Centre for Internet and Society

Why Data Localisation Might Lead To Unchecked Surveillance

pranesh — 2018-10-16T14:08:34Z

In recent times, there has been a rash of policies and regulations that propose that the data that Indian entities handle be physically stored on servers in India, in some cases exclusively. In other cases, only a copy needs to be stored.

The article was published in Bloomberg Quint on October 15, 2018 and also mirrored in the Quint.

In April 2018, the Reserve Bank of India put out a circular requiring that all “data relating to payment systems operated by them are stored in a system only in India” within six months. Lesser requirements have been imposed on all Indian companies’ accounting data since 2014 (the back-up of the books of account and other books that are stored electronically must be stored in India, the broadcasting sector under the Foreign Direct Investment policy, must locally store subscriber information, and the telecom sector under the Unified Access licence, may not transfer their subscriber data outside India).

The draft e-commerce policy has a wide-ranging requirement of exclusive local storage for “community data collected by Internet of Things devices in public space” and “data generated by users in India from various sources including e-commerce platforms, social media, search engines, etc.”, as does the draft e-pharmacy regulations, which stipulate that “the data generated” by e-pharmacy portals be stored only locally.

While companies such as Airtel, Reliance, PhonePe (majority-owned by Walmart) and Alibaba, have spoken up in support the government’s data localisation efforts, others like Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, and Mastercard have led the way in opposing it.

Just this week, two U.S. Senators wrote to the Prime Minister’s office arguing that the RBI’s data localisation regulations along with the proposals in the draft e-commerce and cloud computing policies are “key trade barriers”. In her dissenting note to the Srikrishna Committee's report, Rama Vedashree of the Data Security Council of India notes that, “mandating localisation may potentially become a trade barrier and the key markets for the industry could mandate similar barriers on data flow to India, which could disrupt the IT-BPM (information technology-business process management) industry.”

Justification For Data Localisation

What are the reasons for these moves towards data localisation?

Given the opacity of policymaking in India, many of the policies and regulations provide no justification at all. Even the ones that do, don’t provide cogent reasoning.

The RBI says it needs “unfettered supervisory access” and hence needs data to be stored in India. However, it fails to state why such unfettered access is not possible for data stored outside of India.

As long as an entity can be compelled by Indian laws to engage in local data storage, that same entity can also be compelled by that same law to provide access to their non-local data, which would be just as effective.

What if they don’t provide such access? Would they be blacklisted from operating in India, just as they would if they didn’t engage in local data storage? Is there any investigatory benefit to storing data in India? As any data forensic expert would note, chain of custody and data integrity are what are most important components of data handling in fraud investigation, and not physical access to hard drives. It would be difficult for the government to say that it will block all Google services if the company doesn’t provide all the data that Indian law enforcement agencies request from it. However, it would be facile for the RBI to bar Google Pay from operating in India if Google doesn’t provide it “unfettered supervisory access” to data.

The most exhaustive justification of data localisation in any official Indian policy document is that contained in the Srikrishna Committee’s report on data protection. The report argues that there are several benefits to data localisation:

Effective enforcement,
Avoiding reliance on undersea cables,
Avoiding foreign surveillance on data stored outside India,
Building an “Artificial Intelligence ecosystem”

Of these, the last three reasons are risible.

Not A Barrier To Surveillance

Requiring mirroring of personal data on Indian servers will not magically give rise to experts skilled in statistics, machine learning, or artificial intelligence, nor will it somehow lead to the development of the infrastructure needed for AI.

The United States and China are both global leaders in AI, yet no one would argue that China’s data localisation policies have helped it or that America’s lack of data localisation polices have hampered it.

On the question of foreign surveillance, data mirroring will not have any impact, since the Srikrishna Committee’s recommendation would not prevent companies from storing most personal data outside of India.

Even for “sensitive personal data” and for “critical personal data”, which may be required to be stored in India alone, such measures are unlikely to prevent agencies like the U.S. National Security Agency or the United Kingdom’s Government Communications Headquarters from being able to indulge in extraterritorial surveillance.

In 2013, slides from an NSA presentation that were leaked by Edward Snowden showed that the NSA’s “BOUNDLESSINFORMANT” programme collected 12.6 billion instances of telephony and Internet metadata (for instance, which websites you visited and who all you called) from India in just one month, making India one of the top 5 targets.

This shows that technically, surveillance in India is not a challenge for the NSA.

So, forcing data mirroring enhances Indian domestic intelligence agencies’ abilities to engage in surveillance, without doing much to diminish the abilities of skilled foreign intelligence agencies.

As I have noted in the past, the technological solution to reducing mass surveillance is to use decentralised and federated services with built-in encryption, using open standards and open source software.

Reducing reliance on undersea cables is, just like reducing foreign surveillance on Indians’ data, a laudable goal. However, a mandate of mirroring personal data in India, which is what the draft Data Protection Bill proposes for all non-sensitive personal data, will not help. Data will stay within India if the processing happens within India. However, if the processing happens outside of India, as is often the case, then undersea cables will still need to be relied upon.

The better way to keep data within India is to incentivise the creation of data centres and working towards reducing the cost of internet interconnection by encouraging more peering among Internet connectivity providers.

While data mirroring will not help in improving the enforcement of any data protection or privacy law, it will aid Indian law enforcement agencies in gaining easier access to personal data.

The MLAT Route

Currently, many forms of law enforcement agency requests for data have to go through onerous channels called ‘mutual legal assistance treaties’. These MLAT requests take time and are ill-suited to the needs of modern criminal investigations. However, the U.S., recognising this, passed a law called the CLOUD Act in March 2018. While the CLOUD Act compels companies like Google and Amazon, which have data stored in Indian data centres, to provide that data upon receiving legal requests from U.S. law enforcement agencies, it also enables easier access to foreign law enforcement agencies to data stored in the U.S. as long as they fulfill certain procedural and rule-of-law checks.

While the Srikrishna Committee does acknowledge the CLOUD Act in a footnote, it doesn’t analyse its impact, doesn’t provide suggestions on how India can do this, and only outlines the negative consequences of MLATs.

Further, it is inconceivable that the millions of foreign services that Indians access and provide their personal data to will suddenly find a data centre in India and will start keeping such personal data in India. Instead, a much likelier outcome, one which the Srikrishna Committee doesn’t even examine, is that many smaller web services may find such requirements too onerous and opt to block users from India, similar to the way that Indiatimes and the Los Angeles Times opted to block all readers from the European Union due to the coming into force of the new data protection law.

The government could be spending its political will on finding solutions to the law enforcement agency data access question, and negotiating solutions at the international level, especially with the U.S. government. However it is not doing so.

Given this, the recent spate of data localisation policies and regulation can only be seen as part of an attempt to increase the scope and ease of the Indian government’s surveillance activities, while India’s privacy laws still remain very weak and offer inadequate legal protection against privacy-violating surveillance. Because of this, we should be wary of such requirements, as well as of the companies that are vocal in embracing data localisation.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/bloomberg-quint-pranesh-prakash-october-15-2018-why-data-localisation-might-lead-to-unchecked-surveillance

What Does Facebook's Transparency Report Tell Us About the Indian Government's Record on Free Expression & Privacy?

pranesh — 2015-04-05T05:08:37Z

Given India's online population, the number of user data requests made by the Indian government aren't very high, but the number of content restriction requests are not only high on an absolute number, but even on a per-user basis.

Further, Facebook's data shows that India is more successful at getting Facebook to share user data than France or Germany. Yet, our government complains far more about Facebook's lack of cooperation with Indian authorities than either of those countries do. I think it unfair for any government to raise such complaints unless that government independently shows to its citizens that it is making legally legitimate requests.

Since the Prime Minister of India Shri Narendra Modi has stated that "transparency and accountability are the two cornerstones of any pro-people government", the government ought to publish a transparency report about the requests it makes to Internet companies, and which must, importantly, provide details about how many user data requests actually ended up being used in a criminal case before a court, as well as details of all their content removal requests and the laws under which each request was made.

At the same time, Facebook's Global Government Requests Report implicitly showcases governments as the main causes of censorship and surveillance. This is far from the truth, and it behoves Facebook to also provide more information about private censorship requests that it accedes to, including its blocking of BitTorrent links, it's banning of pseudonymity, and the surveillance it carries out for its advertisers.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/what-does-facebook-transparency-report-tell-us-about-indian-government-record-on-free-expression-and-privacy

WGIG+8: Stock-Taking, Mapping, and Going Forward

pranesh — 2013-04-04T06:49:31Z

On February 27, 2013, the Centre for Internet and Society conducted a workshop on the Working Group on Internet Governance report, titled "WGIG+8: Stock-Taking, Mapping, and Going Forward" at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) + 10 meeting at Fontenoy Building, conference room # 7, UNESCO Headquarters, Paris from 9.30 a.m. to 11.00 a.m.

Details of the event were published on the UNESCO website.

Session Personnel

Pranesh Prakash was the moderator for the session. There were about 10-15 participants along with 5 remote participants.

There were four speakers:

William Drake, International Fellow and Lecturer, Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ at the University of Zurich
Carlos Afonso, Executive Director of the Núcleo de Pesquisas, Estudos e Formação (NUPEF) institute
Avri Doria, Dotgay LLC, Association for Progressive Communications, International School for Internet Governance
Désirée Miloshevic, International Affairs and Policy Adviser, Afilias

Summary of the Discussion

Speakers Summaries

William Drake:
Mr. Drake argued that the WGIG process demonstrated the benefits of multistakeholder collaboration, and facilitated the WSIS negotiations, and the multistakeholder process that WGIG embodied promoted public engagement in the Internet governance debate. The working definition of “Internet governance” that the WGIG came up with demystified the nature and scope of Internet governance. One important outcome of the WGIG report was the proposal of the establishment of the Internet Governance Forum. The WGIG began the holistic assessment of “horizontal issues,” including development, and made some broad but useful recommendations on key “vertical issues”. And lastly, the WGIG offered four models for the oversight of core resources that helped to focus the global debate on the governance of the Internet’s core resources.

Carlos Afonso:
Mr. Afonso commented on the issue of international interconnection costs, and pointed out that they continue to be complex and involve complicated cost accounting. Mr. Afonso then pointed out that the Number Resource Organization (NRO) and the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) could be doing more in the context of IPv6, in the way of stimulating backbone operators to ensure IPv6 visibility of the networks below them — many are already IPv6-ready but upstream providers do not provide corresponding transit. He also drew attention to “enhanced cooperation” as an issue that had not been anticipated at the time of the report, but had since become an important issue; similarly, he identified social networking and (in response to a question) military uses of the Internet, etc., as other such issues. He opined that the WGIG report needed to be elaborated upon in the present context.

Avri Doria:
Ms. Doria argued that while the report was reluctantly accepted after having been first rejected by the governments, it has proven to be highly useful. She praised the report for its working definition of IG, as it is still being used, and because the report made a clear distinction between governments and the governance of the Internet. She then argued that the definition of roles and responsibilities of stakeholders is very loose in the WGIG report and that these definitions are something that needs further study as they do not take into account the full role and responsibilities of all stakeholders. She also argued that the National Telecommunications and Information Administration is transferring some of its oversight powers over technical governance of the domain name system, to multistakeholder processes as can be seen from the “Affirmation of Commitments” which has replaced the earlier “Memorandum of Understanding” it had with ICANN." She argued that the Affirmation of Commitment based review teams are an important experiment that should be followed with interest.

Désirée Miloshevic:
Ms. Miloshevic pointed out that outside the meta issue of keeping the Internet open for innovation, issues relating to freedom of speech and human rights were the most important challenges facing Internet governance today. She highlighted that several issues, such as economic benefits, consumer protection, freedom to connect and education are issues that have either not been addressed or have been addressed inadequately in the report. She then went on to argue that the IGF, which is an outcome of the WGIG report has had a tangible impact on IG, particularly on clarifying IG as a multi-stakeholder process rather than describing mere institutional regulation models. For example, the IGF allows for newly identified public policy issues to continue to feature as topics in the IGF as emerging issues, such as open data, etc. Ms. Miloshevic also emphasised the need for stakeholders to increase the development of capacity in dealing with IG issues at the global level.

Summary of General Discussion

Overall, it was agreed by all panelists that the WGIG 2005 report and the WSIS process have had a large impact on Internet Governance (IG), particularly in terms of an increase in public awareness and participation in IG as well as in framing of IG as involving multiple stakeholders and not just governments. This has in turn led to a shifting of power equations as well as an increase in openness and transparency. The report has helped create the distinction between governments and governance of the Internet, and framed, through the working definition of IG that was later incorporated in the WSIS Tunis Agenda, the non-technical aspects of IG as a core part of IG. Further, the identification and mapping of issues associated with IG and the generation of institutional governance models were important outcomes of the report. The report was also seen as instrumental in the creation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF).

Panellists also noted the changed context and the progress (and in many cases, lack of progress) since the WGIG report. Issues were raised around the lack of progress in implementing the specific recommendations made by the report. Inadequate capacity-building of actors in the global South, and efforts of the Number Resource Organization (NRO) and the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) with respect to IPv6 were used as examples. It was also pointed out that a number of concerns have materialized that had not been anticipated at the time of the report, including 'enhanced cooperation', the emergence of social networking, and military uses of the Internet.

Moderator's summary

The WGIG and its report, the background report and the book that followed from that report, have proven to be crucial in defining the formulation and direction of Internet governance for the past 8 years, and have resulted in a multi-stakeholder governance model for the Internet and the IGF, and have set many norms that have shifted power equations. However, many significant issues that weren't central to Internet governance during the formulation of the WGIG report have since emerged, the majority of the recommendations made in the WGIG report haven't seen much progress, the capacity of actors in the global South to engage in IG issues has not increased greatly, and the IGF needs to gain greater credibility and centrality. Transnational private corporations are emerging as increasingly powerful actors in Internet governance and are slowly shifting the balance, a development that was unforeseen in 2005 when governments were seen as the most powerful actors.

Any agreed recommendations from the session

The panelists recommended the production of an analytical report that would explore the current status of the issues and recommendations laid in the original report issues as well as identify any new concerns that have arisen since 2005. An important aspect of this report would be an emphasis on the benefits of the IGF and the role of the WGIG process and report in underscoring the significance of multi-stakeholder processes. Further recommendations included the continued advancement of Internet rights and principles and enhanced cooperation, as these are two focus areas that have emerged since the WGIG report, and the strengthening of the IGF.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/wgig-8-stock-taking-mapping-and-going-forward

Visually impaired seek access to print materials

pranesh — 2013-01-16T06:20:49Z

An article in the Deccan Herald (November 3, 2008, page 4) by L. Subramani on the CIS signature campaign.

Rahul Cherian is quoted in this article published in the Deccan Herald.

Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), an organisation researching on the impact of internet on society, has initiated a signature campaign to persuade the Indian government to support the Treaty for the Improved Access for the Blind, Visually Impaired and other Reading Disabled Persons.

The treaty, drafted earlier this year by the World Blind Union (WBU) and Knowledge Ecology International (KEI), asks governments of various countries to change their copyright laws to allow free access to information of several print disabled persons.

The nation-wide campaign (in India) is being supported by organisations such as National Association of the Blind, Delhi and National Federation for the Blind (who is also an affiliate member of the WBU).

“Those who are visually challenged and otherwise print disabled are able to use computers independently with the help of screen readers and magnifiers (software technology), yet they are excluded from accessing copyrighted materials since such materials aren’t available in accessible formats,” said Nirmita Narasimhan, who oversees the campaign at CIS.

Treaty endorsement
Signatures are sought from individuals and organisations to urge the Government of India to endorse the treaty, which calls for copyright laws to be modified so that organisations of the blind and disabled can convert books available in the market into formats which can be accessed by persons with different visual and reading disabilities.

“The Indian Copyright Act (1957) is not taking into account recent technology advancements that has empowered the print disabled to access printed materials,” said Rahul Cherian, a Chennai-based copyrights lawyer involved in drafting the treaty.

“Collecting signatures from people would be an evidence of public opinion in India regarding the issue and would help us to persuade the Government to make our country a signatory to the treaty. This would mean that the government must make amending the national law a priority.”

Rahul said Indian publishers are largely willing to endorse changes to the law, since they view improved accessibility would bring more readers to the market (it is believed about 30 million persons are print disabled in the country). He also feels opposition from authors is unlikely as it doesn’t seriously threaten their incomes.

Interested can contact: Centre for Internet and Society, No D2, 3rd floor, Sheriff Chambers, 14, Cunningham Road, B’lore - 560 052. P: +91 80 4092 6283. M: 098458 68078. The current address of the Centre for Internet & Society is No. 194, Second 'C' Cross, Domlur, 2nd Stage, Bangalore - 560071, Ph: +91 80 4092 6283

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/deccan-herald-november-3-2008-l-subramani-visually-impaired-seek-access-to-print-materials

Vinay Rai v. Facebook India and Ors. | Summons Order

pranesh — 2012-03-15T07:53:05Z

This is Judge Sudesh Kumar's summons order (dated December 23, 2011) by which he notes there is enough prima facie evidence to proceed with trial against the intermediaries named and their senior officials. In the order he notes that, "It seems that instead of regulating the undesirable and offensive content they have promoted the same for increasing the profits and promoting their business. They have closed their eyes and promoted obscene derogatory defamatory and inflammatory material continuously on their network. It appears from a bare perusal of the documents that prima facie the accused in connivance with each other and other unknown persons are selling, publicly exhibiting and have put into circulation obscene, lascivious content which also appeals to the prurient interests and tends to deprave and corrupt the persons who are likely to read, see or hear the same."

IN THE COURT OF SUDESH KUMAR, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI

Complaint Case No. 136 of 2011

In the matter of:

Vinay Rai
S/o Sh. Mahima Rai
10 A. First Floor. Pritvi Raj Road
New Delhi

...Complainant

Versus

...Accused

Facebook India
Through its country head
Ms. Kirthiga Reddy
Office at: 4th Floor, Building-14. OPUS Towers,
Mindspace. Cyberabad, APIIC SW Unit Layout.
Madhapur. Hyderabad-500081
kirthiga@fb.com 07799021119
Facebook
Through its chairman
Donald Edward Graham —
Facebook Corporate Office
1601 S. California Ave. Palo Alto. CA 94304
Google India (P) Ltd.
Orkut
Youtube
Blogspot
Through its Country head
Shri Rajan Anandan
8th and 9th Floors. Tower — C, Building No.8,
DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon - 122 002
Google
Youtube
Blogspot
Orkut
Through its CEO, Larry Page — CEO
1600, Amphitheatre, Parkway, Mountain View,
CA 94043, USA
Yahoo India (P) Ltd
Shri Arun Tadanki
Building No.8, Tower-C,
DLF Cyber CityPhase-2 Gurgaon-
Yahoo
Through Roy J. Bostock — Chairman
Yahoo! Inc. 701 1st Ave., Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Microsoft India (P) Ltd.
Sri Bhaskar Pramanik 7th Floor,
Cyber Green Tower-A, DLF Cyber City, Phase-3
Gurgaon – 122002
Microsoft
Through Steve Ballmer — CEO
Microsoft Corporation, One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052-7329 USA
Zombie Time
DNS Services, 1650-302 Margaret St #332
Jacksonville, FL 32204-3869, US
Exbii
BoardReader.com
700 Tower Drive, Suite 140
Troy, Michigan 48098 US
Through its CEO/CHAIRMAN
IMC India
Through Sh. K.M. Gala-CEO, IMC India (Head Office)
418, Swastik Chambers, Sion Trombay Road
Chembur, Mumbai - 400 071 (Maharashtra)
My Lot
Through its CEO/CHAIRMAN
MyLot LLC, 7415 W 130th St
Suite #100, Overland Park, KS 66213, US
Shyni Blog
Through Sri Rajan Anandan
C/o Google India (P) Ltd
8th and 9th Floors. Tower—C, Building No 8,
DLF Cyber City Gurgaon—122002.
Topix
Through its CEO/CHAIRMAN
TOPIX.COM.P.O. Box 821650
Vancouver, WA 98682, US

IN THE COURT OF SH. SUDESH KUMAR

Ld. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE / PATIALA HOUSE COURTS / NEW DELHI

CC No. 136/1
Vinay Rai Vs. Facebook
PS Tughlak Road
23.12.2011

Order on Summoning:

The complainant in the present case is a Senior Journalist and Editor of Urdu Weekly namely Akbari. He has filed the present complaint U/s 200 Cr. PC r/w 156 (3) Cr. PC therein praying that the accused persons be summoned for having committed offences punishable U/ s 153-A, 153-B, 292, 293, 295 (A), 298, 109, 500 and 120-B of IPC. The complainant has submitted that the accused persons are the publishers and service providers of the electronic content in question in the present complaint and also responsible for the management and control of online site and internet content and the accused includes those who used, posted and uploaded the material on the site through the internet. It is alleged by the complainant that the content in question has been hosted on various websites which is per-se inflammatory, unacceptable by any set of community standards; seeks to create enmity, hatred and communal Violence amongst various religious communities: is demeaning, degrading and obscene, and it will corrupt minds and adversely affect religious sentiments. It is further submitted that the complainant had received some information in this regard and while going through the contents in the above said websites realized that the same were unacceptable to the secular fabric provided by the Constitution of India and would be intolerable to any community or religion. It is further alleged that on a bare perusal of the contents it is clear that the same would certainly corrupt young minds below the age of 18 and even elders, it is highly provocative and which may even lead to consequences effecting communal harmony. The complainant has mentioned the names of the websites allegedly hosting the said objectionable content in the memo of parties and provided the alleged objectionable material in a sealed envelope. The complainant has further stated that the Social Networking Websites are meant only for providing content with respect to educational, historical, research material and entertainment work etc. as part of their commercial activities for social purposes. However, the objectionable content available on these social networking websites may lead to communal riots. It is further alleged that Government authorities have turned a blind eye to the same and do not have any established procedure or rules and guidelines to control and regulate the same. It is averred that the Government is least bothered and as usual waiting for some mishappening before taking some appropriate actions. Neither police officials nor the Government have initiated any action to curb or check these activities sou moto and failed to register any case against the above named accused persons under any law to remove such contents from there. The complainant has further alleged that the main social networking websites are Google, Facebook, Youtube, Orkut, Broadreader, Mylot, Zombie Time, Shyni Blog, Blogspot, Exbii.com, IMC India. It is alleged that the accused persons knowingly allowed these contents and materials to be hosted in the websites which is dangerous to communal harmony with common and malfide intentions and have failed to remove the objectionable content for their wrongful gain. The complainant further stated that he has provided the said contents to the Court, in a sealed cover with request for directions not to publicize the offensive and inflammatory material which may lead to communal disharmony under his social responsibility. It is further stated by the complainant that the said contents available and hosted on the these sites are per-se unacceptable and clearly established the offences punishable under various provisions mentioned in the IPC and in case no action is taken against the accused person the same will cause serious prejudice to our society and social values provided and protected under the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that as a member of the community the complainant is not only individually hurt but also believes that it such content is allowed to continue on these platforms in this form, then incalculable and irreparable damage will be caused to the secular fabric of India. It is alleged that all those who are responsible for allowing this content to be hosted on the websites conspired with those who are the source of such content, and those who are promoting such material with malice to defame the country and with intent to spread communal violence to destabilise the country with undisclosed persons and are liable to be prosecuted and punished for offences U/s 153 (A), 153(B), 292, 293, 295(A), 298, 109, 500 and120-B IPC.

It is further averred that the contents which are shown on the social networking websites are clearly showing and instigating enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language etc. and doing acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony as is quite apparent on a bare look at the material available on these social networking websites. It is further stated that the content which has been shown on these websites amount to imputations, assertions, which are prejudicial to national integration. It is alleged that the contents which are available on these social networking websites are obscene may lead to creation of obscene books, pamphlets, paper, which can easily be downloaded from these social networking websites affecting the minds of children and was harmful for social harmony and may lead to increase in crime against women also.

That the contents which are clearly mentioned and annexed in the sealed cover show the malafide intentions of these social networking websites hosting such content in these websites is an act of malice intended to outrage, religious feelings of classes of citizens by insulting their religion or religious beliefs. It is averred that the cause of action for filing the present complaint has risen on 8.12.2011 when the complainant downloaded these pictures and photos and these facts came to the knowledge of the complainant while sitting at his above stated residence and still continuing.

The complainant prays that the above said accused persons alongwith undisclosed persons are liable to be prosecuted and punished U/s U/s 153-A, 153-B, 292, 293, 295(A), 298, 109, 500 and 120-B of IPC.

The complainant has thereafter examined four witness in support of his complaint. Complainant Mr. Vinay Rai has examined himself as CW 1 in pre summoning evidence and he deposed on oath that he has gone through the contents which have been posted on various social networking websites as alleged and the documents downloaded from those sites are original as these have been downloaded directly from those websites. He produced Ex. CW 1/A-1 to Ex. CW 1/A-16 which have been downloaded from the website named as www.zombietime.com. He further deposed that Ex. CW 1/A-17 has been downloaded from Orkut which is arrayed as accused no.4 and 10. He also proved on record Ex. CW 1/A-18 downloaded from website mylot.com, which is a pre-se defamatory to all politicians. He further stated that Ex. CW 1/A-19 to Ex. CW 1/A-22 were downloaded from the post of topix.com and the contents are dangerous for our social structure and community. He further deposed that Ex. CW 1/A-23 to Ex. CW 1/A-36 which are posted by the service provider youtube.com without any sensor or prohibitory or disclaimer which is also dangerous for communal harmony and peace. He deposed that Youtube shown as accused no.5 and 8 provided the internet service and allowed to post these defamatory contents on websites and same is available to people below 18 years of age also which was also alarming danger to our society and Country. He deposed that such contents are against the secular fabric of our society, religion and culture. The witness has further stated that Ex. CW 1/A-37 to Ex. CW 1/A-48 are taken from the website facebook.com. He further proved on record Ex. CW 1/A-49 to Ex. CW 1/A-52 as provided by the blogspot.com, which is arrayed as accused at number 6 & 10 in the complaint and these documents are obscene and against the culture of our Country. He further stated that the blogspot is being managed by googleindia and googleinternational who have already been arrayed as accused in his complaint. He further stated that Ex. CW 1/A-53 has been taken from the website exbii.com, which provides services through google.com. The contents of the said exhibit are dangerous to our society and same has also been shown as political conspiracy to destabilize our Country. He further stated that Ex. CW 1/A-54 has been taken from website indymedia.org and same has been shown as a article posted by imcindia.org, which is against the Hinduism and defamatory to our religion. He further stated that the Ex. CW 1/A-55 provided by broadreader.com which is defamatory to Indian politicians and the Ex. CW 1/A-56 and Ex. CW 1/A-57 have been taken from the service provider blogspot.com which has been provided by the websites Further more, the complainant has deposed on the lines of his complaint. It is further prayed by the complainant that said accused persons alongwith certain undisclosed person were liable to be prosecuted U/s U/s 153-A, 153-B, 292, 293, 295(A), 298, 109, 500 and 120-B of IPC. It is further deposed by the complainant that all the contents were clearly showing and instigating enmity between different groups on the grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language etc. and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.

Complainant thereafter examined Mr. Rohit Mammen Alex as CW 2 in pre summoning evidence, who deposed on oath that he was not only a practicing Orthodox Christian but is an extremely secular person and has seen and found extremely shocking some of the contents on the websites in question. He further stated that the present complaint is filed by the complainant not only in public interest but also as an affected person who believes in a secular India. He further deposed that the accused persons are the publishers and service providers of the electronic contents and also responsible to manage and control online site and internet contents as also whoever user and post the material on the site through internet. CW 2 further deposed that the contents of the website in question not only are inflammatory and shocking but have been deliberately posted by the persons in question to inflame the minds of the persons who view it but also create grave communal tensions and to incite hatred amongst religious denominations across the country. He further deposed that on bare perusal of the said contents it is clear that the same will certainly corrupt young and impressionable minds and is highly provocative and which may lead to illogical and dangerous consequences. He deposed that the contents prima facie appear to be dangerous to society and communal harmony. He stated that the exhibited documents clearly show the malafide intentions of the these social networking websites to create deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of people. He further stated that each and every documents exhibited herein the complaint are downloaded from the website of the accused persons and same may be treated as original of their respective documents.

Thereafter Dr. Aziz Ahmad Khan was examined as CW 3, who also deposed on oath that he is a scholar and P.HD. in Urdu but is an extremely secular person and has seen and found extremely shocking some of the contents of the websites in question. He also deposed that the complainant has filed the present complaint not only in public interest but also as an affected person who believes in a secular India. He further deposed that the accused person are the publishers and service providers of the electronic contents and also responsible to manage and control online site and internet contents as also whoever uses and posts the material on the site through internet. He also deposed that the contents of the websites in question not only are inflammatory and shocking but have been deliberately posted by the persons in question to inflame the minds of persons who view it but also to create grave communal tensions and to incite hatred amongst religious denominations across the country. He further deposed that the on a bare perusal of the said contents it is clear that the same will certainly corrupt young and impressionable minds and is highly provocative and which may lead to dangerous consequences. He submitted that these contents prima facie appear to be dangerous to society and communal harmony. He deposed that if such contents are allowed to be hosted on these websites would seriously damage the secular fabric of India and would severely hurt the sentiments of the general public following different religions. He further deposed that the contents of the exhibited documents clearly show the malafide intention of these social networking websites to create deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of people. He further deposed that all the documents exhibited herein the complaint are downloaded from the website of the accused and same may be treated as original of their respective documents.

Mr. Rahul Agrawal was examined as CW 4 in pre summoning evidence by the complainant, who also deposed on oath that he is a Journalist and running a News Agency and he is a secular person and believe to maintain peace and harmony amongst the society and Country. He stated that he felt offended when he had seen and found extremely shocking some of the contents of the websites in question. He further stated that accused persons are the publishers and service providers of the electronic contents and also responsible to manage and control online site and internet contents as also whoever uses and posts the material on the site through internet. He further stated that the contents of the websites in question not only are inflammatory and shocking but have been deliberately posted by the persons in question to inflame the minds of the persons who view it but also to create grave communal tensions and to incite hatred amongst religious denominations across the country. He further stated that even on a bare perusal of the said contents it is clear that the same will certainly corrupt young and impressionable minds and is highly provocative and which may lead to illogical and dangerous consequence. He further stated that the contents as exhibited prima facie appear to be dangerous to society and communal harmony and if such contents are allowed to be hosted on these websites would seriously damage the secular fabric of India and would severely hurt the sentiments of the general public following different religions. He further stated that the contents of the exhibited documents clearly show the malafide intention of these social networking websites to create deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of people. He further stated that the contents hosted on each of these websites are ex-facie scurrilous, defamatory, prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religions and communities, likely to cause fear and generate a feeling of insecurity amongst members of religious communities, obscene by any criteria of community standards of obscenity, seeks to corrupt young minds, malicious and insulting to religions and religious feelings of persons and under no stretch of imagination be considered to be under freedom of speech and expression. He further stated that each and every documents exhibited herein the complaint are downloaded from the website of the accused and same may be treated as original of their respective documents.

No other Complainant witness was examined in pre summoning evidence and the pre summoning evidence was closed. As the addresses of most of the respondents are beyond the jurisdiction of this court, an enquiry report U/s 202 Cr. PC was sought from the SHO concerned regarding the authenticity of documents as filed in the court.

SHO PS Tughlak Road has furnished this enquiry report on 17.12.2011. Today, the matter has been fixed for Orders on summoning. The complainant has furnished about 60 internet generated print outs alongwith the complaint in a sealed cover. The sealed cover was opened during pre summoning evidence. I have gone through each and every internet generated print out. Today, complainant has also furnished a CD submitting that the same contained the vulgar and obscene data available on the networks of the proposed accused and print outs of which were placed on record vide Annexure-A.

To my mind the printouts as furnished and exhibited on bare perusal are found to be obscene, lascivious, indecent and shocking. The printouts shown are totally degrading and demeaning. Some of the printouts are showing various religious idols in a very degrading, demeaning and obscene way which are certainly unacceptable to any person professing such religion and also to civilized society as a whole. There are obscene picture and derogatory articles pertaining to Prophet Mohammed, Jesus and various Hindu God and Godesses. There are defamatory and obscene articles pertaining to various Indian political leaders. The contents are certainly disrespectful to the religious sentiments and faith and seem to be intended to outrage the feelings of the religious people whether Hindu, Muslim or Christian. There are certain degrading and obscene photographs of various political leaders belonging to different political parties and the photographs pasted and the language used is also obscene, filthy and degrading.

Prima facie, I am satisfied that the material produced on record will promote enmity between different religious sections and groups and a feeling of hatred and ill-will between them would be promoted if the offensive material was allowed to be publicised as such. The documents are certainly prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious groups. They tend to promote feeling of insecurity amongst members of some religion. The documents are obscene and could certainly corrupt the minds of the young. Most of the obscene pictures produced on record are tending to hurt the feelings of different religions. In my considered view, the said contents are certainly prejudicial to national harmony and integration. The publication of such offensive and inflammatory material which has tendency to inflame minds cannot be considered to be an expression of freedom of speech by any stretch of imagination in civil society. Having gone through the record, I am satisfied that the said contents produced on record by the complainant and which were available on various websites are not protected by the doctrine of free speech of expression under our Constitution. In fact much content fell foul of Provisions of Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India.

The Counsel for complainant has further argued vehemently that the offensive material as placed on record was just a part of a very large bunch of such content which was available on these networks. He further argued that it was impossible that availability of such content in such large quantity was publicised without the knowledge and connivance of the accused persons. He further alleged that all the accused persons in connivance with each other and some unknown persons have intentionally and knowingly permitted such content to be publicised just for the sake of commercial gains.

Having gone through the record, I find force in the arguments advanced on behalf of the complainant. All the accused persons are involved in the business of publication and are providing service of the electronic contents to users. They are certainly doing it for commercial gain. The accused persons having full control over the working of their sites it seems have purposely promoted and publicised offensive material for their commercial gains. It seems that instead of regulating the undesirable and offensive content they have promoted the same for increasing the profits and promoting their business. They have closed their eyes and promoted obscene derogatory defamatory and inflammatory material continuously on their network.

It appears from a bare perusal of the documents that prima facie the accused in connivance with each other and other unknown persons are selling, publicly exhibiting and have put into circulation obscene, lascivious content which also appeals to the prurient interests and tends to deprave and corrupt the persons who are likely to read, see or hear the same. It is also evident that such contents are continuously openly and freely available to every one who is using the said network irrespective of their age and even the persons under the age of 18 years have full and uncensored access to such obscene contents.

From the above, it is clear that there is prima facie material on record against the accused persons for committing offences U/s 292/293/120 IPC and they are liable to be summoned for facing trial for the same.

However, from the testimony of these witnesses examined on record belonging to three different religions alongwith the material produced on record, it is evident that the same promotes enmity between different groups and religions, which is certainly prejudicial to the maintenance of peace and communal harmony. The accused persons through the publication and promotion of the offensive material as produced on record seem to be promoting disharmony, feeling of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religions. The act / omission on part of the accused person as alleged certainly tends to prejudice the maintenance of harmony between different groups and religions. The imputations and assertions and publications as produced on record are prejudicial to the national interest.

The contents as produced by the complainant are insulting and outrageous to the religious feelings of various classes of people.

From the above as argued vehemently by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant. I find, prima facie, that the accused persons are liable to be summoned for offences U/s 153-A, 153-B and 295-A IPC. However, owing to the embargo under section 196 Cr. PC which prohibits taking of cognizance under the said Provisions except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or State Government or District Magistrate, the accused persons are not summoned for the said offences. All the accused persons however, be summoned for facing trial U/s 292, 293 and 120-B IPC for 13.01.2012 on filing of PF.

Ld. Counsel for complainant has also vehemently argued that even the Government of India seems to have turned a blind eye to the offensive, degrading and demeaning content on these websites which is outrageous and also against national integration. In the facts and circumstances of the case, taking into consideration the submissions made on behalf of the complainant, let a copy of this Order be also sent to the Government of India through the Secretary (Information and Technology), Secretary (Home) and Secretary (Law) for taking the immediate appropriate steps in this regard and file a report on the next date of hearing i.e. 13.01.2012.

Sudesh Kumar / MM / ND / 23.12.2011.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/vinay-rai-v-facebook-summons-order-2011-12-23

Tweets with "IGF2013"

pranesh — 2013-10-28T06:37:58Z

Tweets with "IGF2013".

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/20131021T090102_igf2013

Tweets with "IGF13"

pranesh — 2013-10-28T06:29:42Z

Tweets with "IGF13".

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/20131021T090102_igf13

Tweets with "IGF"

pranesh — 2013-10-28T06:55:37Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/20131021T090102_igf

Tweets with "BestBits"

pranesh — 2013-10-28T08:46:54Z

Tweets with "BestBits".

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/20131021T092108_bestbits

Tweets from Bali IGF 2013

pranesh — 2013-10-28T09:09:16Z

CIS is logging all tweets with the words "igf2013", "igf13", "igf", "bestbits", and "genderit" during the Intenet Governance Forum going on in the Bali this week, and making it available in downloadable files.

To enable research by those who don't want to mess around with Twitter's APIs, we are making available CSV files available to the general public. These files can be opened up in any spreadsheet software (including web-based ones), or even in a text editor.

These files will be updated with the latest version at the end of each evening in Bali.

If you have any ideas as to other keywords we should capture, or about visualizations that we should engage in, do get in touch with pranesh AT cis-india DOT org.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/tweets-from-igf2013

Transcripts of Discussions at WIPO SCCR 24

pranesh — 2012-07-31T12:35:43Z

We are providing archival copies of the transcripts of the 24th session of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, which is being held in Geneva from July 16 to 25, 2012.

This is an unedited rough transcript of the discussions at SCCR 24, which is live-streamed and made available by WIPO at http://www.streamtext.net/player?event=WIPO. We are hosting the live-streamed text for archival purposes:

WIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text (July 19, 2012)
WIPO SCCR 24 Post-lunch Text (July 19, 2012)
WIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text (July 20, 2012)
WIPO SCCR 24 Post-lunch Text (July 20, 2012)
WIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text (July 23, 2012)
(There was no post-lunch plenary session on July 23, 2012)
WIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text (July 24, 2012)
WIPO SCCR 24 Post-lunch Text (July 24, 2012)
WIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text (July 25, 2012)
WIPO SCCR 24 Post-lunch Text (July 25, 2012)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/wipo-sccr24-discussions-transcripts

Time Out Bengaluru - Software Patenting

pranesh — 2013-01-16T06:39:27Z

An article by Akhila Seetharaman published as a precursor to the national public meeting on software patents held on 4th in Bangalore.

Original article on Time Out Bengaluru website

In August this year, the US Patents and Trademarks Office granted Microsoft ownership of “page up” and “page down”. So in theory, no other company can scroll without permission and acknowledgement to Microsoft in monetary terms.

A number of seemingly ubiquitous software ideas have been patented: the use of tabs to shift from one hyperlink to another on a web page, the “Add to Shopping Cart” function that appears on every online store, automated online loan requests, and even reducing image size to make a webpage load faster.

“Most companies register defensive patents to protect themselves, not offensive ones,” said Sunil Abraham of Centre for Internet and Society. “Not many actively pursue patent infringement, but it is still very scary for a small-time entrepreneur.”

At a time when the Indian Patent Office is in the process of putting together a new Manual of Patent Practice and Procedure, the Centre for Internet and Society is holding a one-day consultation on the issue of software patenting in the city. Participants include the Delhi Science Forum, RedHat, IT for Change, Open Space, as well as the Alternative Law Forum.

From mobile phone technology to pacemakers in healthcare, everybody is dependent on software. “Each software patent is a 17-year monopoly on an idea,” said Anivar Aravind of the Free Software User Group Bangalore.

“If formulaic Hindi films were protected by patent laws, we would be able to make only one film,” joked Abraham. The system of software patenting wipes out smaller businesses and innovation, he said. “Software, like poetry and literary works, is already protected by copyright. After all, Bill Gates made his fortunes from copyright and not patents. But many software companies are trying to get additional protection.”

Copyright and patents are both part of intellectual property rights, but copyright restricts the expression of an idea while patents restrict the idea itself, according to Abraham. Under a patenting regime, even before a kid writes one line of code he has to read many patents.”

Kiran Patil of Turtle Linux Lab agreed. “If every little thing is patented, there’s nothing a developer can do.” He cited Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Movement and the GNU (a recursive acronym for GNU’s Not Unix) Project, who likened patents to explosive devices: “Software patents are the software project’s equivalent of land mines: each design-decision carries a risk of stepping on a patent, which can destroy your project.”

Worst of all, the world sees those with patents as the innovators, said Patil, which, according to him, is a big misconception.

While corporate giants like Microsoft and IBM fix exchange deals through cross-licensing, smaller companies get left out of the loop entirely. Despite not having many patents of their own, several Indian software companies support software patenting because they have huge contracts with the large software companies in the United States and Europe who do.

The Indian Patent Act of 1970 did not allow for software patents until 2002 when an amendment, which ironically excluded “computer programmes per se” from the scope of patenting, was introduced.

The amendment implied that while computer programmes themselves were not eligible for patents, programmes used in combination with hardware were. The Act was further amended through an ordinance in 2005 to narrow the scope of software excluded, but the ordinance was rejected by the Indian

Parliament and the Act effectively reverted to what it was after the 2002 amendment. “The law has left it somewhat ambiguous,” said Abraham. “Nobody is sure what can or cannot be patented. Many people are using the clause “computer programmes per se” to get pure software patents.”

This occurs either due to incompetence among patent officers or by accident, he said. “While many of the patent officers have expertise in the area of industrial inventions or medical inventions, very few know enough about software patents at the moment.”

-- Akhila Seetharaman

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/time-out-software-patenting

Three reasons why 66A verdict is momentous

pranesh — 2015-03-29T16:22:51Z

Earlier this week, the fundamental right to freedom of expression posted a momentous victory. The nation's top court struck down the much-reviled Section 66A of the IT Act — which criminalized communications that are "grossly offensive", cause "annoyance", etc — as "unconstitutionally vague", "arbitrarily, excessively, and disproportionately" encumbering freedom of speech, and likely to have a "chilling effect" on legitimate speech.

The article was published in the Times of India on March 29, 2015.

It also struck down Sec 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act on similar grounds. This is a landmark judgment, as it's possibly the first time since 1973's Bennett Coleman case that statutory law was struck down by the Supreme Court for violating our right to free expression.

The SC also significantly 'read down' the draconian 'Intermediary Guidelines Rules' which specify when intermediaries — website hosts and search engines — may be held liable for what is said online by their users. The SC held that intermediaries should not be forced to decide whether the online speech of their users is lawful or not. While the judgment leaves unresolved many questions — phrases like "grossly offensive", which the SC ruled were vague in 66A, occur in the Rules as well — the court's insistence on requiring either a court or a government order to be able to compel an intermediary to remove speech reduces the 'invisible censorship' that results from privatized speech regulation.

The SC upheld the constitutional validity of Sec 69A and the Website Blocking Rules, noting they had several safeguards: providing a hearing to the website owner, providing written reasons for the blocking, etc. However, these safeguards are not practised by courts. Na Vijayashankar, a legal academic in Bengaluru, found a blogpost of his — ironically, on the topic of website blocking — had been blocked by a Delhi court without even informing him. He only got to find out when I published the government response to my RTI on blocked websites. Last December, Github, Vimeo and some other websites were blocked without being given a chance to contest it. As long as lower courts don't follow "principles of natural justice" and due process, we'll continue to see such absurd website blocking, especially in cases of copyright complaints, without any way of opposing or correcting them.

There are three main outcomes of this judgment. First is the legal victory: SC's analysis while striking down 66A is a masterclass of legal clarity and a significant contribution to free speech jurisprudence. This benefits not only future cases in India, but all jurisdictions whose laws are similar to ours, such as Bangladesh, Malaysia and the UK.

Second is the moral victory for free speech. Sec 66A was not merely a badly written law, it became a totem of governmental excess and hubris. Even when political parties realized they had passed 66A without a debate, they did not apologize to the public and revise it; instead, they defended it. Only a few MPs, such as P Rajeev and Baijayant Panda, challenged it. Even the NDA, which condemned the law in the UPA era, supported it in court. By striking down this totem, the SC has restored the primacy of the Constitution. For instance, while this ruling doesn't directly affect the censor board's arbitrary rules, it does morally undermine them.

Third, this verdict shows that given proper judicial reading, the Indian constitutional system of allowing for a specific list of purposes for which reasonable restrictions are permissible, might in fact be as good or even better in some cases, than the American First Amendment. The US law baldly states that Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech or of the press. However, the US Supreme Court has never held the opinion that freedom of speech is absolute. The limits of Congress's powers are entirely judicially constructed, and till the 1930s, the US court never struck down a law for violating freedom of speech, and has upheld laws banning obscenity, public indecency, offensive speech in public, etc. However, in India, the Constitution itself places hard limits on Parliament's powers, and also, since the first amendment to our Constitution, allows the judiciary to determine if the restrictions placed by Parliament are "reasonable". In the judgment Justice Nariman quotes Mark Antony from Julius Caesar. He could also have quoted Cassius: "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves." Judges like Justice Nariman show the constitutional limits to free speech can be read both narrowly and judiciously: we can no longer complain about the Constitution as the primary reason we have so many restrictions on freedom of expression.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/times-of-india-march-29-2015-pranesh-prakash-three-reasons-why-66a-is-momentous

Thomas Abraham's Rebuttal on Parallel Importation

pranesh — 2011-08-04T04:47:12Z

We engaged in an e-mail conversation with Thomas Abraham, the managing director of Hachette India, on the issue of parallel importation of books into India. We thought it would be in the public interest to publish a substantive part of that conversation. In this post he points at great length how our arguments are faulty. While we still believe that he doesn't succeed, we hope this will clarify matters a bit.

Nature of disagreement

There is essentially fundamental disagreement on principle and definition-and I guess there will always be if you knock actual knowledge and see things as abstract philosophical (and legal) points. Why I think detailed knowledge is necessary is precisely illustrated at the logic (or lack thereof actually) employed by the Ministry. And then there is to me the fundamental problem of disregarding the author's wishes (for no greater good).

Second hand books and libraries

The comparison is not the same. Both (second-hand and libraries) have had a first sale where the copyright holder has got his/her basic right-the designated royalty. (I have explained earlier how export royalties and remainder royalties are much lower and results in losses to the author.) So here we come back to the basic philosophy-who has greater right on deciding on creative works? The creator or the government? A just answer would be the creator provided commercial dissemination fulfilled society's needs-which in India's case would be availability and right pricing keeping in mind socio-economic needs. Both are happening through local publishing and pricing of imports. But parallel imports would take away that right an author has of deriving a rightful income as per existing norms in all mature markets (including India so far). We are heading towards being a mature market and this has come about only because we are in the self-perpetuating framework of publishing, writing, and cultural development.

So the argument is that second hand books and libraries foster reading without depriving the author of rightful royalty or ruining the market.

Parallel importation does both. There is every reason to know that this will happen-that's exactly the substantiation we are offering. And the advocates of parallel importation have none to offer-pricing (where is it high, and by how much should it come down?), what is not freely available and at special prices? So for what reason do we want the existing law-also made by lawmakers-to change the stated remit of exhaustion from national to international.

No book publisher objects to libraries or even second hand books. But they are objecting to parallel importation. So leave it to them to decide. It is a tad patronizing to tell us what will help us, without having a shred of actual knowledge.

Helping libraries and disabled

This is completely false. No library needs to import from Amazon. And if it is a public library then they are wasting taxpayer money. Almost any book in the world they will still get at a special price through Indian publishers or distributors. There are societies for the disabled to whom publishers give rights at almost no cost. The UK has a law that a copy must be made available at near cost for disabled. By all means have such a law here. Why try and use parallel importation as an excuse for this?

Flexibility in the law

To your point: "Even if prices don't fall, it is good to have the flexibility for libraries to import four copies of a book that students need and isn't being made available in India. That flexibility is crucial, for availability, and just on principle, and not just for the sake of prices". By all means pass the law that gives the libraries the right to import 5 copies of any book they want. Publishers won't gripe at that. Libraries would still get it cheaper here than Amazon but that's the libraries' call.

Law should promote fairness and equity, not perpetuate a particular business model

No disagreement here. But the contention is that it will result in exactly the opposite. Sure, so let the lawmakers demonstrate they have done due diligence and outline evidence for their assumptions and how it will promote fairness and equity. What is unfair right now and what is not equitable? And how this law will address that. Why do other markets have it, and why should we not? On no count is there any detailing-just three false assumptions-availability, pricing and current editions.

Equally one can't have the law being made the proverbial ass because the lawmakers won't do their homework.

Export and remainder royalties are lower

I explained export vs domestic royalties in my first rebuttal. Not just remainders. Remainders are near zero royalties. Export surplus even pre-remainders are low royalty-against the author's wishes. And parallel importation will result in further loss of royalties from loss of sales of the hitherto legitimate edition.

Why anti-dumping laws will not be practical

Firstly there will be 40,000-plus titles to track, and the damage would have been done by the time you invoke the law. And assuming we want to invoke anti-dumping law, what parameters will be fixed? what discount are you going to fix? What quantity? I'll explain why this will never work. There are no real averages to draw lines and say this much and no more for either discount or price or quantity. To understand why we need to understand cost to price structures. Indian publishing (both publishing and imports) is low margin. Our books are priced to market; that means from cost our mark up is 2.5 times for imports and about 3-4 on average for local publishing-to enable the prices you see. Abroad it is 8-10 times from cost. To enable low pricing in India, we already have overseas terms that exceed 70% discounts, going into 'net pricing' for the ones that we pick to push big. Once the market is opened up, you will have two things-(a) targeted remainders as against the minor trickle now and (b) surplus clearance or even targeted sale to undercut the existing lawful edition. And I repeat the point that these remainders and 'targeted exports' can still end up undercutting the local edition. Not significantly enough to cause a change in pricing pattern (no benefit to consumer), but enough to undermine existing industry structures.

And yes, parallel importation (the current trickle) does see enforcement the logical way (by which I mean that the intensity of the problem merits the level of redressal). So far (believe me, each of us keeps tabs) we have 'unaware imports' and 'deliberate imports'. It is an irritant but is gradually reducing as the market matures. And the unaware ones are easily remedied by a simple letter asking for infringing stock to be withdrawn. In fact 8 out of 10 cases this simple letter works. For the deliberate ones, as I said earlier, it's just one or two where the impact is not worth the cost. Our margins do not allow us to hire expensive lawyers. But the moment it touches key brands or high revenue, legal action is taken.

Market expansion

Again the inherent assumption that this is some 'fat cat' lobbying protest. For once the lawmakers need to apply themselves-why is everybody from Penguin & Hachette (biggest) to Zubaan and Yatra (amongst smallest) all opposing it? Similarly from Crossword (large chain) to 'The Bookshop' in Jor Bagh (small independent), nobody wants this. Why? Surely that must speak for something? The only ones it will benefit are the remainder stalls you see (of which there must be about 25-30 all over the country). But over time every bookshop will be forced to keep this kind of stocking eroding current shelf space (they will have no choice). This is not market expansion.

Pricing drop

The other thing being ignored is that it's not just short term spoiler pricing. When one thinks in purely theoretical terms and says "open up, prices will drop", one is also not factoring in that the composition of what is stocked will changed. It's no longer status quo at reduced prices. That's the key to a mature market, that what the market needs is available-from bestsellers to literary works to philosophical works-balancing commercial and cultural needs and at prices the market can afford. So sure we can sit back and say we don't care if the history and philosophy shelves are eroded, if local publishing shrinks, let market forces prevail and let there be just foreign mass market novels and old editions (which will flow in by the thousand). But I'd like to hear the government say that.

Not just about copyrighted books but about all copyrighted materials

Yes, and we're not commenting about the others (other materials, i.e.) because we do not know enough. But we cannot have one size fits all if there are legitimate grounds to think about otherwise. Why is there a redressal of authors' needs in the music and film industry and a total disregard of books? Why were there panels created to discuss and thresh the whole thing through for films, and no detailed consultation at all for the books industry?

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/parallel-importation-rebuttal

The Worldwide Web of Concerns

pranesh — 2012-12-10T05:10:47Z

The threat of a ‘UN takeover’ of the Internet through the WCIT is non-existent. However, that does not mean that activists have been crying themselves hoarse in vain.

Pranesh Prakash's column was published in the Asian Age on December 10, 2012.

The International Telecommunication Union’s World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12) is currently under way in Dubai, after a gap of 25 years. At this conference, the International Telecommunication Regulations — a binding treaty containing high-level principles — are to be revised.

Much has changed since the 1988 Melbourne conference. Since 1988, mobile telephony has grown by leaps and bounds, the Internet has expanded and the World Wide Web has come into existence. Telecommunications is now, by and large, driven by the private sector and not by state monopolies.

While there are welcome proposals (consumer protection relating to billing of international roaming), there have also been contentious issues that Internet activists have raised: a) process-related problems with the ITU; b) scope of the ITRs, and of ITU’s authority; c) content-related proposals and “evil governments” clamping down on free speech; d) IP traffic routing and distribution of revenues.

Process-related problems: The ITU is a closed-door body with only governments having a voice, and only they and exorbitant fees-paying sector members have access to documents and proposals. Further, governments generally haven’t held public consultations before forming their positions. This lack of transparency and public participation is anathema to any form of global governance and is clearly one of the strongest points of Internet activists who’ve raised alarm bells over WCIT.

Scope of ITRs: Most telecom regulators around the world distinguish between information services and telecom services, with regulators often not having authority over the former. A few countries even believe that the wide definition of telecommunications in the ITU constitution and the existing ITRs already covers certain aspects of the Internet, and contend that the revisions are in line with the ITU constitution. This view should be roundly rejected, while noting that there are some legitimate concerns about the shift of traditional telephony to IP-based networks and the ability of existing telecom regulations (such as those for mandatory emergency services) to cope with this shift.

ITU’s relationship with Internet governance has been complicated. In 1997, it was happy to take a hands-off approach, cooperating with Internet Society and others, only to seek a larger role in Internet governance soon after. In part this has been because the United States cocked a snook at the ITU and the world community in 1998 through the way it established Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) as a body to look after the Internet’s domain name system. While the fact that the US has oversight over ICANN needs to change (with de-nationalisation being the best option), Russia wants to supersede ICANN and that too through current revisions of the ITRs. Russia’s proposal is a dreadful idea, and must not just be discarded lightly but thrown away with great force. The ITU should remain but one among multiple equal stakeholders concerned with Internet governance.

One important, but relatively unnoticed, proposed change to ITU’s authority is that of making the standards that ITU’s technical wing churns out mandatory. This is a terrible idea (especially in view of the ITU’s track record at such standards) that only a stuffy bureaucrat without any real-world insight into standards adoption could have dreamt up.

Content-related proposals: Internet activists, especially US-based ones, have been most vocal about the spectre of undemocratic governments trying to control online speech through the ITRs. Their concerns are overblown, especially given that worse provisions already exist in the ITU’s constitution. A more real threat is that of increasing national regulation of the Internet and its subsequent balkanisation, and this is increasingly becoming reality even without revisions to the ITRs. Having said that, we must ensure that issues like harmonisation of cyber-security and spam laws, which India has been pushing, should not come under ITU’s authority. A further worry is the increasing militarisation of cyberspace, and an appropriate space must be found by nation-states to address this pressing issue, without bringing it under the same umbrella as online protests by groups like Anonymous.

Division of revenue: Another set of proposals is being pushed by a group of European telecom companies hoping to revive their hard-hit industry. They want the ITU to regulate how payments are made for the flow of Internet traffic, and to prevent so-called “net neutrality” laws that aim to protect consumers and prevent monopolistic market abuse. They are concerned that the Googles and Facebooks of the world are free-riding on their investments. That all these companies pay to use networks just as all home users do, is conveniently forgotten. Thankfully, most countries don’t seem to be considering these proposals seriously.

Can general criteria be framed for judging these proposals? In submissions to the Indian government, the Centre for Internet and Society suggested that any proposed revision of the ITRs be considered favourably only if it passes all the following tests: if international regulation is required, rather than just national-level regulation (i.e., the principle of subsidiarity); if it is a technical issue limited to telecommunications networks and services, and their interoperability; if it is an issue that has to be decided exclusively at the level of nation-states; if the precautionary principle is satisfied; and if there is no better place than the ITRs to address that issue. If all of the above are satisfied, then it must be seen if it furthers substantive principles, such as equity and development, competition and prevention of monopolies, etc. If it does, then we should ask what kind of regulation is needed: whether it should be mandatory, whether it is the correct sort of intervention required to achieve the policy objectives.

The threat of a “UN takeover” of the Internet through the WCIT is non-existent. Since the ITU’s secretary-general is insisting on consensus (as is tradition) rather than voting, the possibility of bad proposals (of which there are many) going through is slim. However, that doesn’t mean that activists have been crying themselves hoarse in vain. That people around the world are a bit more aware about the linkage between the technical features of the Internet and its potential as a vehicle for free speech, commerce and development, is worth having to hear some shriller voices out there.

The writer is policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society, Bengaluru

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/asian-age-column-december-10-2012-pranesh-prakash-the-worldwide-web-of-concerns