Centre for Internet and Society

‘Doing’ Digital Humanities: Reflections on a project on Online Feminism in India

sneha — 2015-03-30T12:48:16Z

A core concern of Digital Humanities research has been that of method. The existing discourse around the field of DH assumes a move away from traditional humanities and social sciences research methods to more open, collaborative and iterative forms of scholarship spanning some conventional and other not so conventional practices and spaces. In this guest blog post, Sujatha Subramanian reflects upon her experience of undertaking a research study on online feminist activism in India and its various challenges.

When the chance to do a research project on Digital Humanities presented itself, I deliberated over the possible topics I could explore. As a student of Media and Cultural Studies, I have on previous occasions studied digital technology and online spaces. Those studies, however, were simply “social sciences” research. I had little understanding of what Digital Humanities as a discipline entailed. While I admit that I am still unable to come up with a concrete definition of the same, the process of conducting the research and the DH workshop organised at CIS led to some clarity about the field and methods of Digital Humanities.

Before beginning the research I asked myself what could I, a feminist media scholar, learn from Digital Humanities and how could I contribute to the same. I wondered if the lack of familiarity with technological skills such as design, statistics and coding- knowledge that I saw as prerequisite to Digital Humanities- meant that I couldn’t really engage with the field of Digital Humanities. While grappling with this question, I chanced upon the #TransformDH project. At the heart of the project is the question- “How can digital humanities benefit from more diverse critical paradigms, including race/ethnic studies and gender/sexuality studies?” [1]

In a blogpost titled “Queer Studies and the Digital Humanities”,[2] the author states,

"...a lot of queer/critical ethnic studies/similar scholars also lack access to the resources that make it easier to combine digital and humanities work. That might not only mean physical access and training in technology, but also the time to add yet another interdisciplinary element to a project...my experience suggests that many, many politicized queers and people of color engaged in scholarly work in and out of the academy do use digital tools and think critically about them and even create them; they just don’t necessarily do so under the sign of the digital humanities."

As someone who used the space of Facebook to initiate conversations around feminist issues and was actively engaged in fighting the sexism entrenched in social media spaces, was I then already “doing” digital humanities? I reflected that since feminist activism finds such little space in mainstream media, a worthwhile Digital Humanities project could be to document and archive the contemporary feminist movement and the ways in which it is transforming our understanding of the digital space. As part of the project, I explored how feminist activists have revolutionised digital spaces for the creation of alternative public spheres, constituted of not just women but also other marginalised communities. The project gave me the opportunity to study the inclusions and exclusions facilitated by the digital space, with questions of gender, sexuality, class, caste and disability as central to the enquiry. The project also raised questions regarding popular assumptions of digital space as a disembodied, liberatory space free of power relations by exploring gendered and sexualised violence that these feminist activists face.

While the political vision of my project was clear, my methodological skills needed a little honing. The DH workshop organised at CIS was of great help in this regard. The feedback received at the workshop was instrumental in recognising the importance of “big data”. As a feminist researcher, life histories, personal narratives and stories remain important sources of knowledge for me. However, in studying social movements and their impact, the limitations of such methodological tools are revealed. Understanding how a feminist activist with 11,000 followers on Twitter offers important insight into public discourse is contingent on the ability to analyse such data. The workshop also helped me in realising that in my definition of activism, I had precluded many feminist engagements with digital technology, including the efforts of feminist Wikipedians, feminist gamers and feminist encounters with STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics). While these remain the shortcomings of my project, the workshop helped in foregrounding the scope for collaboration that lies at the heart of all our projects. A discussion of my project alongside Ditilekha’s project on LGBT Youth and Digital Citizenship brought to fore the intersections as well as the different activist strategies employed by the two movements in their use of social media. Sohnee’s project on the gender gap on Wikipedia underlines that an important aspect of working towards a feminist epistemology, and changing the relations of power that characterise technology, are issues of access and participation. Rimi’s use of a text mining tool to analyse the different patterns of language on confessions pages highlighted the value of such technological tools in socio-cultural analysis. The workshop which brought together scholars from different disciplinary backgrounds, helped in highlighting shared concerns of methodology, content and political visions and prompted discussions on innovative approaches to conducting research. This attempt at collaborative knowledge production- whether it is the constant communication between the research scholars through email, the workshop with the scholars and the mentors or even the dissemination of our reports on an open access site- has been the essence of my engagement with Digital Humanities. The ethos of collaboration as central to Digital Humanities is reflected in Joan Shaffer’s definition of Digital Humanities as “...a community interested in collaborative projects and sharing knowledge across disciplines." [3] This ethos of learning from fellow researchers and working together to create accessible knowledge is something that I shall carry forward to my future research endeavours.

[1]. http://transformdh.org/2012/01/

[2]. http://www.queergeektheory.org/2011/10/conference-thoughts-queer-studies-and-the-digital-humanities/

[3]. http://dayofdh2012.artsrn.ualberta.ca/members/echoln/profile/

Sujatha Subramanian is an M.Phil. Scholar at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai. This research study was part of a series of six projects commissioned by HEIRA-CSCS, Bangalore as part of a collaborative exercise on mapping the Digital Humanities in India. See here for more on this initiative.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/digital-humanities/doing-digital-humanities

Animating the Archive – A Survey of Printed Digitized Materials in Bengali and their Use in Higher Education

sneha — 2014-04-14T07:12:32Z

With the advent of digital technologies and the internet, archival practice has seen much change in its imagination and function, such as to extend its scope beyond preservation to a collaborative, open source model which facilitates new modes of knowledge production. In this blog post, Saidul Haque reflects upon his research project on a survey of digitized materials in Bengali, and some of the impediments to their use in higher education and research.

At present a large collection of printed Bengali materials in the form of books, journals, newspapers, magazines, pamphlets, etc., is scattered in various public libraries, institutions, and private collections in India and abroad.These endangered and hidden cultural resources in vernacular languages need to be digitized and shared to a networked community using an online platform not only for the sake of preservation but also for wider dissemination. A comprehensive survey of printed digitized materials in the field of Arts and Culture, Education, Politics/Economy was executed as part of a collaborative project with HEIRA-CSCS, Bangalore. The survey was carried out at School of Cultural Texts and Records, Jadavpur University and Centre for the Study of Social Sciences (CSSS), Kolkata. These are the pioneering institutions in Bengal to introduce digital preservation of cultural materials and they have ongoing digitization initiatives. Online archives/ digital repositories available in the public domain [like West Bengal Public Library Network, Society for Natural Language Technology Research (SNLTR), Digital Library of India, E-Gyankosh of Indira Gandhi National Open University(IGNOU), Rare Bengali Book section in Internet Archive, Digital South Asia Library, various public blogs] also came under this survey. Observations were gathered through interviews with resource persons involved in digitization. Discussion with students, researchers and faculty members concentrated on the use of Bengali digitized materials in higher education.

School of Cultural Texts and Records(SCTR) has digitized popular street literature and a wide collection of rare and unique texts on Bengali drama of 19th century .The revolutionary Bichitra Project of the School provides a complete online resource of Rabindranath Tagore’s works in both English and Bengali. (http://bichitra.jdvu.ac.in/index.php). Centre for Studies in Social Science, on the other hand started preserving rare documents in microfilm format from 1993 but later shifted to digitization mode. In 2008 the CSSSC and Savifa (University of Heidelberg) through a collaborative programme made available the collection of CSSSC (the early printed literature in Bengali from 1800-1950) online. The centre has also retrieved two major and endangered Bengali newspapers: Jugantar and Amrita Bazar Patrika from colonial and post–colonial Bengal. Amrita bazaar patrika is available online through the World Newspaper Archive Collection.

Online repositories like West Bengal Public Library Network and Digital Library of India also holds a large number of Bengali books but in most cases Indian language full-text contents are available in TIFF image format only.

The issue of using digitized Bengali materials in higher education sheds light on various problems related to free access, copyright issue, technological adversity, and metadata. Most of the materials available in digital domain are popular story books and hence scarcity of scholarly materials in Bengali for higher education is evident. Most of the students do not know where to search and how to search and they prefer to visit libraries. There are almost 17,000 entries in the domain of Bengali Wikipedia. But either students are unaware of their existence or don’t rely on these materials as these are not updated. Most of them are even unaware of the fact that they can edit these pages. Recently a few scholars started uploading essays in Bengali on Academia.edu. But teachers are doubtful about the quality of these materials as anyone can upload papers here. E-thesis depository spaces like Shodhganga and Vidyanidhi contain materials in English and a few in regional languages like Hindi but not in Bengali. In the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), there are only two bi-lingual journals ( Barnolipi and Pratidhwani) which publish articles in Bengali. Teachers are unanimous in the belief that online publication of Bengali research articles will bring more research citations and also decrease the rate of duplicity of same research topic. But scarcity of open access Bengali materials (digitized and born digital) online is a great hindrance in doing research in Bengali.

Researchers in Bengali language and literature may also come forward to participate actively in digitizing rare materials. Of course funding and technical equipment are great hindrance but institutions like SCTR, Jadavpur University are eager to provide scanners and other support to those who want to digitize important cultural resources. Presently the concept of online Bengali bookshops has emerged. The numbers of online e-magazines and e-newspapers in Bengali is growing day by day. What we need is to make people aware of the existence of these resources. It is a positive step on the part of people who are using social networking sites in Bengali and often bringing out creative magazines online to reach a greater audience.

Metadata of Bengali digitized materials is mostly in transliterated form and not in Bengali. Hence searching in Bengali fonts often brings no result. People engaged in digitization should be experts in handling Bengali standard key board like Avro. It would also be good if people engaged in digitization of Indic languages join in workshops and build a common standard of Metadata. Rather than following Western forms like Dublin code it may be thought of an indigenous code of metadata in Bengali. Issue of Free Access and the question of copyright go hand in hand. A large bulk of digitized Bengali materials is available in the archive room of SCTR and CSSS. These cannot be uploaded online for free access due to copyright issues or the unwillingness of the contributors of original materials. Most donors are not willing to give their works to these institutions as often they think that it will diminish their own authority and researchers will go to the University directly and not to them. Often the donors can’t trust the institutes and ask to digitize materials in their own home and return the original materials as soon as possible before they are stolen or lost. Regarding problem of digitization it is observed that most materials are fragile and digitization tasks with scanners and other technological instruments often led to the destruction of the original material.

We also need to think of preserving the large terabytes of data on one hand and original copies on the other hand. Institutional collaboration can be one way of bringing all digital materials in one single platform. In this regard, the role of C-DAC, Kolkata and SNLTR in digitization of vernacular language materials is praiseworthy.

Saidul Haque is a student of the PG course on Digital Humanities and Cultural Informatics at the School of Cultural Texts and Records, Jadavpur University, Kolkata. This research study was part of a series of projects commissioned by HEIRA-CSCS, Bangalore as part of a collaborative exercise on mapping the Digital Humanities in India. See here for more on this initiative.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/digital-humanities/animating-the-archive

Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy vs. The Leaked 2014 Privacy Bill

elonnai — 2014-04-14T06:10:20Z

Following our previous post comparing the leaked 2014 Privacy Bill with the leaked 2011 Privacy Bill, this post will compare the recommendations provided in the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy by the Justice AP Shah Committee to the text of the leaked 2014 Privacy Bill. Below is an analysis of recommendations from the Report that are incorporated in the text of the Bill, and recommendations in the Report that are not incorporated in the text of the Bill.

Recommendations in the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy that are Incorporated in the 2014 Privacy Bill

Constitutional Right to Privacy

The Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy recommends that any privacy legislation for India specify the constitutional basis of a right to privacy. The 2014 Privacy Bill has done this, locating the Right to Privacy in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Nine National Privacy Principles

The Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy recommends that nine National Privacy Principles be adopted and applied to harmonize existing legislation and practices. The 2014 Privacy Bill also adopts nine National Privacy Principles. Though these principles differ slightly from the National Privacy Principles recommended in the Report, they are broadly the same, and importantly will apply to all existing and evolving practices, regulations and legislations of the Government that have or will have an impact on the privacy of any individual. Presently, the 2014 Privacy Bill locates the nine National Privacy Principles in an Annex to the Bill, but also incorporates the principles in more detail in sections relating to personal data. An analysis of the principles as compared in the Report and the Bill is below:

Notice: The principle of notice as recommended by the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy differs from the principle of notice in the 2014 Privacy Bill. According to the notice principle in the Report, a data controller shall give sample to understand notice of its information practices to all individuals, in clear and concise language, before any personal information is collected from them. Such notices should include: (during collection) What personal information is being collected; Purposes for which personal information is being collected; Uses of collected personal information; Whether or not personal information may be disclosed to third persons; Security safeguards established by the data controller in relation to the personal information; Processes available to data subjects to access and correct their own personal information; Contact details of the privacy officers and SRO ombudsmen for filing complaints. (Other Notices) Data breaches must be notified to affected individuals and the commissioner when applicable. Individuals must be notified of any legal access to their personal information after the purposes of the access have been met. Individuals must be notified of changes in the data controller’s privacy policy. Any other information deemed necessary by the appropriate authority in the interest of the privacy of data subjects.

In contrast, the 2014 Privacy Bill requires that all the data controllers provide adequate and appropriate notice of their information practices in a form that is easily understood by all intended recipients. In addition to this principle as listed in an annex, the Bill requires that on initial collection data controllers provide notice of what personal data is being collected and the legitimate purpose for which the personal data is being collected. If the purpose for which the personal data changes, data controllers must provide data subjects with a further notice that would include the use to which the personal data shall be put, whether or not the personal data will be disclosed to at third person and, if so, the identity of such person if the personal data being collected is intended to be transferred outside India and the reasons for doing so; how such transfer helps in achieving the legitimate purpose; and whether the country to which such data is transferred has suitable legislation to provide for adequate protection and privacy of the data; the security and safeguards established by the data controller in relation to the personal data; the processes available to a data subject to access and correct his personal data; the recourse open to a data subject, if he has any complaints in respect of collection or processing of the personal data and the procedure relating thereto; the name, address and contact particulars of the data controller and all persons who will be processing the personal data on behalf of the data controller. Additionally, if a breach of data takes place data controllers must inform the affected data subject that lost or stolen; accessed or acquired by any person not authorized to do so; damaged, deleted or destroyed; processed, re-identified or disclosed in an unauthorized manner.

Though the 2014 Privacy Bill requires a more comprehensive notice to be issued if the purpose for the use of personal data changes, it does not specify (as recommended by the Group of Experts on Privacy) that notice of changes to a data controller’s privacy policy be issued.

Choice and Consent: The principle of choice and consent in the 2014 Privacy Bill is similar to the principle in the Report of the Group of Experts on privacy in that it requires that all data subjects be provided with a choice to provide or not to provide personal data and that data subject will have the option of withdrawing consent at any time. Though not a part of the specific principle on ‘choice and consent’ listed in the annex the 2014 Privacy Bill also contains provisions that address mandatory collection of information which require, as recommended by the Report of the Group of Experts, that the information is anonymoized. Furthermore, the 2014 Privacy Bill provides individuals an opt-in or opt-out choice with respect to the provision of personal data.

Different from as recommended in the principle in the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy, the 2014 Privacy Bill does not specify that in exception cases when it is not possible to provide a service with choice and consent, then choice and consent will not be required.

Collection Limitation: The principle of collection limitation as recommended in the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy and the principle of collection limitation in the Annex of the 2014 Privacy Bill are similar in that both require that only data that is necessary to achieve an identified purpose be collected. As recommended in the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy, the 2014 Privacy Bill also requires that notice be provided prior to collection and content taken.

Purpose Limitation: Though the principle of Purpose Limitation are similar in the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy and the 2014 Privacy Bill as they both require personal data to be used only for the purposes for which it was collected and that the data must be destroyed after the purposes have been served, the 2014 Privacy Bill does not specify that information collected by a data controller must be adequate and relevant for the purposes for which they are processed. The 2014 Privacy Bill also incorporates elements from the principle of Purpose Limitation as defined by the Report of the Group of Experts in other parts of the Bill. For example, the 2014 Bill requires that notice be provided to the individual if there is a change in purpose for the use of the personal information, and designates a section on retention of personal data.

Access and Correction: The principle of Access and Correction in the 2014 Privacy Bill reflects the principle of Access and Correction in the Report of the Group of Experts (though not verbatim). Importantly, the 2014 Privacy Bill incorporates the recommendation from the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy that prohibits access to personal data if it will affect the privacy rights of another individual.

Disclosure of Information: The principle of ‘Disclosure of Information’ in the Privacy Bill 2014 is similar to the principle of ‘Disclosure of Information’ as recommended in the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy (though not verbatim). As recommended this principle requires that personal data be disclosed to third parties only if informed consent has been taken from the individual and the third party is bound the adhere to all relevant and applicable privacy principles.

Security: The principle of security in the 2014 Privacy Bill reflects the principle of Security recommended in the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy and requires that personal data be secured through reasonable security safeguards against unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, de-anonymization or unauthorized disclosure.

Openness: The principle of Openness in the 2014 Privacy Protection Bill is similar to the principle of Openness recommended in the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy in that it requires data controllers to make available to all individuals in an intelligible form, using clear and plain language, the practices, procedures, and policies, and systems that are in place to ensure compliance with the privacy principles. The principle in the 2014 Privacy Bill differs from the recommendation in the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy in that it does not require data controllers to take necessary steps to implement practices, policies, and procedures in a manner proportional to the scale, scope, and sensitivity to the data they collect.

Accountability: The principle of Accountability in the 2014 Privacy Bill is similar to the principle of Accountability as recommended in the Report of the Group of Experts as both require that the data controller is accountable for compliance with the national Privacy Principles.

Application to interception and access, video and audio recording, personal identifiers, bodily and genetic material: The Privacy Bill 2014 incorporates the recommendations from the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy and specifies the way in which the National Privacy Principles will apply to the interception and access of communications, video and audio recording, and personal identifiers. But the 2014 Privacy Bill does not specify the application of the National Privacy Principles to bodily and genetic material (though this information is included in the definition of sensitive personal information).

With respect to the installation and operation of video recording equipment in a public space, the 2014 Privacy Bill requires that video recording equipment may only be used in accordance with a prescribed procedure and for a legitimate purpose that is proportionate to the objective for which it was installed. Furthermore, individuals cannot use video recording equipment for the purpose of identifying an individual, monitoring his personal particulars, or revealing in public his personal information. The provisions in the Bill that speak to storage, processing, retention, security, and disclosure of personal data apply to the installation and use of video recording equipment. As a note the 2014 Privacy Bill carves out an exception for law enforcement and government intelligence agencies in the interest of the sovereignty, integrity, security or the strategic, scientific or economic interest of India.

With respect to the application of the National Privacy Principles to the interception of communications, the 2014 Privacy Bill lays down a regime for the interception of communications and specifies that the principles of notice, choice, consent, access and correction, and openness will apply to the interception of communications when authorised.

With respect to Personal Identifiers, the 2014 Privacy Bill notes that the principles of notice, choice, and consent will not apply to the collection of personal identifiers by the government. Additionally, the government will not be obliged to use any personal identifier only for the limited purpose for which the personal identifier was collected, provided that the use is in conformance with the other National Privacy Principles.

Additional Protection for Sensitive Personal Data

The Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy broadly recommends that sensitive personal data be afforded additional protection and existing definitions of sensitive personal data should be harmonised. The 2014 Privacy Bill incorporates these recommendations by defining sensitive personal data as data relating to physical and mental health including medical history, biometric, bodily or genetic information; criminal convictions; password, banking credit and financial data; narco analysis or polygraph test data, sexual orientation. The 2014 Privacy Bill also requires authorization from the Data Protection Authority for the collection and processing of sensitive personal data and defines circumstances of when this authorization would not be required including: collection or processing of such data is authorized by any other law for the time being in force; such data has already been made public as a result of steps taken by the data subject; collection and processing of such data is made in connection with any legal proceedings by an order of the competent court; such data relating to physical or mental health or medical history of an individual is collected and processed by a medical professional, if such collection and processing is necessary for medical care and health of that individual; such data relating to biometrics, bodily or genetic material, physical or mental health, prior criminal convictions or financial credit history is processed by the employer of an individual for the purpose of and in connection with the employment of that individual; such data relating to physical or mental health or medical history is collected an processed by an insurance company, if such processing is necessary for the purpose of and in connection with the insurance policy of that individual; such data relating to criminal conviction, biometrics and genetic is processed and collected by law enforcement agencies; such data regarding credit, banking and financial details of an individual is processed by a specific user under the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005; such data is processed by schools or other education institutions in connection with imparting of education to an individual; such data is collected or processed by the government Intelligence agencies in the interest of the sovereignty, integrity, security or the strategic, scientific or economic interest of India, the authority has, by a general or specified order permitted the processing of such data for specific purpose and is limited to the extent of such permission. The 2014 Privacy Bill also prohibits additional transactions from being performed using sensitive personal information unless free consent was obtained for such transaction.

Privacy Officers

The Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy recommends that Privacy Officers be established at the organizational level for overseeing the processing of personal data and compliance with the Act. This recommendation has been incorporated in the 2014 Privacy Bill, which establishes Privacy Officers at the organizational level.

Co-regulatory Framework

The Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy recommends that a system of co-regulation be established, where industry levels self regulatory organizations develop privacy norms, which are in turn approved and enforced by the Privacy Commissioner. The 2014 Privacy Bill puts in place a similar co-regulatory framework where industry level self regulatory organizations can develop norms which will be turned into regulations and enforced by the Data Protection Authority. If a sector does not develop norms, the Data Protection Authority can develop norms for the specific sector.

Recommendations in the Report that are not in the Bill

Scope

The Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy recommends that the scope of any privacy framework extends to all individuals, all data processed in India, and all data originating from India. The 2014 Privacy Bill differs from these recommendations by extending the right to privacy to all residents of India, while remaining silent on whether or not the scope of the legislation extends to all data processed in India and all data originating in India. Despite this, the 2014 Bill does specify that any organization that processes or deals with data of an Indian resident, but does not have a place of business within India, must establish a ‘representative resident’ in India who will be responsible for compliance with the Act.

Exceptions

The Report of the Group of Experts recommends the following as exceptions to the right to privacy:

National security
Public order
Disclosure in the public interest
Prevention, detection, investigation, and prosecution of criminal offenses
Protection of the individual and rights and freedoms of others

The Report further clarifies that any exception must be qualified and measured against the principles of proportionality, legality, and necessary in a democratic state.

The Privacy Bill 2014 reflects only the exception of “protection of the individual rights and freedoms of others”. The exceptions as defined in the 2014 Bill are:

Sovereignty, integrity or security of India or
Strategic, scientific or economic interest of India; or
Preventing incitement to the commission of any offence; or
Prevention of public disorder; or
The investigation of any crime; or
Protection of rights and freedoms others; or
Friendly relations with foreign states; or
Any other legitimate purpose mentioned in this Act.

Instead of qualifying these exceptions with the principles of proportionality, legality, and necessary in a democratic state – as recommended in the Report of Group of Experts on Privacy, the 2014 Privacy Bill qualifies that any restriction must be adequate and not excessive to the objectives it aims to achieve.

Constitution of Infringement of Privacy

The Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy specifies that the publication of personal data for artistic and journalistic purposes in the public interest, disclosure under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and the use of personal data for household purposes should not constitute an infringement of privacy. In contrast the 2014 Privacy Bill specifies that the processing of personal data by an individual purely for his personal or household use, the disclosure of information under the provisions of the Right to information Act, 2005, and any other action specifically exempted under the Act will not constitute an infringement of privacy.

The Data Protection Authority

The Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy recommends the establishment of Privacy Commissioners (and places emphasis on Privacy Commissioner rather than Data Protection Authority) at the Central and Regional level. The Privacy Commissioner should be of a rank no lower than a retired Supreme Court Judge at the Central level and a retired High Court Judge at the regional level. The privacy commissioner should have the power to receive and investigate class action complaints and investigative powers of the commissioner should include the power to examine and call for documents, examine witnesses, and take a case to court if necessary. The Commissioner should be able to investigate data controllers on receiving complaints or suo moto, and can order privacy impact assessments. Organizations should not be able to appeal fines levied by the Privacy Commissioner, but individuals can appeal a decision of the Privacy Commissioner to the court. The Commissioner should also have broad oversight with respect to interception/access, audio & video recordings, use of personal identifiers, and the use of bodily or genetic material. The Privacy Commissioner will also have the responsibility of approving codes of conduct developed by the industry level SRO’s.

Differing from the recommendations in the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy, the 2014 Privacy Bill establishes a Data Protection Authority (as opposed to a Privacy Commissioner) at the Central level. Instead of creating regional Data Protection Authorities, the 2014 Privacy Bill allows for the Central Government to decide where other offices of the Data Protection Authority will be located. Furthermore, the 2014 Privacy Bill does not specify a qualification for the Data Protection Authority and instead establishes a selection committee to choose and appoint a Data Protection Authority. This committee is comprised of a Cabinet Secretary, Secretary to the Department of Personnel and Training, Secretary to the Department of Electronics and Information Technology, and two experts of eminence from relevant fields that will be nominated by the Central Government.

The 2014 Privacy Bill does not specify that fines ordered by the Data Protection Authority will be binding for organizations, but does allow individuals to appeal decisions of the Data Protection Authority to the Appellate Tribunal. Differing from the recommendations in the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy, the 2014 Privacy Bill gives the Data Protection Authority the power to call upon any data controller at any time to furnish in writing information or explanation relating to its affairs, and receive and investigate complaints about alleged violations of privacy of individuals in respect of matters covered under this Act, conduct investigations and issue appropriate orders or directions to the parties concerned. Furthermore, the 2014 Privacy Bill does not specify that the Data Protection Authority will carry out privacy impact assessments, but the Authority can conduct audits of any or all personal data controlled by a data controller, can investigate data breaches, investigate in complaint received, and adjudicate on a dispute arising between data controllers or data subjects and data controllers. Unlike the recommendations in the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy, it does not seem that the Data Protection Authority will play an overseeing role with respect to interception, the use of video recording equipment, personal identifiers, and the use of bodily and genetic material.

Tribunal and System of Complaints

Differing from the recommendation in the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy, which specified that a Tribunal should not be established as under the Information Technology Act as there is the risk that the institutions will not have the capacity to rule on a broad right to privacy, the 2014 Privacy Bill does establish a Tribunal under the Information Technology Act. The Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy also recommended that complaints be taken to the district level, high level, and Supreme Court – whereas the 2014 Privacy Bill allows individuals to appeal decisions from the Tribunal only to a High Court. Similar to the recommendations of the Report of the Group of Experts, the 2014 Privacy Bill has in place Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms at the level of the industry self regulatory organization. The 2014 Privacy Bill also specifies that individuals can seek civil remedies and leaves the issuance of compensation for privacy harm to be from a Court. Unlike the recommendations in the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy, the 2014 Privacy Bill does not specify that the Data Protection Authority will be able to take a case to the court.

Penalties and Offenses

The Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy did not provide specific recommendations for types of offences and penalties, but did suggest that offenses similar to those spelled out in the UK Data Protection Act and Australian Privacy Act be adopted – namely non-compliance with the privacy principles, unlawful collection, processing, sharing/disclosure, access, and use of personal data, and obstruction of the privacy commissioner. The 2014 Privacy Bill does create offenses for the unlawful collection, processing, sharing/disclosure, access, and use of personal data, but does not create offenses for obstruction of the privacy commissioner or broad non-compliance with the privacy principles.

Conclusion

The Centre for Internet and Society welcomes the similarities between the recommendations in the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy and the leaked 2014 Privacy Bill, but would recommend that on areas where there are differences, particularly in the scope of the Privacy Bill and the powers and functions of the Data Protection Authority, the 2014 Bill be brought in line with the recommendations from the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy.

In the upcoming post, we will be comparing the text of the leaked 2014 Privacy Bill to international best practices and standards.

References

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/report-of-group-of-experts-on-privacy-vs-leaked-2014-privacy-bill

Net Neutrality, Free Speech and the Indian Constitution - I

gautam — 2014-04-29T08:03:57Z

In this post, I will explore net neutrality in the context of Indian law and the Indian Constitution.

Let us take, for the purposes of this post, the following definition:

“The idea that all Internet traffic should be treated equally is known as network neutrality. In other words, no matter who uploads or downloads data, or what kind of data is involved, networks should treat all of those packets in the same manner.”

In other words, put simply, net neutrality in its broadest form requires the extant gatekeepers of the internet – such as, for instance, broadband companies – to accord a form of equal and non-discriminatory treatment to all those who want to access the internet. Examples of possible discrimination – as the quote above illustrates – include, for instance, blocking content or providing differential internet speed (perhaps on the basis of a tiered system of payment for access).

Net neutrality has its proponents and opponents, and I do not have space here to address that dispute. In its broadest and absolutist form, net neutrality is highly controversial (including arguments that existing status quo is not neutral in any genuine sense). I take as given, however, that some form of net neutrality is both an important and a desirable goal. In particular, intentional manipulation of information that is available to internet users – especially for political purposes – is, I assume, an undesirable outcome, as are anti-competitive practices, as well as price-discrimination for the most basic access to the internet (this brief article in the Times of India provides a decent, basic primer on the stakes involved).

An example of net neutrality in practice is the American Federal Communications Commission’s Open Internet Order of 2010, which was the subject of litigation in the recently concluded Verizon v. FCC. The Open Internet order imposed obligations of transparency, no blocking, and no unreasonable discrimination, upon internet service providers. The second and third requirements were vacated by a United States Court of Appeals. The rationale for the Court’s decision was that ISPs could not be equated, in law, to “common carriers”. A common carrier is an entity that offers to transport persons and/or goods in exchange for a fee (for example, shipping companies, or bus companies). A common carrier is licensed to be one, and often, one of the conditions for license is an obligation not to discriminate. That is, the common carrier cannot refuse to carry an individual who is willing and able to pay the requisite fees, in the absence of a compelling reason (for example, if the individual wishes the carrier to transport contraband). Proponents of net neutrality have long called for treating ISPs as common carriers, a proposition – as observed above – was rejected by the Court.

With this background, let us turn to India. In India, internet service providers are both state-owned (BSNL and MTNL), and privately-owned (Airtel, Spectranet, Reliance, Sify etc). Unlike many other countries, however, India has no network-neutrality laws. As this informative article observes:

“The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), in its guidelines for issuing licences for providing Unified Access Service, promotes the principle of non-discrimination but does not enforce it… the Information Technology Act does not provide regulatory provisions relating to Internet access, and does not expressly prohibit an ISP from controlling the Internet to suit their business interests.”

In the absence of either legislation or regulation, there are two options. One, of course, is to invoke the rule of common carriers as a common law rule in court, should an ISP violate the principles of net neutrality. In this post (and the next), however, I would like to analyze net neutrality within a constitutional framework – in particular, within the framework of the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and expression.

In order to do so, two questions become important, and I shall address them in turn. First, given that most of the ISPs are privately owned, how does the Constitution even come into the picture? Our fundamental rights are enforceable vertically, that is, between individuals and the State, and not horizontally – that is, between two individuals, or two private parties. Where the Constitution intends to depart from this principle (for instance, Article 15(2)), it specifically and expressly states so. As far as Article 19 and the fundamental freedoms are concerned, however, it is clear that they do not admit of horizontal application.

Yet what, precisely, are we to understand by the term “State”? Consider Article 12:

“In this part, unless the context otherwise requires, the State includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.”

The key question is what, precisely, falls within the meaning of “other authorities”. The paradigmatic example – and this is something Ambedkar had in mind, as is evidenced by the Constituent Assembly Debates – is the statutory corporation – i.e., a company established under a statute. There are, however, more difficult cases, for instance, public-private partnerships of varying types. For the last fifty years, the Supreme Court has struggled with the issue of defining “other authorities” for the purposes of Part III of the Constitution, with the pendulum swinging wildly at times. In the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, a 2002 judgment by a Constitution bench, the Court settled upon the following definition:

“The question in each case would be whether in the light of the cumulative facts as established, the body is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government. Such control must be particular to the body in question and must be pervasive. If this is found then the body is a State within Article 12. On the other hand, when the control is merely regulatory whether under statute or otherwise, it would not serve to make the body a State.”

Very obviously, this dooms the ISP argument. There is no way to argue that ISPs are under the pervasive financial, functional and administrative domination or control of the State. If we step back for a moment, though, the Pradeep Kumar Biswas test seems to be radically under-inclusive. Consider the following hypothetical: tomorrow, the government decides to privatize the nation’s water supply to private company X. Company X is the sole distributor of water in the country. On gaining control, it decides to cut off the water supply to all households populated by members of a certain religion. There seems something deeply wrong in the argument that there is no remedy under discrimination law against the conduct of the company.

The argument could take two forms. One could argue that there is a certain minimum baseline of State functions (ensuring reasonable access to public utilities, overall maintenance of communications, defence and so on). The baseline may vary depending on your personal political philosophy (education? Health? Infrastructure?), but within the baseline, as established, if a private entity performs a State function, it is assimilated to the State. One could also argue, however, that even if Part III isn’t directly applicable, certain functions are of a public nature, and attract public law obligations that are identical in content to fundamental rights obligations under Part III, although their source is not Part III.

To unpack this idea, consider Justice Mohan’s concurring opinion in Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, a case that involved the constitutionality of high capitation fees charged by private educational institutions. One of the arguments raised against the educational institutions turned upon the applicability of Article 14’s guarantee of equality. The bench avoided the issue of whether Article 14 directly applied to private educational institutions by framing the issue as a question of the constitutionality of the legislation that regulated capitation fees. Justice Mohan, however, observed:

“What is the nature of functions discharged by these institutions? They discharge a public duty. If a student desires to acquire a degree, for example, in medicine, he will have to route through a medical college. These medical colleges are the instruments to attain the qualification. If, therefore, what is discharged by the educational institution, is a public duty that requires… [it to] act fairly. In such a case, it will be subject to Article 14.”

In light of Pradeep Kumar Biswas, it is obviously difficult to hold the direct application of the Constitution to private entities. We can take Justice Mohan, however, to be making a slightly different point: performing what are quintessentially public duties attract certain obligations that circumscribe the otherwise free action of private entities. The nature of the obligation itself depends upon the nature of the public act. Education, it would seem, is an activity that is characterized by open and non-discriminatory access. Consequently, even private educational institutions are required to abide by the norms of fairness articulated by Article 14, even though they may not, as a matter of constitutional law, be held in violation of the Article 14 that is found in the constitutional text. Again, the content of the obligation is the same, but its source (the constitutional text, as opposed to norms of public law) is different.

We have therefore established that in certain cases, it is possible to subject private entities performing public functions to constitutional norms without bringing them under Article 12’s definition of the State, and without the need for an enacted statute, or a set of regulations. In the next post, we shall explore in greater detail what this means, and how it might be relevant to ISPs and net neutrality.

Gautam Bhatia — @gautambhatia88 on Twitter — is a graduate of the National Law School of India University (2011), and presently an LLM student at the Yale Law School. He blogs about the Indian Constitution at http://indconlawphil.wordpress.com. Here at CIS, he will be blogging on issues of online freedom of speech and expression.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-neutrality-free-speech-and-the-indian-constitution-part-1

Parties give short shrift to privacy

praskrishna — 2014-05-05T05:54:11Z

Both the Congress and BJP vision documents disappoint, but the real surprise is the CPI-M document that deals with cyber issues in a substantial manner.

The article by Pratap Vikram Singh was published in GovernanceNow.com on April 12, 2014. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

For civil rights activists in the internet and cyber space, the election manifestoes of major political parties including the Congress and the BJP have come as a disappointment. Both the parties are mute on privacy. In the recent past there has been a vociferous demand for a strong legislation on privacy. A draft bill on privacy has been making rounds of the bureaucratic circle for three years. Manifestoes are also silent on the need for correction in the information technology act, which activists say is characterised by 'arbitrariness and lack of processes'.

“A healthy democracy gives equal weightage to transparency and privacy. It’s disappointing that the two parties have overlooked these two,” says Sunil Abraham, director of the Bangalore based Centre for Internet and Society (CIS). Both Congress and BJP don’t mention about the lack of implementation of the open data policy. The policy, aka NDSAP 2012, requires all departments and ministries to put high value data sets in public domain within a few months of the policy enforcement. The parties are also silent on need for a balancing act on surveillance and civil liberty.

Nikhil Pahwa, founder of Medianama.com, a portal posting news and analysis on digital media, says “The parties could have talked about reforming the IT legislation, especially the Section 79 and IT Rules 2011 which gives the intermediaries—the ISPs, websites, and cyber cafes—the power to strike down content without even hearing the author.” The law, currently, doesn’t provide a redressal mechanism to the author.

Similarly both parties are mute on internet governance, which has become a major global issue after the US showed willingness to cede its monopolistic oversight over the body governing the internet ICANN.

The Congress manifesto is also blank on making websites and systems accessible for specially-abled population, also called as e-accessibility. While the BJP too doesn’t talk about making government portals e-accessible, it speaks about the use of technology to deliver low cost quality education to specially-abled students. Issuance of universal identity cards for all applicable government benefits and disabled friendly access to public facilities are two other things which the party promises to implement if voted in power.

Both election manifestoes don’t mention concerns related to telecommunication sector. Broadband is the only term that appears in the two manifestoes. The Congress promises to bring high speed Internet to every village panchayat. This is not a new initiative; a project under DoT called national optical fibre network, NOFN, proposes to do the same. The BJP’s manifesto says, “Deployment of broadband in every village would be a thrust area.”

Both parties also talk about putting public services online. There is also nothing concrete about promotion of indigenous manufacturing in electronics and IT hardware. While there are serious omissions in the two manifestoes, the manifesto of the CPI-M surprises many, highlighting key issues concerning civil rights and liberty.

The manifesto talks about ‘demilitarisation of cyber space’ and ‘protecting Internet and telecommunications networks from cyber attacks and surveillance by building indigenous capability’. Edward Snowden’s revelation of the PRISM programme seems to be the context. It also talks about promoting ‘free software and other such new technologies which are free from monopoly ownership through copyrights or patents; knowledge commons should be promoted across disciplines, like biotechnology and drug discovery’.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/governance-now-april-12-2014-pratap-vikram-singh-parties-give-short-shrift-to-privacy

ଓଡ଼ିଅା ଭାଷାର ବିକାଶ ଓ କମ୍ପ୍ୟୁଟର

subha — 2014-05-06T06:50:02Z

This article was published in Odia magazine "The Kadambini". It covers a brief history of the book digitization initiatives in Odia language, problems with access available content in ISCII standard, scope of Unicode content and Open Access, Odia Wikipedia's further use for public and contribution.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/kadambini-april-8-2014-subhashish-panigrahi-odia-language-and-development-in-digital-era

NASA International Space Apps Challenge 2014

praskrishna — 2014-04-08T16:49:48Z

As part of the NASA Open Government Plan , the NASA International Space Apps Challenge have brought together citizen scientists, FOSS enthusiasts , Data Scientists, Open Hardware hackers and students throughout the world for collaborative problem solving with a goal of producing relevant open-source solutions to address global needs applicable to both life on Earth and life in Space.

Event Flier

And once again on April 12th and 13th, 2014, the event will be organized by the Centre for Internet and Society, with a special focus on Open Data, Open Science and Citizen Science, in collaboration with Team Indus, one of 3 teams to be selected globally amidst thousands, to launch a moon rover for the Google Lunar X-Prize 2015.

The event shall start on Saturday, 12th of April, with the following morning talks:

Keynote Speaker: Dr.Jayant Murthy, Professor, Indian Institute of Astrophysics, will be addressing the gathering on Open Science, Open Data and Computing within the Indian context.
Title of Talk : Open Data , Open Science and Computing in the Indian Context: 10:30 a.m.
Abstract: As Big Science gets bigger and yields massive amounts of data, we are left with a host of insurmountable problems from the physical - How do we store and access so much data? - to the computational - How do we process the data with increasingly complex models? - to the sociological - How do we change our paradigm so that we efficiently use the data with a limited pool of skilled manpower. I will also touch on some philosophical aspects of this problem - Should all data be free and what are the implications of this on policy and on individuals.
Speaker : Narayan Prasad, Co-Founder, Dhruva Space: 11:30 a.m.
Abstract: Narayan will talk about issues surrounding Open Data, Citizen Science and Governance whilst taking us on a journey of Bangalore based Dhruva Space, one of the world's few start-ups, looking at solutions ranging from small satellite development (CUBESAT, ARDUSAT), near space environmental design, high altitude balloon imaging and internet -- many of these using open source hardware devices like the Arduino.

We will then get into break out sessions to review and sign-up for existing challenges or propose new ones amongst those listed at : https://2014.spaceappschallenge.org/challenge/

The hackathon will end on Sunday, April 13, 2014 by 6 p.m.

Registration is free and you are requested to confirm your participation for the event here : https://2014.spaceappschallenge.org/location/bangalore/

Participants are requested to bring their own laptops.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/events/nasa-international-space-apps-challenge-2014

Vachana Sanchaya: Bringing Access to 11th century Kannada Literature

subha — 2014-04-08T01:48:18Z

The blog post throws light on providing access to Vachana Sanchaya, a eleventh century Kannada literature.

The article was published in Open Access Week on April 3, 2014.

During early 11th century a form of spiritual Kannada language poetry in the Indian state of Karnataka called Vachana sahitya became quite popular. It started flourishing in the 12th century by a religious movement called Lingayatha movement. More than 259 Vachana writers, called Vachanakaru, compiled over 11,000 vachanas (verses). 21,000 of these verses in 15 volumes were published by the Government of Karnataka into an online portal called Samagra Vachana Samputa. Two Wikimedians along with two linguists brought these verses on a standalone project called Vachana Sanchaya. Kannada Wikimedians, Pavithra Hanchagaiah and Omshivaprakash HI along with Kannada linguist O. L. Nagabhushana Swamy converted the font to Unicode to make the verses searchable on this project. The entire collection is now ready to enrich the Kannada WikiSource.

The text in Samagra Vachana Samputa were typed using fonts of ISCII, an Indian character encoding standard. Indic characters generally replace Latin ones inside the font that makes them completely useless when someone does not have the particular font installed in the computer. This is a typical problem with non-Latin fonts, especially Indic typefaces. In case of this particular publication, there were more than 5 ISCII standards which made searching and reusing content completely impossible. Hanchagaiah and Omshivaprakash started writing scripts to make the Vachanas searchable through an index. This demanded a user friendly platform for the linguistic researchers, students, and the public interested in accessing this literature.

Omshivaprakash worked on designing the architecture for this platform using open source software tools. Hanchagaiah was involved in providing critical hacks for digitization and valuable inputs through suggestions, feedback, and quality assurance.

At present, Vachana Sanchaya project has around 200,000 unique words that were derived from these verses. The public has been using the repository and accessing vachana from Facebook, Twitter, and Google+ profiles. There are thousands of people now who read a Vahana as part of their daily routine. Vachana Sanchaya is not only a gateway for reading the literature, but also a research platform for Kannada language and literature. It has options for researchers to help in reviewing content which in turn will help to add references from research papers.

All of the content is currently available to the public through the OpenData API, and once the reviewing the work is complete, it will be distributed in the public domain through WikiSource. This will open up the system for students, developers, researchers, and anyone interested in building linguistic tools for Kannada and other Indic languages. Users will be able to use our code to digitize any book available in the public domain. Early literature in any language is well-respected, so making it available via an open platform allows for reuse of the content for research, publication, and other documentation work.

Other similar projects could take help from this project and use any part of the processes.

Plans going foward:

To initiate Natural Language Processing (NLP) projects if more researches help to tag words and grow the glossary.
To continue work on subsequent, similar projects for Sarvagnana Vachanagalu and Dāsa Sanchaya (work has begun) and Vyāsa and Muddann (work to be started)
To extend this platform to other the contemporary literature works available in the public domain.

Authored by Pavithra Hanchagaiah, Omshivaprakash HI and Subhashish Panigrahi. Draws inspiration from another article published on Opensource.com under CC-BY-SA 4.0

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/openaccessweek-april-3-2014-subhashish-panigrahi-vachana-sanchaya

୭୯ ବର୍ଷରେ ସ୍ୱତନ୍ତ୍ର ଓଡ଼ିଶା: ଶାସ୍ତ୍ରୀୟ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଓ କମ୍ପ୍ୟୁଟରରେ ଏହାର ବ୍ୟବ‌ହାର

subha — 2014-05-06T05:18:21Z

This article was published in online Odia magazine "The Amalekha". It covers a brief history of the book digitization initiates in Odia language, problems with access available content in ISCII standard, scope of Unicode content and Open Access, Odia Wikipedia's further use for public and contribution.

ଓଡ଼ିଶା ହେଉଛି ଭାରତର ପ୍ରଥମ ରାଜ୍ୟ ଯାହା ସ୍ୱାଧୀନ ଭାରତରେ ଭାଷା ଭିତ୍ତିରେ ପ୍ରଥମ ରାଜ୍ୟ ହେଲା । ତେବେ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଭାଷା, ଯାହାକୁ ଭିତ୍ତି କରି ଓଡ଼ିଶା ଏକ ସ୍ୱତନ୍ତ୍ର ରାଜ୍ୟ ହେଲା ତାହା ନିକଟ ଅତୀତରେ ଶାସ୍ତ୍ରୀୟ ମାନ୍ୟତା ଲାଭ କରିଛି ନିଜର ୨୦୦୦ ବର୍ଷରୁ ଅଧିକ ବର୍ଷର ଗୌରବଜ୍ଜଳ ଇତିହାସକୁ ଜଗତ ସମ୍ମୁଖରେ ଉନ୍ମୋଚିତ କରି । ତେବେ ଏ ମାନ୍ୟତା ଏକ ଭାଷାଭାଷୀ ମୂଳ ବାସିନ୍ଦାଙ୍କ ପାଇଁ କେବଳ ଗୋଟିଏ ବିଶେଷ ସୁଯୋଗ ଆଣିଦିଏ-ତାହା ହେଲା ଭାଷାର ବିକାଶ ନିମନ୍ତେ କେନ୍ଦ୍ର ସରକାରଙ୍କର ୫୦୦ କୋଟିର ଅନୁଦାନ ଯାହା ଭାଷାର ନାନାଦି ସାଧନ ନିର୍ମାଣରେ ସାହାଯ୍ୟ କରେ । ତେବେ ଏକ ଭାଷାର ବିକାଶରେ କେଉଁ କେଉଁ ସାଧନ ଗୁରୁତ୍ତ୍ୱପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣ ଭୂମିକା ନିଭାଏ ତାହା ଜାଣିବା ନିତାନ୍ତ ଜରୁରୀ । ଜଗତର ପ୍ରଥମ ପାଞ୍ଚଟି ସବୁଠାରୁ ଅଧିକ କ‌ଥିତ ଭାଷା: ମାଣ୍ଡାରିନ (ଚାଇନିଜ ଭାଷାଗୋଷ୍ଠୀ), ଇଂରାଜୀ, ହିନ୍ଦୁସ୍ଥାନୀ (ହିନ୍ଦୀ, ଉର୍ଦ୍ଦୁ ଆଦି ଭାଷାସମୂହ), ସ୍ପାନିସ ଓ ରୁସିଆନ‌ ଭାଷାମାନ‌ଙ୍କ ସ‌ହ ଓଡ଼ିଆକୁ ତୁଳନା କଲେ ଆମ ସାମନାରେ ଅନେକ ଅନାଲୋଚିତ ତ‌ଥ୍ୟ ଉନ୍ମୁକ୍ତ ହେବ । ଉପରଲିଖିତ ପାଞ୍ଚୋଟିଯାକ ଭାଷା ଭିତରୁ କେଉଁଟି ବି ମୂଳ ଭାଷା ନୁହେଁ, ଅର୍ଥାତ, ଏ ସବୁଯାକ ଭାଷା ଏକ ମୂଳ ଭାଷାରୁ ବାହାରି ଭିନ୍ନ ଭିନ୍ନ ଭାଷା ଦ୍ୱାରା ପ୍ରଭାବିତ ହୋଇ ଏକ ସ୍ୱତନ୍ତ୍ର ଭାଷା ରୂପେ ଆଧୁନିକ ଦୁନିଆରେ ଜଣାଶୁଣା । ଏମାନଙ୍କ ଭିତରୁ ସବୁଠାରୁ ପୁରାତନ ଭାଷା ମାଣ୍ଡାରିନ ଭାଷାସମୂହର ମୂଳ ତ‌ତ୍କାଳୀନ କଳିଙ୍ଗ ବା ସେମାନଙ୍କ ଉଚ୍ଚାରଣରେ "କ୍ଳିଙ୍ଗ" ଭାଷାର ଢାଞ୍ଚାରେ ନିର୍ମିତ ଯାହା ପ୍ରମାଣିତ କରେ ଆମ ସାଧବ ପୁଅମାନେ ଦୂରଦେଶକୁ କେବଳ ଆମର ପାଟଲୁଗା ଆଉ ମସଲା ନେଇଯାଇ ନଥିଲେ, ଆମର ଭାଷା, ଚଳଣି, ଧର୍ମର ଅନେକ ଧାରା ଦକ୍ଷିଣ-ପୂର୍ବ ଏସିଆକୁ ନେଇଯାଇଥିଲେ । ତେବେ ଅନେକ ଐତିହାସିକ ତ‌ଥ୍ୟ ଅଭିଲେଖର ଅଭାବରେ ପ୍ରମାଣିତ ହୋଇନ‌ପାରି ଇତିହାସ ଆଢ଼ୁଆଳରେ ରହିଯାଇଛି । ଓଡ଼ିଆକୁ ଶାସ୍ତ୍ରୀୟ ଭାଷା ମାନ୍ୟତା ପାଇଁ ବରିଷ୍ଠ ଭାଷାବିଦ ପଦ୍ମଶ୍ରୀ ଦେବୀପ୍ରସନ୍ନ ପଟ୍ଟନାୟକଙ୍କ ନେତୃତ୍ୱରେ ଯେଉଁ କମିଟି ଗଢ଼ାଯାଇଥିଲା ସେଥିରେ ପ୍ରମାଣସ୍ୱରୂପ କେତେକ ଅଭିଲେଖର ଉପସ୍ଥାପନା କରାଯାଇଛି । କିନ୍ତୁ ଖାରବେଳଙ୍କ ଦ୍ୱାରା ଖୋଦିତ ଖଣ୍ଡଗିରିର ହାତୀଗୁମ୍ଫା ଶିଳାଲେଖକୁ ବାଦ‌ଦେଲେ ଆଉ କିଛି ପୁରୁଣା ଲେଖ ମିଳିପାରିଲା ନାହିଁ । ତେବେ ଭାଷାଟିଏ ଜଣାଶୁଣା ହେବା ପାଇଁ ଯେ ଏହା ପୁରାତନ ହେବା ଜରୁରୀ ନୁହେଁ ତାହା ଓଡ଼ିଆ ସ‌ହିତ ପୃଥିବୀର ୫ଟି ଭାଷାକୁ ତୁଳନା କଲେ ସ୍ପଷ୍ଟ ଜଣାପଡ଼େ । ତେବେ କିଭଳି ଭାବେ ଭାଷା ବିଶ୍ୱସାରା ବ୍ୟାପେ, ଏହା ଚିନ୍ତା କରିବାର ବେଳ ଆସିଛି ।

ଭାଷାଟିଏ ସମୃଦ୍ଧ ହୁଏ ବ୍ୟବ‌ହାରରୁ । ଯେଉଁ ଭାଷା ସାଧାରଣ ଜୀବନ ସ‌ହ ଯେତେ ଅଙ୍ଗାଙ୍ଗୀ ଭାବେ ଜଡ଼ିତ ସେ ଭାଷା ସେତେ ଅଧିକ ପ୍ରବ‌ହ‌ମାନ । ଭାଷା ବ୍ୟାପେ ଲିଖନ ଓ ପଠନରୁ । ଜଗତର ସମସ୍ତ ଜଣାଶୁଣା ଭାଷାର ସାହିତ୍ୟ କେବଳ ସେହି ଭାଷାଭାଷୀ ଲୋକଙ୍କ ମଧ୍ୟରେ ସୀମିତ ନ‌ଥାଏ, ତାହା ଅନୁଦିତ ହୋଇ ବିଶ୍ୱସାହିତ୍ୟ ସମାଜରେ ପଠିତ ହୁଏ । ସରଳ ଭାଷାରେ କ‌ହିଲେ ଯେତେ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ସାହିତ୍ୟ, ଓଡ଼ିଶାର କ‌ଥା ବିଶ୍ୱର ବାକି ଭାଷାମାନଙ୍କରେ ଲିଖିତ ହେବ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ବିଶ୍ୱସ୍ତରରେ ସେତେ ପ୍ରସିଦ୍ଧି ଲାଭ କରିବ । ଭାଷାର ନିଅଁ ଦମ୍ଭିଲା ହୁଏ ସରକାରୀ ପ୍ରୋତ୍ସାହ‌ନରୁ । ଯେଉଁ ସମୟରେ ପଶ୍ଚିମ‌ବଙ୍ଗରେ ସରକାରୀଭାବେ ଇଂରାଜୀ ଶିକ୍ଷା, ଇଂରାଜୀରେ ସରକାରୀ ନ‌ଥିପ‌ତ୍ରରେ କାମ କରିବା ଉପରେ ଜୋର ଦିଆଯାଉଥିଲା ସେହି ଏକା ସମୟରେ ବଙ୍ଗଳାଦେଶରେ ବଙ୍ଗଳା ଭାଷାକୁ ସରକାରୀ କଳରେ ବାଧ୍ୟତାମୂଳକ କରି, ଶିକ୍ଷାଦୀକ୍ଷାର ମାଧ୍ୟମ କରିବା କ୍ଷେତ୍ରରେ ଆନ୍ଦୋଳନ ଚାଲିଥିଲା । ଏହି ଆନ୍ଦୋଳନରେ ପ୍ରାଣବଳି ଦେଇଥିଲେ ଅନେକ ଭାଷା ପ୍ରେମୀ ଯାହାଙ୍କ ସ୍ମୃତିରେ ଇଉନେସ୍କୋ ଫେବ୍ରୁଆରି ୧୫କୁ ଅନ୍ତର୍ଜାତୀୟ ମାତୃଭାଷା ଦିବସ ଭାବେ ପାଳନ କରେ । ଯେଉଁ ଭାଷା ଯେତେ ସ‌ହଜରେ ଅଧିକ ଲୋକଙ୍କ ପାଖରେ ପ‌ହ‌ଞ୍ଚିପାରେ ସେ ଭାଷା ସେତେ ଅଧିକ ପଠିତ ହୁଏ । ଏ ତିନୋଟି ମୁଖ୍ୟ ପଦଃକ୍ଷେପ ଭିତରୁ ଜଣେ ସାଧାରଣ ପାଠକ ଓ ଲେଖକର ହାତରେ ପ୍ରଥମ ଓ ତୃତୀୟଟି ସମ୍ପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣ ଭାବେ ର‌ହିଛି । ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଭାଷାରେ ଅଧିକ ବ‌ହିପ‌ତ୍ର ପଢ଼ିବା, ତାହାକୁ ଅନ୍ୟଭାଷାରେ ଅନୁବାଦ କରିବା, ନିଜ ଅଞ୍ଚଳର, ଗୋଷ୍ଠୀର ଅନେକ ନିଆରା ପରମ୍ପରା, ଲୋକସାହିତ୍ୟକୁ ବିଶ୍ୱର ବାକି ଭାଷାରେ ଲେଖି ଜ୍ଞାନର ବିତରଣ କରିବା ଦ୍ୱାରା ଅନେକ ଅନାଲୋଚିତ ବିଷୟବସ୍ତୁ ଉପରେ ପାଠକର ଆଗ୍ରହ ବଢ଼େ । ଏହା ପରୋକ୍ଷରେ ସାହିତ୍ୟ, ଭାଷା, ପରମ୍ପରା ଓ ପର୍ଯ୍ୟଟନର ବିକାଶର ପ‌ଥ ପ୍ରସାରଣ କରେ । ଭାବନ୍ତୁ, ଯଦି ଭାଷାଟିଏକୁ ଛିଡ଼ା କରାଇବା ପାଇଁ ଆନ୍ଦୋଳନ କରୁଥିବା ଯୁବଗୋଷ୍ଠୀଙ୍କ ଭିତରୁ ଇଂରାଜୀରେ ବଙ୍ଗର ଜନ‌ଜୀବନ ଉପରେ ଲେଖିବା ପାଇଁ ରବୀନ୍ଦ୍ରନାଥଟିଏ ବାହାରି ନ‌ଥାନ୍ତା ତାହେଲେ ଆଜି ବଙ୍ଗଳା ଭାଷା ବିଶ୍ୱର ସ‌ପ୍ତମ କ‌ଥିତ ଭାଷା ଭାବେ ପରିଗଣିତ ହୋଇଥାନ୍ତା କି?

ପୁରୁଣା ବ‌ହିର ଅଭିଲେଖ:

୧୮୧୧ ରୁ ଆରମ୍ଭ କରି ୧୯୫୦ ମସିହା ମଧ୍ୟରେ ପ୍ରକାଶିତ ଅନେକ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ବ‌ହି ପୁରୁଣା କାଗଜ, ରକ୍ଷଣାବେକ୍ଷଣା ଅଭାବରୁ ନଷ୍ଟ ହେଇଯାଉଥିବା ଲକ୍ଷ କରି ଭୁବନେଶ୍ୱରର ସୃଜନିକା ଦ୍ୱାରା ସେସବୁ ବ‌ହିର ଡିଜିଟାଲ ସଂସ୍କରଣ ତିଆରି କାମ କିଛି ବର୍ଷ ତଳେ ଆରମ୍ଭ ହୋଇଥିଲା । ଏଯାବତ ପାଖାପାଖି ୭୪୦ ଖଣ୍ଡ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ବ‌ହି, ପ‌ତ୍ରପ‌ତ୍ରିକା ଆଦି ଡିଜିଟାଲ ରୂପରେ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ ଯାହା ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଭାଷାର ଇତିହାସରେ ଏଯାବତ ସର୍ବାଧିକ । ନ୍ୟାସନାଲ ଇନଷ୍ଟିଚ୍ୟୁଟ ଅଫ ଟେକନେଲୋଜି (NIT), ରାଉରକେଲା ସ‌ହ‌ଯୋଗରେ ସୃଜନିକା ବ‌ହିସବୁକୁ ସ୍କାନ କରି ପରେ ସ୍ୱେଚ୍ଛାସେବୀମାନଙ୍କ ସ‌ହାୟତାରେ ପିଡ଼ିଏଫ ଫର୍ମାଟରେ ଏହି ବ‌ହି ଓ ପାଣ୍ଡୁଲିପି ଆଦିର ଡିଜିଟାଲ ଅଭିଲେଖ ତିଆରି କରିଛନ୍ତି । ଅଧୁନା oaob.nitrkl.ac.in ରେ ୨୪୦ ଖଣ୍ଡ ବ‌ହି ଡାଉନଲୋଡ଼ ପାଇଁ ଖୋଲାରେ ବିତରଣ ହେଉଥିବା ବେଳେ ବାକି ବ‌ହି ସୃଜନିକା ଦ୍ୱାରା ସିଡ଼ି/ଡିଭିଡ଼ି/ପେନ‌ଡ୍ରାଇଭରେ ମିଳୁଛି । ଏହି ବ‌ହି ଭିତରେ ରହିଛି ସମ୍ପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣ ପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣଚନ୍ଦ୍ର ଭାଷାକୋଷ, ୧୮୧୧ରୁ ୧୯୪୨ ଭିତରେ ସଂକଳିତ ପାଖାପାଖି ୨୬ ଗୋଟି ଅଭିଧାନ, ୧୮୫୦ରୁ ୧୯୫୦ ଭିତରର ୧୦୦ ବର୍ଷରେ ଛପାଯାଇଥିବା ଅନେକ ବିଜ୍ଞାନ, ସାହିତ୍ୟ, ଇତିହାସ ଓ ଗବେଷଣାଧର୍ମୀ ବ‌ହି । ୬୧ଟି ପ‌ତ୍ରିକା ଓ ୧୪ଟି ତ‌ତ୍କାଳୀନ ଖବରକାଗଜରୁ ପାଖାପାଖି ୧,୨୦,୦୦୦ ପୃଷ୍ଠା ଡିଜିଟାଲ ମାଧ୍ୟମରେ ସଂରକ୍ଷିତ କରାଯାଇପାରିଛି । ନିକଟ ଅତୀତରେ ସଂସ୍କୃତି ବିଭାଗ ତରଫରୁ ପୁରାତନ ଅନେକ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ବ‌ହିର ଡିଜିଟାଲ ସଂସ୍କରଣ ଆରମ୍ଭ କରାଯାଇଛି । ତେବେ କି କି ବ‌ହିର ଡିଜିଟାଲ ରୂପ ସରକାରଙ୍କ ତରଫରୁ କରାଯାଉଛି ତାହା ଅଗୋଚରରେ ରହିଛି । ୨୦୦୪ ପରଠାରୁ ଓଡ଼ିଶା ସରକାରଙ୍କ ଦ୍ୱାରା ପ୍ରକାଶିତ ଉତ୍କଳ ପ୍ରସଙ୍ଗ (ଓଡ଼ିଆରେ) ଓ Orissa Review (ଇଂରାଜୀରେ) http://orissa.gov.in/e-magazine/utkalprasanga/utkalprasanga.htm ୱେବସାଇଟରେ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ ଯେଉଁଥିରେ ଓଡ଼ିଶା ସମ୍ବନ୍ଧିତ ଅନେକ ଗବେଷଣା ସମ୍ବଳିତ ରଚନା ସ୍ଥାନ ପାଇଛି । orissabigyanacademy.nic.in ୱେବସାଇଟରେ ଅନେକ ଉପାଦେୟ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ବିଜ୍ଞାନ ଲେଖା, ବିଶେଷ କରି ବିଜ୍ଞାନ ଦିଗନ୍ତ ପ‌ତ୍ରିକାର ସଂଖ୍ୟାସବୁ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ ଯାହା ପଢ଼ାଯାଇପାରିବ । ପ୍ରମୁଖ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଖବରକାଗଜ ଓ ପ‌ତ୍ରପ‌ତ୍ରିକାମାନଙ୍କର ୱେବସାଇଟରେ ଖବର ଓ ଲେଖାସବୁ ରହିଛି ଯାହା ଭିତରୁ କିଛି ଆର୍କାଇଭ ହୋଇଛି ଆଉ କିଛି ହୋଇନାହିଁ । ତେବେ ଉପରେ ବର୍ଣ୍ଣିତ ସମସ୍ତ ବ‌ହି କେବଳ ପଢ଼ିହେବ । ତାହା ନାଁ ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟରେ ଓଡ଼ିଆରେ ଟାଇପ କରି ଖୋଜିହେବ ନାଁ ଲେଖାକୁ ପୁନ‌ବ୍ୟବ‌ହାର କରିହେବ ।

ଓଡ଼ିଆରେ କମ୍ପ୍ୟୁଟରରେ ଟାଇପ କରିବା:

ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଭାଷାରେ ପ୍ରଥମ ଛାପାକଳରୁ ଛପା ହେବା ପରଠାରୁ ଆଜିଯାଏ ହୁଏତ ଅସଂଖ୍ୟ ବ‌ହି ଛପାଯାଇଥିବ । ତେବେ ସେସବୁକୁ ଖୋଜିବସିଲେ ସ‌ହଜରେ ମିଳିବ କି? ଏଠାରେ ଆଉ ଏକ ବିରାଟ ଛିଡ଼ାହୁଏ ଆମ ଆଗରେ, ଯାହା ହେଲା ସ‌ହଜଲବ୍ଧ ଅଭିଲେଖ ବା ଆର୍କାଇଭ । ଯଦି ମୋତେ ଗୀତଗୋବିନ୍ଦ କାବ୍ୟର ଏକ ପଙ୍‌କ୍ତି ପଢ଼ିବାର ଅଛି ତାହେଲେ ମୁଁ ଜୟଦେବଙ୍କ ଲିଖିତ ବିରଳ ତାଳପ‌ତ୍ର ପୋଥିଟି ଖୋଜିବି କି? ମୁଁ ପ୍ରଥମେ ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟରେ ଖୋଜିବସିବି ଲାଇବ୍ରେରି ଯିବା ଆଗରୁ । ଆଧୁନିକ ଯୁଗରେ ମଣିଷର ବ‌ହି ସ‌ହ ସମ୍ବନ୍ଧ ଯେତେ ଘୁଞ୍ଚି ଘୁଞ୍ଚି ଯାଉଛି ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟ ଉପରେ ନିର୍ଭରଶୀଳତା ସେତେ ବଢ଼ି ବଢ଼ି ଯାଉଛି । ତେବେ ନୂତନ-ପୁରାତନ ବ‌ହିର ସବୁ ପାଠ ଯଦି ସ‌ହଜରେ ମିଳିପାରନ୍ତା ତେବେ ପାଠକଟିଏ ଯେତେବେଳେ ଯାହା ଚାହିଁବ ତାହା ପଢ଼ିପାରିବ । ଯେଉଁ ଭାଷାରେ ଏ ସାଧନ ଯେତେ ଅଧିକ ସେ ଭାଷା ପାଠକ ତିଆରି କରିବାରେ ସେତେ ସଫଳ । ଏ ବିଷୟରେ ଭାବିଲେ ଆମ ମନରେ ଯେଉଁ ପ୍ରଥମ ଭାଷାଟି ଉଙ୍କିମାରେ ତାହା ହେଲା ଇଂରାଜୀ । ଆମେ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ବା ଓଡ଼ିଶା ବିଷୟରେ ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟରେ କିଛି ଖୋଜିବା ବେଳେ ଯାହା ଗୁଗଲରେ ଟାଇପ କରୁ ସେ ବି ହେଉଛି ଇଂରାଜୀ ଭାଷା । ତେବେ ଓଡ଼ିଆରେ ଟାଇପ କରି ଓଡ଼ିଆରେ ପଢ଼ିବାରେ ଓ ଲେଖିବାରେ ବାଟ ବି ଖୋଲିଛି ତାହା ଉଣା ଅଧିକେ ଅନେକେ ଜାଣି ନ‌ଥିବେ । ସମ୍ବିଧାନ ସ୍ୱିକୃତୀପ୍ରାପ୍ତ ପ୍ରାୟ ସମସ୍ତ ଭାଷା କମ୍ପ୍ୟୁଟରରରେ ବ୍ୟବ‌ହାରଯୋଗ୍ୟ । ଓଡ଼ିଶାରେ ଆଜିର ସମୟରେ ଅଧିକାଂଶ ବ୍ୟବ‌ହାରକାରୀ ମାଇକ୍ରୋସଫ୍ଟ ଉଇଣ୍ଡୋଜର ଅପରେଟିଙ୍ଗ ସିଷ୍ଟମ ବ୍ୟବ‌ହାର କରିଥାନ୍ତି । ଉଇଣ୍ଡୋଜ ଭିସ୍ତା ନାମକ ଅପରେଟିଙ୍ଗ ସିଷ୍ଟମର ସସ୍କରଣ ଆସିବା ଯାଏଁ ଓଡ଼ିଆରେ କମ୍ପ୍ୟୁଟରରେ ଲେଖାପଢ଼ା ସମ୍ପୁର୍ଣ୍ଣ ଭାବେ ସମ୍ଭବ ହୋଇପାରୁନ‌ଥଲା । ତେବେ ଭିସ୍ତା ପରଠାରୁ ଏହି ଅସୁବିଧା ଆପାତ‌ତଃ ଦୂର ହେଲା । ଆଜିର ସମୟରେ ବିଭିନ୍ନ ଅପରେଟିଙ୍ଗ ସିଷ୍ଟମ ଯଥା: ମାଇକ୍ରୋସଫ୍ଟ ଉଇଣ୍ଡୋଜ, ଲିନ‌କ୍ସ ଓ ଆପଲ ମ୍ୟାକ ଆଦିରେ ଓଡ଼ିଆରେ ପଢ଼ିବା ଓ ଲେଖିବାରେ ବିଶେଷ କିଛି ଅସୁବିଧା ପ୍ରାୟ ନାହିଁ । କିନ୍ତୁ ଯଦି ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଅକ୍ଷର ଚିହ୍ନୁଥିବା ଯେକୌଣସି କମ୍ପ୍ୟୁଟର ବ୍ୟବ‌ହାରକାରୀକୁ କେହି ପଚାରନ୍ତି ଓଡ଼ିଆରେ କିଛି ଟାଇପ କରି ଲେଖିବା ନିମନ୍ତେ, ୧୦୦ରୁ ଜଣେ କି ଦୁଇଜଣ ନିଜର କ୍ଷମତା ପ୍ରକାଶ କରିବେ କି ସେ ସନ୍ଦେହର କ‌ଥା । ଏହାର ମୂଳ କାରଣ ହେଲା ସ୍କ୍ୁଲ, କଲେଜ ପଢ଼ାରେ ଓଡ଼ିଆରେ ଟାଇପିଙ୍ଗ କରିବା କ୍ଷେତ୍ରରେ କିଛି ତାଲିମ ଛାତ୍ରଛାତ୍ରୀମାନେ ପାଇନ‌ଥାନ୍ତି । ଓଡ଼ିଆରେ ଯେ ଲେଖିହେବ ଓ କମ୍ପ୍ୟୁଟରରେ ଏହାକୁ ଇଂରାଜୀ ଭଳି ସ‌ହଜରେ ବ୍ୟବ‌ହାର କରିହେବ ଏହା ଅନେକ‌ଙ୍କୁ ଆକାଶ କଇଆଁ ଭଳି ଲାଗିବ । ତେବେ ଏହା ଶତକଡ଼ା ଶହେ ସମ୍ବବ । ତେବେ ଓଡ଼ିଆରେ ଟାଇପ କରି ଲେଖିବାରେ ଯେଉଁ ମୂଳ ପ୍ରତିବନ୍ଧକଟି ଅଛି ତାହା ହେଲେ ନାନାଦି ଅନ୍ଧବିଶ୍ୱାସ । କେବଳ ବିରାଡ଼ିକୁ ଦେଖି ପଛକୁ ଗାଡ଼ି ନେବା ଅନ୍ଧବିଶ୍ୱାସ ନୁହେଁ, ଭାଷାଶିକ୍ଷଣ କ୍ଷେତ୍ରରେ ମଧ୍ୟ ଅନେକ ନ‌କଲି ଅନ୍ଧବିଶ୍ୱାସ ଅଛି । ତା ଭିତରୁ ପ୍ରଥମଟି ହେଲା ଅନେକେ କମ୍ପ୍ୟୁଟରରେ ଓଡ଼ିଆରେ ଲେଖିବା କ‌ଥା ଆସିଲେ ଭାବି ବସନ୍ତି ଛାପାଖାନାରେ ଛପା ହେଉଥିବା ବ‌ହି ବାବଦରେ । ଆଜି ଡିଜିଟାଲ ପ୍ରକାଶନ (ଡିଟିପି)ର ବ‌ହୁଳତା ଆଗକାଳର ବିଶାଳକାୟ ଛାପାକଳ ସବୁକୁ ଅତୀତକୁ ଠେଲିଦେଇଛି । କିନ୍ତୁ ଆଜି ବି ଆମର ଛପା ପାଇଁ ବ୍ୟବ‌ହାର ହେଉଥିବା ସଫ୍ଟ୍ୱାରଠୁ ଆରମ୍ଭ କରି ଲେଖାରେ ବ୍ୟବ‌ହାର ହେଉଥିବା ଫଣ୍ଟ ବା କମ୍ପ୍ୟୁଟରର ଅକ୍ଷରସଜାଣି ମାନ‌ଧାତା ଅମଳର । ନ‌ବେ ଦଶକର ଶେଷ ଆଡ଼କୁ ଯେଉଁ ISCII (Indian Script Code for Information Interchange) ନାମକ ମାନ‌କର ଆରମ୍ଭ ହୋଇଥିଲା କିଛି ବର୍ଷ ପରେ ଇଉନିକୋଡ଼ ନାମକ ନୂଆ ମାନ‌କ ତାକୁ ଆଜି ବି ଦୂରେଇପାରିନାହିଁ । ଫଳତଃ ଆଜିଯାଏ ଓଡ଼ିଆରେ ଡିଟିପି କରାଯାଇଥିବା ପାଖାପାଖି ସମସ୍ତ ଲେଖା ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟରେ ନା ଖୋଜିହେବ ନା ଆଉ କାହା ସଙ୍ଗେ ବାଣ୍ଟି କରିହେବ । କେଇ ଦଶନ୍ଧି ତଳେ ଆପଣଙ୍କ କମ୍ପ୍ୟୁଟରରେ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଫଣ୍ଟ ନ ଥିଲେ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଅକ୍ଷର ବଦଳରେ ଯେଉଁ ଚାରିକୋଣିଆ ଘର ଦେଖିବାକୁ ମିଳୁଥିଲା ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଡିଟିପିରେ ଆଜି ବି ଯେଉଁ ଫଣ୍ଟ ବ୍ୟବ‌ହାର ହେଉଛି ସେ ସେଇ ଏକା ଫଳ ଦେବ । ଭାଷାର ବିକାଶରେ ଆଧୁନିକ ଜ୍ଞାନ‌କୌଶଳ ବିଶେଷ ଜରୁରୀ ଯାହା ଗତାନୁଗତିକ ଏହି ପ୍ରଚଳିତ ଟାଇପିଙ୍ଗକୁ ଦୂରକୁ ଫିଙ୍ଗିଦେବାକୁ ପଡ଼ିବ। ଦୁଃଖର ବିଷୟ ଆମର ପ୍ରାୟ ସମସ୍ତ ଖବରକାଗଜଙ୍କର ପ୍ରକାଶନ ଏହି ସବୁ ISCII ଫଣ୍ଟରେ ଲେଖାହୋଇଥିବାରୁ ସେସବୁ ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟରେ ଖୋଜାଯାଇପାରିବ ନାହିଁ ।

ଇଉନିକୋଡ଼ ମାଧ୍ୟମ (Unicode standards):

ଇଉନିକୋଡ଼ ଏକ ଆନ୍ତର୍ଜାତୀକ ମାନ‌କ ଯାହା ଏକ ଭାଷାକୁ ଅନ୍ୟ ଭାଷାର ସମକକ୍ଷ କରାଇଥାଏ ଓ ଏହା ସଙ୍ଗେ ସଙ୍ଗେ ଏଥିରେ ଲେଖାଥିବା ଲେଖାକୁ ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟରେ ସ‌ହଜରେ ଖୋଜିହୁଏ, କପି କରି ବାକିମାନଙ୍କ ସ‌ହ ବିତରଣ କରିହୁଏ ଆଉ ସବୁଠାରୁ ବଡ଼ କ‌ଥା ହେଲା ଏହା ପାଇଁ କୌଣସି ଫଣ୍ଟ ଇନଷ୍ଟଲ କରିବାକୁ ପଡ଼େନାହିଁ । ଓଡ଼ିଆରେ ବି ଇଉନିକୋଡ଼ର ବିକାଶ ହୋଇଛି । ହେଲେ ଆମର ଖବରକାଗଜ ସମେତ ବାକି ସମସ୍ତ ଛାପାଖାନା ଆଜିଯାଏ ପୁରୁଣା ISCII ମାନ‌କରେ କରା‌ଯାଏ । ତେବେ ଛାପାଖାନାସବୁ ଯେ ଇଉନିକୋଡ଼ର ଉପ‌ଯୋଗୀତା ବୁଝିନାହାନ୍ତି ବା ଆବଶ୍ୟକ‌ତା ଅନୁଭବ କରିନାହାନ୍ତି କିମ୍ବା ନିଜର ଗତାନୁଗତିକ ଧାରାରୁ ବାହାରି କିଛି ଅଲଗା କରିବାକୁ ଇଚ୍ଛୁକ ନୁହ‌ଁନ୍ତି ତାହା ନୁହେଁ, କିନ୍ତୁ ନୂଆ କିଛି ବ୍ୟବ‌ହାର କରିବାକୁ ପଛଘୁଞ୍ଚା ଦେଉଛନ୍ତି । କିଛି ମାସ ତଳେ ସ୍କାଇବସ (Scribus) ସଫ୍ଟ୍ୱାର ବ୍ୟବ‌ହାର କରି ତେଲୁଗୁ ଖବରକାଗଜ "ପ୍ରଜାଶକ୍ତି" ଇଉନିକୋଡ଼ ଫଣ୍ଟରେ ଖବରକାଗଜ ଛପାଇ ଇତିହାସ ତିଆରି କଲା । ଓଡ଼ିଆରେ ବି ଏହା ଅସମ୍ଭବ ନୁହେଁ । ତେବେ ଆମ ପାଖରେ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ ଥିବା ବ‌ହିଗୁଡ଼ିକ ଯେତେବେଳ ଯାଏଁ ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟରେ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ ନ କରାଯାଇଛି ସେଯାଏଁ କେହି ସେସବୁକୁ ଲାଇବ୍ରେରି ନ ଯାଇ ପଢ଼ିପାରିବେ ନାହିଁ । ଆଜିର ତାରିଖରେ ୨୫-୩୦ ବର୍ଷ ବୟସରୁ କମ ପ୍ରାୟ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ହୁଏତ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଅକ୍ଷର ଚିହ୍ନିବାକୁ ବି ହୁଡ଼ିବେ । ଭାଷା କେବଳ ଗପ-କବିତା ରଚନା ଓ ଉପାଧୀ-ସମ୍ମାନ ପ୍ରଦାନରେ ସମୃଦ୍ଧ ହୁଏ ନାହିଁ । ଯଦି ଆମ ଭାଷାର ବଡ଼ବଡ଼ୁଆମାନେ ଭାଷାକୁ ସାଧାରଣ ଜୀବନରେ ବ୍ୟବ‌ହାର ନ କରିଥାନ୍ତେ ତାହେଲେ ଆମେ ଆଜି ନିଜକୁ ଭାଷା ଭିତ୍ତିରେ ଏକ ରାଜ୍ୟ ଭାବରେ ପରିଚୟ ଦେଉନ‌ଥାନ୍ତୁ । ଆଉ ମଧୁବାବୁ-ଫକୀରମୋହ‌ନ-ଗଙ୍ଗାଧର-ରାଧାନାଥ ପ୍ରମୁଖ ନିଜ ସମୟଠାରୁ ଯଥେଷ୍ଟ ଆଗରେ ଚାଲୁଥିଲେ । ସେମାନଙ୍କ ଲେଖା ଆଜି ମାନ‌କ ଲେଖାର ମୂଳଦୁଆ ଗଢ଼ିଛି । ଆଜି ଆମେ ଯଦି ଆମ ସମୟର ସମତାଳରେ ନ ଚାଲି ଅପ୍ରଚଳିତ ଟେକନୋଲୋଜିକୁ ଆପଣାଇ ପୃଷ୍ଠା ପରେ ପୃଷ୍ଠା ରଚନା କରିଚାଲିବା ତାହା ଭବିଷ୍ୟତର ପିଢ଼ି ନିମନ୍ତେ ଉପଯୋଗୀ ହେବ ତ? ଆମେ ସମସ୍ତେ ଯଦି ଆମ ଚାରିପାଖର ଘଟଣାବଳୀକୁ ଟିକେ ନିରେଖି ଦେଖିବା ତାହେଲେ ଅନେକ ବିଷୟ ଫର୍ଚା ହୋଇ‌ ଦିଶିବ । ସମ‌ଭାବରେ ଦେଖିଲେ ଯେତେବେଳେ ଭାଷାର ପାଠକ ସଂଖ୍ୟା କମି କମି ଯାଉଛି ସେତେବେଳେ ଆଉ କିଛି ବ‌ହି ଛପାଇ, କିଛି କମିଟି ତିଆରି କରିବା ଠାରୁ ସ୍କୁଲ, କଲେଜ ସ୍ତରରେ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଶିକ୍ଷାକୁ ସମ୍ପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣ ବାଧ୍ୟତାମୂଳକ କରି ପିଲାଙ୍କୁ କମ୍ପ୍ୟୁଟର, ମଜା ମଜା ଖେଳ ଆଦି ମାଧ୍ୟମରେ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଶିକ୍ଷା ଦେବା ନିତାନ୍ତ ଜରୁରୀ । ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଶାସ୍ତ୍ରୀୟ ଭାଷା ମାନ୍ୟତା ପାଇବା ପରେ ଯେଉଁ ୫୦୦ କୋଟି ଅର୍ଥ ଭାଷାର ବିକାଶରେ ଖର୍ଚ୍ଚ ହେବା ନିମନ୍ତେ ଯୋଜନା ହେଉଛି ଏଥିରେ ଓଡ଼ିଆରେ କମ୍ପ୍ୟୁଟର ଓ ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟ ମାଧ୍ୟମରେ ଶିକ୍ଷାଦାନ ଏକ ମୁଖ୍ୟ ପଦଃକ୍ଷେପ ହେବା ଉଚିତ । ଆମ ଭାଷାରେ ଏଯାବତ ଲେଖାଯାଇଥିବା ଅନେକ ପୋଥିପୁସ୍ତକ ଅଭିଲେଖାଗାରରେ ଧୀରେ ଧୀରେ କୀଟଙ୍କ ଦାଉରୁ ନଷ୍ଟ ହୋଇଯାଉଛି । ସେସବୁକୁ ସ୍କାନ କରି ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟରେ ମାଗଣାରେ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ କରାଇଲେ ତାହା ଅନେକଙ୍କ ଜ୍ଞାନ ପିପାସା ମେଣ୍ଟାଇବ । ଓଡ଼ିଶାରେ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଭାଷାରେ ଲେଖାଥିବା ପୃଥିବୀର ସର୍ବାଧିକ ତାଳପ‌ତ୍ର ପୋଥି ଅଛି (ଯାହା ୨୦,୦୦୦ ରୁ ଅଧିକ) । ଏଥିରେ ଅନେକ ମୁଖ୍ୟତଃ ରାଜ୍ୟ ସଂଗ୍ରହାଳୟରେ ରଖା‌ଯାଇଛି ଆଉ କିଛି ବ୍ୟକ୍ତିଗତ ମାଲିକାନାରେ ରହିଛି । ଏହି ସବୁ ପୋଥିର ଲେଖାକୁ ମଧ୍ୟ ସର୍ବସାଧାରଣରେ ଉନ୍ମୋଚନ କରିବାର ମାନସିକ ପରିବର୍ତ୍ତନର ଆବଶ୍ୟକ‌ତା ରହିଛି ।

ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ: କପିରାଇଟ ନ‌ଥିବା ଏକ ଜ୍ଞାନ‌କୋଷ, ଯହିଁରେ ସମସ୍ତେ ଲେଖିପାରିବେ

ଏକ ଭାଷାର ଚଳନ୍ତି ଇତିହାସ ହେଲା ଜ୍ଞାନ‌କୋଷ ବା ଏନସାଇକ୍ଲୋପିଡ଼ିଆ ଯେଉଁଥିରେ ଜଗତର ସମସ୍ତ ଜ୍ଞାନ ସାଇତାହୋଇ ରହିଥାଏ । ଗୋପାଳ ପ୍ରହରାଜ ଓ ବିନୋଦ କାନୁନ‌ଗୋଙ୍କ ପରେ ବିଶେଷ କିଛି ଉଦ୍ୟମ ଓଡ଼ିଆରେ ଜ୍ଞାନ‌କୋଷ ଲିଖନ ପାଇଁ ହୋଇପାରିନ‌ଥିଲା । ଆଧୁନିକ ପାଠକଙ୍କ ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟର ଜ୍ଞାନ ଆହରଣର ଭବିଷ୍ୟତକୁ ଆଖିରେ ରଖି ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ ଆରମ୍ଭ ହୋଇଥିଲା ୨୦୦୨ରେ ପ୍ରଥମ ଭାରତୀୟ ଭାଷାର ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ ଭାବରେ । ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟରେ or.wikipedia.org ରେ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ । ଧରାବନ୍ଧା ହାତଗଣତି ସଂକଳକଙ୍କ ଦ୍ୱାରା ଏହାର ସମ୍ପାଦନା ନ କରି ଏଥିରେ ସମସ୍ତ ଜନସାଧାରଣଙ୍କୁ ଯୋଡ଼ିବା ଉଦ୍ଦେଶ୍ୟରେ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆର ଆରମ୍ଭ । ଏଯାବତ ୫୩୦୦ରୁ ଅଧିକ ପ୍ରସଙ୍ଗ ଏଥିରେ ଲେଖାହୋଇସାରିଛି । ତେବେ ଅଧିକ ଉତ୍ସାହୀ ଲେଖକଙ୍କ ଯୋଗଦାନରେ ଏହି ଭଳି ସାମୁହିକ ଉଦ୍ୟମ ଫଳବତୀ ହୋଇପାରିବ।

ପାଠକ, ସାହିତ୍ୟାନୁରାଗୀ, ଭାଷା ଗବେଷକ, ଭାଷାର କମ୍ପ୍ୟୁଟରରେ ବିକାଶ କରୁଥିବା ବିଜ୍ଞାନୀ ଏକ ମଞ୍ଚରେ ଆଲୋଚନା କରି ଭାଷାର ବିଭିନ୍ନ ସାଧନ ନିର୍ଣ୍ଣୟ କରିପାରିଲେ ଓଡ଼ିଆର ଶାସ୍ତ୍ରୀୟ ଭାଷା ମାନ୍ୟତା ସଫଳ ହେବ । ଯୁବଶକ୍ତିକୁ ବିନିଯୋଗ କରି ଭାଷାର ବିକାଶରେ ମୁଖ୍ୟ ସମସ୍ୟାଗୁଡ଼ିକର ସମାଧାନ କରା‌ଯାଇପାରିବ । ପାଠକର ଆବଶ୍ୟକ‌ତା ଜାଣି ପାଠର ମାଧ୍ୟମ ବଦଳାଇପାରିଲେ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଭାଷା ନିଶ୍ଚିତ ଜଗତର ଅନ୍ୟାନ୍ୟ ଜଣାଶୁଣା ଭାଷା ଭିତରୁ ଏକ ହେବ ।

ଅଧିକ ପଠନ:

୧. ପୁରୁଣା ଓଡ଼ିଆ ବ‌ହି ଡିଜିଟାଲ ରୂପରେ: oaob.nitrkl.ac.in

୨. ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ, ଏକ ଖୋଲା ଜ୍ଞାନ‌କୋଷ: or.wikipedia.org

୩. ଓଡ଼ିଆରେ ଟାଇପ କରିବା ଉପରେ ଶିକ୍ଷଣ: or.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Typing

୪. ଓଡ଼ିଆରେ ଲେଖିବା ପାଇଁ ସାଧନ (ମାଇକ୍ରୋସଫ୍ଟ ଉଇଣ୍ଡୋଜ ବ୍ୟବ‌ହାରକାରୀଙ୍କ ନିମନ୍ତେ): bhashaindia.com/ilit/Oriya.aspx

୫. ଗୋପାଳଚନ୍ଦ୍ର ପ୍ରହରାଜଙ୍କ ଭାଷାକୋଷ: http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/praharaj (ଡାଉନଲୋଡ଼ ନିମନ୍ତେ bitly.com/bhashakosha ଦେଖନ୍ତୁ)

ଲେଖକ ପରିଚୟ: ଶୁଭାଶିଷ ପାଣିଗ୍ରାହୀ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ତ‌ଥା ଅନ୍ୟାନ୍ୟ ଭାରତୀୟ ଭାଷାର ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟରେ ବ୍ୟବ‌ହାର ଉପରେ କାମକରୁଥିବା ଜଣେ ଗବେଷକ । ସେ ଅଧୁନା ବେଙ୍ଗାଳୁରୁସ୍ଥିତ ସେଣ୍ଟର ଫର ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟ ଏଣ୍ଡ ସୋସାଇଟିର ଆକସେସ-ଟୁ-ନଲେଜ ପ୍ରୋଗ୍ରାମର ପ୍ରୋଗ୍ରାମ ଅଫିସର ଭାବେ କାର୍ଯ୍ୟରତ । ଓଡ଼ିଶାରେ କିଟ ବିଶ୍ୱବିଦ୍ୟାଳୟ, କଳିଙ୍ଗ ଇନଷ୍ଟିଚ୍ୟୁଟ ଅଫ ସୋସିଆଲ ସାଇନ୍ସେସ (କିସ), ଭାରତୀୟ ଜନସଂଚାର ସଂସ୍ଥାନ, ଢେଙ୍କାନାଳ (IIMC) ଆଦି ଅନେକ ଶିକ୍ଷାନୁଷ୍ଠାନରେ ସେ କରି ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ ମାଧ୍ୟମରେ ଶିକ୍ଷାର ବିକାଶ ନିମନ୍ତେ ଗବେଷଣା କରୁଛନ୍ତି । ଭାରତ ଓ ବିଦେଶରେ ସେ ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟରେ ଭାରତୀୟ ଭାଷାର ବିକାଶ ଉପରେ ଅନେକ କର୍ମଶାଳା ଓ ଆଲୋଚନାଚକ୍ରରେ ଭାଗ ନେଇ ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟରେ ଭାଷାର ଆବଶ୍ୟକ‌ତା ଉପରେ ଆଲୋଚନା କରିଛନ୍ତି । subhashish@cis-india.org ରେ ତାଙ୍କ ସ‌ହ ଇ-ମେଲରେ ଯୋଗାଯୋଗ କରିପାରିବେ ।

Read the article published in Amalekha here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/subhashish-panigrahi-article-in-amalekha

Odia Wikipedia celebrates Odisha Day, brings 14 copyright-free Odia books and a free Odia font!

praskrishna — 2014-04-08T06:16:15Z

Odisha Day 2014 was celebrated on March 29, 2014. Brokenscooter.com has published a report of the event in its website.

Read the original post here.

The Odia Wikimedia community celebrated “Odisha Day” on 29th March at Jayadev Bhawan. Inaugurating this event, eminent linguist Padmashree Dr. Debiprasanna Pattanayak said, ‘Collaborative effort and open access to knowledge repositories will enrich our language an culture’. He also discussed about the efforts being laid for bringing Odia language as the sixth Indian classical language. Majority of the Odia publications are not available on the internet and readers are devoid of easily accessible. He discussed about the process of digitization for preserving valuable books that are out of print and the old palm leaf manuscripts.

Odia Wikipedia has been trying to popularize use of Odia language in the Internet since 2002. Available at or.wikipedia.org it is now 6000 articles rich and growing. More than 470,000 visitors visit Odia Wikipedia every month which also gives it the status of the largest Odia encyclopedia on the Internet. To enrich the online encyclopedia and getting more books digitized, Wikipedians organized a two day event at Jayadev Bhawan. Along with Dr. Debiprasanna Pattanayak, Professor Udayanath Sahu, The Odisha Review’s editor Dr. Lenin Mohanty, Odisha Bhaskar’s editor Pradosh Pattnaik, language researcher Subrat Prusty, Kalinga Institute of Social Science (KISS)’s principal Dr. Madan Mohan Sahu, Manik-Biswanath Smrutinyasa’s chairman Allhadmohini Mohanty along with the trust’s secretary Brajamohan Patnaik and senior members Sarojkanta Choudhury and Shisira Ranjan Dash.

11 books of eminent Odia writer Dr. Jagannath Mohanty were released in Creative Commons 3.0 license that will allow anyone to reuse and even make commercial use of the content with attribution. KISS will be digitizing these books by training their students. Allhadmohini Mohanty formally gave written permission to Odia Wikimedia community for releasing and digitizing these books. Dr. Debiprasanna Pattanayak and Subrat Prusty from the Institute of Odia Studies and Research also fomally released three books in Creative Commons licenses: Two Odia ones-”Bhasa O Jatiyata” and “Jati, Jagruti O Pragati” and an English book “Classical Odia”. Guests released a DVD containing a new Odia Unicode free font, “Odia OT Jagannatha” designed by Sujata Patel from OdiaLanguage.com, a new Odia input tool, free softwares and offline Wikipedia. It was declared that the Odia WikiSource project will be active soon and would be available at wikisource.org.

Odia Wikipedia administrator Mrutyunjaya Kar gave the inaugural speech and hosted the event. Subhashish Panigrahi from the Centre for Internet and Society read the annual report and shared the vision for the Wikimedia movement. Active Odia Wikipedians Ansuman Giri, Diptiman Panigrahi, Dr. Subas Chandra Rout, Jnanaranjan Sahu, Sasanka Dash, Aditya Mahar and Srikant Kedia coordinated the event.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/brokenscooter-april-4-2014-odia-wikipedia-celebrates-odisha-day-brings-14-copyright-free-odia-books-and-free-odia-font

Wikipedia Edit-a-thon workshop & Talks on Gender Gap in Wikipedia

praskrishna — 2014-04-04T07:33:32Z

Open Minds (a student group advocating free and open movement) in association with the Centre for Internet and Society's Access to Knowledge team is holding a workshop at Chaitanya Bharathi Institute of Science and Technology, Gandipet, Serilingampalle, Andhra Pradesh on March 8, 10.00 a.m. to 1.30 p.m.

Certificaton: All the participants will be awarded by "participation certificate from Wikipedia"
Come meet your fellow editors and help improve Wikipedia articles related to women. Don't know how to edit Wikipedia? That's ok, friendly, experienced editors will be here to help! Everyone is welcome to come edit Wikipedia with us at this event. New editors, those who want to learn how to edit or can teach others how.
Speakers :
T. Vishnu Vardhan,Programme Director, Access To Knowledge, Centre for Internet and Society,Wikipedia.
--Muzammi,Programme Officer, Access To Knowledge, Centre for Internet and Society, Wikipedia.
Shedule :
Timing Activity
10:00 to 10:30 am Registration
10:30 to 11:00 am The Politics of Gendered Knowledge . Production in the Age of Internet
11:00 t0 11:30 am Wikipedia demonstration + Basics of Wikipedia . Editing (hands on activity)
11.30 to 01:30 pm International Women's Day Edit-a-thon
01:30 to 02:15 pm Lunch Break
02:15 to 05:00 pm International Women's Day Edit-a-thon . . continues
What to Bring :
Anything! Bring your laptops, smart phones, tablets etc. but above all, your energy and your brains!
We’re trying to make this event very hands on, so feel free to bring all your wacky geektronics so that you can participate in all the fun.
==Don’t worry if you don’t bring anything since there will still be tons of stuff to do.==

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/events/wikipedia-edit-a-thon-workshop-talks-on-gender-gap-in-wikipedia

Who Governs the Internet? Implications for Freedom and National Security

sunil — 2014-04-05T16:23:36Z

The second half of last year has been quite momentous for Internet governance thanks to Edward Snowden. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff became aware that they were targets of US surveillance for economic not security reasons. They protested loudly.

The article was published in Yojana (April 2014 Issue). Click to download the original here. (PDF, 177 Kb)

The role of the US perceived by some as the benevolent dictator or primary steward of the Internet because of history, technology, topology and commerce came under scrutiny again. The I star bodies also known as the technical community - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN); five Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) ie. African, American, Asia-Pacific, European and Latin American; two standard setting organisations - World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) & Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF); the Internet Architecture Board (IAB); and Internet Society (ISOC) responded by issuing the Montevideo Statement [1] on the 7th of October. The statement expressed "strong concern over the undermining of the trust and confidence of Internet users globally due to recent revelations of pervasive monitoring and surveillance." It called for "accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA functions..." - did this mean that the I star bodies were finally willing to end the special role that US played in Internet governance? However, that dramatic shift in position was followed with the following qualifier "...towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all governments, participate on an equal footing." Clearly indicating that for the I star bodies multistakeholderism was non-negotiable. Two days later President Rousseff after a meeting with Fadi Chehadé, announced on Twitter that Brazil would host "an international summit of governments, industry, civil society and academia." [2] The meeting has now been dubbed Net Mundial and 188 proposals for “principles” or “roadmaps for the further evolution of the Internet governance ecosystem” have been submitted for discussion in São Paulo on the 23rd and 24th of April. The meeting will definitely be an important milestone for multilateral and multi-stakeholder mechanisms in the ecosystem.

It has been more than a decade since this debate between multilateralism and multi-stakeholderism has ignited. Multistakeholderism is a form of governance that seeks to ensure that every stakeholder is guaranteed a seat at the policy formulation table (either in consultative capacity or in decision making capacity depending who you ask). The Tunis Agenda, which was the end result of the 2003-05 WSIS upheld the multistakeholder mode. The 2003–2005 World Summit on the Information Society process was seen by those favouring the status quo at that time as the first attempt by the UN bodies or multilateralism - to takeover the Internet. However, the end result i.e. Tunis Agenda [3] clarified and reaffirmed multi-stakeholderism as the way forward even though multilateral governance mechanisms were also accepted as a valid component of Internet governance. The list of stakeholders included states, the private sector, civil society, intergovernmental organisations, international standards organisations and the “academic and technical communities within those stakeholder groups mentioned” above. The Tunis Agenda also constituted the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and the process of Enhanced Cooperation.

The IGF was defined in detail with a twelve point mandate including to “identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations.” In brief it was to be a learning Forum, a talk shop and a venue for developing soft law not international treaties. Enhanced Cooperation was defined as “to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy issues” – and to this day, efforts are on to define it more clearly.

Seven years later, during the World Conference on Telecommunication in Dubai, the status quoists dubbed it another attempt by the UN to take over the Internet. Even those non-American civil society actors who were uncomfortable with US dominance were willing to settle for the status quo because they were convinced that US court would uphold human rights online more robustly than most other countries. In fact, the US administration had laid a good foundation for the demonization of the UN and other nation states that preferred an international regime. "Internet freedom" was State Department doctrine under the leadership of Hillary Clinton. As per her rhetoric – there were good states, bad states and swing states. The US, UK and some Scandinavian countries were the defenders of freedom. China, Russia and Saudi Arabia were examples of authoritarian states that were balkanizing the Internet. And India, Brazil and Indonesia were examples of swing states – in other words, they could go either way – join the good side or the dark side.

But Internet freedom rhetoric was deeply flawed. The US censorship regime is really no better than China’s. China censors political speech – US censors access to knowledge thanks to the intellectual property (IP) rightsholder lobby that has tremendous influence on the Hill. Statistics of television viewership across channels around the world will tell us how the majority privileges cultural speech over political speech on any average day. The great firewall of China only affects its citizens – netizens from other jurisdictions are not impacted by Chinese censorship. On the other hand, the US acts of censorship are usually near global in impact.

This is because the censorship regime is not predominantly based on blocking or filtering but by placing pressure on identification, technology and financial intermediaries thereby forcing their targets offline. When it comes to surveillance, one could argue that the US is worse than China. Again, as was the case with censorship, China only conducts pervasive blanket surveillance upon its citizens – unlike US surveillance, which not only affects its citizens but targets every single user of the Internet through a multi-layered approach with an accompanying acronym soup of programmes and initiatives that include malware, trojans, software vulnerabilities, back doors in encryption standards, over the top service providers, telcos, ISPs, national backbone infrastructure and submarine fibre optic cables.

Security guru Bruce Schneier tells us that "there is no security without privacy. And liberty requires both security and privacy.” Blanket surveillance therefore undermines the security imperative and compromises functioning markets by make e-commerce, e-banking, intellectual property, personal information and confidential information vulnerable. Building a secure Internet and information society will require ending mass surveillance by states and private actors.

The Opportunity for India

Unlike the America with its straitjacketed IP regime, India believes that access to knowledge is a precondition for freedom of speech and expression. As global intellectual property policy or access to knowledge policy is concerned, India is considered a leader both when it comes to domestic policy and international policy development at the World Intellectual Property Organisation. From the 70s our policy-makers have defended the right to health in the form of access to medicines. More recently, India played a critical role in securing the Marrakesh Treaty for Visually Impaired Persons in June 2013 which introduces a user right [also referred to as an exception, flexibility or limitation] which allows the visually impaired to convert books to accessible formats without paying the copyright-holder if an accessible version has not been made available. The Marrakesh Treaty is disability specific [only for the visually impaired] and works specific [only for copyright]. This is the first instance of India successfully exporting policy best practices. India's exception for the disabled in the Copyright Act unlike the Marrakesh Treaty, however, is both disability-neutral and works-neutral.

Given that the Internet is critical to the successful implementation of the Treaty ie. cross border sharing of works that have been made accessible to disabled persons in one country with the global community, it is perhaps time for India to broaden its influence into the sphere of Internet governance and the governance of information societies more broadly.

Post-Snowden, the so called swing states occupy the higher moral ground. It is time for these states to capitalize on this moment using strong political will. Instead of just being a friendly jurisdiction from the perspective of access to medicine, it is time for India to also be the enabling jurisdiction for access to knowledge more broadly. We could use patent pools and compulsory licensing to provide affordable and innovative digital hardware [especially mobile phones] to the developing world. This would ensure that rights-holders, innovators, manufactures, consumers and government would all benefit from India going beyond being the pharmacy of the world to becoming the electronics store of the world. We could explore flat-fee licensing models like a broadband copyright cess or levy to ensure that users get content [text, images, video, audio, games and software] at affordable rates and rights-holders get some royalty from all Internet users in India. This will go a long way in undermining the copyright enforcement based censorship regime that has been established by the US. When it comes to privacy – we could enact a world-class privacy law and establish an independent, autonomous and proactive privacy commissioner who will keep both private and state actors on a short lease. Then we need a scientific, targeted surveillance regime that is in compliance with human rights principles. This will make India simultaneously an IP and privacy haven and thereby attract huge investment from the private sector, and also earn the goodwill of global civil society and independent media. Given that privacy is a precondition for security, this will also make India very secure from a cyber security perspective. Of course this is a fanciful pipe dream given our current circumstances but is definitely a possible future for us as a nation to pursue.

What is the scope of Internet Governance?

Part of the tension between multi-stakeholderism and multilateralism is that there is no single, universally accepted definition of Internet governance. The conservative definitions of Internet Governance limits it to management of critical Internet resources, including the domain name system, IP addresses and root servers – in other words, the ICANN, IANA functions, regional registries and other I* bodies. This is where US dominance has historically been most explicit. This is also where the multi-stakeholder model has clearly delivered so far and therefore we must be most careful about dismantling existing governance arrangements. There are very broadly four approaches for reducing US dominance here – a) globalization [giving other nation-states a role equal to the US within the existing multi-stakeholder paradigm], b) internationalization [bring ICANN, IANA functions, registries and I* bodies under UN control or oversight], c) eliminating the role for nation states in the IANA functions[4] and d) introducing competitors for names and numbers management. Regardless of the final solution, it is clear that those that control domain names and allocate IP addresses will be able to impact the freedom of speech and expression. The impact on the national security of India is very limited given that there are three root servers [5] within national borders and it would be near impossible for the US to shut down the Internet in India.

For a more expansive definition – The Working Group on Internet Governance report[6] has four categories for public policy issues that are relevant to Internet governance:

“(a) Issues relating to infrastructure and the management of critical Internet resources, including administration of the domain name system and Internet protocol addresses (IP addresses), administration of the root server system, technical standards, peering and interconnection, telecommunications infrastructure, including innovative and convergent technologies, as well as multilingualization. These issues are matters of direct relevance to Internet governance and fall within the ambit of existing organizations with responsibility for these matters;

(b) Issues relating to the use of the Internet, including spam, network security and cybercrime. While these issues are directly related to Internet governance, the nature of global cooperation required is not well defined;

(c)Issues that are relevant to the Internet but have an impact much wider than the Internet and for which existing organizations are responsible, such as intellectual property rights (IPRs) or international trade. ...;

(d) Issues relating to the developmental aspects of Internet governance, in particular capacity-building in developing countries.”

Some of these categories are addressed via state regulation that has cascaded from multilateral bodies that are associated with the United Nations such as the World Intellectual Property Organisation for "intellectual property rights" and the International Telecommunication Union for “telecommunications infrastructure”. Other policy issues such as "cyber crime" are currently addressed via plurilateral instruments – for example the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime – and bilateral arrangements like Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties. "Spam" is currently being handled through self-regulatory efforts by the private sector such as Messaging, Malware and Mobile Anti-Abuse Working Group.[7] Other areas where there is insufficient international or global cooperation include "peering and interconnection" - the private arrangements that exist are confidential and it is unclear whether the public interest is being adequately protected.

So who really governs the Internet?

So in conclusion, who governs the Internet is not really a useful question. This is because nobody governs the Internet per se. The Internet is a diffuse collection of standards, technologies and actors and dramatically different across layers, geographies and services. Different Internet actors – the government, the private sector, civil society and the technical and academic community are already regulated using a multiplicity of fora and governance regimes – self regulation, coregulation and state regulation. Is more regulation always the right answer? Do we need to choose between multilateralism and multi-stakeholderism? Do we need stable definitions to process? Do we need different version of multi-stakeholderism for different areas of governance for ex. standards vs. names and numbers? Ideally no, no, no and yes. In my view an appropriate global governance system will be decentralized, diverse or plural in nature yet interoperable, will have both multilateral and multistakeholder institutions and mechanisms and will be as interested in deregulation for the public interest as it is in regulation for the public interest.

[1]. Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-07oct13-en.htm

[2]. Brazil to host global internet summit in ongoing fight against NSA surveillance http://rt.com/news/brazil-internet-summit-fight-nsa-006/

[3]. Tunis Agenda For The Information Society http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html

[4]. Roadmap for globalizing IANA: Four principles and a proposal for reform: a submission to the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance by Milton Mueller and Brenden Kuerbis March 3rd 2014 See: http://www.internetgovernance.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/ICANNreformglobalizingIANAfinal.pdf

[5]. Mumbai (I Root), Delhi (K Root) and Chennai (F Root). See: http://nixi.in/en/component/content/article/36-other-activities-/77-root-servers

[6]. Report of the Working Group on Internet Governance to the President of the Preparatory Committee of the World Summit on the Information Society, Ambassador Janis Karklins, and the WSIS Secretary-General, Mr Yoshio Utsumi. Dated: 14 July 2005 See: http://www.wgig.org/WGIG-Report.html

[7].Messaging, Malware and Mobile Anti-Abuse Working Group website See: http://www.maawg.org/

The author is is the Executive Director of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), Bangalore. He is also the founder of Mahiti, a 15 year old social enterprise aiming to reduce the cost and complexity of information and communication technology for the voluntary sector by using free software. He is an Ashoka fellow. For three years, he also managed the International Open Source Network, a project of United Nations Development Programme's Asia-Pacific Development Information Programme, serving 42 countries in the Asia-Pacific region.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/yojana-april-2014-sunil-abraham-who-governs-the-internet-implications-for-freedom-and-national-security

Should Nandan Nilekani's Aadhaar project, for identity proof and welfare delivery, exist at all?

praskrishna — 2014-04-14T10:27:57Z

The foundation of Aadhaar—a Congress flagship project to give every Indian a unique identity number and then use it to deliver services—has been under assault in the past three months.

The article by M. Rajshekhar was published in the Economic Times on April 3, 2014. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

Political, legal, reputational.

The political backlash is coming from leaders of BJP, the Congress' principal rival. Meenakshi Lekhi and Ananth Kumar are not, by any stretch of the imagination, the first or the last word on policy matters in the BJP, but they mince no words when they say that if their party forms a government, it will trash Aadhaar —a project that has delivered a unique ID to half of India and on which Rs 3,800 crore has been spent.

Even as BJP's loose cannons fired, the Supreme Court repeated on March 24 that the government cannot make Aadhaar mandatory to access welfare services like pensions and LPG subsidy. The same day, investigative journalism portal Cobrapost aired videos that allegedly showed agencies agreeing to enrol people from neighbouring countries for a bribe.

The BJP piled on. "It (Aadhaar) has served no purpose. They have issued cards to illegal migrants. We want citizenship cards," says Prakash Javadekar, spokesperson of BJP. His party does not have an official policy line on Aadhaar as yet, but another of its leaders, Yashwant Sinha, headed the Parliamentary panel that, in 2011, severely criticised and rejected the draft bill that provided the legal framework for Aadhaar. "We are for direct benefit transfer but not on the basis of Aadhaar, which is a very badly-designed scheme," Sinha told CNBC-TV18 on January 31. "We will give it to all citizens of India on the basis of NPR."

On the campaign trail in Bangalore, Nandan Nilekani, the chief architect and implementer of Aadhaar, defends his work as the chairman of Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). "Aadhaar is a pro-development and an anti-corruption platform," says Nilekani, who was brought in by the Congress high command in 2009 and is contesting these elections on a party ticket against BJP's Kumar in Bangalore South. "It is a pity that some vested interests with narrow political and other motives are trying to stall the project."

Lost in those binaries are the objectives of Aadhaar, to universalise identity proof and to use it to plug leakages in delivery of welfare services. UIDAI, led by a hands-on Nilekani, pursued this agenda with a certain authority, great speed and an overriding emphasis on technology, all of which delivered outcomes.

But they also contributed to shortcomings that saw the project stumble on its way and for which it is now being critiqued. "This is the only way transformation takes place," says K Koshy, who was part of the team that conceptualised Aadhaar and is now with Ernst & Young. "When you know the ultimate system is workable, you sort out the problems as you go along."

Except, given the political winds blowing, it's anyone's guess what the new dispensation will feel about Aadhaar and UIDAI, from where Nilekani resigned on March 13 and which is seeing many officers who came from other parts of the government, on deputation, returning. Will the new dispensation see Aadhaar as an idea that is sound but with parts that need strengthening? Or, will they see it as an idea that is, by itself, fallacious? "I don't know where this is going," says Abhijit Sen, member, Planning Commission, under which UIDAI is housed.

At one level, it's a political question. "The next Parliament will have to decide what UIDAI can and cannot do," says Sen. At another level, even that political answer will stem from the answers to three questions that go to the core of what Aadhaar was meant to be and where it fell short.

1. Does Aadhaar Provide a Unique and Definitive Identity?

Yes and no. UIDAI collects two sets of information from an individual. The first is biometrics: prints of all 10 fingers and a scan of the iris in both eyes. Biometric data, which is supposed to be unique to every individual, is used to assign a unique number to the individual. The second set is basic personal information: name, address, father's name, date of birth and address. Individuals can show existing documents—like voter's I-card or passport —as verification. For those who did not have identification documents, UIDAI allowed certain people to attest for them.

Aadhaar is better at identifying individuals through their biometrics than ensuring the accuracy of their add-on data. This is partly due to its design. When Aadhaar was being conceptualised, says Shrikant Nadhamuni, who headed technology for UIDAI: "We wanted to move the ID game—from a state where some people had no ID and others had paper ID to something beyond even what Singapore had, in the form of smart cards, to online. Like biometric. Which is the future.

Here, your presence is enough to vet your ID." This is also partly due to how UIDAI did its enrolments. Shortly after taking charge, Nilekani announced UIDAI would issue 600 million Aadhaar numbers by March 2014. The initial plan was that the National Population Register (NPR), which conducts the decadal Census and which is housed under the ministry of home, would do the enrolments— capturing biometrics and information— and UIDAI would only issue the numbers.

Soon after, Nilekani decided he could not meet his 600 million target if he waited for NPR to give him biometric packets, and offered to do enrolments too. To meet the target, UIDAI wanted to outsource enrolment to multiple vendors. And compared to NPR, UIDAI collected very little demographic data. UIDAI appointed public and private companies as enrolment agencies. Quality issues arose. "90% of the larger enrolment agencies offloaded the work to local, small-time guys," says the head of a Gurgaon-based enrolment agency, not wanting to be named.

Instances of incomplete addresses, spelling mistakes, people bribing enrolment staff to obtain numbers, emerged. "There is always a trade off between inclusion and accuracy," says Nilekani. "And the fact that these errors happened only shows that the gates were kept wide enough to ensure there would be no exclusion." "The Aadhaar database is based on very weak data," says Sunil Abraham, the head of Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society, an Internet and governance think-tank. "It is basically linking biometrics to a person and the name/address he claims as his." This weakness started showing up as the government began to deliver welfare services by transferring money directly into bank accounts of beneficiaries, using Aadhaar. The first step was to add the Aadhaar number to the department and bank databases.

Reddy Subramanyam, joint secretary of NREGA, tried to seed Aadhaar numbers into his database of NREGA workers. "The current matching is just 25-30%." The mismatch arises because, say, the name will be S Kumar in one and Sunil Kumar in another. Aadhaar is "less ID project and more identification project," says legal researcher Usha Ramanathan. "The onus for ensuring the demographic information is correct falls on the number-holder."

2. Are Aadhaar-enabled Cash Transfers Delivering?

If giving every Indian a unique ID was Aadhaar's main mandate, revamping welfare delivery became its second. In 2011, Nilekani headed a committee to create a roadmap to move to a system of welfare delivery where money was transferred directly into bank accounts of beneficiaries—or direct benefit transfers (DBTs). The architectures it proposed pivoted around Aadhaar and online, realtime biometric authentication. This was to replace the existing smart-card architecture, which can work even in areas even without connectivity.

UIDAI saw the cloud as the future. "We were not very taken with the smart-card solution," says Nadhamuni. "Farmers have to carry multiple smart cards around. And then, there is the cost of the card." Smart-card companies, staring at the prospect of their investments going waste, protested. "Customers and service providers deserve the right to make a convenient choice. Can someone building a public highway insist that only a certain sort of a vehicle can ply on it?" Abhishek Sinha, CEO of Eko India, a mobile-banking start-up told ET in November 2011.

"The question is whether the model is working better now than what existed before," defends Koshy. It's a question that has not been answered conclusively and credibly: there have been no independent evaluations by the government of Aadhaarbased DBTs till now. "Aadhaar should not have been rolled out on a mission mode till it was tested on some scale," says MS Sriram, visiting faculty at IIM Bangalore's Centre for Public Policy. When asked about this, Sen says: "There was no independent evaluation. Everyone was rushing." From the field came reports about manual labourers and the aged struggling to authenticate using biometrics.

Nor were comparative studies conducted to check alternative ways to improve welfare delivery. Economist Reetika Khera argues that Chhattisgarh has removed corruption from its PDS programme through a mix of computerisation and community supervision. This echoes an observation made by the Parliamentary panel while rejecting the UIDAI bill: the government had not considered comparative costs of Aadhaar and other existing ID documents.

Yet, in November 2012, the Congress decided to make DBTs its calling card for the 2014 elections. At a rally in Dudu, Rajasthan, attended by Congress leaders and Nilekani, it announced DBT rollout in the state. A year later, after a patchy rollout, the Congress lost power in the state. And on January 30, the UPA pressed pause on DBTs for cooking gas.

3. Are there Strong Safeguards to Protect a Person's Privacy?

On February 26, the Mumbai High Court directed UIDAI to share its Goa biometrics with the CBI to help it solve a rape case in the state the agency was struggling to solve. UIDAI refused, saying this would violate the privacy of its number holders. The High Court agreed with the CBI. UIDAI went to the Supreme Court, which ruled that its biometric information cannot be shared with any government agency without the consent of number holders.

But the CBI request had shown what could go wrong. "Once you create an ID system, other things happen," says Sen. "The most inevitable one is that government departments—like the police—want to access it. A database exists and I want to use it." Says a Supreme Court lawyer, not wanting to be named: "You innocently give your fingerprints to UIDAI because you want your scholarship or gas subsidy or something. You volunteer this information and then you realise this can be used as evidence against you in a criminal trial?" In time, more agencies will use Aadhaar. "The moment you start putting the Aadhaar number into multiple databases, you make them comparable," says Abraham. "Land registry, tax records, etc, all become comparable." Adds Sen: "We need to think about who can use the authentication service."

He cites the example of banks using Aadhaar to judge a borrower's credit record as a good thing. Conversely, he adds, an insurer using a customer's Aadhaar to access hospital records, and take a call on premiums or policy issuance, is a bad outcome. "Insurance is supposed to work by pooling risk. Should they (insurers) even have the right to ask for authentication?" asks Sen. UIDAI officials say three things in their defence. One, they collect innocuous information, which they don't share. Two, for authentication queries, they only give 'yes/no' answers. Three, they have safeguards.

What is missing is a legal framework that governs collection, use and retention of biometrics. "India has not passed a data privacy law," says Nadhamuni. "This is a very important legislation we need to draft and enact for projects that use large-scale IT systems, be it Aadhaar, NREGA, voter card, income tax, etc. In the absence of such laws, UIDAI came up with rigorous data privacy and security policies to secure resident data." However, the Parliamentary panel, while rejecting the bill, noted that UIDAI began collecting biometric data even as the government worked on a privacy bill and a data protection bill. "The idea that databases can be used by anyone makes people vulnerable, especially in a state where there is neither law nor much respect for law," says Ramanathan.

Aadhaar stands at an uncomfortable junction. A new government, eager to ensure only citizens have unique numbers, could ask all Aadhaar holders to provide address proof and delete the others. Events of the past three months have framed the issues concerning Aadhaar, sometimes with a touch of rhetoric. "This is a good time to open the regulation issue," says Sen.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/economic-times-april-3-2014-m-rajshekhar-should-nandan-nilekani-aadhar-project-for-identity-proof-and-welfare-delivery-exist

Marco Civil da Internet: Brazil’s ‘Internet Constitution’

geetha — 2014-06-19T10:38:10Z

On March 25, 2014, Brazil's lower house of parliament passed bill no. 2126/2011, popularly known as Marco Civil da Internet. The Marco Civil is a charter of Internet user-rights and service provider responsibilities, committed to freedom of speech and expression, privacy, and accessibility and openness of the Internet. In this post, the author looks at the pros and cons of the bill.

Introduction:

Ten months ago, Edward Snowden’s revelations of the U.S. National Security Agency’s extensive, warrantless spying dawned on us. Citizens and presidents alike expressed their outrage at this sweeping violation of their privacy. While India’s position remained carefully neutral, or indeed, supportive of NSA’s surveillance, Germany, France and Brazil cut the U.S. no slack. Indeed, at the 68th session of the United Nations General Assembly, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff (whose office the NSA had placed under surveillance) stated, “Tampering in such a manner in the affairs of other countries is a breach of International Law and is an affront to the principles that must guide the relations among them, especially among friendly nations.” Brazil, she said, would “redouble its efforts to adopt legislation, technologies and mechanisms to protect us from the illegal interception of communications and data.”

Some may say that Brazil has lived up to its word. Later this month, Brazil will be host to NETmundial, the Global Multi-stakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance, jointly organized by the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br) and the organization /1Net. The elephantine invisible presence of Snowden vests NETmundial with the hope and responsibility of laying the ground for a truly multi-stakeholder model for governing various aspects of the Internet; a model where governments are an integral part, but not the only decision-makers. The global Internet community, comprising users, corporations, governments, the technical community, and NGOs and think-tanks, is hoping devise a workable method to divest the U.S. Government of its de facto control over the Internet, which it wields through its contracts to manage the domain name system and the root zone.

But as Internet governance expert Dr. Jeremy Malcolm put it, these technical aspects do not make or break the Internet. The real questions in Internet governance underpin the rights of users, corporations and netizens worldwide. Sir Tim Berners-Lee, when he called for an Internet Bill of Rights, meant much the same. For Sir Tim, an open, neutral Internet is imperative if we are to keep our governments open, and foster “good democracy, healthcare, connected communities and diversity of culture”. Some countries agree. The Philippines envisaged a Magna Carta for Internet Freedom, though the Bill is pending in the Philippine parliament.

Marco Civil da Internet:

Last week, on March 25, 2014, the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies (the lower house of parliament) passed the Marco Civil da Internet, bill 2126/2011, a charter of Internet rights. The Marco Civil is considered by the global Internet community as a one-of-a-kind bill, with Sir Tim Berners-Lee hailing the “groundbreaking, inclusive and participatory process has resulted in a policy that balances the rights and responsibilities of the individuals, governments and corporations who use the Internet”.

The Marco Civil’s journey began with a two-stage public consultation process in October 2009, under the aegis of the Brazilian Ministry of Justice’s Department of Legislative Affairs, jointly with the Getulio Vargas Foundation’s Center for Technology and Society of the Law School of Rio de Janeiro (CTS-FGV). The collaborative process involved a 45-day consultation process in which over 800 comments were received, following which a second consultation in May 2010 received over 1200 comments from individuals, civil society organizations and corporations involved in the telecom and technology industries. Based on comments, the initial draft of the bill was revamped to include issues of popular, public importance, such as intermediary liability and online freedom of speech.

An official English translation of the Marco Civil is as yet unavailable. But an unofficial translation (please note that the file is uploaded on Google Drive), triangulated against online commentary on the bill, reveals that the following issues were of primary importance:

The fundamentals:

The fundamental principles of the Marco Civil reveal a commitment to openness, accessibility neutrality and democratic collaboration on the Internet. Art. 2 (see unofficial translation) sets out the fundamental principles that form the basis of the law. It pledges to adhere to freedom of speech and expression, along with an acknowledgement of the global scale of the network, its openness and collaborative nature, its plurality and diversity. It aims to foster free enterprise and competition on the Internet, while ensuring consumer protection and upholding human rights, personality development and citizenship exercise in the digital media in line with the network’s social purposes. Not only this, but Art. 4 of the bill pledges to promote universal access to the Internet, as well as “to information, knowledge and participation in cultural life and public affairs”. It aims to promote innovation and open technology standards, while ensuring interoperability.

The Marco Civil expands on its commitment to human rights and accessibility by laying down a “discipline of Internet use in Brazil”. Art. 3 of the bill guarantees freedom of expression, communication and expression of thoughts, under the terms of the Federal Constitution of Brazil, while at the same time guaranteeing privacy and protection of personal data, and preserving network neutrality. It also focuses on preserving network stability and security, by emphasizing accountability and adopting “technical measures consistent with international standards and by encouraging the implementation of best practices”.

These principles, however, are buttressed by rights assured to Internet users and responsibilities of and exceptions provided to service providers.

Rights and responsibilities of users and service providers:

Net neutrality:

Brazil becomes one of the few countries in the world (joining the likes of the Netherlands, Chile and Israel in part) to preserve network neutrality by legislation. Art. 9 of the Marco Civil requires all Internet providers to “to treat any data package with isonomy, regardless of content, origin and destination, service, terminal or application”. Not only this, but Internet providers are enjoined from blocking, monitoring or filtering content during any stage of transmission or routing of data. Deep packet inspection is also forbidden. Exceptions may be made to discriminate among network traffic only on the basis of essential technical requirements for services-provision, and for emergency services prioritization. Even this requires the Internet provider to inform users in advance of such traffic discrimination, and to act proportionately, transparently and with equal protection.

Data retention, privacy and data protection:

The Marco Civil includes provisions for the retention of personal data and communications by service providers, and access to the same by law enforcement authorities. However, record, retention and access to Internet connection records and applications access-logs, as well as any personal data and communication, are required to meet the standards for “the conservation of intimacy, private life, honor and image of the parties directly or indirectly involved” (Art. 10). Specifically, access to identifying information and contents of personal communication may be obtained only upon judicial authorization.

Moreover, where data is collected within Brazilian territory, processes of collection, storage, custody and treatment of the abovementioned data are required to comply with Brazilian laws, especially the right to privacy and confidentiality of personal data and private communications and records (Art. 11). Interestingly, this compliance requirement is applicable also to entities incorporated in foreign jurisdictions, which offer services to Brazilians, or where a subsidiary or associate entity of the corporation in question has establishments in Brazil. While this is undoubtedly a laudable protection for Brazilians or service providers located in Brazil, it is possible that conflicts may arise (with penal consequences) between standards and terms of data retention and access by authorities in other jurisdictions. In the predictable absence of harmonization of such laws, perhaps rules of conflicts of law may prove helpful.

While data retention remained a point of contention (Brazil initially sought to ensure a 5-year data retention period), under the Marco Civil, Internet providers are required to retain connection records for 1 year under rules of strict confidentiality; this responsibility cannot be delegated to third parties (Art. 13). Providers providing the Internet connection (such as Reliance or Airtel in India) are forbidden from retaining records of access to applications on the Internet (Art. 14). While law enforcement authorities may request a longer retention period, a court order (filed for by the authority within 60 days from the date of such request) is required to access the records themselves. In the event the authority fails to file for such court order within the stipulated period, or if court order is denied, the service provider must protect the confidentiality of the connection records.

Though initially excluded from the Marco Civil, the current draft passed by the Chamber of Deputies requires Internet application providers (such as Google or Facebook) to retain access-logs for their applications for 6 months (Art. 15). Logs for other applications may not be retained without previous consent of the owner, and in any case, the provider cannot retain personal data that is in excess of the purpose for which consent was given by the owner. As for connection records, law enforcement authorities may request a greater retention period, but require a court order to access the data itself.

These requirements must be understood in light of the rights that the Marco Civil guarantees to users. Art. 7, which enumerates these user-rights, does not however set forth their content; this is probably left to judicial interpretation of rights enshrined in the Federal Constitution. In any event, Art. 7 guarantees to all Internet users the “inviolability of intimacy and privacy”, including the confidentiality of all Internet communications, along with “compensation for material or moral damages resulting from violation”. In this regard, it assures that users are entitled to a guarantee that no personal data or communication shall be shared with third parties in the absence of express consent, and to “clear and complete information on the collection, use, storage, treatment and protection of their personal data”. Indeed, where contracts violate the requirements of inviolability and secrecy of private communications, or where a dispute resolution clause does not permit the user to approach Brazilian courts as an alternative, Art. 8 renders such contracts null and void.

Most importantly, Art. 7 states that users are entitled to clear and complete information about how connection records and access logs shall be stored and protected, and to publicity of terms/policies of use of service providers. Additionally, Art. 7 emphasizes quality of service and accessibility to the Internet, and forbids suspension of Internet connections except for failure of payments. Read comprehensively, therefore, Arts. 7-15 of the Marco Civil prima facie set down robust protections for private and personal data and communications.

An initial draft of the Marco Civil sought to mandate local storage of all Brazilians’ data within Brazilian territory. This came in response to Snowden’s revelations of NSA surveillance, and President Rousseff, in her statement to the United Nations, declared that Brazil sought to protect itself from “illegal interception of communications and data”. However, the implications of this local storage requirement was the creation of a geographically isolated Brazilian Internet, with repercussions for the Internet’s openness and interoperability that the Marco Civil itself sought to protect. Moreover, there are implications for efficiency and business; for instance, small businesses may be unable to source the money or capacity to comply with local storage requirements. Also, they lead to mandating storage on political grounds, and not on the basis of effective storage. Amid widespread protest from corporations and civil society, this requirement was then withdrawn which, some say, propelled the quick passage of the bill in the Chamber of Deputies.

Intermediary liability:

Laws of many countries make service providers liable for third party content that infringes copyright or that is otherwise against the law (such as pornography or other offensive content). For instance, Section 79 of the Indian Information Technology Act, 2000 (as amended in 2008) is such a provision where intermediaries (i.e., those who host user-generated content, but do not create the content themselves) may be held liable. However, stringent intermediary liability regimes create the possibility of private censorship, where intermediaries resort to blocking or filtering user-generated content that they fear may violate laws, sometimes even without intimating the creator of the infringing content. The Marco Civil addresses this possibility of censorship by creating a restricted intermediary liability provision. Please note, however, that the bill expressly excludes from its ambit copyright violations, which a copyright reforms bill seeks to address.

At first instance, the Marco Civil exempts service providers from civil liability for third party content (Art. 18). Moreover, intermediaries are liable for damages arising out of third party content only where such intermediaries do not comply with court orders (which may require removal of content, etc.) (Art. 19). This leaves questions of infringement and censorship to the judiciary, which the author believes is the right forum to adjudicate such issues. Moreover, wherever identifying information is available, Art. 20 mandates the intermediary to appraise the creator of infringing content of the reasons for removal of his/her content, with information that enables the creator to defend him- or herself in court. This measure of transparency is particularly laudable; for instance, in India, no such intimation is required by law, and you or I as journalists, bloggers or other creators of content may never know why our content is taken down, or be equipped to defend ourselves in court against the plaintiff or petitioner who sought removal of our content. Finally, a due diligence requirement is placed on the intermediary in circumstances where third party content discloses, “without consent of its participants, of photos, videos or other materials containing nudity or sexual acts of private character”. As per Art. 21, where the intermediary does not take down such content upon being intimated by the concerned participant, it may be held secondarily liable for infringement of privacy.

This restricted intermediary liability regime is further strengthened by a requirement of specific identification of infringing content, which both the court order issued under Art. 20 and the take-down request under Art. 21 must fulfill. This requirement is missing, for instance, under Section 79 of the Indian Information Technology Act, which creates a diligence and liability regime without requiring idenfiability of infringing content.

Conclusion:

Brazil’s ‘Internet Constitution’ has done much to add to the ongoing discussion on the rights and responsibilities of users and providers. By expressly adopting protections for net neutrality and online privacy and freedom of expression, the Marco Civil may be considered to set itself up as a model for Internet rights at the municipal level, barring a Utopian bill of rights. Indeed, in an effusive statement of support for the bill, Sir Tim Berners-Lee stated: “If Marco Civil is passed, without further delay or amendment, this would be the best possible birthday gift for Brazilian and global Web users.”

Of course, the Marco Civil is not without its failings. Authors say that the data retention requirements by connection and application providers, with leeway provided for law enforcement authorities to lengthen retention periods, is problematic. Moreover, the discussions surrounding data localization and a ‘walled-off’ Internet that protects against surveillance ignores the interoperability and openness that forms the core of the Internet.

On the whole, though, the Marco Civil may be considered a victory, on many counts. It is possibly the first successful example of a national legislation that is the outcome of a broad, consultative process with civil society and other affected entities. It expressly affirms Brazil’s commitment to the protection of privacy and freedom of expression, as well as to Internet accessibility and the openness of the network. It aims to eliminate the possibility of private censorship online, while upholding privacy rights of users. It seeks to reduce the potential for abuse of personal data and communication by government authorities, by requiring judicial authorization for the same. In a world where warrantless government spying extends across national border, such a provision is novel and desirable. One hopes that, when the global Internet community sits down at its various fora to identify and enumerate principles for Internet governance, it will look to the Marco Civil as an example of standards that governments may adhere to, and not necessarily resort to the lowest common denominator standards of international rights and protections.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/marco-civil-da-internet

Odia Wikimedia community has celebrated Odisha day

praskrishna — 2014-04-08T06:21:38Z

Odisha Day 2014 was held on March 29, 2014. A report was published in FullOrissa News on April 2, 2014.

Click to read the original story here.

Odia Wikimedia community has celebrated “Odisha day” today at Jayadev Bhawan. Inaugurating this event eminent linguist Padmashree Dr. Debiprasanna Pattanayak said, ‘Collaborative effort and open access to knowledge repositories will enrich our language an culture’. He also discussed about the efforts being laid for bringing Odia language as the sixth Indian classical language. Majority of the Odia publications are not available on the internet and readers are devoid of easily accessible. He discussed about the process of digitization for preserving valuable books that are out of print and the old palm leaf manuscripts.

11 books of eminent Odia writer Dr. Jagannath Mohanty were released in Creative Commons 3.0 license that will allow anyone to reuse and even make commercial use of the content with attribution. KISS will be digitizing these books by training their students. Allhadmohini Mohanty formally gave written permission to Odia Wikimedia community for releasing and digitizing these books. Dr. Debiprasanna Pattanayak and Subrat Prusty from the Institute of Odia Studies and Research also fomally released three books in Creative Commons licenses: Two Odia ones-”Bhasa O Jatiyata” and “Jati, Jagruti O Pragati” and an English book “Classical Odia”. Guests released a DVD containing a new Odia Unicode free font, “Odia OT Jagannatha” designed by Sujata Patel from OdiaLanguage.com, a new Odia input tool, free softwares and offline Wikipedia. It was declared that the Odia WikiSource project will be active soon and would be available at wikisource.org.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/full-odisha-april-2-2014-odia-wikipedia-community-celebrated-odisha-day