Centre for Internet and Society

Software patenting will harm industry, consumer

pranesh — 2013-01-16T04:54:42Z

Report by Deepa Kurup in The Hindu dated 5th October 2008 as follow-up to the national meeting on software patents.

BANGALORE: Living up to its status as the country’s Information Technology (IT) capital, Bangalore played host to a different kind of “software lobby” here on Saturday.

Unlike most lobbies, this one had no vested interests and no hard-line agenda. In a bid to raise awareness about software patenting and generate a debate among stakeholders, the Free Software community from across the country participated in a national-level meeting against software patents.

Public hearings

This open meeting comes in the wake of the public hearings being conducted by the Indian Patent Office to discuss the recently formulated patent manual. The office has shelved all discussion on software patents and promised an exclusive meeting with stakeholders. Nearly 20 organisations and various stakeholders who participated in the hearing threw up issues ranging from patent laws and principles in general, to specific issues of the “software per se” clause in the patent manual. Submissions made by many stakeholders to the patent office were also discussed.

The meeting was held to discuss the recent modification to the manual, which is being interpreted as a move to make “software in combination with hardware” patentable. As of now, software comes under the copyright law.

This move is significant because a similar ordinance was scrapped by the Parliament in 2005. The Free Software community feels that the clause panders to the powerful IT and multi-national companies lobby that has been rooting for this legislation.

Copyright

Speaking at the meeting, Venkatesh Hariharan of Red Hat said that software was protected by copyright and additional protection was more harmful for the industry and the consumer as a whole.

“Patent is a state-granted monopoly, but copyright protects the expression of an idea and a code is safe as long as one can prove that he has arrived at it independently,” he said.

As a sole representative of any government body, Joseph Mathew, Special IT advisor to the Government of Kerala, made a presentation of his government’s stand on software patents.

“The manual should not have brought this up again, considering Parliament scrapped it in 2005. We hope it is a clerical error and the Kerala Government will consider writing to the Union Government and the patent office informing them of our opposition to this issue,” Mr. Mathew said.

Small and medium enterprises which use Free Software such as Zyxware from Trivandrum, Deep Root Linux and Turtle Linux from Bangalore, among others made presentations at the meeting. Several research and advocacy organisations such as the Centre for Internet and Society and the Delhi Science Forum put forth various facets of this debate.

Lack of clarity

“The lack of clarity in the Patent Act results is being wrestled aggressively and effectively by corporate interests, patent attorneys and the patent office in favour of granting software patents. This meeting helped bring together the counter-opinions in this matter, and we will go ahead and participate in any meeting that will be called for by the authorities,” said Sunil Abraham of the Centre for Internet and Society.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/software-patenting-will-harm-industry-consumer

Software Freedom Pledge

pranesh — 2015-09-25T12:26:09Z

On September 19, 2015, celebrated globally as Software Freedom Day, a number of enthusiasts got together and collectively took a pledge.

We, who have gathered together for Software Freedom Day 2015, believe that software freedom is both a matter of ethical principle as well as a matter of pragmatism, and is necessary for a democratic, open society.

We believe that it is desirable that all people, but especially governments, use, contribute to, and spread open standards, free/libre/open source software, open APIs, openly-licensed content (including open data, open access, and open education resources), leading to a vibrant public domain, and ensure that all of the above are accessible for all, including persons with disabilities and other marginalised sections of society.

Given that, we pledge to:

use and spread free software amongst our family, friends, and neighbours, both in person and virtually.
demand that services we use in turn use open standards and open APIs, and thus be available for all using free/libre/open source software, without the payment of any royalties.
raise the issue of software freedom with our democratic representatives, to seek that they in turn respect and promote these principles.
as far as possible, making our own work openly available, and seek to convince our employers, publishers, producers, and other persons who might be in a position to restrict
work against any laws, policies — corporate or governmental — or technical restrictions that seek to prevent people from full exercise of their rights, and which are contrary to the above principles.

Signed by:

Abhaya Agarwal
Ananth Subray
Asutosha Sarangi
Chirag Sarthi J
Prakash Hebballi
Pranesh Prakash
Ralph Andrade
Subhashish Panigrahi
Tito Dutta
Veethika Mishra

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/software-freedom-pledge-2015

Short note on IT Amendment Act, 2008

pranesh — 2011-06-01T14:45:34Z

Pranesh Prakash of the Centre for Internet and Society wrote a short note in February 2009 on the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008. This is being posted as a precursor to a more exhaustive analysis of the Act and the rules sought to be promulgated under the Act. Thus, this does not cover the regulations that have been drafted under the Act.

The new amendments to the Information Technology Act, 2000 that got passed by the Lok Sabha last December deserve a careful reading. There are a number of positive developments, as well as many which dismay. Positively, they signal an attempt by the government to create a dynamic policy that is technology neutral. This is exemplified by its embracing the idea of electronic signatures as opposed to digital signatures. But more could have been done on this front (for instance, section 76 of the Act still talks of floppy disks). There have also been attempts to deal proactively with the many new challenges that the Internet poses.

Freedom of Expression

The first amongst these challenges is that of child pornography. It is heartening to see that the section on child pornography (s.67B) has been drafted with some degree of care. It talks only of sexualized representations of actual children, and does not include fantasy play-acting by adults, etc. From a plain reading of the section, it is unclear whether drawings depicting children will also be deemed an offence under the section. Unfortunately, the section covers everyone who performs the conducts outlined in the section, including minors. A slight awkwardness is created by the age of "children" being defined in the explanation to section 67B as older than the age of sexual consent. So a person who is capable of having sex legally may not record such activity (even for private purposes) until he or she turns eighteen.

Another problem is that the word "transmit" has only been defined for section 66E. The phrase "causes to be transmitted" is used in section 67, 67A, and 67B. That phrase, on the face of it, would include the recipient who initiates a transmission along with the person from whose server the data is sent. While in India, traditionally the person charged with obscenity is the person who produces and distributes the obscene material, and not the consumer of such material. This new amendment might prove to be a change in that position.

Section 66A which punishes persons for sending offensive messages is overly broad, and is patently in violation of Art. 19(1)(a) of our Constitution. The fact that some information is "grossly offensive" (s.66A(a)) or that it causes "annoyance" or "inconvenience" while being known to be false (s.66A(c)) cannot be a reasons for curbing the freedom of speech unless it is directly related to decency or morality, public order, or defamation (or any of the four other grounds listed in Art. 19(2)). It must be stated here that many argue that John Stuart Mill's harm principle provides a better framework for freedom of expression than Joel Feinberg's offence principle. The latter part of s.66A(c), which talks of deception, is sufficient to combat spam and phishing, and hence the first half, talking of annoyance or inconvenience is not required. Additionally, it would be beneficial if an explanation could be added to s.66A(c) to make clear what "origin" means in that section. Because depending on the construction of that word s.66A(c) can, for instance, unintentionally prevent organisations from using proxy servers, and may prevent a person from using a sender envelope different form the "from" address in an e-mail (a feature that many e-mail providers like Gmail implement to allow people to send mails from their work account while being logged in to their personal account). Furthermore, it may also prevent remailers, tunnelling, and other forms of ensuring anonymity online. This doesn't seem to be what is intended by the legislature, but the section might end up having that effect. This should hence be clarified.

Section 69A grants powers to the Central Government to "issue directions for blocking of public access to any information through any computer resource". In English, that would mean that it allows the government to block any website. While necessity or expediency in terms of certain restricted interests are specified, no guidelines have been specified. Those guidelines, per s.69A(2), "shall be such as may be prescribed". It has to be ensured that they are prescribed first, before any powers of censorship are granted to any body. In India, it is clear that any law that gives unguided discretion on an administrative authority to exercise censorship is unreasonable (In re Venugopal, AIR 1954 Mad 901).

Intermediary Liability

The amendment to the provision on intermediary liability (s.79) while a change in the positive direction, as is seeks to make only the actual violators of the law liable for the offences committed, still isn't wide enough. This exemption is required to be widely worded to encourage innovation and to allow for corporate and public initiatives for sharing of content, including via peer-to-peer technologies.

Firstly, the requirement of taking down content upon receiving "actual knowledge" is much too heavy a burden for intermediaries. Such a requirement forces the intermediary to make decisions rather than the appropriate authority (which often is the judiciary). The intermediary is no position to decide whether a Gauguin painting of Tahitian women is obscene or not, since that requires judicial application of mind. Secondly, that requirement is vitiates the principles of natural justice and freedom of expression because it allows a communication and news medium to be gagged without giving it, or the party communicating through it, any due hearing. It has been held by our courts that a restriction that does not provide the affected persons a right to be heard is procedurally unreasonable (Virendra v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 896).

The intermediary loses protection of the act if (a) it initiates the transmission; (b) selects the receiver of the transmission; and (c) selects or modifies the information. While the first two are required to be classified as true "intermediaries", the third requirement is a bit too widely worded. For instance, an intermediary might automatically inject advertisements in all transmissions, but that modification does not go to the heart of the transmission, or make it responsible for the transmission in any way. Similarly, the intermediary may have a code of conduct, and may regulate transmissions with regard to explicit language (which is easy to judge), but would not have the capability to make judgments regarding fair use of copyrighted materials. So that kind of "selection" should not render the intermediary liable, since misuse of copyright might well be against the intermediary's terms and conditions of use.

Privacy and Surveillance

While the threat of cyber-terrorism might be very real, blanket monitoring of traffic is not the way forward to get results, and is sure to prove counter-productive. It is much easy to find a needle in a small bale of hay rather than in a haystack. Thus, it must be ensured that until the procedures and safeguards mentioned in sub-sections 69(2) and 69B(2) are drafted before the powers granted by those sections are exercised. Small-scale and targetted monitoring of metadata (called "traffic data" in the Bill) is a much more suitable solution, that will actually lead to results, instead of getting information overload through unchannelled monitoring of large quantities of data. If such safeguards aren't in place, then the powers might be of suspect constitutionality because of lack of guided exercise of those powers.

Very importantly, the government must also follow up on these powers by being transparent about the kinds of monitoring that it does to ensure that the civil and human rights guaranteed by our Constitution are upheld at all times.

Encryption

The amending bill does not really bring about much of a change with respect to encryption, except for expanding the scope of the government's power to order decryption. While earlier, under section 69, the Controller had powers to order decryption for certain purposes and order 'subscribers' to aid in doing so (with a sentence of up to seven years upon non-compliance), now the government may even call upon intermediaries to help it with decryption (s.69(3)). Additionally, s.118 of the Indian Penal Code has been amended to recognize the use of encryption as a possible means of concealment of a 'design to commit [an] offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life'.

The government already controls the strength of permissible encryption by way of the Internet Service Provider licences, and now has explicitly been granted the power to do so by s.84A of the Act. However, the government may only prescribe the modes or methods of encryption "for secure use of the electronic medium and for promotion of e-governance and e-commerce". Thus, it is possible to read that as effectively rendering nugatory the government's efforts to restrict the strength of encryption to 40-bit keys (for symmetric encryption).

Other Penal Provisions

Section 66F(1)(B), defining "cyberterrorism" is much too wide, and includes unauthorised access to information on a computer with a belief that that information may be used to cause injury to decency or morality or defamation, even. While there is no one globally accepted definition of cyberterrorism, it is tough to conceive of slander as a terrorist activity.

Another overly broad provision is s.43, which talks of "diminish[ing] its value or utility" while referring information residing on a computer, is overly broad and is not guided by the statute. Diminishing of the value of information residing on a computer could be done by a number of different acts, even copying of unpublished data by a conscientious whistleblower might, for instance, fall under this clause. While the statutory interpretation principle of noscitur a socii (that the word must be understood by the company it keeps) might be sought to be applied, in this case that doesn't give much direction either.

While all offences carrying penalties above three years imprisonment have been made cognizable, they have also been made bailable and lesser offences have been made compoundable. This is a desirable amendment, especially given the very realistic possibility of incorrect imprisonments (Airtel case, for instance), and frivolous cases that are being registered (Orkut obscenity cases).

Cheating by personation is not defined, and it is not clear whether it refers to cheating as referred to under the Indian Penal Code as conducted by communication devices, or whether it is creating a new category of offence. In the latter case, it is not at all clear whether a restricted meaning will be given to those words by the court such that only cases of phishing are penalised, or whether other forms of anonymous communications or other kinds of disputes in virtual worlds (like Second Life) will be brought under the meaning of "personation" and "cheating".

While it must be remembered that more law is not always an answer to dealing with problems, whether online or otherwise, it is good to note that the government has sought to address the newer problems that have arisen due to newer technologies. But equally important is the requirement to train both the judiciary and the law enforcement personnel to minimize the possibility of innocent citizens being harassed.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/publications/it-act/short-note-on-amendment-act-2008

Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code

pranesh — 2012-04-08T22:53:24Z

Section 295A. Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings or any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs. 295A. Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings or any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.— Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/section-295a-indian-penal-code

Section 200 Complaint in Vinay Rai v. Facebook India and Ors.

pranesh — 2012-02-20T16:22:35Z

This is the complaint filed by Vinay Rai against Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, "Exboii" (sic), Shyni Blog, Topix, and others, under sections 200 and 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., read with sections 153A, 153B, 292, 293, 295A, 298, 109, 500, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI

Complaint Case No __ of 2011

In the matter of:

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

... Complainant

Versus

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
07799021 119
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, Gurgacn - 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 City Phase-2, Gurgaon
Yahoo
Roy J. Bostock - Chairman
Yahoo! Inc.701 1st Ave., Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Microsoft India (P) Ltd.
Shri 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
Exboii [sic]
Boardreader
IMC India
My Lot
Shyni Blog
Topix

...Accused

P.S. Tuglak Road

Complaint Under Section 200 Read With Section 156 (3) Of the Code of Criminal Procedure For Registration of FIR Under Section 153 (A), 153(B), 292, 293, 295(A), 298, 109, 500 and 120 B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE.

THE COMPLAINANT MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

That the complainant is a law abiding citizen of India. The Complainant is a resident of above stated address.
The complainant before this Hon'ble Court is a senior journalist and editor of Akbari, an Urdu weekly.
That the complainant is moving to this Court as a citizen of India, not only in public interest but also as an affected person who believes in a secular India.
The accused persons are the publishers and service provider of the electronic contents and also responsible to manage and control online site and internet contents, who ever used and post the material on the site through internet.
That the complainant wishes to draw the attention of this Hon'ble Court to certain content hosted on various websites, which are 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 will corrupt minds and will seriously affect religious sentiments . It is submitted that complainant had received some information about these type contents and material posted on the social site as well as sites of the above named accused and thereafter the complainant in his office at the above mentioned address while going through the contents of 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.
That even on a bare perusal of the content it is clear that the same will certainly corrupt young minds below the age of 18 years is highly provocative and which may lead to illogical and dangerous consequences. It is humbly submitted that these contents prima facie appears to be dangerous for the society and communal harmony.
That such content, if allowed to be hosted on these websites would seriously damage the secular fabric of India and would severely hurt the sentiment of general public following different religions. Following are the websites which host the said objectionable content as provided to the Hon'ble court in a sealed envelope: 1.Facebook, 2.Youtube, 3. Google 4.Yahoo,5.0rkut, 6.Broadreader, 7. Mylot, 8.Zombie Time, 9.Shyni Blog, 10.Blogspot, 11.Exbii.com, 12.IMC India
That the accused persons are Social Networking Websites and their Directors, Agents with their addresses provided as per the memo of parties.
The Social Networking Websites are only for providing the educational, historical, research and entertainment work etc. as part of their commercial activities meaning thereby that the functions and informations which are regarding the welfare, development and entertainment of the society.
That on perusal of the same it has been found that presently there are so many objectionable materials available on these social networking websites which may lead to communal riots. It seems that the government authorities have turned a blind eye to the same and does not have any established measures or rules and guidelines to control and regulate the same. On the bare perusal of all these contents it is more than evident that the government is least bothered and as usual waiting for some dangerous consequences to happen before taking some appropriate actions . It is submitted that the neither police official nor the government had initiated any action to curve/check these activities sou moto and failed to registered any .case against the above named accused persons in any manner whatsoever under any law prevailing at present point of time and corrective measures against the said websites and the concerned officials.
That the main social networking websites are Google, Facebook, Youtube, Orkut, Broadreader, Mylot, Zomie Time, Shyni Blog, Blogspot, Exbii.com, IMC India. These accused persons knowingly well these facts that these contents and materials are most dangerous for the community and peace of the harmony, but with common and malfide intention and hands under glove with each other failed to remove the same for the wrongful gain.
That the complainant is filing this complaint against the Directors, Agents, Officials, Representatives and Employees of all the said Social Networking Websites for having committed the offences under Section 153 (A), 153(B), 292, 293, 295(A), 298 and 500 of the IPC, which this hon'ble court will appreciate even on a bare glance of the contents provided in the sealed cover. The same is being provided to this hon'ble court in a sealed cover understanding my social responsibility not to publicize the offensive and inflammatory material which may lead to communal disharmony.
That the nature of the content 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 beliefs of certain communities and is intended to wound the religious feelings of persons and under no stretch of imagination be considered to be under freedom of speech and expression . The contents hosted on the websites are annexed to this complaint in a sealed cover as Annexure - A.
That Perusal of the content will lead to the conclusion that the same is per-se unacceptable. It is humbly submitted that the contents of the site are clearly established the offences punishable under provisions mentioned in the above and if the action will taken against the accused person the same will be caused serious prejudice to our society and social value provided and protected under constitution of India.
That as a member of the community, The complainant is not only individually hurt but also believe that if such content is allowed to continue to be on these platforms in this form, then incalculable and irreparable damage will be caused to the secular fabric of India. 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 to malice and defame the country with intention to spread the communal violence to destabilise the country with undisclosed persons are liable to be prosecuted and punished under these Sections 153 (A), 153(B), 292, 293, 295(A), 298,109, 500 and 120B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE.
That the contents which are shown on the social networking websites are 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. It is clearly visible on the material available on these social networking websites.
That the content which has been clearly shown on these websites are clearly imputations, assertions, prejudicial to national integration. The material is clearly visible in the Annexure .
That the contents which are available on these social networking websites is obscene, that will create obscene books, pamphlets, paper, which can easily be downloaded from these social networking websites. It will affect the minds of the children. It is also harmful in the development of the nation.
That the contents which are clearly mentioned and annexed in Annexure, shows the contents and malafide intention of these social networking websites to create deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage, religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.
That the cause of action for filing the present complaint has arisen on 8.12.2011 when the complainant downloaded these pictures and photos and these facts came to know in the knowledge of the complainant while sitting at his above stated residence The cause of action is continuing and arising day by day.
That the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Court which may take cognizance of the offence as committed by the accused persons.
That the present complaint has been filed within the period of limitation and this Hon'ble Court is competent to entertain & try the present complaint and grant relief to the complainant.
That the complainant seeks the permission of this Hon'ble Court to urge any additional ground or to examine any other witness or to submit any other documents which would be made available to him at the time of hearing of this complaint.

PRAYER

In view of the aforesaid submission made here in and in the interest of the justice, it is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

Register the present complaint.
Take cognizance of the offence, as the contents per-se amount to commission of offences, as indicated above, without anything more.
Summon try and punish the accused persons for committing the offences under section 153(A), 153(B), 292, 293, 295(A), 298, 109, 500 and 120B of the IPC.
Take appropriate steps for prosecution and punishment of the above website owners, concerned officials and their representatives and undisclosed accused persons.

Pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

COMPLAINANT

Through Counsel

Dated: 15.12.2011
Place: New Delhi

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/s200-complaint-vinay-rai-v.-facebook-india-and-ors

Section 79 of the Information Technology Act

pranesh — 2012-11-19T14:55:02Z

79. INTERMEDIARIES NOT TO BE LIABLE IN CERTAIN CASES

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force but subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), an intermediary shall not be liable for any third party information, data, or communication link made available or hasted by him.

(2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply if—

(a) the function of the intermediary is limited to providing access to a communication system over which information made available by third parties is transmitted or temporarily stored or hasted; or

(b) the intermediary does not—

(i) initiate the transmission,

(ii) select the receiver of the transmission, and

(iii) select or modify the information contained in the transmission;

(c) the intermediary observes due diligence while discharging his duties under this Act and also observes such other guidelines as the Central Government may prescribe in this behalf.

(3) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply if—

(a) the intermediary has conspired or abetted or aided or induced, whether by threats or promise or othorise in the commission of the unlawful act;

(b) upon receiving actual knowledge, or on being notified by the appropriate Government or its agency that any information, data or communication link residing in or connected to a computer resource controlled by the intermediary is being used to commit the unlawful act, the intermediary fails to expeditiously remove or disable access to that material on that resource without vitiating the evidence in any manner.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, the expression “third party information” means any information dealt with by an intermediary in his capacity as an intermediary.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/section-79-information-technology-act

Section 66A of the Information Technology Act

pranesh — 2012-11-25T13:34:26Z

Note: The Information Technology Act, 2000 was amended in 2008. The amended Act which received the assent of the President on February 5, 2009, contains section 66A.

66A. Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc.

Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device,—

(a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or

(b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device,

(c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages,

shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.

Explanation.— For the purpose of this section, terms “electronic mail” and “electronic mail message” means a message or information created or transmitted or received on a computer, computer system, computer resource or communication device including attachments in text, images, audio, video and any other electronic record, which may be transmitted with the message.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/section-66A-information-technology-act

Section 43 of the Information Technology Act

pranesh — 2013-06-07T10:37:04Z

Given below is the text of section 43 of the IT Act:

43. Penalty and compensation for damage to computer, computer system, etc.
If any person without permission of the owner or any other person who is incharge of a computer, computer system or computer network, or computer resource —

accesses or secures access to such computer, computer system or computer network;
downloads, copies or extracts any data, computer data base or information from such computer, computer system or computer network including information or data held or stored in any removable storage medium;
introduces or causes to be introduced any computer contaminant or computer virus into any computer, computer system or computer network;
damages or causes to be damaged any computer, computer system or computer network, data, computer data base or any other programmes residing in such computer, computer system or computer network;
disrupts or causes disruption of any computer, computer system or computer network;
denies or causes the denial of access to any person authorised to access any computer, computer system or computer network by any means; (g) provides any assistance to any person to facilitate access to a computer, computer system or computer network in contravention of the provisions of this Act, rules or regulations made thereunder;
charges the services availed of by a person to the account of another person by tampering with or manipulating any computer, computer system, or computer network, he shall be liable to pay damages by way of compensation to the person so affected.
destroys, deletes or alters any information residing in a computer resource or diminishes its value or utility or affects it injuriously by any means;
steel, conceals, destroys or alters or causes any person to steal, conceal, destroy or alter any computer source code used for a computer resource with an intention to cause damage;

Explanation.
For the purposes of this section:

"computer contaminant" means any set of computer instructions that are designed —
- to modify, destroy, record, transmit data or programme residing within a computer, computer system or computer network; or
- by any means to usurp the normal operation of the computer, computer system, or computer network;
"computer data base" means a representation of information, knowledge, facts, concepts or instructions in text, image, audio, video that are being prepared or have been prepared in a formalised manner or have been produced by a computer, computer system or computer network and are intended for use in a computer, computer system or computer network;
"computer virus" means any computer instruction, information, data or programme that destroys, damages, degrades or adversely affects the performance of a computer resource or attaches itself to another computer resource and operates when a programme, daia or instruction is executed or some other event takes place in that computer resource;
"damage" means to destroy, alter, delete, add, modify or rearrange any computer resource by any means.
"computer source code" means the listing of programmes, computer commands, design and layout and programme analysis of computer resource in any form.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/section-43-it-act.txt

Second Response to Draft National Policy on Open Standards for e-Governance

pranesh — 2011-08-18T05:06:31Z

The government is in the process of drafting a national policy on open standards for e-governance. The National Informatics Centre recently released draft version 2 of the policy, and CIS sent in its comments on the draft.

CIS has been following the drafting of the national policy on open standards for e-governance with much interest. Last year, we offered our comments on the first draft of the policy. The policy has since gone through two more iterations (copies of which are kept on the Fosscomm site), labelled versions 1.15 and 2, and we have again offered comments on the latest version. The evolution the draft policy has been mired in controversy, as documented by Venkatesh Hariharan of Red Hat. It seems that the National Association of Software and Services Companies (NASSCOM) has been trying to nullify the effect of the policy by pushing for recognition of proprietary standards within the policy, and that too without consultation with its members.

We believe that proprietary standards go against the interests the government, which as the primary consumer of the standards would have to pay royalties and would face vendor lock-in, of small and medium enterprises, which provide direct and indirect services to the government, since they would be required to invest in those closed standards to service the government, and most of all, of the citizens of India.

Based on that view, we have noted four deficiencies in version 2 of the draft policy: the possibility of following the letter of policy while violating its spirit; the possibility of patenting and closed licensing of government-developed standards; that no framework provided for review or phasing out interim standards; and certain problematic definitions in the glossary to the policy.

All these points are elaborated upon in the comments we submitted to the Department of Information Technology.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/second-response-to-draft-policy

Second Response to Draft National Policy on Open Standards for e-Governance

pranesh — 2009-07-07T16:49:37Z

Another draft (labelled "version 2", dated May 26, 2009) of the draft national policy on open standards for e-governance was made available to Fosscomm, while many software companies were speaking out against NASSCOM's position on the policy. CIS drafted a second response addressing both the allegations against NASSCOM as well as the few shortcomings we perceive in the draft policy.

To
Shri Shankar Aggrawal
Joint Secretary (e-Governance)
Department of Information Technology
Ministry of Communications and Information Technology

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

Dear Sir,

Sub: Comments on Draft National Policy on Open Standards for e-Governance (version 2)

I am writing on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society, which is a Bangalore-based civil society organization involved both in research and policy advocacy. Public accountability and digital pluralism are two of our core concerns, and it is for this that we are writing to you today. As a natural corollary of our mission, we aim at representing the concerns of citizens and consumers. You would recall that we had submitted comments to the call for comments you had put out for the draft National Policy on Open Standards for e-Governance last year (archived at <http://cis-india.org/advocacy/os/iosp/the-response/>).

We have recently received what appears to be a newer draft (version 2) of the National Policy on Open Standards for e-Governance, dated May 26, 2009. We are yet again very pleased to note the progressive nature of this document and wish to congratulate the government on its decision to promote the interests of the citizens of India over the narrow partisan interests of a few companies which wish to promote proprietary standards.

It has brought to our notice by some in the software industry that the National Association of Software and Services Companies (NASSCOM) has argued for the dilution of the definition of open standards by including standards licensed under “reasonable and non-discriminatory” terms to be considered “open”, and has also called for multiple standards in the same domain to be considered valid as a rule under the policy. We believe both these demands go against the interest of consumers of standards — which in this case is the Indian government — and are thus against the interest of citizens as well, since the Indian government handles data on behalf of its citizens.

Even “reasonable and non-discriminatory” terms of licensing of standards are in fact discriminatory as they prevent the development of free/libre/open source software based on those standards. And while having multiple implementations of a standard is beneficial as it increases consumer (i.e., governmental) choice, having multiple incompatible standards is detrimental to the government's interest as the policy itself recognizes in paragraph 4.2, and the very purpose (as enumerated in paragraphs 1, 3, and 4) of having standards is defeated. Even if the multiple standards are bi-directionally interoperable, additional costs are incurred in having concurrent multiple standards.

Thus, one hopes that the the threshold of “national interest” mentioned in paragraph 6.4.1 is set to a high level. Lastly, the views put forth by NASSCOM seem not to be truly legitimate as it has been the complaint of some that NASSCOM did not hold an open consultation with its own members before formulating its views. There are software giants, including IBM, Sun, and Red Hat, that have openly criticized the NASSCOMM position on open standards. More importantly, NASSCOM's position does not concur with what we believe is in the best interest of small and medium software enterprises, which constitute the bulk of the Indian software industry. We pray that you shall keep this in mind while considering NASSCOM's views.

We believe that apart from the technical reasons to favour open standards, there are many public interest reasons as well. We believe that the adoption of open standards is a step towards the promotion of equitable access to knowledge to all the people of our country. We further believe that public accountability will be served greatly by adoption of an open standards policy by the Central and State governments. While even developed countries (such as those of the EU) are mandating open standards in all governmental departments, processes, and interactions, it is developing countries that stand to gain most from open standards. Proprietary standards place a larger burden on developing economies than developed as developing economies have a greater need to participate in the global network by using standards, but do have lesser capabilities than developed economies in terms of paying for royalties.

On the document itself, while there are many reasons to hail it, we believe there are still a few shortcomings which we wish to bring to your notice.

Issue 1: Possibility of following letter of policy while violating its spirit

Explanation
Sometimes private companies can interfere with the standardisation process by exerting undue influence on the members of the standard setting body. That such undue influence have been sought to be applied even in India recently shows that this is not mere conjecture or idle speculation. Given this background, the document should note this as a problem and note that remedial measures could be undertaken in the event such undue influence comes to light.

Resolution
Introduce language, such as that used in the EU EIF, stating:
“Practices distorting the definition and evolution of open standards must be addressed immediately to protect the integrity of the standardisation process.”

Issue 2: Patenting and licensing of government-developed standards

Explanation
Paragraph 6.3 of the draft policy allows the government to opt for the development of a new standard by a Government of India-identified agency in case no standard is found to meet the government's functional requirements. However, it is not clear under what terms this standard will be available.

Resolution
Introduce a paragraph 6.3.1 stating:
“Any standard developed by or on behalf of the government shall be patent-free and the specifications of such a standard will be published online and will be available to all for no cost. Along with the standard, the government shall also provide, or shall cause to be provided, a free/libre/open source reference implementation of that standard.”

Issue 3: No framework provided for review or phasing out interim standards

Explanation
Paragraph 6.2 permits the government to adopt a non-open “interim” standard (one which does not fulfil all the mandatory requirements of open standards as laid out in 5.1) if no open standard exists in the specific domain for which the standard is required. This however does not have a clause necessitating the phasing out of such an interim standard.

Resolution
A review mechanism should be provided for periodic evaluation of all standards selected by the government, especially those designated as interim standards. A new paragraph 7.1.1 could be added:
“All standards selected through the processes outlined in this policy shall undergo an annual review by the Apex Body on e-Governance Standards, and all those designated as interim standards shall be reviewed biannually.”

Issue 4: Problematic definition in the glossary

Explanation
In Appendix A, the definition of “patents” (A.12) states: “The additional qualification 'utility patents' is used in countries such as the United States to distinguish them from other types of patents but should not be confused with utility models granted by other countries. Examples of particular species of patents for inventions include biological patents, business method patents, chemical patents and software patents.” Many of these references are U.S.-specific and are not valid forms of patents in India (e.g. biological patents, business method patents, and software patents).

Resolution
Delete the last two sentences in A.12

We once again wish to compliment the government on developing such a strong policy on open standards, and hope that our suggestions are incorporated into the text of the final version. We further hope that the policy will be notified at the earliest, as there has already been considerable opportunity for the public and industry to comment on the draft versions of the policy.

Yours sincerely,

Pranesh Prakash
Programme Manager
Centre for Internet and Society

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/standards/second-response

Screening of Pixel Pirate II: Attack of the Astro Elvis Video Clone

pranesh — 2011-04-05T04:41:30Z

Artists Soda_Jerk will lead discussions after the screening of their narrative remix video Pixel Pirate II, a film that questions the current state of intellectual property laws (and is composed only of samples).

Soda_Jerk (Dan & Dominique Angeloro) are two Sydney-based artists working collaboratively in the areas of video, photomedia and installation. They work exclusively with found material, recombining fragments of film footage, audio samples and vintage image culture to create new works.

Their hour-long narrative remix video "Pixel Pirate II: Attack of the Astro Elvis Video Clone" (2002-06) is a critique of intellectual property law that is constructed from samples pirated from over 300 film and music sources. Think of it as a sci-fi/ biblical epic/ romance/ action movie that stars Elvis Presley, Moses, the Hulk, Michael Jackson, Jesus, Batman and the Ghostbusters. Since its 2006 launch at the Art Gallery of New South Wales, Sydney it has screened internationally in the Czech Republic, Germany, Scotland, the Netherlands, Mexico and India. Soda_Jerk will discuss the process and cultural context of their video remix practice and screen 'Pixel Pirate II' along with other excerpts from their work.

For more information about Soda_Jerk, and about Pixel Pirate II, please visit: http://www.sodajerk.com.au and http://www.pixelpirate2.com.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/events/screening-of-pixel-pirate-ii-attack-of-the-astro-elvis-video-clone

Screening of Partners in Crime

pranesh — 2011-09-07T11:03:46Z

Vikalp@Smriti Nandan along with Centre for Internet and Society invite you to a screening of 'Partners in Crime' by Paromita Vohra on Friday, September 9, 2011, followed by a discussion with the director.

“Come along for a rollicking trip through the grey worlds of copyright, art, and the market in a story about love, money and crime”

Vikalp@Smriti Nandan along with Centre for Internet and Society invite you to the screening of

PARTNERS IN CRIME

Directed by Paromita Vohra
Duration: 94 minutes

@ 6.30pm on Friday, September 9, 2011
@ Smriti Nandan Cultural Centre, 15/3 Palace Road (at the end of the lane opposite NGMA / Maruti temple)
For more details – 9845766808 / 9916158217

The Director will be present at the screening.

Please note that non-members of Smriti Nandan are encouraged to pay Rs. 49/- or above towards the Auditorium.

Watch the trailer and read reviews.

Synopsis

Who owns a song – the person who made it or the person who paid for it? Is piracy organized crime or class struggle? Are alternative artists who want to hold rights over their art and go it alone in the market, visionaries or nutcases? Is the fine line between plagiarism and inspiration a cop-out or a whole other way of looking at the fluid nature of authorship? When more than three fourths of those with an
internet connection download all sorts of material for free, are they living out a brand new cultural freedom – or are they criminals? Full of wicked irony, great music and thorny questions Partners in
Crime explores the grey horizons of copyright and culture in times when technology is changing the contours of the market. Metal heads who market their own music, folklorists who turn tribal aphorisms into short stories, music archivists who hoard and share everything they can get their hands on, anti-piracy fanatics who think piracy funds terrorism, a smooth talking DVD street salesman who outlines the efficiency of the illegal market, media moguls, lobbyists, “monetizers”, downloaders, uploaders, the biggest hit song of 2010 and the small time nautanki singer whose song it was inspired by – these places and people throng the world’s bazaar in which the film is set. Partners in Crime takes you through a story about art, crime, love and money to check if the times, they may be a-changing after all.

Featuring

Vijay Dandetha, Thermal and a Quarter, Lawrence Liang, Demonic Resurrection, Pete Lockett, itwofs.com, Scribe, Rampat Harami & Rani Bala, Ram Sampath, Juma Khan, Irfan of Dil Ne Phir Yaad Kiya, FM Gold, CDrack.in and many others.

About the Director

Paromita Vohra is a documentary filmmaker and writer based in Mumbai whose films explore issues of politics, feminism, culture and desire. Some of her celebrated films are ‘Morality TV and the Loving Jehad: A Thrilling Tale’, 'Q2P', 'Un-limited Girls', 'Where’s Sandra?', ‘Cosmopolis: Two Tales of a City’ and 'A Woman’s Place'. She is also scriptwriter of 'Khamosh Pani' (directed by Sabiha Sumar) which won the Golden Leopard at the Locarno Film Festival in 2003; 'A Few Things I Know About Her' (directed by Anjali Panjabi) which won the Silver Conch at the MIFF 2002; and 'Skin Deep' (directed by Reena Mohan). Her prose writing has been carried in various anthologies including Electric Feather: The Tranquebar Book of Indian Erotica, Recess: The Penguin Book of Schooldays and Bombay Meri Jaan, among others. She writes a weekly column in Sunday Mid-day. She is currently working on a book about love in contemporary India. Partners in Crime is her latest film. To find out more about her work you can visit www.parodevi.com

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/events/partners-in-crime

Screening of 'Steal this Film' (TV Cut)

pranesh — 2011-04-05T04:44:27Z

A screening of a new edit combining Steal this Film and Steal this Film II, which hasn't been released or screened before. The screening will be followed by a discussion with the director, Jamie King. The Centre for Internet and Society and Pedestrian Pictures

cordially invite you to a screening of
Steal this Film (TV Cut) by Jamie King

Film:
Steal This Film (TV Cut)
A new edit combining Steal This Film and Steal This Film II, which hasn't been previously released or screened.

Date and Time:
Saturday, November 8, 2007
17:30 - 19:00 hrs.

Venue:
Nani Cinematheque (CFD)
5th Floor, Sona Towers
71 Millers Road
Bangalore

Map:
http://bit.ly/nani-map

(For directions to the venue call, CIS on +91 80 4092 6283.)

More about the film:
'Steal this Film' is a documentary series (available for free download online) about the culture of piracy and issues
surrounding intellectual property, and the cultural and economic implications of the Internet.

It has been selected for screening at Sheffield International Documentary Film Festival, South By Southwest (SXSW) festival in
Austin, Texas, the Singapore International Film Festival, and the International Documentary Film Festival in Amsterdam.

Links:
http://www.stealthisfilm.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steal_This_Film
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/12/29/steal-this-film-part.html

More about the director:
Jamie King is a film maker, writer and activist working enthusiastically in the area of new media, post-IP culture and social
organisation. A former editor of Mute Magazine, lobbyist at the UN, journalist at ITN News, and consultant for Channel 4 Television, Jamie is now focused on radical approaches to sharing, exchange and co-operation indicated by network technologies across a variety of media.

Co-organiser of the 2003 WSIS? We Seize! counter-UN summit, Jamie continues to be involved in highlighting the importance of information politics in the social movements. STEAL THIS FILM I and II, documentaries exploring the uncertain future of intellectual property, have been downloaded over 4 million times via BitTorrent and featured at numerous international film festivals.

Add to Google Calendar:

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/events/screening-of-steal-this-film-tv-cut

RTI Applications on Blocking of Websites

pranesh — 2012-12-21T06:34:27Z

In recent weeks, an increasing number of incidents have come to light on government-ordered blocking of websites. In one case involving Zone-H.org, it is clear who has ordered the block (a Delhi district court judge, as an interim order), even though the block itself is open to constitutional challenge. In all others cases, including the TypePad case, it is unclear who has ordered the block and why. We at CIS have sent in two right to information requests to find out.

While under the law (i.e., s.69A of the Information Technology Act), the Department of Information Technology (DIT) has the power to order blocks (via the 'Designated Officer'), in some cases it has been noted that the ISPs have noted that the order to block access to the websites have come from the Department of Telecom (DoT). Due to this, we have sent in RTI applications to both the DIT and the DoT.

RTI Application to Department of Information Technology

Shri B.B.Bahl,
Joint Director and PIO (RTI)
Office of PIO (RTI)
Room No 1016, Electronics Niketan
Department of Information Technology (DIT)
Ministry of Communications and Information Technology
6, CGO Complex, New Delhi

Dear Sir,

Subject: Information on Website Blocking Requested under the Right to Information Act, 2005

1. Full Name of the Applicant:
Pranesh Prakash

2. Address of the Applicant:
E-mail Address:
pranesh[at]cis-india.org

Mailing Address:
Centre for Internet and Society
194, 2-C Cross,
Domlur Stage II,
Bangalore – 560071

3. Details of the information required:

It has come to our attention that Airtel Broadband Services (“Airtel”) has recently blocked access to a blog host called TypePad (http://www.typepad.com) (“TypePad”) for all its users across the country. In this regard, we request information on the following queries under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005:

Did the Department order Airtel to block TypePad under s.69A of the Information Technology Act (“IT Act”), 2000 read with the Information Technology (Procedures and Safeguards for Blocking Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 (“Rules”) or any other law for the time being in force? If so, please provide a copy of such order or orders. If not, what action, if at all, has been taken by the Department against Airtel for blocking of websites in contravention of s.69A of the IT Act?
Has the Department ever ordered a block under s.69A of the IT Act? If so, what was the information that was ordered to be blocked?
How many requests for blocking of information has the Designated Officer received, and how many of those requests have been accepted and how many rejected? How many of those requests were for emergency blocking under Rule 9 of the Rules?
Please provide use the present composition of the Committee for Examination of Requests constituted under Rule 7 of the Rules.
Please provide us the dates and copies of the minutes of all meetings held by the Committee for Examination of Requests under Rule 8(4) of the Rules, and copies of their recommendations.
Please provide us the present composition of the Review Committee constituted under rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951.
Please provide us the dates and copies of the minutes of all meetings held by the Review Committee under Rule 14 of the Rules, and copies of all orders issued by the Review Committee.

4. Years to which the above requests pertain:
2008-2011

5. Designation and Address of the PIO from whom the information is required:

To the best of my belief, the details sought for fall within your authority. Further, as provided under section 6(3) of the Right to Information Act (“RTI Act”), in case this application does not fall within your authority, I request you to transfer the same in the designated time (5 days) to the concerned authority and inform me of the same immediately.

To the best of my knowledge the information sought does not fall within the restrictions contained in section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act, and any provision protecting such information in any other law for the time being in force is inapplicable due to section 22 of the RTI Act.

Please provide me this information in electronic form, via the e-mail address provided above.

This to certify that I, Pranesh Prakash, am a citizen of India.

A fee of Rs. 10/- (Rupees Ten Only) has been made out in the form of a demand draft drawn in favour of “Pay and Accounts Officer, Department of Information Technology” payable at New Delhi.

Date: Monday, February 28, 2011
Place: Bengaluru, Karnataka

(Pranesh Prakash)

RTI Application to Department of Telecom

Shri Subodh Saxena
Central Public Information Officer (RTI)
Director (DS-II)
Room No 1006, Sanchar Bhawan
Department of Telecommunications (DoT)
Ministry of Communications and Information Technology
20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi — 110001

Dear Sir,

Subject: Information on Website Blocking Requested under the Right to Information Act, 2005

1. Full Name of the Applicant:
Pranesh Prakash

2. Address of the Applicant:
E-mail Address:
pranesh[at]cis-india.org

Mailing Address:
Centre for Internet and Society
194, 2-C Cross,
Domlur Stage II,
Bangalore – 560071

3. Details of the information required:

It has come to our attention that Airtel Broadband Services (“Airtel”) has recently blocked access to a blog host called TypePad (http://www.typepad.com) (“TypePad”) for all its users across the country. Airtel subscribers trying to access this website receive a message noting “This site has been blocked as per request by Department of Telecom”. In this regard, we request information on the following queries under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005:

Does the Department have powers to require an Internet Service Provider to block a website? If so, please provide a citation of the statute under which power is granted to the Department, as well as the the safeguards prescribed to be in accordance with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
Did the Department order Airtel to block TypePad or any blog hosted by TypePad? If so, please provide a copy of such order or orders. If not, what action, if at all, has been taken by the Department against Airtel for blocking of websites?
Has the Department ever ordered the blocking of any website? If so, please provide a list of addresses of all the websites that have been ordered to be blocked.
Please provide use the present composition of the Committee constituted under rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951.
Please provide us the dates and copies of the minutes of all meetings held by the Committee constituted under rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, and copies of all their recommendations.

4. Years to which the above requests pertain:
2005-2011

5. Designation and Address of the PIO from whom the information is required:
Shri Subodh Saxena
Central Public Information Officer (RTI)
Director (DS-II)
Room No 1006, Sanchar Bhawan
Department of Telecommunications (DoT)
Ministry of Communications and Information Technology
20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi — 110001

Please provide me this information in electronic form, via the e-mail address provided above.

This to certify that I, Pranesh Prakash, am a citizen of India.

A fee of Rs. 10/- (Rupees Ten Only) has been made out in the form of a demand draft drawn in favour of “Pay and Accounts Officer (HQ), Department of Telecom” payable at New Delhi.

Date: Monday, February 28, 2011
Place: Bengaluru, Karnataka

(Pranesh Prakash)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/rtis-on-website-blocking

RTI Application to Visvesvaraya Technological University

pranesh — 2011-08-18T05:01:46Z

The Centre for Internet and Society filed an RTI application to Visvesvaraya Technological University asking it to provide details about its curriculum design, and its tie-ups with various software vendors.

The grip software vendors have over courses in technology (at both the school and the university levels) is a matter for concern. Due to what can be termed institutional inertia, educational institutions often don't realise that alternatives exist in the form of FLOSS (Free/Libre/Open Source software), as proprietary software is entrenched in the system (and is sometimes the market leader in that tech sector). To further tighten their grip, software vendors enter into commercial deals with governments and universities in attempts to penetrate the crucial education sector. This often results in students being taught courses on how to use particular (usually proprietary) software instead of being taught standard technologies. In turn, this denies them the opportunity to learn the concepts behind the software effectively, and ties them to the particular software that they were taught. For software vendors, getting their products into the curricula is very important because the supply of students trained in particular software also affects the demand for that software.

Students should be taught technologies first and foremost, and these technologies should be taught via the vehicle of both free and proprietary software (this is much easier if the technology itself is an open technology). That would allow students the opportunity to understand different implementations of the same technology and make an informed decision as to what they wish to use. It would also offer them more opportunities and choices in their future careers. The importance of FLOSS in the education sector is highlighted in a guide brought out by the United Nations Development Programme's International Open Source Network.

Against this backdrop, when news reports appeared in the Hindu (19 November 2008) and the Deccan Herald (20 November 2008) about a curriculum tie-up between Microsoft and Visvesvaraya Technological University, we filed a Right to Information application to get more details about it. The response stated that this matter was still under discussion and no agreement had been signed.

To read the application, click here; to read the response, click here. You can download a scanned copy of the response here.

-----

This entry was originally posted on 30 March 2009 and was updated on 3 April 2009.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/rti-application-on-microsoft-vtu-deal