciary. He can obviously affect public opinion and can be seen as trying to decide the question. It can be seen as usurping the function of the Judiciary by the Executive.”

The traffic directed by the prime minister’s official website to the personal portal can also make use of any Diwali e-greeting card by picking a quote from a category named “political-general”. Many of the quotes under that category are from the prime minister’s multiple attacks on the main opposition party, the Congress, some of which must have been made before the 2014 Lok Sabha polls, such as this one: “The UPA government is non-serious, it has taken the people for granted & it is not bothered about the youth. Their approach shows lack of faith in democracy. Our goal is to win the trust of the people & give dignity to them…”

“That the prime minister’s official website links people to surf his personal website where they can send e-cards using anti-opposition quotes of the prime minister is extremely contentious. Whichever party had come to power, there has always been a Chinese wall between the institution of the prime minister and the politician. Unfortunately, both have come together in the current dispensation. The common man doesn’t understand it well, so it is taking advantage of technology to erase that difference,” former Information and Broadcasting minister and Congress spokesperson Manish Tiwari said.

Such e-cards are not restricted to Diwali. You can send them on occasions like “Holi, Rakshabandhan, Navaratri, Christmas, Independence Day, Gudi Padwa, Kite Festival, Namo Birthday, Ram Navami, Swami Vivekananda Janma Jayanti” and at any other time by opting for the “political (general)” category.

Narendra Modi implemented the idea of launching e-cards that could go with his quotes in the run-up to the 2014 parliamentary elections. Reports said that “Narendra Modi E-cards” were used by the BJP as a “new marketing strategy” to canvas for its prime ministerial candidate before Holi to bypass the Election Commission of India’s model code of conduct as there was “no mention of rules for social media usage by political parties”.

Meanwhile, those who have signed up for the Narendra Modi mobile app only to send a message to the armed forces have begun receiving regular “infographics” based on the prime minister’s speeches, and also data culled out of news and study reports that are deemed favourable to him and his government. A registered user can further pass on those “infographics” by sharing them on her Facebook page and twitter handle.

The app, though termed “official”, also forwards to a registered user tweets posted only from his personal twitter handle and not from his official handle, @pmoindia. One such tweet that this correspondent received through the app had little to do with the government and entirely with the persona of the politician behind the prime minister. The tweet said, “When @narendramodi demonstrated true leadership at the Patna rally, on this day in 2013…”

Clicking on the link in the tweet takes you to a write-up that talks of the “true grit” of the “BJP’s then prime ministerial candidate” by addressing a rally after a bomb blast in Patna.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-wire-october-29-2016-sangeeta-barooah-pisharoty-behind-modis-heartwarming-diwal-ad-for-soldiers-an-app-that-is-primed-for-political-messaging

UN Human Rights Council urged to protect human rights online

geetha — 2014-06-19T13:28:32Z

63 civil society groups urged the UN Human Rights Council to address global challenges to freedom of expression, privacy and other human rights on the Internet. Centre for Internet & Society joined in the statement, delivered on behalf of the 63 groups by Article 19.

The 26th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) is currently ongoing (June 10-27, 2014). On June 19, 2014, 63 civil society groups joined together to urge the United Nations Human Rights Council to protect human rights online and address global challenged to their realization. Centre for Internet & Society joined in support of the statement ("the Civil Society Statement"), which was delivered by Article 19 on behalf of the 63 groups.

In its consensus resolution A/HRC/20/8 (2012), the UNHRC affirmed that the "same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, in particular freedom of expression, which is applicable regardless of frontiers and through any media of one’s choice". India, a current member of the UNHRC, stood in support of resolution 20/8. The protection of human rights online was also a matter of popular agreement at NETmundial 2014, which similarly emphasised the importance of protecting human rights online in accordance with international human rights obligations. Moreover, the WSIS+10 High Level Event, organised by the ITU in collaboration with other UN entities, emphasized the criticality of expanding access to ICTs across the globe, including infrastructure, affordability and reach.

The Civil Society Statement at HRC26 highlights the importance of retaining the Internet as a global resource - a democratic, free and pluralistic platform. However, the recent record of freedom of expression and privacy online have resulted in a deficit of trust and free, democratic participation. Turkey, Malaysia, Thailand, Egypt and Pakistan have blocked web-pages and social media content, while Edward Snowden's revelations have heightened awareness of human rights violations on the Internet.

At a time when governance of the Internet and its institutions is evolving, a human rights centred perspective is crucial. Openness and transparency - both in the governance of Internet institutions and rights online - are crucial to continuing growth of the Internet as a global, democratic and free resource, where freedom of expression, privacy and other rights are respected regardless of location or nationality. In particular, the Civil Society Statement calls attention to principles of necessity and proportionality to regulate targeted interception and collection of personal data.

The UNHRC, comprising 47 member states, is called upon to address these global challenges. Guided by resolutions A/HRC/20/8 and A/RES/68/167, the WSIS+10 High Level Event Outcome Documents (especially operative paragraphs 2, 8 and 11 of the Vision Document) and the forthcoming report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights regarding privacy in the digital age, the UNHRC as well as other states may gather the opportunity and intention to put forth a strong case for human rights online in our post-2015 development-centred world.

Civil Society Statement:

The full oral statement can be accessed here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/un-human-rights-council-urged-to-protect-human-rights-online

Reading the Fine Script: Service Providers, Terms and Conditions and Consumer Rights

jyoti — 2014-07-04T06:31:37Z

This year, an increasing number of incidents, related to consumer rights and service providers, have come to light. This blog illustrates the facts of the cases, and discusses the main issues at stake, namely, the role and responsibilities of providers of platforms for user-created content with regard to consumer rights.

On 1st July, 2014 the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a complaint against T-Mobile USA,[1] accusing the service provider of 'cramming' customers bills, with millions of dollars of unauthorized charges. Recently, another service provider, received flak from regulators and users worldwide, after it published a paper, 'Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks'.[2] The paper described Facebook's experiment on more than 600,000 users, to determine whether manipulating user-generated content, would affect the emotions of its users.

In both incidents the terms that should ensure the protection of their user's legal rights, were used to gain consent for actions on behalf of the service providers, that were not anticipated at the time of agreeing to the terms and conditions (T&Cs) by the consumer. More precisely, both cases point to the underlying issue of how users are bound by T&Cs, and in a mediated online landscape—highlight, the need to pay attention to the regulations that govern the online engagement of users.

I have read and agree to the terms

In his statement, Chief Executive Officer, John Legere might have referred to T-Mobile as "the most pro-consumer company in the industry",[3] however the FTC investigation revelations, that many customers never authorized the charges, suggest otherwise. The FTC investigation also found that, T-Mobile received 35-40 per cent of the amount charged for subscriptions, that were made largely through innocuous services, that customers had been signed up to, without their knowledge or consent. Last month news broke, that just under 700,000 users 'unknowingly' participated in the Facebook study, and while the legality and ethics of the experiment are being debated, what is clear is that Facebook violated consumer rights by not providing the choice to opt in or out, or even the knowledge of such social or psychological experiments to its users.

Both incidents boil down to the sensitive question of consent. While binding agreements around the world work on the condition of consent, how do we define it and what are the implications of agreeing to the terms?

Terms of Service: Conditions are subject to change

A legal necessity, the existing terms of service (TOS)—as they are also known—as an acceptance mechanism are deeply broken. The policies of online service providers are often, too long, and with no shorter or multilingual versions, require substantial effort on part of the user to go through in detail. A 2008 Carnegie Mellon study estimated it would take an average user 244 hours every year to go through the policies they agree to online.[4] Based on the study, Atlantic's Alexis C. Madrigal derived that reading all of the privacy policies an average Internet user encounters in a year, would take 76 working days.[5]

The costs of time are multiplied by the fact that terms of services change with technology, making it very hard for a user to keep track of all of the changes over time. Moreover, many services providers do not even commit to the obligation of notifying the users of any changes in the TOS. Microsoft, Skype, Amazon, YouTube are examples of some of the service providers that have not committed to any obligations of notification of changes and often, there are no mechanisms in place to ensure that service providers are keeping users updated.

Facebook has said that the recent social experiment is perfectly legal under its TOS,[6] the question of fairness of the conditions of users consent remain debatable. Facebook has a broad copyright license that goes beyond its operating requirements, such as the right to 'sublicense'. The copyright also does not end when users stop using the service, unless the content has been deleted by everyone else.

More importantly, since 2007, Facebook has brought major changes to their lengthy TOS about every year.[7] And while many point that Facebook is transparent, as it solicits feedback preceding changes to their terms, the accountability remains questionable, as the results are not binding unless 30% of the actual users vote. Facebook can and does, track users and shares their data across websites, and has no obligation or mechanism to inform users of the takedown requests.

Courts in different jurisdictions under different laws may come to different conclusions regarding these practices, especially about whether changing terms without notifying users is acceptable or not. Living in a society more protective of consumer rights is however, no safeguard, as TOS often include a clause of choice of law which allow companies to select jurisdictions whose laws govern the terms.

The recent experiment bypassed the need for informed user consent due to Facebook's Data Use Policy[8], which states that once an account has been created, user data can be used for 'internal operations, including troubleshooting, data analysis, testing, research and service improvement.' While the users worldwide may be outraged, legally, Facebook acted within its rights as the decision fell within the scope of T&Cs that users consented to. The incident's most positive impact might be in taking the questions of Facebook responsibilities towards protecting users, including informing them of the usage of their data and changes in data privacy terms, to a worldwide audience.

My right is bigger than yours

Most TOS agreements, written by lawyers to protect the interests of the companies add to the complexities of privacy, in an increasingly user-generated digital world. Often, intentionally complicated agreements, conflict with existing data and user rights across jurisdictions and chip away at rights like ownership, privacy and even the ability to sue. With conditions that that allow for change in terms at anytime, existing users do not have ownership or control over their data.

In April New York Times, reported of updates to the legal policy of General Mills (GM), the multibillion-dollar food company.[9] The update broadly asserted that consumers interacting with the company in a variety of ways and venues no longer can sue GM, but must instead, submit any complaint to “informal negotiation” or arbitration. Since then, GM has backtracked and clarified that “online communities” mentioned in the policy referred only to those online communities hosted by the company on its own websites.[10] Clarification aside, as Julia Duncan, Director of Federal programs at American Association for Justice points out, the update in the terms were so broad, that they were open to wide interpretation and anything that consumers purchase from the company could have been held to this clause. [11]

Data and whose rights?

Following Snowden revelations, data privacy has become a contentious issue in the EU, and TOS, that allow the service providers to unilaterally alter terms of the contract, will face many challenges in the future. In March Edward Snowden sent his testimony to the European Parliament calling for greater accountability and highlighted that in "a global, interconnected world where, when national laws fail like this, our international laws provide for another level of accountability."[12] Following the testimony came the European Parliament's vote in favor of new safeguards on the personal data of EU citizens, when it’s transferred to non-EU.[13] The new regulations seek to give users more control over their personal data including the right to ask for data from companies that control it and seek to place the burden of proof on the service providers.

The regulation places responsibility on companies, including third-parties involved in data collection, transfer and storing and greater transparency on concerned requests for information. The amendment reinforces data subject right to seek erasure of data and obliges concerned parties to communicate data rectification. Also, earlier this year, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled in favor of the 'right to be forgotten'[14]. The ECJ ruling recognised data subject's rights override the interest of internet users, however, with exceptions pertaining to nature of information, its sensitivity for the data subject's private life and the role of the data subject in public life.

In May, the Norwegian Consumer Council filed a complaint with the Norwegian Consumer Ombudsman, “… based on the discrepancies between Norwegian Law and the standard terms and conditions applicable to the Apple iCloud service...”, and, “...in breach of the law regarding control of marketing and standard agreements.”[15] The council based its complaint on the results of a study, published earlier this year, that found terms were hazy and varied across services including iCloud, Drop Box, Google Drive, Jotta Cloud, and Microsoft OneDrive. The Norwegian Council study found that Google TOS, allow for users content to be used for other purposes than storage, including by partners and that it has rights of usage even after the service is cancelled. None of the providers provide a guarantee that data is safe from loss, while many, have the ability to terminate an account without notice. All of the service providers can change the terms of service but only Google and Microsoft give an advance notice.

The study also found service providers lacking with respect to European privacy standards, with many allowing for browsing of user content. Tellingly, Google had received a fine in January by the French Data Protection Authority, that stated regarding Google's TOS, "permits itself to combine all the data it collects about its users across all of its services without any legal basis."

To blame or not to blame

Facebook is facing a probe by the UK Information Commissioner's Office, to assess if the experiment conducted in 2012 was a violation of data privacy laws.[16] The FTC asked the court to order T-Mobile USA, to stop mobile cramming, provide refunds and give up any revenues from the practice. The existing mechanisms of online consent, do not simplify the task of agreeing to multiple documents and services at once, a complexity which manifolds, with the involvement of third parties.

Unsurprisingly, T-Mobile's Legere termed the FTC lawsuit misdirected and blamed the companies providing the text services for the cramming.[17] He felt those providers should be held accountable, despite allegations that T-Mobile's billing practices made it difficult for consumers to detect that they were being charged for unauthorized services and having shared revenues with third-party providers. Interestingly, this is the first action against a wireless carrier for cramming and the FTC has a precedent of going after smaller companies that provide the services.

The FTC charged T-Mobile USA with deceptive billing practices in putting the crammed charges under a total for 'use charges' and 'premium services' and failure to highlight that portion of the charge was towards third-party charges. Further, the company urged customers to take complaints to vendors and was not forthcoming with refunds. For now, T-Mobile may be able to share the blame, the incident brings to question its accountability, especially as going forward it has entered a pact along with other carriers in USA including Verizon and AT&T, agreeing to stop billing customers for third-party services. Even when practices such as cramming are deemed illegal, it does not necessarily mean that harm has been prevented. Often users bear the burden of claiming refunds and litigation comes at a cost while even after being fined companies could have succeeded in profiting from their actions.

Conclusion

Unfair terms and conditions may arise when service providers include terms that are difficult to understand or vague in their scope. TOS that prevent users from taking legal action, negate liability for service providers actions despite the companies actions that may have a direct bearing on users, are also considered unfair. More importantly, any term that is hidden till after signing the contract, or a term giving the provider the right to change the contract to their benefit including wider rights for service provider wide in comparison to users such as a term that that makes it very difficult for users to end a contract create an imbalance. These issues get further complicated when the companies control and profiting from data are doing so with user generated data provided free to the platform.

In the knowledge economy, web companies play a decisive role as even though they work for profit, the profit is derived out of the knowledge held by individuals and groups. In their function of aggregating human knowledge, they collect and provide opportunities for feedback of the outcomes of individual choices. The significance of consent becomes a critical part of the equation when harnessing individual information. In France, consent is part of the four conditions necessary to be forming a valid contract (article 1108 of the Code Civil).

The cases highlight the complexities that are inherent in the existing mechanisms of online consent. The question of consent has many underlying layers such as reasonable notice and contractual obligations related to consent such as those explored in the case in Canada, which looked at whether clauses of TOS were communicated reasonably to the user, a topic for another blog. For now, we must remember that by creating and organising social knowledge that further human activity, service providers, serve a powerful function. And as the saying goes, with great power comes great responsibility.

[1] 'FTC Alleges T-Mobile Crammed Bogus Charges onto Customers’ Phone Bills', published 1 July, 2014. See: http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2014/07/ftc-alleges-t-mobile-crammed-bogus-charges-customers-phone-bills

[2] 'Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks', Adam D. I. Kramera,1, Jamie E. Guilloryb, and Jeffrey T. Hancock, published March 25, 2014. See:http://www.pnas.org/content/111/24/8788.full.pdf+html?sid=2610b655-db67-453d-bcb6-da4efeebf534

[3] 'U.S. sues T-Mobile USA, alleges bogus charges on phone bills, Reuters published 1st July, 2014 See: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/01/us-tmobile-ftc-idUSKBN0F656E20140701

[4] 'The Cost of Reading Privacy Policies', Aleecia M. McDonald and Lorrie Faith Cranor, published I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society 2008 Privacy Year in Review issue. See: http://lorrie.cranor.org/pubs/readingPolicyCost-authorDraft.pdf

[5] 'Reading the Privacy Policies You Encounter in a Year Would Take 76 Work Days', Alexis C. Madrigal, published The Atlantic, March 2012 See: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/reading-the-privacy-policies-you-encounter-in-a-year-would-take-76-work-days/253851/

[6] Facebook Legal Terms. See: https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms

[7] 'Facebook's Eroding Privacy Policy: A Timeline', Kurt Opsahl, Published Electronic Frontier Foundation , April 28, 2010 See:https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/facebook-timeline

[8] Facebook Data Use Policy. See: https://www.facebook.com/about/privacy/

[9] 'When ‘Liking’ a Brand Online Voids the Right to Sue', Stephanie Strom, published in New York Times on April 16, 2014 See: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/17/business/when-liking-a-brand-online-voids-the-right-to-sue.html?ref=business

[10] Explaining our website privacy policy and legal terms, published April 17, 2014 See:http://www.blog.generalmills.com/2014/04/explaining-our-website-privacy-policy-and-legal-terms/#sthash.B5URM3et.dpufhttp://www.blog.generalmills.com/2014/04/explaining-our-website-privacy-policy-and-legal-terms/

[11] General Mills Amends New Legal Policies, Stephanie Strom, published in New York Times on 1http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/18/business/general-mills-amends-new-legal-policies.html?_r=0

[12] Edward Snowden Statement to European Parliament published March 7, 2014. See: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/201403/20140307ATT80674/20140307ATT80674EN.pdf

[13] Progress on EU data protection reform now irreversible following European Parliament vote, published 12 March 201 See: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-14-186_en.htm

[14] European Court of Justice rules Internet Search Engine Operator responsible for Processing Personal Data Published by Third Parties, Jyoti Panday, published on CIS blog on May 14, 2014. See: http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/ecj-rules-internet-search-engine-operator-responsible-for-processing-personal-data-published-by-third-parties

[15] Complaint regarding Apple iCloud’s terms and conditions , published on 13 May 2014 See:http://www.forbrukerradet.no/_attachment/1175090/binary/29927

[16] 'Facebook faces UK probe over emotion study' See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28102550

[17] Our Reaction to the FTC Lawsuit See: http://newsroom.t-mobile.com/news/our-reaction-to-the-ftc-lawsuit.htm

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/reading-between-the-lines-service-providers-terms-and-conditions-and-consumer-rights

Facebook and its Aversion to Anonymous and Pseudonymous Speech

Jessamine Mathew — 2014-07-04T07:53:07Z

Jessamine Mathew explores Facebook's "real name" policy and its implications for the right to free speech.

The power to be unidentifiable on the internet has been a major reason for its sheer number of users. Most of the internet can now be freely used by anybody under a pseudonym without the fear of being recognised by anybody else. These conditions allow for the furtherance of free expression and protection of privacy on the internet, which is particularly important for those who use the internet as a medium to communicate political dissent or engage in any other activity which would be deemed controversial in a society yet not illegal. For example, an internet forum for homosexuals in India, discussing various issues which surround homosexuality may prove far more fruitful if contributors are given the option of being undetectable, considering the stigma that surrounds homosexuality in India, and the recent setting-aside of the Delhi High Court decision reading down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. The possibility of being anonymous or pseudonymous exists on many internet fora but on Facebook, the world’s greatest internet space for building connections and free expression, there is no sanction given to pseudonymous accounts as Facebook follows a real name policy. And as the recent decision of a New York judge, disallowing Facebook from contesting warrants on private information of over 300 of its users, shows, there are clear threats to freedom of expression and privacy.

On the subject of using real names, Facebook’s Community Standards states, “Facebook is a community where people use their real identities. We require everyone to provide their real names, so you always know who you're connecting with. This helps keep our community safe.” Facebook’s Marketing Director, Randi Zuckerberg, bluntly dismissed the idea of online anonymity as one that “has to go away” and that people would “behave much better” if they are made to use their real names. Apart from being a narrow-minded statement, she fails to realise that there are many different kinds of expression on the internet, from stories of sexual abuse victims to the views of political commentators, or indeed, whistleblowers, many of whom may prefer to use the platform without being identified. It has been decided in many cases that humans have a right to anonymity as it provides for the furtherance of free speech without the fear of retaliation or humiliation (see Talley v. California).

While Facebook’s rationale behind wanting users to register for accounts with their own names is based on the goal of maintaining the security of other users, it is still a serious infraction on users’ freedom of expression, particularly when anonymous speech has been protected by various countries. Facebook has evolved from a private space for college students to connect with each other to a very public platform where not just social connections but also discussions take place, often with a heavily political theme. Facebook has been described as instrumental in the facilitation of communication during the Arab Spring, providing a space for citizens to effectively communicate with each other and organise movements. Connections on Facebook are no longer of a purely social nature but have extended to political and legal as well, with it being used to promote movements all through the country. Even in India, Facebook was the most widely adopted medium, along with Twitter and Facebook, for discourse on the political future of the country during, before and after the 2014 elections. Earlier in 2011, Facebook was used intensively during the India Against Corruption movement. There were pages created, pictures and videos uploaded, comments posted by an approximate of 1.5 million people in India. In 2012, Facebook was also used to protest against the Delhi gang rape with many coming forward with their own stories of sexual assault, providing support to the victim, organising rallies and marches and protesting about the poor level of safety of women in Delhi.

Much like its content policy, Facebook exhibits a number of discrepancies in the implementation of the anonymity ban. Salman Rushdie found that his Facebook account had been suspended and when it was reinstated after he sent them proof of identity, Facebook changed his name to the name on his passport, Ahmed Rushdie instead of the name he popularly goes by. Through a series of tweets, he criticised this move by Facebook, forcing him to display his birth name. Eventually Facebook changed his name back to Salman Rushdie but not before serious questions were raised regarding Facebook’s policies. The Moroccan activist Najat Kessler’s account was also suspended as it was suspected that she was using a fake name. Facebook has also not just stopped at suspending individual user accounts but has also removed pages and groups because the creators used pseudonyms to create and operate the pages in question. This was seen in the case of Wael Ghonim who created a group which helped in mobilizing citizens in Egypt in 2011. Ghonim was a Google executive who did not want his online activism to affect his professional life and hence operated under a pseudonym. Facebook temporarily removed the group due to his pseudonymity but later reinstated it.

While Facebook performs its due diligence when it comes to some accounts, it has still done nothing about the overwhelmingly large number of obviously fake accounts, ranging from Santa Claus to Jack the Ripper. On my own Facebook friend list, there are people who have entered names of fictional characters as their own, clearly violating the real name policy. I once reported a pseudonymous account that used the real name of another person. Facebook thanked me for reporting the account but also said that I will “probably not hear back” from them. The account still exists with the same name. The redundancy of the requirement lies in the fact that Facebook does not request users to upload some form identification when they register with the site but only when they suspect them to be using a pseudonym. Since Facebook also implements its policies largely only on the basis of complaints by other users or the government, the real name policy makes many political dissidents and social activists the target of abuse on the internet.

Further, Articles 21 and 22 of the ICCPR grant all humans the right to free and peaceful assembly. As governments increasingly crack down on physical assemblies of people fighting for democracy or against legislation or conditions in a country, the internet has proved to be an extremely useful tool for facilitating this assembly without forcing people to endure the wrath of governmental authorities. A large factor which has promoted the popularity of internet gatherings is the way in which powerful opinions can be voice without the fear of immediate detection. Facebook has become the coveted online space for this kind of assembly but their policies and more particularly, faulty implementation of the policies, lead to reduced flows of communication on the site.

Of course, Facebook’s fears of cyberbullying and harassment are likely to materialise if there is absolutely no check on the identity of users. A possible solution to the conflict between requiring real names to keep the community safe and still allowing individuals to be present on the network without the fear of identification by anybody would be to ask users to register with their own names but still allowing them to create a fictional name which would be the name that other Facebook users can see. Under this model, Facebook can also deal with the issue of safety through their system of reporting against other users. If a pseudonymous user has been reported by a substantial number of people for harassment or any other cause, then Facebook may either suspend the account or remove the content that is offensive. If the victim of harassment chooses to approach a judicial body, then Facebook may reveal the real name of the user so that due process may be followed. At the same time, users who utilise the website to present their views and participate in the online process of protest or contribute to free expression in any other way can do so without the fear of being detected or targeted. Safety on the site can be maintained even without forcing users to reveal their real names to the world. The system that Facebook follows currently does not help curb the presence of fake accounts and neither does it promote completely free expression on the site.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/facebook-and-its-aversion-to-anonymous-and-pseudonymous-speech

Terror recruiters target Indians on internet

praskrishna — 2014-07-18T06:57:56Z

What's in a name? If it indicates your religious identity, then you could get trolled by strangers wanting to draw you in with videos on the importance of archaic customs and doctored accounts of world history.

The article by Sandhya Soman was published in the Times of India on July 18, 2014. Sunil Abraham gave his inputs.

City-based lawyer Shakeel Ahmed recently took one such bait on the Holocaust from a stranger on WhatsApp just to know what kind of propaganda is in circulation.

"I can laugh at such videos and false images but they might confuse youngsters," says Ahmed. Online baiting to lure sympathizers and recruits by seasoned extremists has been on the police radar. If the four youngsters from Thane and Kalyan are indeed now in Iraq fighting for the Islamic militia ISIS, then a good part of their indoctrination could have happened online, say experts.

ISIS is known to have an aggressive social media policy, including an Arabic-language Twitter app, to spread their message and recruit supporters even after the Iraqi government curtailed internet in areas captured by the group recently. "There are many websites, including jihadi ones, favoured by people with extremist leanings," says Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) chief Himanshu Roy. Often, the initial contact is made on social networking sites and messenger services.

"The organizations spot youngsters and befriend them before inviting the trusted select to closed chat rooms," says K P Raghuvanshi, senior police official and former ATS head.

The discussion ranges from arranging finance to direct involvement, says Roy. "We have reason to believe that these four boys, who are all educated and come from reasonably well-off families, would have visited such sites and exchanged views with others," he says, refusing to elaborate. The youngsters are supposed to have been in touch with each other.

Those without a wide social network are easy targets, says Sunil Abraham, executive director of Centre for Internet and Society, a research organization. "If, as a young Muslim, you are in touch with only your friends and family, you might believe the false information that enters your circle of trust," he says. Contrary to belief, you don't meet a variety of people on social media. "Unless you have a critical understanding of internet, the medium with its interactivity and multi-media potential could aid propaganda," he says.

It was terrorist group Al-Qaeda that started using technology effectively since 2001. Its supporters came together to upload good quality videos of beheadings and suicide bombings to grab attention. Now, there is a variety of 'jihadist' software to prevent detection, whether it is a plug-in for instant messaging service, encryption for text messages or a stealth online network, according to media reports.

In India, terrorists took to technology in a big way from 2008 onwards when Indian groups like Indian Mujahideen recruited educated people, says an official. "Even a man who didn't know English, learnt to type Hindi using English alphabets and send and receive attachments," says the officer.

While officials say that it is difficult to monitor all the online activity, Roy says that ATS will tackle it. "This is the first instance of youngsters from Maharashtra going out to fight some other war," he says.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/the-times-of-india-july-18-2014-sandhya-soman-terror-recruiters-target-indians-on-internet

The trouble with trolls

praskrishna — 2014-07-28T05:42:36Z

Social networking sites give trolls the ability to hide their real identity and cause grief to others. Here is what you need to do if you face an online attack.

The article by Vishal Mathur was published in Livemint on July 22, 2014. Sunil Abraham gave his inputs.

Social networking sites give trolls the ability to hide their real identity and cause grief to others. Here is what you need to do if you face an online attack.

Though social networks were not designed with the intention of letting someone anonymously abuse another online, the reality is that people utilize the ability to hide behind online identities to threaten other users. These could be veiled attacks, direct abuse, or even threats to “cause bodily harm”. What can you do if you’re trolled and threatened on any social network? Follow our five-step guide. Avoid conversation if you can The responses could come in relation to something you may have just posted online. Or perhaps it could be just a random trolling attempt, to get a response from you. It is important to understand and identify such intentions. And as difficult as it may be, do not respond. Getting into a direct interaction with a bully only makes things worse. Report to the social network You should report any instance of cyber bullying or harassment to the host social network—the website or forum on which the interaction happened. There are various methods of getting in touch with the moderators—customer support email, contact submission forms or even via phone, in certain locations. Describe the problem in detail, and persist till the offending account is blocked from the platform. “Most social networks have systems that allow you to report abusive content and users. However, there is great variance in the speed with which they respond across different platforms, jurisdictions, etc.,” says Sunil Abraham, executive director at the Bangalore-based non-profit research organization Centre for Internet and Society. New Delhi-based Anja Kovacs, project director, at civil society organization Internet Democracy Project, adds: “Blocking and reporting an account can be two ways to stop harassment on some social networks, but on other platforms, such as Twitter, it is possible for the person to immediately make a new account under a different username, meaning that these measures do not necessarily stop the harassment.” Ankhi Das, director, public policy, India and South Asia at social network Facebook, says: “Every reported piece of content is reviewed. Serial offenders are notified for non-compliance.” Facebook’s Community Standards, that prevent harassment and offensive posts, have an 11-point categorization for reported content—violence and threats, hate speech, graphic content, bullying and harassment, to name some. Raheel Khursheed, head of news, politics and government at Twitter India, did not respond to our mail about how Twitter handles trolls at the time of going to press. On blogs and forums, it may be a bit easier to deal with trolling and abuse. If it is your own blog, you can delete comments and block users. If it is a forum, the administrator can do it for you. But, with social networks having millions of users, it is not possible to have one administrator managing it all. And it is not just Facebook and Twitter, all social networks have a method by which you can register your complaint. LinkedIn, for example, automatically blocks a user who gets multiple “I don’t know” responses to invitations to connect. There is a strong monitoring policy where any reported content (recommendations or direct messages) is examined and immediate warnings are sent out to offending parties. Keep a copy of the offensive posts Be it a post, or a series of posts, direct message or even an offending photograph, always save it for future reference. Never assume that the matter will end soon, and always prepare for the worst. Don’t ignore privacy settings Most people start using Facebook, Twitter and other social networks without paying much attention to the privacy settings—what content people can see on your page, and who can directly contact you. Be conservative in sharing information—the less you share, the lower the chances of someone picking on you. “Avoid friending or linking to people whom you don’t know in real life unless you are certain of the chain of trust that exists between you and the unknown person,” says Abraham. New Delhi-based cyber lawyer Apar Gupta, adds: “The privacy settings on most social networking platforms allow users to prevent (restrict) the audience for their posts as well as strangers from contacting them. This will prevent most cases of online harassment.” Get help from the law In case social networks are not able to effectively block a user, or are in some way unwilling to do so, take help from the law-enforcement authorities. File an FIR in the nearest police station. Unfortunately, the progress may not be very smooth. The reality is that not every law-enforcement officer may know about social networking sites. “You could try and go to the police, but without support from the social network platform, they are often at a loss to do much themselves,” warns Kovacs. The police may look for hints of threat to cause bodily harm or worse still, to life. In such cases, they may recommend the case to the Cyber Crime Cell of the Central Bureau of Investigation. “Generally, while the substantive offences do exist under law, the process for having them enforced is deficient. These are deeper structural problems of delay, investigation and conviction which are prevalent across criminal justice or civil litigation,” clarifies Gupta. Officials at the Cyber Crime Cell say they take up cases after reference from the local police, who file the report first and do a preliminary level of investigation. But it is important to realize that only the police and the law-enforcement agencies have the right to demand further details about the perpetrator from the social networks, starting with profile details and Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, which will help track the person down. Das clarifies: “Facebook has a point-of-contact system through which the law-enforcement agencies tell us what the actual case is, depending on severity. The police may ask us to take down particular content, or even ask for user information like IP info, to prevent real crime.” According to Facebook’s Government Requests Report for July-December 2013, the network restricted access to 4,765 pieces of content after requests from the Indian government and law-enforcement agencies.

Though social networks were not designed with the intention of letting someone anonymously abuse another online, the reality is that people utilize the ability to hide behind online identities to threaten other users. These could be veiled attacks, direct abuse, or even threats to “cause bodily harm”. What can you do if you’re trolled and threatened on any social network? Follow our five-step guide.

Avoid conversation if you can
The responses could come in relation to something you may have just posted online. Or perhaps it could be just a random trolling attempt, to get a response from you. It is important to understand and identify such intentions. And as difficult as it may be, do not respond. Getting into a direct interaction with a bully only makes things worse.

Report to the social network
You should report any instance of cyber bullying or harassment to the host social network—the website or forum on which the interaction happened. There are various methods of getting in touch with the moderators—customer support email, contact submission forms or even via phone, in certain locations. Describe the problem in detail, and persist till the offending account is blocked from the platform. “Most social networks have systems that allow you to report abusive content and users. However, there is great variance in the speed with which they respond across different platforms, jurisdictions, etc.,” says Sunil Abraham, executive director at the Bangalore-based non-profit research organization Centre for Internet and Society. New Delhi-based Anja Kovacs, project director, at civil society organization Internet Democracy Project, adds: “Blocking and reporting an account can be two ways to stop harassment on some social networks, but on other platforms, such as Twitter, it is possible for the person to immediately make a new account under a different username, meaning that these measures do not necessarily stop the harassment.” Ankhi Das, director, public policy, India and South Asia at social network Facebook, says: “Every reported piece of content is reviewed. Serial offenders are notified for non-compliance.” Facebook’s Community Standards, that prevent harassment and offensive posts, have an 11-point categorization for reported content—violence and threats, hate speech, graphic content, bullying and harassment, to name some. Raheel Khursheed, head of news, politics and government at Twitter India, did not respond to our mail about how Twitter handles trolls at the time of going to press. On blogs and forums, it may be a bit easier to deal with trolling and abuse. If it is your own blog, you can delete comments and block users. If it is a forum, the administrator can do it for you. But, with social networks having millions of users, it is not possible to have one administrator managing it all. And it is not just Facebook and Twitter, all social networks have a method by which you can register your complaint. LinkedIn, for example, automatically blocks a user who gets multiple “I don’t know” responses to invitations to connect. There is a strong monitoring policy where any reported content (recommendations or direct messages) is examined and immediate warnings are sent out to offending parties.

Keep a copy of the offensive posts
Be it a post, or a series of posts, direct message or even an offending photograph, always save it for future reference. Never assume that the matter will end soon, and always prepare for the worst.

Don’t ignore privacy settings
Most people start using Facebook, Twitter and other social networks without paying much attention to the privacy settings—what content people can see on your page, and who can directly contact you. Be conservative in sharing information—the less you share, the lower the chances of someone picking on you. “Avoid friending or linking to people whom you don’t know in real life unless you are certain of the chain of trust that exists between you and the unknown person,” says Abraham. New Delhi-based cyber lawyer Apar Gupta, adds: “The privacy settings on most social networking platforms allow users to prevent (restrict) the audience for their posts as well as strangers from contacting them. This will prevent most cases of online harassment.”

Get help from the law
In case social networks are not able to effectively block a user, or are in some way unwilling to do so, take help from the law-enforcement authorities. File an FIR in the nearest police station. Unfortunately, the progress may not be very smooth. The reality is that not every law-enforcement officer may know about social networking sites. “You could try and go to the police, but without support from the social network platform, they are often at a loss to do much themselves,” warns Kovacs. The police may look for hints of threat to cause bodily harm or worse still, to life. In such cases, they may recommend the case to the Cyber Crime Cell of the Central Bureau of Investigation. “Generally, while the substantive offences do exist under law, the process for having them enforced is deficient. These are deeper structural problems of delay, investigation and conviction which are prevalent across criminal justice or civil litigation,” clarifies Gupta. Officials at the Cyber Crime Cell say they take up cases after reference from the local police, who file the report first and do a preliminary level of investigation. But it is important to realize that only the police and the law-enforcement agencies have the right to demand further details about the perpetrator from the social networks, starting with profile details and Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, which will help track the person down. Das clarifies: “Facebook has a point-of-contact system through which the law-enforcement agencies tell us what the actual case is, depending on severity. The police may ask us to take down particular content, or even ask for user information like IP info, to prevent real crime.” According to Facebook’s Government Requests Report for July-December 2013, the network restricted access to 4,765 pieces of content after requests from the Indian government and law-enforcement agencies.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/livemint-july-22-2014-vishal-mathur-the-trouble-with-trolls