Centre for Internet and Society

Bloomberg.pdf

praskrishna — 2015-04-03T06:17:33Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/Bloomberg.pdf

BlogFest2012

praskrishna — 2012-12-04T05:03:38Z

BlogFest2012

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/home-images/Technology.png

Blog Entries of Maesy Angelina

praskrishna — 2011-11-25T08:56:06Z

Maesy works in the Blank Noise project. She has produced ten blog posts.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/digital-natives/maesy-angelina.pdf

Blocking Twitter: How Internet Service Providers & telcos were caught between tweets and tall egos

praskrishna — 2012-08-25T07:36:04Z

Long derided as 'dumb pipes' to the Web, Internet service providers (ISPs) are discovering these days that insult is being increasingly followed up by injury.

Joji Thomas Philip and Harsimran Julka's article was published in the Times of India on August 25, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

In the fight between netizens who spare no effort at lampooning the powers that be and alarmingly frequent government flashes of rage at comments that can range from the mildly disrespectful to downright defamatory, telcos and ISPs find themselves much like the grass in the age-old Swahili saying "When two elephants fight, it's the grass that suffers".

The latest reminder of the hard place they find themselves in came earlier this week when news first broke that the government had asked for some accounts on social media site Twitter to also be part of websites and Internet pages it wanted blocked by ISPs. The news triggered a wave of outrage across cyberspace, with many users venting their rage at the first entity they associate the web with - their ISP, which in many cases is also their telecom operator.

"We acted immediately to the government's orders, but ended up being targetted and criticised wrongly only because we acted first," explained one official, who sought anonymity for himself and the company to avoid offending bureaucrats.

It's a common feeling. Telcos and ISPs are increasingly finding themselves in a 'Damned if you do, Damned if you don't' predicament these days, having to walk a tightrope between government orders and a restive netizenry.

And government orders can range from the super-urgent to arbitrary to sometimes ill-conceived. Very often, its 'one ban fits all' makes little allowance for differences between social networking sites and regular websites.

Executives in telecom companies recounted the instance when the government on August 18 ordered a ban on bulk SMSes and restricted text messages to five per day as part of efforts to combat the large-scale migration of people of north-eastern origins from other states to their home provinces fearing reprisal attacks.

"Within an hour of the directive, we started getting calls seeking compliance," said a top executive with a leading telco. But as the Centre was demanding compliance reports, operators were busy trying to decipher its notification, which read: "(a) Block bulk SMS (more than 5) for the next 15 days in the entire country across all states/UTs (b) Block bulk MMS (more than 5) and all MMS with attachment more than 25 KB for the next 15 days in the entire country across all states/UTs."

Shoot first, talk later

Telecom operators were nonplussed by the notification. Did it apply only to senders of bulk text messages who use this facility for commercial purposes? Or, did it mean customers could not send SMSes to more than five people simultaneously?

"When we sought clarification, the explanation was completely different and took a new dimension. It was five text messages per day per customer," said the regulatory head of a GSM operator, requesting anonymity as he did not want to offend the government.

Mobile phone companies then approached the department of telecom explaining that they did not have any technology with which they could impose a five SMSes a day limit for postpaid users. "The home and telecom ministries had not even realised that a facility did not exist before issuing the directive," said the marketing head of a leading telco.

In this case, the government accepted the operator's arguments and relented, but still told the companies not to highlight the limitation. "This time around, our arguments were accepted. Going by past instances, some operators had feared that the government would slap a hefty penalty for non-compliance without considering what we had to say," the marketing head said.

Industry officials say the tendency of 'shoot first, talk later' among bureaucrats and ministers long used to having their orders followed, especially when it came to the world of social networking which very few of them had any idea about, meant that it was safer to obey first and correct later.

"We don't even do any application of mind to the government's notices on requests. We wholesale block them. We can't even question the government's requests. A notice is a law in effect. Violation means a potential penalty which can go up to the cancellation of my licence and thus end to my business," said the head of a Delhi-based ISP that serves business users.

Executives with several ISPs and telcos say most often, court orders, government notifications and directives are not in public domain, and these result in angry consumers assuming that their service provider is up to some mischief.

ISPs say public clarifications by the government would go a long way in addressing the issue. "There has to be transparency. The government should have proactively disclosed the names of the websites it wanted blocked. The persons and intermediaries hosting the content should have been notified and provided with 48 hours to respond as required by the IT Act," said Pranesh Prakash of the Centre for Internet and Society, a research organisation.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/times-of-india-aug-25-2012-blocking-twitter

Blocking online content: Google gets more requests than govt

praskrishna — 2011-11-03T10:45:25Z

Allowing a peek into what kind of information is requested to be blocked online and by who, the Department of Information Technology (DIT), in response to an RTI (Right to Information) query, has provided some intriguing details, says Pallavi Polanki in this article published in Firstpost.com on 2 November 2011.

DIT lists names of bureaucrats, police officers and one politician who requested blocking content online as well as the websites they identified.

In all, 68 individual items were requested to be blocked under the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking Access of Information by Public) Rules 2009, to the DIT, which is the only authority mandated by the Information Technology Act 2000, to order blocking online content.

Speaking to Firstpost, Pranesh Prakash, programme manager at the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, who requested for the information under the RTI Act — and has posted it on a blog analysing the information received from DIT — said, "Information from a previous RTI application uncovered what all websites were officially blocked by the DIT, while this one uncovers what all website blocking requests the DIT received."

No prizes for guessing; pornographic sites topped the list of websites requested to be blocked. Mumbai’s Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime) listed 60 adult content sites in his request. However, the DIT doesn’t seem to have accepted the officer’s request. The sites remain accessible.

Haneef Ali, Andhra Pradesh State President of the Bharatiya Janata Minority Morcha, is the only politician on the list. He requested the blocking of a blogpost, the title of which translates to "insult against Islam".

Up to four requests were made for blocking of political content, two of which came from Tamil Nadu.

The secretary, Public (Law and Order) Department requested for the website tamil.net.in to be blocked and the principal secretary, IT Department, requested a blog to be shut down. Only the first request seems to have been accepted.

Also, in the line of political fire was a Wikipedia entry for Sukhbir Singh Badal. The principal secretary, IT Department, Punjab, requested the Wikipedia entry with the address ‘en.wikipedia.org/Wiki/Sukhbir Singh Badal’ to be blocked. However, Wikipedia does have an entry for the deputy chief minister of Punjab with a slightly tweaked address.

Not surprisingly, Mumbai’s Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime) wanted a YouTube video ( identified in Prakash’s blog as a video of Bal Thackeray’s speech) to be blocked. Click on the link and a message from YouTube reads: "This video has been removed because its content violated YouTube’s Terms of Service. Sorry about that."

A betting site betfair.com was sought to be shut down by a senior inspector from Mumbai’s cyber crime cell. No luck. The site remains up and running.

Finally, Maharashtra’s Commissioner sent in two requests: Both are running.

Now for the interesting part: Prakash states that the data provided by the government "seemingly conflicts with the data released by the likes of Google (via its Transparency Report)."

According to Google’s Transparency Report, released on 25 October, Google received requests for 358 individual items to be removed from its different services between January and June 2011. And 407 such requests were made in 2010.

Information provided by DIT, however, shows that only requests for 68 items (64 websites, one blog, and three specific web-pages) from eight separate requests were made to it. Of these, only three were for Google’s services (two for Blogger and one for YouTube), points out Prakash.

While only DIT has the authority to order blocks, Google data shows that requests to ‘remove content’ far outnumber the requests made to DIT, suggesting that Google is receiving these requests directly from law enforcement agencies.

"The only explanation for this is that an order to ‘block for access… or cause to be blocked for access by the public’ is taken to be different from an order for removal of content… That would mean that while blocking is regulated by the IT Act, forcible removal of content is not. Thus, it would seem that forcible removal of online content is happening without clear regulation or limits,"states Prakash. (emphasis added).

Prakash makes the case that when law enforcement agencies send requests to companies like Google to remove content they are "operating outside bounds set up by the Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure as also the Information Technology Act."

He adds that companies tend to comply with such ‘requests’ even when they are not under legal obligation to do so because it might appear to them to "violate their own terms of service (which generally include a wide clause about content being in accordance with all local laws), community guidelines."

"This way, the intention of Parliament in enacting Section 69A of the IT Act — to regulate government censorship of the Internet and bring it within the bounds laid down in the Constitution—is defeated," states Prakash.

This article has been republished from Firstpost.com. The original can be read here. You can read Firstpost’s continuing RTI coverage here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/blocking-content-google-gets-more-requests

Blocking of Websites

praskrishna — 2013-06-03T09:18:32Z

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

Blocking of Websites

praskrishna — 2013-09-24T09:11:57Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/blocking-websites.pdf

Blocked websites: Where India flawed

praskrishna — 2012-08-27T03:00:16Z

Apart from not giving 48 hours response time, the Indian government has blocked some websites which don't exist or don't have web addresses, says an analyst.

Published in CIOL on August 23, 2012. Pranesh Prakash's analysis is quoted.

India is threatening to block Twitter as the latter has allegedly failed to respond to the government's order to remove some inflammatory posts.

That has come to light as it is being widely covered in media, but there are hundreds of websites which have already been shut, apparently without due notice to the owners.

Apart from Facebook, Twitter and YouTube accounts, the blocked websites include which are sympathetic to Hindu and Muslim radical groups.

In an analysis of 309 websites blocked in the wake of exodus of North eastern people from Bangalore, Pranesh Prakash of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), says the government has blocked these sites under the Information Technology Act, but it failed to provide the mandatory 48 hours to respond (under Rule 8 of the Information Technology Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public, Rules 2009).

He writes in his post: "The persons and intermediaries hosting the content should have been notified. Even if the emergency provision (Rule 9) was used, the block issued on August 18, 2012, should have been introduced before the "Committee for Examination of Request" by August 20, 2012 (within 48 hours), and that committee should have notified the persons and intermediaries hosting the content.

Internet censorship is acceptable as long as it is in the purview of the law and doesn't encroach one's freedom. In this case, some people and posts debunking rumours have been blocked, says Pranesh.

He points to some discrepancies in the way the websites are blocked:

Some of the items are not even web addresses (e.g., a few HTML img tags were included). Some of the items they have tried to block do not even exist (e.g., one of the Wikipedia URLs).
An entire domain was blocked on Sunday, and a single post on that domain was blocked on Monday.
For some YouTube videos, the 'base' URL of YouTube videos is blocked, but for other the URL with various parameters (like the "&related=" parameter) is blocked. That means that even nominally 'blocked' videos will be freely accessible.

He concludes: "All in all, it is clear that the list was not compiled with sufficient care."

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/www-ciol-com-aug-23-2012-blocked-websites

blocked

praskrishna — 2015-01-03T02:42:59Z

blocked

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/home-images/blocked.png

Blank Noise

praskrishna — 2011-01-24T12:56:40Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/home-images/parmesh03.jpg

blank

praskrishna — 2012-02-15T08:44:20Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/home-images/blank.png

BK Gairola

praskrishna — 2012-11-16T15:47:17Z

BK Gairolace

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/home-images/BKGairola.png

Biz moving to IPv6 but lower costs, support needed

praskrishna — 2012-06-14T05:01:34Z

Organisations such as Cisco Systems, Equinix and Singapore Internet Exchange are all gearing up for migration to IPv6 in time for the World IPv6 Launch day slated on Jun. 6,which involved everything from redesigning their backend infrastructure to assessing their systems’ readiness.

Published in intellasia.net on June 8, 2012

However, one industry player noted that the costs and effort in doing so is one key reason why more companies are not making the transition.

Cisco, for one, told ZDNet Asia that is had been preparing for the migration on Wednesday since the test run was conducted last year. Joshua Soh, managing director for Cisco Singapore and Brunei, pointed out that switching IPv6 on permanently demanded a certain level of production quality and this required a lengthy preparation time.

The first step was to work on its backend IT architecture and design, Soh revealed, adding that their primary goals were to leverage network infrastructure already in place to avoid spending on parallel networks, as well as to ensure production quality and ability to maintain overall service levels.

To meet these goals, the networking giant redesigned their data centre based on the reverse proxy model, in which the proxy server retrieves resources from the server to deliver to a client before returning these resources to the original server.

It also used its Application Control Engine (ACE) load-balancing platform to configure incoming IPv6 sessions to be proxied to the IPv4 tier so that the network will be dual-stacked to include existing ISP (Internet service provider) connections, the managing director explained.

The Singapore Internet Exchange did likewise. According to Yeo See Kiat, its sales and marketing director, the organisation enabled dual-stack networks on their servers for public-facing services, which would enable it to obtain IPv6 streams and turn on the service permanently.

“Meet in the middle” saves cost

Another company making a similar transition to the new Web protocol is Equinix. Its director of network engineering & operations for the Asia-Pacific office, Raphael Ho, told ZDNet Asia that the migration would require existing networks to be upgraded and expanded to support the additional bandwidth and power.

This is especially so for facilities such as the company’s International Business Exchange (IBX) data centers where the volume of interconnection is consistently high, he added.

In order to facilitate the switch, the company used its IPv6 Exchange to simplify the process for its networks to enhance traffic within an IPv6 environment, Ho stated. The central switching capability also helped create a “unicast” peering virtual local area network (LAN).

This “meet in the middle” approach helped reduce costs as it enabled its servers to more efficiently establish IPv6 peering, he explained.

Assess systems’ readiness

Cisco’s Soh noted that after the redesigning of the data centre is complete, the company performed an assessment to determine if existing devices in its demilitarised zone (DMZ) and datacenter networks were capable of supporting the new protocol. It also enhanced its network management systems to support network, devices and application monitoring over IPv6, he added.

At this late stage, the company is conducting system-level testing and quality assurance engineers are going about the functional and performance checks, the executive pointed out. Its last test will be a practice run in which it will switch on the IPv6 service for a few hours to make sure everything works fine, including the content delivery network and ISP services, he said.

Beyond the technical preparations, it also put together a training programme to ensure employees, from the frontline to the network engineers, were equipped with knowledge of the new protocol and skills appropriate for their roles, the executive stated.

No impetus for change

The amount of time and costs reflected in these companies’ migration efforts were cited as one of the main reasons why there are not more companies considering making the switch.

According to a statement issued by Tata Communications and India-based centre for Internet and Society on Wednesday, costs and infrastructure as well as having a minimum number of service providers and users utilising the network were identified as the two main impediments for IPv6 adoption.

One the first obstacle, they said: “IPv6 platforms do not communicate easily with IPv4 networks. This idea of abandoning IPv4 and moving to a new protocol is not only redundant, it is also futile because IPv4 is already running the largest network in human history quite efficiently.”

To make the transition more palatable, they believed “translators”, or technologies able to “speak” in both protocols, are needed. However, these translators are still expensive and there is a need to divert more resources to make these technologies more affordable, the statement noted.

As for the second reason, both Tata and the centre for Internet and Society stated that as long as the deployment of IPv6 remains nascent, there will be no concentrated energy to bridge both protocol versions.

“We are going to need a systemic change among all stakeholders to make IPv6 a reality, toward a faster, safer and more robust Internet,” they said.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/biz-moving-to-ip-v-6

Bitter Pill

praskrishna — 2018-08-13T15:06:31Z

Bitter Pill

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/home-images/BitterPill.jpg

Bitcoin & Open Source with Aaron Koenig

praskrishna — 2014-02-06T01:40:24Z

Aaron Koenig, director of bitfilm.org and a global Bitcoin entrepreneur will give a talk at the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore on February 7 at 6.00 p.m.

Learn more about Bitcoin and its global path as we explore concepts and ideaologies behind the technology behemoth.


Above is an image of a Bitcoin Expert giving a presentation. Image source: http://bit.ly/1keLpwi

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/events/bitcoin-and-open-source-aaron-koenig