Centre for Internet and Society

Building Knowledge and Capacity around Telecommunication Policy in India

praskrishna — 2012-09-11T14:54:08Z

Ford Foundation has given a grant of USD 200,000 to the Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) over a period of two years (2011-2013) to build expertise in the area of telecommunications in India.

The project involves the following key activities:

Knowledge repository: Creating a repository comprising information about telecommunications related issues and policies and online course materials designed for a multi-stakeholder audience.
Capacity building: organising interactive public lectures and workshops around the country to disseminate information on telecom issues.
Dissemination: using traditional and new forms of media to disseminate information to academia, civil society, policy makers and the general public.

Background

Access to telecommunications facilities and services is a key enabler of socio-economic development of countries in the Information Society. The rapid proliferation of internet and mobile phones as a medium of administration and governance, commerce, education, social networking and communication, has made the development of telecommunications infrastructure and policies a high priority for governments worldwide.

India’s telecommunications sector has been growing at a phenomenal rate of 45 per cent over the past few years and according to Telecommunications Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), has become the world’s third largest network[1] with a tele-density of 65 per cent, 785 million telephone connections (750 million mobile and 35 million fixed landline connections), and 10 million broadband subscribers as of December 2010. The growth of mobile phones has surpassed fixed line networks, making the mobile the primary means of communication.

However, despite the rapid growth and expansion of telecommunications infrastructure in India, there still remains an underserved need for access and availability of services and facilities to persons living in rural and remote areas, poor persons, disabled, illiterate and elderly persons. The rural tele density remains low at 30 per cent and the number of broadband connections is also comparatively quite low. In addition to this, there is also an overall lack of public awareness about legislative and regulatory issues, market trends, international debates and research in this area, which is essential to ensuring that regulatory and market developments promote consumer choice and interests. The imperative to educate and build capacity is one which needs to be addressed both within India and globally.

Problem Statement

The rapid growth in telecommunications infrastructure and services in India over the past decade has not been complemented by correspondingly desirable levels of public awareness and participation. The lacuna in awareness about regulation, international trends and research among stakeholders has given way to minimal representation of public and consumer groups in the policy formulation and regulation process.

There are very few courses on telecommunications which are offered online and in Indian universities and institutions. These deal primarily with technical aspects of telecommunications and do not adequately touch upon other important elements such as regulations and policies or international best practices.[2]

There is a dire need for a dedicated resource focusing on informing and training people on a wide range of issues in the telecommunications sector, as well as bringing transparency to current national developments in policy and project implementation. Such a resource is important to ensure that public interest is protected and critical national resources are deployed in an efficient, just and transparent manner. Similar initiatives such as the Link Centre offer limited support to persons living in India since they do not focus on India.

Project Description

CIS proposes to build awareness and capacity on telecom issues for a multi-stakeholder audience comprising researchers and academicians, policy makers and regulators, consumer and civil society organisations, education and library institutions and lay persons through the creation of a dedicated web based resource focusing on knowledge dissemination. This resource will comprise a repository containing articles and sample course modules on telecommunications issues and policies It will be built on an open platform and all content will be openly licensed under a creative commons license which will be made available free of charge to the users. The content will be on par with international standards and will undergo constant review and updates to keep abreast of current trends and debates. The Moodle learning management system will be used to manage the content.

Project Goals and Activities

The goals and activities of this project are given below:

Knowledge Repository

Goal: To create an on line repository of telecommunications related information and learning materials targeted at a multi stakeholder audience.
Activities:

Create and maintain open educational resources[3] on telecommunications that facilitates self directed and collaborative learning in a Multi user environment.
Provide information in a variety of audio, video, text and alternate accessible formats on telecommunications related topics,
Provide a single source for all information and documentation related to policy environment for telecommunications in India

Capacity Building

Goal: To raise levels of expertise and provide a set of comprehensive skills to interested students, bureaucrats, media personnel and members of civil society, so that they can understand, engage with and influence the development of telecommunications in India.

Activities:

Organise 6 workshops over two years in different locations to test the open education resources and solicit feedback. These will be conducted by the CIS project team and some external resource persons.
Organise 10 public talks by subject experts at the CIS office in Bangalore and different venues around India, which will be podcast live from the CIS web site. These may be more topical and relevant to current developments.

Dissemination

Goal:

To ensure the mainstreaming and sustainability of the learning materials created by CIS by partnering with academia;
To make the telecom policy process in India more scrutable to civil society and politicians; and
To create awareness amongst the Indian Diaspora and Internet users in India.

Activities:

To work with academia to develop teaching modules from the content available in the repository. These modules could be in the form of text or video lectures, podcasts, etc.
To disseminate content in the form of easy to read FAQs, posters, Primers, cheat sheets, DVDs, audio visual materials and other accessible formats to civil society organisations and policy makers.
To execute a comprehensive social media strategy for disseminating information and increasing public engagement. These could include:

Using social networking platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Orkut, My Space etc to infiltrate existing on line communities using carefully crafted tit bits from the repository to increase traffic.
Using You Tube, Blip TV etc for video uploads, web casts and podcasts.
Engaging with existing on line communities by contributing to ongoing and new discussions on mailing lists and blogs.
Building on a regular basis a data base of opinion and thought leaders on line and off line using a constituent relationship management software and using mass personalised e mail to encourage them to popularise our content repository through their communication channels.

Overall project activities:
Identify other senior experts and consultants for the project
Set up server infrastructure and the Moodle Learning Management System and training the project team to use it.
Organise six workshops and 10 public talks with live podcasts over two years to disseminate information on these topics.

Plan and Measurable Progress Indicators

For the purpose of measuring progress, the project can be divided into four phases of six months duration. The total number of learning materials to be created is 230 over two years. These are divided into 150 text lessons (Primers, FAQs, cheat sheets and posters) and 72 videos. The target for each phase will be to create approx 37 texts and 18 videos. Based on that, the project deliverables are as follows:

Phase I

Activities:

Hiring the core team, consultants and technology person to set up and manage the system.
Setting up the Moodle Learning Management System and training the team in using it. Mapping out topics for content generation and allocating work.

Milestones:

Complete the hiring of all project personnel.
Complete the Moodle Learning Management system set up and training.
Completion of 37 text lessons and 18 videos.

4. Organised one workshop and two public lectures to get feedback on the completed modules.
5. Awareness raising and inviting comments on completed modules through social media and mailing lists.

Phase II

Activities:

All relevant policies, legislations, rules and important case law will be mirrored on the web site
Another 38 text lessons and 18 videos will be added to the repository.
The next 2 Workshops and 3 public lectures will be conducted to get feedback on the learning materials and build awareness.
Awareness building, call for comments and community engagement activities will continue through social media, mailing lists and the CIS news letter

Milestones:

Half of the course content (75 text lessons and 36 videos) created and available on site.
Policy and regulatory information available on site.
Engagement with communities on social networking platforms, mailing lists and blogs continues.
A total of 3 Workshops and 5 public lectures conducted.
Engagement with academia for creating course content begins.

Phase III

Activities:

Content generation, capacity building and dissemination activities continue.

Milestones:

75 per cent of the content (112 text lessons and 54 videos) will be up on the web site.
4 workshops and 8 public lectures conducted.
Social media outreach continues with regular traffic on the web site.
Engagement with academia to create course modules continues.

Phase IV

Activities:

All the course modules will be completed and events conducted. A lot of effort will be taken for Dissemination and outreach.

Milestones:

All the content (150 text lessons and 72 videos) will be up on the web site.
All relevant policies, rules and legislations will be on line.
Data bases of course participants, media and other persons who were part of the course outreach will be prepared.
All six workshops and ten public lectures conducted.

CIS interest in the project:

CIS is committed to ensuring public access and participation in the information society through the internet. We work towards creating a policy environment which promotes consumer interests by facilitating unhindered access to web sites, digital content and technologies and fosters creation of networks for sharing knowledge and culture.

Since our engagement with telecommunications issues has been at a very nascent level, we would like to build expertise in this area through this project.

Policy

Regularly provide feedback and comments to proposals and notifications which are issued by the Department of Telecommunications and TRAI,[4] especially with respect to spectrum allocation.
We recently sent some notes to the Government of India in December 2010/January 2011: facts, assessments and suggestions and in February, we expect to meet with a Member, Planning Commission (Arun Maira) to advocate coordinated scenario.
We have initiated the Universal Service Obligation Fund of India to fund several projects for persons with disabilities. To that end, we created a framework document which is available on the USOF website.[5] these projects may come to approximately 1 million dollars.
Providing recommendations on accessibility in telecommunications for persons with disabilities and elderly persons to be included in the New Telecom Policy which is to come out in March 2011.

The International Telecommunications Union

We were contracted by the ITU to prepare a paper on Mobile best practices for Persons with Disabilities in December 2010. The report is complete and we are awaiting feedback from the ITU for finalisation
Edited and published a print version of the handbook on e-accessibility for persons with disabilities, which was sent to over 200 regulators and Ministries of ICT around the world.
Co-organised an event on Enabling Access to Education for Persons with Disabilities (Edict 2010) with ITU and other UN agencies, the Department of IT and civil society organisations in October 2010.
Presently working on a global paper with the co-operation of ITU and G3ict which will look at how the Universal Service Funds of countries are being utilised to fund projects to promote access for the disabled.

Media Intervention

Columns by Shyam Ponappa

Spectrum Auctions: 'Jhatka' or 'Halal'?, Business Standard, February 3, 2011
The Policy Langurs, Business Standard, January 6, 2011
Take 'Model T' for Telecom, Business Standard, December 2, 2010
Ideology & ICT Policies, Business Standard, November 6, 2010
Broad-basing Broadband, Business Standard, October 7, 2010
What a Highway Can Do, Business Standard, September 2, 2010
'Containing Inflation' - A Myth, Business Standard, August 7, 2010
Catching up on Broadband, Business Standard, July 1, 2010
India's Sorry Spectrum Story, Business Standard, June 3, 2010
China Club instead of Bombay Club?, Business Standard, May 13, 2010
The Right Ring Tone, Business Standard, April 1, 2010
Understanding Spectrum, Business Standard, March 4, 2010
Alternative Scenarios, Business Standard, February 4, 2010
Plan and Execute for Results, Business Standard, January 10, 210
Developments in Spectrum Sharing, Business Standard, December 3, 2009
Managing Spectrum, Business Standard, November 5, 2009

Column by Nishant Shah

3G Life, Indian Express, November 14, 2010

Association for Progressive Communication (APC)

APC Open Spectrum for Development India Case Study by Shyam Ponappa, November 2010. The report covers chapters on Spectrum Policy Regulatory Environment, the Spectrum Management Process, Spectrum Management – The Future, Access to Unlicensed/License-Exempt Spectrum, Exploiting Wireless, National Broadband Strategy, International Coordination, etc.
APC Open Spectrum for Development India Case Study by Shyam Ponappa, November 2010.
Article on spectrum policy based on APC’s Open Spectrum Project (by APC in monthly news magazine: ‘India's untapped potential: Are a billion people losing out because of spectrum?’ http://bit.ly/fFQzXj

Open Society Institute

A report on spectrum in India is to be prepared by Robert Horvitz as part of a project of Open Spectrum Foundation in collaboration with the Open Society Institute – Information Programme.
Presently preparing a report on digital media and technology in India, which is part of a larger global survey on Mapping Digital Media in collaboration with Jamia Milla Islamia - Centre Culture and Media Governance?

Academic Interventions

Organised a lecture tour for telecom expert Sagie Chetti in collaboration with the Link Centre in 2009 to share information in various universities and institutions around the country on the landscape of the telecommunications sector in South Africa. Presentations were held at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Chennai and IIT, Mumbai, the International Institute of Information Technology (IIIT), Bangalore, Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU), National Institute of Science, Technology and Development Studies (NISTADS) and Jamia Millia Islamia University – all based in Delhi. The visit concluded with meetings with officials from the Telecoms Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI).

List of Topics for the Knowledge Repository

Module 1: Introduction to Telecommunications
Forms of Telecommunication

Data
Telephony
Unit 1: Fixed line telephone (Text) - 1
Unit 2: Wireless Communication: Mobiles (Text + Video)
Unit 3: Wireless Communication: PDAs and Stand alone devices (Text ) - 1
Video
Unit 1: Different forms of Video Communication (Text + Video)
Telephony networks
Unit 1: Fixed Networks and their standards (Text) – 1 + Unit 2: Mobile (Text) – 1 + 1 FAQ
Unit 3: Cable TV Networks/ Converged Networks (Text) – 1 + 1

Total = 9 E + 4 V = 13

Module 2: Telecommunications Infrastructure and Technologies

Passive Infrastructure
Active Infrastructure
Unit 1: Access – 1 +1 FAQ
Unit 2: Core - 1
Unit 3: Transport – 1 + 1
Unit 4: Network Management – 1 + 1
Transmission Technology (Text)
Unit 1: Optical Fibre - 1
Unit 2: Microwaves - 1
Unit 3: Satellites - 1
Technology
Unit 1: Fundamental Concepts and changes - 1
Unit 2: Digitalization (Text ) – 1 + 1
Unit 3: Compression (Text) – 1 + 1
Unit 4:Multiplexing and Modulation (Text) – 1 + 1
Unit 4:Packetization (Text) - 1
Customer Premises Devices
Unit 1: Different kinds of handsets available in India (Text) - 1
Unit 2: Various features in the handsets (Text) – 1 + 1FAQ + 1
Unit 3: Technology (Text) – 1 + 1
Unit 4: Standards (Text) - 1
Unit 5: Future Technology (Text) - 1
Technology for Computers Communication:Wifi,WiMax, etc
Unit 1: Internet (Protocols, Security, VoIP etc) - 1
Unit 1: Internet Protocols(Text) - 1
Unit 2: Design Principles(Text) - 1
Unit 3: QoS and Security(Text+ Audio)
Unit 4: Mobility and Nomdicity(Text) - 1
Unit 5: IPv6 (Text) - 1
Unit 6: Standards (Text) - 1
Technology for Mobiles: GSM, CDMA, GPRS etc
Unit 1: Evolution - 1 + 1Overview
Unit1: First Generation (Text)- 1
Unit 2: Second Generation (Text) - 1
Unit 3: 2.5 G – GPRS and EDGE (Text) - 1
Unit 4: Third Generation (Text) – 1 + 1FAQ
Unit 5: Standards (Text) - 1
Services
Unit1: Voice Service (Text) – 1 + 1Overview
Unit 2: Location based service (Text) - 1
Unit 3: Multimedia Service (Text) - 1
Unit 4: Corporate Service (Text) - 1
Unit 5: Mobile Internet (Text + Video) – 1+1
Unit 6: Mobi TV (Text + video) – 1+1
Unit 7: Service Providers (Text) – 1 + 1FAQ
Unit 8: Customer care services (Text) - 1
Future Technology(4G, LTE)
Unit 1: Software Defined Radio (Text) – 1+1
Unit 2: Cognitive Radio (Text) – 1 + 1
Unit 3: 4G and LTE (Text) – 1+1
Convergence
Unit 1: Telecom-Mobile Broadcast Convergence (Text) – 1+1
Unit 2: Fixed-Mobile Convergence (Text) – 1+1
Unit 3: Converged services – VOIP and IPTV(Text+ Video) – 1+1
NGN [Next Generation Networks]
Unit 1: Next Generation Core Networks (NGCN) (Text) – 1+1
Unit 2: Next Generation Access Networks (NGAN) Fixed (Text) – 1+1
Unit 3: Next Generation Access Networks (NGAN) Wireless (Text) – 1+1

Total = 30 E+ 6FAQs + 4PR+ 6 CS + 22 V + 4 PO = 72
46 T + 22V + 4PO

Module 3: Government of India Regulatory Framework for Telecom

Overview of the Indian regulatory environment and relevant legislations
Unit 1: The National Telecom Policies of 1994 and 1999 (includes amendments and sequels) (Text) – 1+1
Unit 2: Cable TV Act (Text) – 1+1
Unit 3: Indian Telegraph Act 1885 (Text) – 1+1
Unit 4: Indian Telegraph Act Amendment Act of 2003(Text) – 1+1
Unit 5: The Indian Wireless Act 1993(Text) – 1+1
Unit 6: TRAI Act of 1995, TRAI Act of 1997, TRAI Amendment Act of 2000(Text) – 1+1
Unit 7: Other relevant legislations and policies - The Indian Copyright Act 1957, privacy and data security, National Electronic Accessibility Policy, The Information Technology Act 2000, Right to Information Act 2005, Consumer Protection Act 1986, Policy on Open standards and Biometric standards, Technical standards for interoperability of E-governance infrastructure, the draft Electronic Service Delivery Bill etc. (Text) – 1+2FAQs
Government Bodies responsible for Telecommunications in India
DOT- its powers and responsibilities
Unit 1: Government Policy and Guidelines (Text) - 1
Unit 2: Regulations (Text) - 1
TRAI
Unit 1: Tariffs (Text) – 1 FAQ
Unit 2: Revenue Sharing(Text, FAQs) – 1 + 1FAQ
Unit 3: Issuance of Licenses (all kinds of licenses including VSAT) (Text) - 1
Criterion to be fulfilled(Text) – 1FAQ + 1
Terms and conditions for every license type. (Text) - 1
Unit 4: Consultation Papers: Impact of consultation papers on policies, regulations and recommendations(Text) – 1FAQ + 1
Unit 5 Mobile Number Portability(Text, FAQs) - 1
Unit 6 NDNC (Text, Faqs) - 2
Unit 7 Policy recommendations (Text) – 1+1
TDSAT
Important Judgements (Text) - 2
Centre for Excellence in Telecom Technology and Management (includes all the centres under this) (CETTM) (Text) - 1
Other Agencies
TCIL
Unit 1: Various Projects (Concentrate on SWAN) (Text) - 1
Unit 2: Role of TCIL in India (Text, FAQs) - 1
BSNL and MTNL (phone, internet and broadband, mobile phones etc)(Text) – 1+1
Services
Unit 1: Basic Telecom Services - 1
Unit 2 Captive user services (Text) – 1
Unit 3: Commercial User Services (Text) – 1
Spectrum Management
Unit 1: Auctioning and allocating process for all kinds of spectrum- 1FAQ+1
Unit 2: The initial process of auctioning (Text) – 1
Unit 3: How are the bidders selected (Text, faqs) - 1
Unit 4: Criterion for allocation (Text) - 1
Unit 5: Time taken to allocate (Text) - 1
Unit 6: Selection of band (Text) - 1
Unit 7: Interference issues (Text) - 1
Unit 8: Spectrum Refarming (Text – 1
Unit 9: Spectrum Reallocation (Text,faqs) – 1FAQ + 1
National Frequency Allocation Plan (Text) - 1
Numbering(Text)
Objectives of numbering - 1
Regulatory framework for numbering - 1
Interconnection issues (Text) - 1
Digital Dividend (Text) – 1+1FAQ

Total = 26 E +13 V +8 FAQ +3 CS+ 3 PR
40 Text+ 13 Videos= 53

Module 4: Telecommunication and the Market

Unit 1: Licensing framework for Telecom including a historical overview – 1

Unit 1: Investment and Ownership in Telecoms – 1+1
6.1.1 Market Structure levels (Text)
Kinds of Competitions (Text) - 1
Unit 1: Revenue Generation (Text) - 1
Unit 1: Taxes and other charges (Text) – 1
Unit 1: SWOT Analysis of current regime – 1+1

6 Text+ 2 Videos + 1 Poster

Module 5: Universal Access and Accessibility

Background of Universal Service regulation - 1

Universal Service Obligation Fund – 1FAQ + 1
Need for rural and remote access - 1+1
Need for accessibility(Text) - 1
Large demographic group - persons with disabilities, elderly persons and illiterate persons
Legal imperative: equality and non discrimination -1
Good business opportunity -1 +1
Accessibility key concepts and requirements(Text)
Universal design – 1+1Overview
Web accessibility – 1+1
Accessibility in services – 1+1
Organizations focusing on providing accessibility to rural areas
TeNet -1+1

Total = 9E+7V+1 FAQ+1 CS+1 PO= 19
11 Text+ 1 Poster + 7 videos

Module 6: The International Telecommunications Union and other International Bodies

ITU
ITU sectors- ITU-R, ITU-T, ITU-D and ITU Telecom. – 2+1
Regulation - 1
Radio spectrum sharing – 1FAQ+1
Standards setting - 1
WSIS
Other international agencies
South Asia Association of Regional Co-operation(SAARC) - 2+1
United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP)
Commonwealth Telecom Organisation (CTO)
International Telecommunication Satellite Organisation (UTSO)
International Mobile Satellite Organisation (IMSO)
Asia-Pacific Satellite Communication Council (APSCC)
International instruments and bi-lateral and multi-lateral trade agreements - 2
Treaty on Broadcasting and the proposed instruments on limitations and exceptions which are being negotiated at the World Intellectual Property Organisation. (Text)
International best practices for policy (Text) –2

8 E+ 3V+1 FAQ+ 1 CS + 2 PR= 15
12 Text + 3 Videos

Module 7: Broadcasting

Radio
Types of radio broadcasting in India – 1+ 2
Unit 1 AIR (Text)
Unit 2 Private Fms which include both commercial radio, campus radio and community radios (Text) – 1+3
Television
Unit 1: Cable TV (Text) – 1+1
Unit 2: IP TV (Text,Faqs) – 1+1
Unit 3: Mobile TV(Text, Faqs) – 1+1
Unit 4: DTH(Text, Faqs) – 1+1
Unit 5: Terrestrial TV(Text) – 1+1
Unit 6: Standards(Text) - 1
Associations regulating broadcasting in India(Text) – 1

Total= 7 E+ 8V+1 FAQ+1CS=17

9 text+ 8 Video

Module 8: Emerging Topics

Broadband Wireless Access
Unit 1: Standards(Text) – 1+1
Unit 2: Technology(Text) – 1+1
IPTV (Text, FAQs) –1FAQ+1
Mobile TV (Text, FAQs) – 1FAQ+1
Fibre to the home (FTTH) – 1+1
Broadband over power-lines – 1+1
Mesh networking – 1+1
FEMTO-Cell and Cable TV – 2+1
Relevant regulations and legal issues – 2+1

Total= 7E+9V+2 FAQ+2CS+2 PO= 22

11 Text +2 Posters +9 Videos

Module 9: Way Forward

Policy Reform – 1+1
Licensing Reform – 1+1FAQ
Regulation Reform – 1+1
Market Place Reform – 1+1

6 Text + 4 Videos

Grand total = 150 Text + 8 Posters + 72 Videos = 230 Lessons

Work Plan for 3 people working on the project

No. of videos in 6 months	18	6 per person
No. of articles in 6 months	26-27	9 per person
No. of videos in 1 year	36	12 per person
No. of articles in 1 year	52-54	18 per person
No. of videos in 2 years	72	24 per person
No. of articles in 2 years	105	35 per person

List of Potential Partners

Centre for Excellence in Telecom Technology and Management (CETTM), Mumbai
Centre for Development of Telematics (C-DoT), Bangalore and Kolkatta
ISRO, Bangalore
National Knowledge Network, New Delhi ( Programme implementation unit)
Telecommunication Engineering Centre, New Delhi
IITCOE at IIM Ahmedabad
AIIScCET at IISc Bangalore
BITCOE at IIT Kanpur
RITCOE at IIT Madras, Chennai
VEICET at IIT Kharagpur
AICET at IIT Delhi
TICET at IIT Bombay, Mumbai
Centre for Culture, Media and Governance, New Delhi
IEEE Bangalore Section

Key contact details

Sunil Abraham (Executive Director)
Centre for Internet and Society
194, 2nd C Cross, Domlur 2nd stage, Bengaluru: 560071
Tel: 080 25350955
Mob: + 91-9611100817
Email: sunil@cis-india.org
Nirmita Narasimhan (Programme Manager)
Centre for Internet and Society
194, 2nd C Cross, Domlur 2nd stage, Bengaluru: 560071
Tel: 080 25350955
Mob: + 91-9845868078
Email: nirmita@cis-india.org
Narasimha Rao (Administrative Officer)
Centre for Internet and Society
194, 2nd C Cross, Domlur 2nd stage, Bengaluru: 560071
Tel: 080 25350955
Mob: + 91-9886193846

[1].http://www.dot.gov.in/osp/Brochure/Brochure.htm

[2].Examples of such courses are:Telecom datacom and networking- 3 days course http://goo.gl/cvnai Telefocal Asia http://www.telefocal.com/topics.php
[3].These open educational resources should be freely shared through open licences which facilitate use, revision, translation, improvement and sharing by anyone. Resources should be published in formats that facilitate both use and editing, and that accommodate a diversity of technical platforms. Whenever possible, they should also be available in formats that are accessible to people with disabilities and people who do not yet have access to the Internet.
[4].Telecom Regulatory Authority of India
[5].http://goo.gl/t2XRs

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/telecom/knowledge-repository-on-internet-access/knowledge-and-capacity-around-telecom-policy

Cancel the Subscription

Subbiah Arunachalam — 2012-05-09T03:44:50Z

It has been a slow but steady move to make scholarship freely available, writes Prof. Arunachalam in an article published by the Indian Express on May 8, 2012.

Most of us spend a few hundred rupees a year on the magazines we buy for leisure reading or for keeping abreast of current affairs. But if you are a scientist, you may be shelling out a few thousand rupees for the journal your professional society publishes for its members. Of course, if you are a serious researcher, you may have to read or refer to many journals, not two or three. And you will depend on your institution’s library for those journals.

Till 20-30 years ago, most academic libraries, at least in the West, did not find it difficult to subscribe to most journals needed by the scientists in their institutions. Then things started changing and journal subscription prices started skyrocketing — some costing $20,000-40,000 — leading to what librarians call the serials crisis. Much of the price rise was caused by commercial publishers, such as Elsevier, Springer and Wiley. These three control most of the 24,000 science, technology and medicine journals and publish more than 40 per cent of all journal articles today. Elsevier reported a profit of 37 per cent of its revenue in 2011 (up from 36 per cent in 2010); the profit of the other two is no less than 30 per cent despite the recession.

A few years ago, academic librarians, even in the US, had to cut down their budgets for books and monographs to keep journal subscriptions going. Early this year, Harvard, reputed to have the richest endowment among universities, announced that it was finding it to difficult to hold on to its subscriptions and requested its faculty to publish their work in “open access journals” which would be free to read and to resign from publications that keep articles behind paywalls. The irony of it all was summed up nicely by Professor Robert Darnton, director of libraries at Harvard: “We faculty do the research, write the papers, referee papers by other researchers, serve on editorial boards, all of it for free, and then we buy back the results of our labour at outrageous prices.”

A few months ago, a Fields Medal winner, mathematician Timothy Gowers of Cambridge, made it publicly known that he had stopped publishing in, refereeing for and being on the editorial boards of journals published by Elsevier. Gowers created a website called The Cost of Knowledge and close to 11,000 scientists from around the world have signed it already, pledging to boycott Elsevier journals.

Cost, however, is only part of the issue. A more serious issue is the exclusive control enjoyed by publishers over how research gets distributed and shared. They demand that authors surrender copyright to the papers they publish and use it to throttle scholarly communication and hinder the progress of science. It is common sense that if we make scholarly information freely available it will reach a larger audience and help advance further research and lead to wider economic benefits.

The boycott had a salutary effect. Elsevier withdrew its lobbying for the rather absurd Research Works Act, which, if passed in the US Congress, would kill public access to federally funded research and reverse the mandate of the National Institutes of Health putting in one go all the 21 million freely available records in the PubMed library into a fee-to-see system.

Long before Gowers’s boycott of Elsevier and Harvard’s request to its faculty, there have been many stellar initiatives to usher in an era of open access to science and scholarship. For example, all seven research councils in the UK have mandated open access to research funded by them. So has the Wellcome Trust, the world’s largest private-sector funder of life science research. Apart from these funder mandates, there are many institutional mandates, including the ones at ICRISAT, Hyderabad, the National Institute of Oceanography, Goa, and the National Institute of Technology, Rourkela. All these developments have been meticulously chronicled by the philosophy professor, Peter Suber, in the US and the technology writer, Richard Poynder, in the UK.

Recently, the British government enlisted the cooperation of Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales to help make all taxpayer-funded academic research in Britain available online to anyone who wants to read or use it. Says David Willetts, minister for universities and science: “Giving people the right to roam freely over publicly funded research will usher in a new era of academic discovery and collaboration, and will put the UK at the very forefront of open research.”

In India, though, there appears to be very little enthusiasm among the leaders of the science establishment. Neither the office of the principal scientific adviser nor the department of science and technology seems to have shown any interest in mandating open access to taxpayer-funded research. The National Knowledge Commission has recommended mandating open access to all publicly funded research, but it is not clear who will implement the recommendation. Right now, it is left to individuals to promote open access in India.

The writer is with the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore

Read the original article in the Indian Express

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/cancel-the-subscription

2012 Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest: Call for Participation and Save the Date

praskrishna — 2012-05-02T05:05:57Z

The Second Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest will take place in FGV Law School, Rio De Janeiro, Brazil from December 15 to 17, 2012. The theme for this year’s Congress will be “Setting the positive agenda in motion.” We invite applications to attend the Congress, including proposals to chair workshops or deliver a paper or presentation related to the Congress’s theme.

Application and Cost

The application form is available online . Due to generous support from our sponsors, the Congress will cover the registration fees and all on-site costs for all attendees, including lunches and dinner receptions. Limited travel grants to cover accommodation and/or travel to the Congress will be available, with priorities for those from developing countries.

Deadlines

Priority applications for travel assistance and to present or chair a workshop at the Congress will be due by August 1, 2012.
Final applications for travel grants, subject to funding availability, as well as applications to present at the Congress, will be due by September 1, 2012.
Applicants not seeking travel assistance or presentation opportunities may apply to attend the Congress by November 1, 2012.

Background and Explanation of the Theme

The first Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest was convened in 2011 to define a positive agenda for policy reform, build a global network of scholars and advocates to promote the agenda and provide opportunities for the sharing of research and strategies. The nearly 200 inaugural participants from over 30 countries and 6 continents deliberated over three days through in-person meetings and web-based collaboration to produce the Washington Declaration on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest (http://infojustice.org/washington-declaration) -- an action agenda for promoting the public interest in intellectual property and information law reform around the world.

Sixteen months later, we come together to measure our progress and expand the positive agenda. To this end, we invite applications to attend the Congress and contribute to its deliberations identifying forums where policy is being developed, proposing policies or actions that promote public interest goals and principles, and identifying and planning to respond to research and analysis needs.

Presentation Opportunities

Because the primary purpose of the Congress is to promote deliberation and action planning, the opportunities for formal presentation will be somewhat limited. We will, however, have spaces for keynote presentations or panel discussions for each session (see below). In addition, as in the inaugural year, the Congress will host small works-in-progress workshops to allow participants to share their own work and solicit feedback from peers.

Draft Workshop Sessions

Six main tracks will include a half day workshop introduced by a lecture or panel discussion on one or more of the themes noted below. The keynote introduction will be followed by deliberation in which participants will, first, review progress and opportunity in existing or potential policy forums and, second, review the current state of research and identify policy and empirical research needs and resources. Tracks will also have opportunities to draft statements or action plans for adoption at the closing plenary of the Congress or for discussion and online after the Congress ends.

We encourage applicants to identify specific sessions in which they would like to contribute.

Regulating Intellectual Property: This session will survey recent developments and proposals to regulate uses of intellectual property through other legal doctrines that express and safeguard human values, including human rights, consumer protection, competition and privacy laws.

Valuing Openness and the Public Domain: This session will survey recent developments and proposals to ensure that creative and innovative works ultimately become free for all to use as part of the public domain, including through open licensing, open access, open educational resources, open data, open standards, open government, and related open information policies.

Strengthening Limitations and Exceptions as Enabling Tools for Innovation and Expression: This session will survey recent developments and proposals to use limitations and exceptions as positive enabling doctrines to ensure that intellectual property law fulfills its ultimate purpose of promoting essential aspects of the public interest.

Setting Public Interest Priorities for Patent and Research and Development Reform: This session will survey recent developments and proposals to ensure that patent and other research and development policies serve all segments of society, and particularly the most disadvantaged, and accommodate the diverse needs of a complex world with a more diverse structure of incentives for innovation.

Supporting Cultural Creativity: This session will survey recent developments and proposals to maximize opportunities for creativity while increasing access to creative works and helping to end disputes over practices like non-commercial file-sharing.

Checking Enforcement Excesses: This session will survey recent developments and proposals to ensure that intellectual property enforcement policies and practices respect the human rights principle of proportionality and are not used as a diversion from the difficult task of tailoring intellectual property norms to their social contexts.

Implementing Development Agendas: This session will survey recent developments and proposals to fully integrate the development dimension into intellectual property policy and norm-setting at all levels of international and national intellectual policy making. The session will have a special focus on developments in the BRICS group of emerging economies.

Targeted Research: Given the spectrum of issues described above, what are the key research needs? Given academic incentive structures, what kinds of research fall through the cracks? Given the funding crisis in this field, how can we meet research needs on the cheap? Given the international scope of many policy issues, how can we work collaboratively and comparatively? Given the Internet, how can we develop and leverage new software tools for data collection?

In addition to the above sessions, we invite presentations on other topics relevant to the positive agenda the Washington Declaration promotes, including:

the role of mobilisation and activism.
collaboration between ISPs and governments in enforcement
the ecology of access to educational materials
designing copyright from scratch
updates and lessons from specific forms, e.g. WIPO, national legislatures, trade negotiations, etc.

The application form is available here . Please forward this invitation to interested lists and individuals. For more information or questions, you may contact globalcongress2012@gmail.com.

Global Congress Planning Committee

Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade – CTS | FGV DIREITO RIO, 2012 Chair
American Assembly, Columbia University, New York
International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, Geneva
Centre for Internet and Society, India
Open African Innovation Research and Training (Open AIR) initiative
Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property, American University, Wash. D.C.

Click to read the original published in infojustice.org

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/global-congress-on-ip-call-for-participation

2012 Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest

praskrishna — 2012-05-02T05:04:57Z

We are pleased to announce the Second Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest. The theme for this year’s Congress will be “Setting the positive agenda in motion,” and will have a special focus on developments and opportunities in the so-called “BRICS” group of emerging economies. This note invites applications to attend the Congress, including proposals to chair workshops or deliver a paper or presentation related to the Congress’s theme.

Application and Cost Information

The application form is available now at http://infojustice.org/globalcongress2012/registration. Due to generous support from our sponsors, the Congress will cover the registration fees and all on-site costs for all attendees, including lunches and dinner receptions. Limited travel grants to cover accommodation and/or travel to the Congress will be available, with priorities for those from developing countries.

Deadline

Priority applications for travel assistance and to present or chair a workshop at the Congress will be due by August 1, 2012.
Final applications for travel grants, subject to funding availability, as well as applications to present at the Congress, will be due by September 1, 2012.
Applicants not seeking travel assistance or presentation opportunities may apply to attend the Congress by November 1, 2012.

Please forward this invitation to interested lists and individuals. For more information or questions, you may contact globalcongress2012@gmail.com

Global Congress Planning Committee

Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade – CTS | FGV DIREITO RIO, 2012 Chair
American Assembly, Columbia University, New York
International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, Geneva
Centre for Internet and Society, India
Open African Innovation Research and Training (Open AIR) initiative
Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property, American University, Wash. D.C.

Read the original published on infojustice.org

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/global-congress-on-ip

All India Privacy Symposium (File)

praskrishna — 2012-04-30T05:13:14Z

This is the file of the event organised in Delhi in February 2012.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/all-privacy-symposium.pdf

Intermediary Liability in India

praskrishna — 2013-11-16T14:55:00Z

The report was produced by Rishabh Dara as part of the Google Policy Fellowship programme initiated jointly by the Centre for Internet and Society and Google.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/intermediary-liability-in-india.pdf

The All India Privacy Symposium: Conference Report

natasha — 2012-04-30T05:16:41Z

Privacy India, the Centre for Internet and Society and Society in Action Group, with support from the International Development Research Centre, Privacy International and Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative had organised the All India Privacy Symposium at the India International Centre in New Delhi, on February 4, 2012. Natasha Vaz reports about the event.

The symposium was organized around five thematic panel discussions:
Panel 1: Privacy and Transparency
Panel 2: Privacy and E-Governance Initiatives
Panel 3: Privacy and National Security
Panel 4: Privacy and Banking
Panel 5: Privacy and Health

Introduction

Elonnai Hickok (Policy Advocate, Privacy India) introduced the objectives of Privacy India. The primary objectives were to raise national awareness about privacy, do an in-depth study of privacy in India and provide feedback on the proposed ‘Right to Privacy’ Bill. Privacy India has reviewed case laws, legislations, including the upcoming policy and conducted state-level privacy workshops and consultations across India in Kolkata, Bangalore, Ahmedabad, Guwahati, Chennai, and Mumbai. India like the rest of the world is answering some fundamental questions about the powers of the government and citizen’s rights and complications that arise from emerging technologies. Through our research we have come to understand that privacy varies across cultures and contexts, and there is no one concept of privacy but instead several distinct core notions that serve as complex duties, claims and obligations.

Privacy and Transparency

Panelists: Ponnurangam K, (Assistant Professor, IIIT New Delhi), ), Chitra Ahanthem (Journalist, Imphal), Nikhil Dey (Social & Political Activist), Deepak Maheshwari (Director, Corporate Affairs, Microsoft), Gus Hosein (Executive Director, Privacy International, UK), and Prashant Bhushan, (Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India).
Moderator: Sunil Abraham (Executive Director, Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore)
Poster: Srishti Goyal (Law Student, NUJS)

Srishti Goyal provided the general contours, privacy protections, limits to privacy and loopholes of policy relating to transparency and privacy, specifically analyzing the Right to Information Act, Public Interest Disclosures Act, and the Official Secrets Act.

Nikhil Dey commented on the interaction between the right to privacy and the right to information (RTI). He referred to Gopal Gandhi, the former Governor of West Bengal, “we must ensure that tools like the UID must help the citizen watch every move of government; not allow the government watch every move of the citizen.” Currently, the RTI and the UID stand on contrary sides of the information debate. A privacy law could allow for a backdoor to curb RTI. So, utmost care has to be taken while drafting legislation with respect to right to privacy.

Data and information has leaked furiously in India and it has leaked to the powerful. A person who is in a position of power can access private information irrespective of any laws in place to safeguard privacy. It is necessary to look at the power dynamics, which exists in the society before formulating legislation on right to privacy. According to Nikhil Dey, there should be different standards of privacy with respect to public servants. A citizen should be entitled to information related to funds, functions and functionaries. The main problem arises while defining the private space of a public servant or functionaries.

The RTI Act has failed to address the legal protection for the right to privacy. Perhaps, rules regarding privacy can be added to the Act. It can be defined by answering the questions: (i) what is ‘personal information’? (ii) what is it’s relation to public activity or public interest? (iii) what is the unwarranted invasion of the privacy of an individual? and (iv) what is the larger public good? Expanding on these four points can provide greater legal protection for the right to privacy.

Gus Hosein described the intersection and interaction of the right to information and the right to privacy. He referred to a petition filed by Privacy International requesting information on the expenses of members of parliament. Privacy and transparency of the government are compatible in the public interest. Gross abuse of the public funds by MPs was revealed by this particular petition such as pornography or cleaning of moats of MPs homes. Privacy advocates are supporters of RTI, however, it cannot be denied that there is no tension between transparency and privacy. In order chalk out the differences, there is a need of a legal framework. According to Gus Hosein, in many countries the government office that deals with right to information also deals with cases related to right to privacy.

Mumbai and New Delhi police have started using social media very aggressively, encouraging citizens to take photographs of traffic violations and upload them to Facebook or Twitter. In reference to this, Ponnurangam described the perceptions of privacy and if it agreed or conflicted with his research findings. Ponnurangam has empirically explored the awareness and perspective of privacy in India with respect to other countries. He conducted a privacy survey in Hyderabad, Chennai and Mumbai. People are very comfortable in posting pictures of others committing a traffic violation or running a red light. Ironically, many people have posted pictures of police officers committing a traffic violation such as not wearing a helmet or running a red light.

Chitra Ahanthem described the barriers and challenges of using RTI in Manipur. There are more than 40 armed militia groups, which are banned by the central and state government. The central government provides economic packages for the development of the north-east region. However, the state government officials and armed groups pocket the economic packages. These armed groups have imposed a ban on RTI. Furthermore, Manipur is a very small community. If people try and access information through RTI they risk getting threatened by the Panchayat members and being ostracized from the community or their clan.

People are apprehensive about filing RTI because they believe that these procedures are costly and the police and government may also get involved. Officials use the privacy plea to avoid giving out information. Since certain information are private and not in the public domain, government officials, use the defense of privacy to hide information. In addition, the police brutality prevalent in the area deters people to even have interactions with government officials.

According to Deepak Maheshwari, the open data initiative is a subset within the larger context of open information. There is an onus on the government to publish information, which is in the public domain. As a result, one does not necessarily have to go through the entire process of filing an RTI to get information, which is already there in the public domain. Moreover, if it is freely available in public domain, then one can anonymously access such information; this further strengthens the privacy aspects of requesting information and facilitating anonymity with respect to access to such information in the public domain. It has also to be noted that it is not sufficient to put data out in the public domain but it should also disclose the basis of the data for example, if there is representation of a data on a pie chart, the data which was used to arrive at the pie chart should also be available in the public domain. The main intention of releasing data to the public domain or having open data standards should not only be to provide access to such data but also should be in such a fashion so as to enable people to use the data for multiple purposes.

Prashant Bhushan noted that one of the grounds for withholding information in the RTI Act is privacy. An RTI officer can disclose personal information if he feels that larger public interest warrants the disclosure, even if it is personal information, which has no relationship to public activity or interest. This raises the important question, “what constitutes personal information?” He referred to the Radia Tapes controversy. Ratan Tata has filed a petition in the Supreme Court on the grounds that the Nira Radia tapes contained personal information and that the release of these tapes into the public domain violated his privacy. The Centre for Public Interest Litigation has filed a counter petition on the grounds that the nature of the conversations was not personal but in relation to public activity. They were between a lobbyist and bureaucrats, journalists and ministers. Prashant Bhushan stressed the importance of releasing these tapes into the public domain to show glimpses of all kinds of fixing, deal-making and show how the whole ruling establishment functions. It is absurd for Ratan Tata to claim that this is an invasion of privacy. Lastly, he felt when drafting a privacy law, clearly defining and distinguishing personal information and public is extremely important.

One of the interesting comments made during the panel was on the assumption that data is transparent. Transparency can be staged; questions have to be asked around whether the word is itself transparent.

Privacy and E-Governance Initiatives

Panelists: Anant Maringanti, (Independent Social Researcher), Usha Ramanathan, (Advocate & Social Activist), Gus Hosein, (Executive Director, Privacy International, UK), Apar Gupta, (Advocate, Supreme Court of India), and Elida Kristine Undrum Jacobsen (Doctoral Researcher, The Peace Research Institute Oslo).
Moderator: Sudhir Krishnaswamy (Centre for Law and Policy Research)
Poster: Adrija Das (Law Student, NUJS)

Adrija Das discussed the legal provision relating to identity projects and e-governance initiatives in India. The objective of any e-governance project is to increase efficiency and accessibility of public services. However, a major problem that arises is the linkage of the data results in the creation of a central database, accessible by every department of the government. Furthermore, implementing data protection and security standards are very expensive.

Sudhir Krishnaswamy highlighted the default assumptions surrounding e-governance initiatives: e-governance initiatives solve governance problems, increase efficiency, increase transparency and increase accountability. It is important to analyze the problems that arise from e-governance initiatives, such as privacy.

Usha Ramanathan described the increased number and vastness of e-governance initiatives such as UID, NPR, IT Rules and NATGRID. There are also many burdens on privacy that emanate from the introduction and existence of electronic data management systems. Electronic data management systems have allowed state to collect, store and use personal information of individual. Currently, the DNA Profiling Bill is pending before the Parliament. It is important to question the purpose and need for the government to collect such personal information. It is also to be noted that, there are certain laws such as Collection of Statistics Act, 2008 that penalize individuals if they do not comply with the information requests of the government.

Anant Maringanti discussed the limitations of data sharing that once existed. Currently, data can move across space in a very short time. He analyzed the state and market rationalities involved in e-governance initiatives, which raise the question “who can access data and at what price?”. Data may seem to be innocent or neutral, but data in the hands of wrong people becomes very crucial due to abuse and misuse. For example, Andhra Pradesh was praised as the model state for UID implementation. However, during the process of collecting data for UID a company bought personal information and sold the data to third parties.

Apar Gupta discussed the dilemmas of e-governance. Generally information in the form of an electronic record is presumed to be authentic. The data which government collects is most often inaccurate and wrong. So the digital identity of a person can be totally different from the real identity of that particular person. The process for correcting such information is also very inconvenient and sometimes impossible.
Under the evidence law any electronic evidence is presumed to be authentic and admissible as evidence. The Bombay High Court decided a case involving the authenticity of a telephone bill generated by a machine. The judgment said that since it is being generated by a machine, through and automated process, there is no need to challenge the authenticity of the document, it is presumed to true and authentic. The main danger in such case is that one does away with the process of law and attaches certain sanctity to the electronic record and evidence.

It should be also observed that how government maintains secrecy as to the ways in which it collects data. For example, the Election Commission has refused to disclose the functioning and design of electronic voting machines. The reason given for such secrecy is that if such information is put in the public domain then the electronic voting machines will be vulnerable and can be tampered with. But we, who use the voting machines, will never find out its vulnerabilities.

According to Gus Hosein, politicians generally have this wrong notion that technology can solve complex administrative problems. Furthermore, the industry is complicit; they indulge in anti-competitive market practice to sell these technologies as a solution to problems. However, such technology does not solve any problems rather it gives rise to problems.

Huge amount of government funds is associated with collection of personal data but such data is rendered useless or rather misused, because the government does not have clue as to how to use the data for development and security purposes. The UK National Health Records project estimated to cost around twelve to twenty billion pounds. However, a survey carried out by a professor in University College London showed that the hospital and other health institutions do not use the information collected by the National Health Records. Similarly, the UK Identity Card scheme was estimated to cost 1.3 billion pounds and finally it was estimated to cost five billion pounds. The identity cards are rendered obsolete, the sole department interested in the identity card was the Home Office Department, no other department intended on using it.

Technology should be built in such a manner that it empowers the individual. Technology should allow the individual to control his identity and as well as access all kinds of information available to the government and private bodies on that individual.

According to Elida Kristine Undrum Jacobsen, technology is regarded in this linear manner. It is increasingly being naturalized and as an all-encompassing solution. The use of biometric systems in the UID raises three areas of concern: power, value and social relationships.

With regards to power, there is a difference between providing documentation and information for identification. However, problems arise when the mode of identification becomes one’s body. It also leads to absolute reliance on technology, if the machine says that this is an individual’s identity then it is considered to be the absolute truth and it does not matter even if the individual is someone else. It becomes furthermore problematic with biometric system because it is generally used for forensic purposes.

The other component of UID or any national identification scheme is the question of consent and its relationship to privacy. In the case of UID project, people are totally unaware about how their information will be used and what purposes can it be used or misused for. Therefore, there is no informed consent when it comes to collection of biometric data under the UID project.

On the issue of social value it is to be noted that the value of efficiency becomes the most important value, which is valued. Many of the UIDAI documents state that the UID will provide a transactional identity. However, at the same time it takes away societal layers, which is inherently part of one’s identity. In addition, it makes it possible for the identity of a person to become a commodity to be sold. This also means that the personal information has economic value and players in the market such as insurance companies, banks can buy and sell the information.

When there is identification projects using biometrics it gives the State a lot of power; the power to determine and dictate one’s identity irrespective of the difference in real identity. Moreover, when such identifications projects are carried out at a national level it also gives rise to problem related to exclusion and inclusion of people or various purposes. The classification of the society based on various factors becomes easy and there is a huge risk involved with such classification.

The issues, which came out from the Q&A session, were:

The interplay between fairness and lawfulness in the context of privacy and data collection. There has to be a question asked as to why certain information is required by the State and how is it lawful.
In the neo-liberal era corporations are generally considered to be private. This has to be questioned and furthermore the difference between what is private and what is public. There are also concerns about corporations increasingly collaborating with the State. Can it be still considered as private?

Privacy and National Security

Panelists: PK Hormis Tharakan (Former Chief of Research and Analysis Wing, Government of India), Saikat Datta (Journalist), Menaka Guruswamy, (Advocate, Supreme Court, New Delhi), Prasanth Sugathan, (Legal Counsel, Software Freedom Law Center), and Oxblood Ruffin, (Cult of the Dead Cow Security and Publishing Collective).
Moderator: Danish Sheikh (Alternative Law Forum)
Poster: Suchitra Menon (Law Student, NUJS)

Suchitra Menon discussed the legal provisions for national security in relation to privacy. Specifically, she described the guidelines and procedural safeguards with respect to phone tapping and interception of communication decisional jurisprudence.

In the year 2000, the Information Technology Act (IT Act), 2000 was enacted, this Act had under section 69 allowed the State to monitor and intercept information through intermediaries. Prasanth Sugathan described how the government has been trying to bypass the procedural safeguard laid down by the Supreme Court in the PUCL case by using Section 28 of the IT Act, 2000. The provision deals with certifying authority for digital signatures. The certifying authority under the Act also has the authority to investigate offences under the Act. The provision mainly deals with digital signature but it is used by the government to intercept communication without implementing the procedural safeguards laid down for such interception. Furthermore, the IT Rules which was notified by the government in April, 2007 allows the government to intercept any communication with the help of the intermediaries. The 2008 amendment to the IT Act was an after effect of the 26/11 attacks in Mumbai. The legislation has become draconian since then and privacy has been sacrificed to meet the ends of national security.

Oxblood Ruffin read out his speech and the same is reproduced below.

“The online citizenry of any country is part of its national security infrastructure. And the extent to which individual privacy rights are protected will determine whether democracy continues to succeed, or inches towards tyranny. The challenge then is to balance the legitimate needs of the state to secure its sovereignty with protecting its most valuable asset: The citizen.

It has become trite to say that 9/11 changed everything. Yet it is as true for the West as it is for the global South. 9/11 kick started the downward spiral of individual privacy rights across the entire internet. It also ushered in a false dichotomy of choice, that in choosing between security and privacy, it was privacy that had adapted to the new realities, or so we’ve been told.

Let’s examine some of the fallacies of this argument.

The false equation which many argue is that we must give up privacy to ensure security. But no one argues the opposite. We needn’t balance the costs of surveillance over privacy, because rarely banning a security measure protects privacy. Rather, protecting privacy typically means that government surveillance must be subjected to judicial oversight and justification of the need to surveillance. In most cases privacy protection will not diminish the state’s effectiveness to secure itself.

The deference argument is that security advocates insist that the courts should defer to elected officials when evaluating security measures. But when the judiciary weighs privacy against surveillance, privacy almost always loses. Unless the security measures are explored for efficacy they will win every time, especially when the word terrorism is invoked. The courts must take on a more active role to balance the interests of the state and its citizens.

For the war time argument security proponents argue that the war on terror requires greater security and less privacy. But this argument is backwards. During times of crisis the temptation is to make unnecessary sacrifices in the name of security. In the United States, for example, we saw that Japanese-American internment and the McCarthy-era witch-hunt for communists was in vain. The greatest challenge for safeguarding privacy comes during times when we are least inclined to protect it. We must be willing to be coldly rational and not emotional during such times.

We are often told that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. This is the most pervasive argument the average person hears. But isn’t privacy a little like being naked? We might not be ashamed of our bodies but we don’t walk around naked. Being online isn’t so different. Our virtual selves should be as covered as our real selves. It’s a form of personal sovereignty. Being seen should require our consent, just as in the real world. The state has no business taking up the role of Peeping Tom.

I firmly believe that the state has a right and a duty to secure itself. And I equally believe that its citizens are entitled to those same rights. Citizens are part of the national security infrastructure. They conduct business; they share information; they are the benefactors of democratic values. Privacy rights are what, amongst others, separate us from the rule of tyrants. To protect them is to protect and preserve democracy. It is a fight worth dying for, as so many have done before us.

PK Hormis Tharakan discussed the importance of interception communication in intelligence gathering. In the western liberal democracies, restrictions of privacy were introduced for the anti-terrorism campaigns and these measures are far restrictive than what the Indian legislations contemplate. Preventive intelligence is a major component in maintenance of national security and this intelligence is generated and can be procured through interception.

We do need laws to make sure that the power of interception is not excessive or out of proportion. But the graver issue is that the equipment used for interception of communication is freely available in the market at a cheap price. This allows private citizens also to snoop into others conversation. So, interception by civilians should be the main concern.

Menaka Guruswamy discussed the lack of regulation of Indian intelligence agencies that creates burdens on privacy. When there is a conflict between individual privacy and national security, the court will always rule in favour of the national security. Public interest always takes precedence over individual interest.

When there is a claim right to privacy vis-à-vis national security, generally these claims are characterized by dissent, chilling effects on freedom of expression and government accountability. In India, privacy is fragile and relatively a less justifiable right. Another challenge to privacy is that, when communication is intercepted, which part of the conversation can be considered to be private and which part cannot be considered so.

Saikat Datta described his experience of being under illegal surveillance by an unauthorized intelligence agency. When a person is under surveillance, he or she is already considered to be suspect. If the State commits any mistake as to surveillance, carrying surveillance, who is not at all a person of interest in such case upon discovery, there is no penalty for such discrepancy.
He warned of the dangers of excessive wiretapping, a practice that currently generates such a “mountain” of information that anything with real intelligence value tends to be ignored until it is too late, as happened with the Mumbai bombings in 2008. It is clear that the Indian government’s surveillance and interception programmes far exceed what is necessary for legitimate law enforcement.

The issues, which came during the Q&A session was:

In case of national security vis-à-vis privacy in heavily militarized zone, legislations such as Armed Forces Special Powers Act actually give authority to the army to search and seizure on mere suspicion? This amounts gross violation of privacy.

Privacy and Banking

Panelists: M R Umarji, (Chief Legal Advisor, Indian Banks Associations), N A Vijayashankar, (Cyber Law Expert), Malavika Jayaram, (Advocate, Bangalore)
Moderator: Prashant Iyengar (Associate Professor, Jindal Law University)
Poster: Malavika Chandu (Law Student, NUJS)

Prashant Iyengar highlighted how privacy has been a central feature in banking and finance. Even before the notion of privacy came into existence, banks had developed an evolved notion of secrecy and confidentiality, which was fairly robust. Every legislation dealing with banking and finance generally have a clause related to privacy and confidentiality. It might seem that it would be easy to implement privacy in banking and finance given the long relationship between banking and secrecy and confidentiality. However, this is not the case in the contemporary times. Specifically, with the growth in issues related to national security, transparency and technology, the highly regarded notion of privacy seems to be slowly depleting.

Malavika Chandu described the data protection standards that govern the banking industry. As part of the know-you-customer guidelines, banks are required to provide the Reserve Bank with customer profiles and other identification information. Lastly, she described case laws in relation to privacy with respect to financial records.

N A Vijayashankar noted that the confidentiality and secrecy practices in the banking sector emanate from the banker-customer relationship. In the present context, secrecy and privacy maintained by the banks should be analyzed from the perspective of the right of the customer to safeguard his or her information from any third party. Generally, banks and other financial institutions protect personal information as a fraud control measure and not as duty to protect the privacy of a customer.

There has been a paradigm shift in banking practices from traditional banking practices to more efficient but less secure banking practice. Some of the terms and conditions of internet banking are illegal and do not stand the test of law. In contemporary times, banking institutions use confidentiality to cover up problems and data breach rather than protecting the customer. But the banks are not ready to disclose data breach as it apprehends that it will result in public losing faith in the system. The Reserve Bank of India, has recently notified that protection which is provided to the customers in banking services should also be extended to e-banking services. However, the banks have not properly implemented this.

M R Umarji highlighted fourteen laws related to banking which carries confidentiality clauses. In India, public sector banks dominate the market. These banks are created under a statute and such statute governs them. Therefore, they are duty bound to maintain secrecy and confidentiality. Private banks and cooperative banks are not bound by any statute. They do not have any obligations to maintain secrecy, but they do strictly observe confidentiality as a form of banking practice.

Banks are not allowed to reveal any personal information of an individual unless it is sought by some authority that has a legitimate right to claim such information. There has been a constant erosion of confidentiality due to various laws which empowers authorities to seek confidential information from the banks. Recently, in the light of the growing national security concerns, banks also have an obligation to report suspicious transactions. These have caused heavy burdens on right to privacy of an individual.

Under the Right to Information Act, 2005 public sector banks are considered to be public authorities. By the virtue of the Statute, any person can access information from banks. For example, in a recent case an information officer directed Reserve Bank of India, to disclose Inspection Reports. These reports generally contain information regarding doubtful accounts, non-performing account, etc. There is a need that banks should be exempted from the Right to Information Act, 2005. Since they are not dealing with public funds there is no need to apply transparency law to the banks.

Malavika Jayaram described the major conflicts and tensions with respect to privacy vis-à-vis banking and financial systems and financial data. Other privacy and transparency issues include: the publication of online tax information and income data.

Surveillance is built in the design of banking system, so it is capable of tracking personal information and activity. There is a need to implement more privacy friendly and privacy by design systems in the banking sector. Customers are generally ignorant about privacy policies and this influences informed consent and furthermore marketing institution may influence customers to behave in a particular manner. In this context privacy by design becomes very important.

Data minimization principles should be applied; since the more data collected the more there is a risk of data breach and misuse. In case of data retention it is necessary that person giving such data should know how much proportion of the data is being retained and for how long it is stored and also what is the scope of the data and for what purpose will it be used.

Personal information and data, which was previously collected by the government, are gradually being outsourced to private bodies. On one hand it is a good thing that private sector get their technology and security measures right as compared to the government agencies but it comes with the risk that it can be sold out by private bodies as commodities in the market. Private bodies that are harvesting the data can also be forced by the government to disclose it under a particular law or statute without taking into consideration the consent of the individual whose personal information is sought for.

There is multiplicity of documentation for identification, which makes transactions less efficient. This has attracted customers to more convenient systems such as one-access point systems, but people tend to forget the issues related to privacy, in using such a system. What is portrayed as efficient for the consumer is a tool for social control and who has access and authority to use such information.

Often the reason given for collecting information is that it will help the service provider to combat fraud. However, studies have shown people more often fake situation rather than identity. The other concerns are that of sharing of information and lack of choice with respect to such sharing. There should be check as to sharing of personal information as the data belongs to the individual and not the bank or any other institution which requires furnishing personal information in lieu of services. This gives rise to a binary choice to the user; either the individual has to provide information to avail the service or else one cannot avail the services.

There is supposed to be market for privacy. The notion of personal information is subjective and varies from person to person. For example, one might be comfortable to share certain information. However, others might not be.

The issues that came out of the Q&A sessions are:

The default settings are generally put at the low protection settings. Unless the user is aware of the privacy protection setting, he or she is prone to breach of privacy. Should the default privacy setting be set to maximum security and option can be given to the user to change it according to his or her preference?
Is there any system in the banks, which allows the customers of bank to know about which all third parties the bank has shared his or her personal information with?

Health Privacy

Panelists: K. K. Abraham, (President, Indian Network for People with HIV), Dr. B. S. Bedi, (Advisor, CDAC & Media Lab Asia), and Raman Chawla, (Senior Advocacy Officer, Lawyers Collective).
Moderator: Ashok Row Kavi (Journalist and LGBT Activist)
Poster: Danish Sheikh (Researcher, Alternative Law Forum)

Danish Sheikh outlined the possible health privacy violations. These included the disclosure of personal health information to third parties without consent, inadequate notification to a patient of a data breach, the purpose of collecting data is not specified and improper security standards, storage and disposal. The disclosure of personal health information has the potential to be embarrassing, stigmatizing or discriminatory.

Subsequently, Danish Sheikh examined the status of sexual minorities’ vis-à-vis the privacy framework. Culling out some real life examples based on various studies, media reports and judgments from the Supreme Court and the High Courts of Delhi and Allahabad, he also described privacy violations committed by both individuals as well as state authorities.

Ashok Row Kavi recounted how privacy was very contextual when debating section 377 in the LGBT community. The paradigm upon which they were going to fight the anti-sodomy law was that it was consenting sex between two adults in private space. However, this paradigm was not well received by women, as women did not see private space as safe space, due to domestic violence. Perceptions of privacy are very subjective and it differs from person to person.

Raman Chawla recounted the history of the Draft HIV/AIDS Bill. In 2002, the need for law related to HIV/AIDS was realized in order to protect right to consent, right against discrimination and right to confidentiality of HIV patients. The bill was finalized in the year 2006. Alarmingly, it is yet to be tabled before the Parliament.

The privacy provisions in the HIV bill clearly state that no person can be tested, treated or researched for HIV without the consent of the patient. It also casts that in a fiduciary relationship the health care provider must maintain confidentiality, however if the patient provides written consent then their status may be disclosed. The HIV condition of the patient can also revealed by the doctor if there is a court order demanding such disclosure. The doctor may disclose the status of the patient to his or her partner but he has to follow a particular protocol. The doctor should have sufficient belief that his or her partner is at risk of contracting HIV. The person who is infected will be asked for his/her views and counseled before his/her partner is informed. However, there are doubts as to the implementation and enforcement of this protocol.

Conclusion

Natasha Vaz (Policy Advocate, Privacy India) brought the symposium to a close by thanking the partners, the panelists, the moderators and the participants for their sincere efforts in making the All India Privacy Symposium a grand success. In India, a public discussion regarding privacy has been long over due. The symposium provided a platform for dialogue and building greater awareness around privacy issues in health, banking, national security, transparency and e-governance. Using our research, expert opinions, personal experiences, questions and comments various facets of privacy were explored.

Press Coverage

The event was featured in the media as well:

India needs an independent privacy law, says NGO Privacy India, Economic Times, February 2, 2012
New Bill to decide on individual’s right to privacy, Tehelka, February 6, 2012
Lack of strong privacy law in healthcare a big worry, Daily News & Analysis, February 13, 2012
Privacy concerns grow in India, Washington Post, February 3, 2012

Click to download the Agenda and Profile of Speakers (PDF, 1642 Kb)

Download the PDF (555 Kb)
Follow the webcast of the event

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/all-india-privacy-delhi-report

Bangalore Meet-up for the Open Government Partnership Brasilia

praskrishna — 2012-04-12T13:18:28Z

The international Open Government Partnership (OGP) is holding its first annual meeting on April 17 and 18, 2012. Representatives from over 50 member countries will gather in Brasilia to celebrate the progress that has been made to date, to exchange best practices, and to grow and strengthen the global collaborative network of open government leaders. Bangalore meet-up at CIS on April 17, 2012 from 5.30 p.m to 7.30 p.m.

Those who work on open government initiatives but unable to attend in person, can still participate remotely. OGP has tied-up with a number of external partners to make arrangements for people to participate in the event online. There will be live webcasts, interviews and chats. Viewers will be able to pose questions to those being interviewed and will be polled in real-time to see who is watching, where they are, what their interests are and what are their thoughts on the programme.

The two day meeting offers an opportunity for open government advocates throughout the world to connect with local civic activists and public officials as well as those working on similar problems in other countries.

The Centre for Internet & Society is hosting the Bangalore meet-up on April 17 and 18, 2012. Get together to watch the live video stream, engage in conversations via live chat, or on Twitter and Facebook for discussing plans to move open government forward in your region.

Click for the full list of countries participating in the event.

8:30-9:30 am Registration & Coffee

9:15-9:30 am Official photo of OGP Member Government Heads of Delegation and Steering Committee Members

9:30-10:15 am Opening Remarks and Welcome

The Honorable Dilma Rousseff, President of the Federative Republic of Brazil
The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State of the United States of America
The Honorable Jakaya Kikwete, President of the United Republic of Tanzania
The Honorable Nika Gilauri, Prime Minister of Georgia

10:15-10:45 am Setting the Stage for the Age of Open: OGP 2012

Minister Jorge Hage, Brazil
Under Secretary of State María Otero, United States
Warren Krafchik, International Budget Partnership

10:45-11:15 am Coffee and Networking

11:15-12:30pm Plenary: Using Transparency to Transform Lives Online and Offline

Secretary of the Interior Kenneth Salazar, United States
Gautam John, Akshara Foundation and TED Fellow, India
Elisabeth Ungar Bleier, Transparency International, Colombia
Juliana Rotich, Co-Founder of Ushahidi, Kenya

Moderated by Samantha Power, The White House, United States

12:30-1:30 pm Innovation Village of Regional Government, Private Sector, and Civil Society organizations advancing Open Government

1:30-2:45 pm Lunch and Networking.

Lunch will be provided onsite at the conference center.

2:45-5:30 pm Open Government on the Move: The OGP Country Action Plans in Two Parts

In Part I and Part II of regional breakout sessions, government ministers and leading civil society activists will discuss country action plans and how to promote a race to the top on open government in each region. Highlights from each panel will be transcribed. Moderators will encourage discussion with the audience following comments from panelists. Governments not presenting in Part I will present in Part II of the regional sessions, from 4:30 to 5:45pm. Participants presenting in Part II are encouraged to attend the session of their choice during Part I and vice versa.

2:45-4:00pm Country Action Plans PART I

South America, I

Government of Chile
Government of Colombia
Government of Uruguay
Government of Brazil
Maria Ferrari Fontecilla, Participa, Chile
Edison Lanza, CAInfo, Uruguay

Moderated by Juan Pardinas, IMCO, Mexico

Central America and Caribbean

Government of Honduras
Government of Guatemala
Government of El Salvador
Government of Dominican Republic
Jose Ricardo Barrientos Quezada, ICEFI, Guatemala
Carlos Hernandez, Asociación para una Sociedad más Justa, Honduras

Moderated by Vonda Brown, Open Society Foundation, United States

Africa, I

Government of Liberia
Government of Ghana
Government of South Africa
Alison Tilley, Open Democracy Advice Center, South Africa
Vitus Azeem, Ghana Integrity Initiative, Ghana

Moderated by Rakesh Rajani, Twaweza, Tanzania

Asia

Government of Mongolia
Government of the Republic of Korea
Government of Indonesia
Government of Philippines
Dorjdari Namkhaijantsan, Open Society Foundation, Mongolia
Vincent Lazatin, Transparency and Accountability Network, Philippines

Moderated by Suneeta Kaimal, Revenue Watch Institute

Central Europe

Government of Romania
Government of Bulgaria
Government of the Slovak Republic
Government of Czech Republic
Gergana Jouleva, Access to Information Program Foundation, Bulgaria
Andra Teodora, Fundatia Soros Romania

Moderated by Martin Tisne, Omidyar Network, United Kingdom

Western Europe, I

Government of Norway
Government of Sweden
Government of Denmark
CSO Representative TBD
CSO Representative TBD

Moderated by Tim Kelsey, Cabinet Office, United Kingdom

Southern Europe, I

Government of Albania
Government of Montenegro
Government of Croatia
Government of Macedonia
Katarina Ott, Institute of Public Finance, Croatia
Vuk Maras, MANS, Montenegro

Moderated by Warren Krafchik, International Budget Partnership

Baltics

Government of Latvia
Government of Lithuania
Government of Estonia
Rura Mrazauskaite, Transparency International, Lithuania
Linda Austere, Center for Public Policy, Latvia

Moderated by Liia Hanni, E-Governance Academy, Estonia

4:00-4:30 pm Coffee and Networking

4:30-5:45 pm Country action plans PART II

South America, II

Government of Peru
Government of Paraguay
Government of Mexico
Miguel Pulido, Fundar, Mexico
Samuel Rotta, Proetica, Peru

Moderator TBD

North America

Government of Canada
Government of the United States
Patrice McDermott, Openthegovernment.org Coalition, United States
Toby Mendel, Center on Law and Democracy, Canada

Moderated by Tara Hidayat, Government of Indonesia

Africa, II

Government of Tanzania
Government of Kenya
John Ulanga, The Foundation for Civil Society, Tanzania
George Kegoro, International Commission of Jurists, Kenya

Moderated by Zohra Dawood, Open Society Foundation South Africa

Middle East

Government of Israel
Government of Jordan
Professor Tamar Hermann, Israeli Democracy Institute, Israel
CSO representative TBD

Moderated by Anthony Richter, Transparency and Accountability Initiative

Northeastern Europe

Government of Ukraine
Government of Moldova
Serghei Ostaf, National NGO Council, Moldova
Khmara Oleksii, Civic Partnership for Supporting OGP in Ukraine

Moderated by Tom Blanton, National Security Archive, United States

Western Europe, II

Government of the United Kingdom
Government of the Netherlands
Government of Spain
Government of Italy
Rufus Pollock, Open Knowledge Foundation, United Kingdom
Marjan Besuijen, Hivos, Netherlands

Moderated by Alan Hudson, ONE Campaign

Southern Europe, II

Government of Greece
Government of Malta
Government of Turkey
CSO representative TBD
CSO representative TBD

Moderated by Håkon Arald Gulbrandsen, Government of Norway

South Caucasus

Government of Armenia
Government of Georgia
Government of Azerbaijan
Eka Gigauri, Transparency International Georgia
Galib Abbaszade, National Budget Group, Azerbaijan
Liana Doydoyan, FOI Centre, Armenia

Moderated by Jonas Moberg, Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, Norway

5:45-6:30 pm First Day Closing Remarks

7:00-9:30 pm Celebrating Open Government: A Reception hosted by the Government of Brazil and Omidyar Network.

The reception is onsite at the Convention Center.

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

9:00-10:00 am OPENING Plenary: Responsibility and Challenges that Come with Openness

Walid al-Saqaf, YemenPortal.net & Alkasir, Yemen
Minister Francis Maude, United Kingdom
Secretary of State Ben Abbes, Tunisia
Fernando Rodrigues, Folha de São Paulo, Brazil

Moderated by Alex Howard, O’Reilly Media, United States

10:00-10:30 am Coffee and Networking

10:30-12:30 pm Thematic Breakout Sessions: Paths to Openness

Participants choose one of five breakout sessions to attend in the morning block of thematic discussions. Follow Sessions 1 or 2 in the morning and afternoon blocks for in-depth discussions on one topic, explored from three perspectives: government, civil society, and the private sector.

Access to Information: Government Perspectives

Vania Vieira, CGU, Government of Brazil
Dr. Ali M. Abbasov, Minister of Communications and Information Technologies, Government of Azerbaijan
Government of Liberia
Pierre Boucher, Deputy Chief Information Officer, Government of Canada

Moderated by Laura Neuman, The Carter Center, United States

Lessons Learned in Service Delivery: Government Perspectives

Minister Mathias Chikawe, Government of Tanzania
Ms. Marie Munk, Deputy Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Economy and the Interior, Government of Denmark
Government of Estonia (invited)
Permanent Secretary Dr. Bitange Ndemo, Government of Kenya

Moderated by Mark Robinson, DFID/Transparency and Accountability Initiative, UK

Networking Mechanism Affinity Group: Open Data Portals

Steve Davenport, AidDATA, United States
Tim Kelsey, Director of Transparency & Open Data, Cabinet Office, United Kingdom
Marko Rakar, Windmill, Croatia
Eric Gunderson, Development Seed, United States

Moderated by Abhinav Bahl, Global Integrity/OGP Networking Mechanism

Networking Mechanism Affinity Group: Public Finance Management and Fiscal Transparency

Iara Pietricovsky, INESC, Brazil
Secretary Butch Abad, Government of Philippines
Dr. Brian Wrampler, Boise State University, United States

Moderated by Nicole Anand, Global Integrity/OGPNetworking Mechanism

Advancing Open Government through Knowledge Exchange

Roberto Perez, IACC, Latin America, invited
Ms. Stela Mocan, Director e- Government Center, Government of Moldova
Miguel Pulido, Fundar, Mexico
Prayoga Wiradisuria, President's Delivery Unit, Government of Indonesia
Eric Braverman, McKinsey, United States

Moderated by Han Fraeters, World Bank Institute

12:30-2:00 pm Lunch and Networking.

Lunch will be provided onsite at the conference center.

2:00-4:00 pm Thematic Breakout Sessions: More Paths to Openness

Participants choose one of five breakout sessions to attend in the afternoon block of thematic discussions.

Access to Information: Civil Society and Private Sector Perspectives

Panel I: Civil Society Perspectives

Karin Lissakers, Revenue Watch Institute
Alison Tilley, Open Democracy Advice Center, South Africa
Ivan Pavlov, Freedom of Information Foundation, Russia
Karina Banfi, Alianza Regional Por La Libre Expresion e Informacion, Latin America

Moderated by Helen Darbishire, AccessInfo Europe, Spain

Panel II: Private Sector Perspectives

Alexandre Gomes, SEA Technologia, Brazil
Chris Taggart, Open Corporates, United Kingdom
Jose Francisco Compagno, Ernst and Young
Ginny Hunt, Google, United States

Moderated by Rufus Pollock, Open Knowledge Foundation, United Kingdom

Lessons Learned in Service Delivery: Civil Society and Private Sector Perspectives

Part I: Civil Society Perspectives

Jose Ricardo Barrientos Quezada, ICEFI, Guatemala
Felipe Heusser, Ciudadano Inteligente, Chile
Nikhil Dey, MKSS, India
Harvey Lowe, Canadian Council on Social Development, Canada

Moderated by Rakesh Rajani, Twaweza, Tanzania

Part II: Private Sector Perspectives

Philip Ashlock, OpenPlans/Open311, United States
Jorge Soto, Citivox, Mexico
Tom Steinberg, MySociety, United Kingdom, invited
Michael Gurstein, Center for Community Informatics Research, Development and Training, Canada

Moderated by Rakesh Rajani, Twaweza, Tanzania

Open Government and Legislatures

Part I: Legislative Perspectives

Representative Paulo Pimenta, Brazil
Denis Russo,Votenaweb, Brazil
Laura Alonso, Legislature of City of Buenos Aires, Argentina
Cristiano Ferri Soares de Faria, e-Democracy Program Director, Brazilian House of Representatives, Brazil

Moderated by Gherardo Casini, Head of Global Center for ICT in Parliaments, United Nations

Part II: Civil Society Perspectives

Andrew Mandelbaum, National Democratic Institute, United States
John Wonderlich, Sunlight Foundation, United States
Danardono Siradjudin, Indonesian Parliamentary Center, Indonesia
Melissa Ortiz Masso, Latin American Network on Legislative Transparency, Latin America

Moderated by Tiago Peixoto, World Bank Open Government Specialist

Measuring for Impact: How to build the case for Open Government

Rolf Alter, OECD, France
Nikos Passas, Northeastern University, United States/Greece
Jorge Garcia-Gonzalez, Director of Technical Secretariat of MESICIC, Organization of American States, Latin America
Harlan Yu, Princeton University, United States

Moderated by Martin Tisne, Omidyar Network, United Kingdom

Learning from Country Consultations to Date: New Strategies for Public Engagement

Samuel Rotta, Proetica, Peru
Chris Vein, The White House, United States
Khmara Oleksii, Civic Partnership for Supporting OGP in Ukraine
Government of Philippines, invited

Moderated by Warren Krafchik, International Budget Partnership, United States

4:00-4:30 pm Coffee and Networking

4:30-5:00 pm Report from Working Group on Meeting Outcomes

5:00-6:00 pm OGP at Home: Closing Remarks with OGP Leadership

Vice-Minister Luiz Navarro, Brazil
Samantha Power, White House, United States
Warren Krafchik, International Budget Partnership
Tim Kelsey, Director of Transparency and Open Data, Cabinet Office United Kingdom

Note: Brazil's local time is approximately eight and half hours behind us. The welcome address on April 17th starts at 9:30 A.M (B.R.T) which is approximately 5:00 P.M (I.S.T).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/open-government-partnership-brasilia-bangalore-meetup

Resisting Internet Censorship: Strategies for Furthering Freedom of Expression in India

praskrishna — 2012-06-21T05:29:02Z

The Centre for Internet and Society and the Foundation for Media Professionals invite you to an open discussion on 'Resisting Internet Censorship: Strategies for Furthering Freedom of Expression in India' at the Bangalore International Centre on April 21, 2012, from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. The discussion will be moderated by Paranjoy Guha Thakurta.

Participants include:

P. Rajeeve, Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha, CPI(M))
Rajeev Chandrashekar, Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha, Independent) [tbc]
V.R. Sudarshan, Member of Legislative Council, Karnataka (Congress)
Na. Vijayshankar, Cyber Law College
Mahesh Murthy, Pinstorm
B.G. Mahesh, OneIndia.in
Sudhir Krishnaswamy, Centre for Law and Policy Research
Siddharth Narain, Alternative Law Forum
Ram Bhat, Maraa
S. Senthil, FSMK [tbc]
Deepa Dhanraj [tbc]
Arati Chokshi, People's Union for Civil Liberties (Karnataka) [tbc]

Immediate Background:

Member of Parliament P. Rajeeve has introduced a motion in the Rajya Sabha calling for the Internet censorship law passed last year ("Intermediary Guidelines Rules") to be annulled. This motion will be taken up once the Budget Session 2012 reconvenes, and will need the support of the majority of both Houses to be passed. Apart from this, we have seen multiple cases in the past few months of flagrant abuse of the speech laws, especially the Information Technology Act, including the removal of CartoonsAgainstCorruption.com, the arrest of M. Karthik, a 20-year-old atheist from Hyderabad, and of Prof. Ambikesh Mahapatra from Kolkata for 'defamatory' cartoons of Mamata Banerjee, both under s.66A of the Information Technology Act. We need to develop strategies to combat this over-eagerness by authorities to abuse speech laws.

More Detailed Background:

Internet censorship has been in India ever since VSNL brought internet connectivity to Indians in the mid-1990s, when websites were blocked through executive fiat. In 2000 the Information Technology Act was passed, and while it had a provision on electronic publication of obscene materials, it did not contain any provisions for blocking of websites. Still, Rules were made under the Act under which the government blocked numerous websites.

In 2008 the Act was amended, bringing more transparency to the censorship regime. Unfortunately, cases like the CartoonsAgainstCorruption.com and the disparity between censorship statistics published by Google and the official statistics revealed under RTI by the Department of Information Technology show a large amount of extra-legal censorship happening.

In February 2011, the DIT published draft rules that were severely criticised by many MPs, including Rajeev Chandrashekar, P. Rajeeve, Mahendra Mohan, and Kumar Deepak Das, organizations including CIS, Software Freedom Law Centre, IAMAI, and companies like Google India. Many MPs, including Rajeev Chandrashekar and P. Rajeeve, raised concerns about the draft. In April 2011 disregarding all these concerns, the government pressed ahead with the Rules. These rules allowed any person to get content removed from the Internet by writing to any 'intermediary' (like Rediff, BSNL, Google, Facebook, etc.) within 36 hours, with no questions asked, and no intimation to the content owner (hence no question of challenge), and once again made internet censorship as unaccountable as it was pre-2008, only with the power to censor in the hands of every citizen, rather than just a few government officials.

In May 2011, due to the backlash in the media, with negative editorials in prominent newspapers, Mr. Kapil Sibal indicated in an interview that the rules would be revisited. From August 2011 onwards there was a crackdown on several web companies, including Indiatimes, Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, and Facebook, with the government asking them to proactively monitor online content and remove what it deemed objectionable material. Since then, a number of egregious cases of censorship through filing of intimidatory FIRs and lawsuits have been happening.

The Organisers

The Foundation for Media Professionals is an independent, not-for-profit organisation, set up in April 2008, by a group of Indian journalists with diverse media backgrounds and work experiences. Though we are traditionally referred to as journalists, we have decided to call ourselves differently to emphasise the importance we place on professionalism, so that we can be true to our vocation as watchdogs of society.

This is not a forum for the media executive who might be into marketing, management or space selling. Nor is membership open to amateurs, for whom journalism is a hobby and not the main source of income. As journalists we cannot be politically neutral. Ours is not a sterile craft that seeks merely to entertain or inform. We confess to just one prejudice: liberty. In pursuing that principle, the Foundation shall be non-partisan, while welcoming members of all political persuasions.

Our intention is to strive towards the nobility of our calling and its high-minded purpose. We will try to inculcate and amplify best practices. We will debate issues impinging on our profession. We shall recognise and reward excellence.

The Centre for Internet and Society was registered as a society in Bangalore in 2008. As an independent, non-profit research organisation, it runs different research programmes on topics such as Accessibility, Access to Knowledge, Openness, Internet Governance, Telecom, Digital Natives and Digital Humanities.

The programmes have resulted in research outputs: monographs such as Re: Wiring Bodies, Porn: Law, Video, Technology, Internet, Society and Space in Indian Cities, Archives and Access and the Last Cultural Mile; reports such as Digital Natives with a Cause? A Report, Digital Natives with a Cause? Thinkathon: Position Papers, Open Government Data Study, and Online Video Environment in India ; analyses such as WIPO Treaty for the Print Disabled, WIPO Broadcast Treaty, and Copyright Amendment Bill ; books such as Digital AlterNatives with a Cause? and e-Accessibility Handbook for Persons with Disabilities; a reader on the Wikipedia titled Critical Point of View; other outputs such as Banking, Telecommunications, Consumer Protection, IT Act, Limitations, Copyright, Internet Protocol, Media, Sexual Minorities and UID.

We have participated in forums like WIPO, FICCI, IGF, and gave policy submissions to various ministries and departments of the Government of India including the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Department of Information Technology, and Department of Telecom on policies like NIA Bill, IT Act, National Policy on Electronics, Cyber Café Rules, Security Practices Rules, Intermediary Due Diligence Rules, and Interoperability Framework for e-Governance.

VIDEOS

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resisting-internet-censorship

Sharing in the time of Facebook, or Why I’m not a Pirate

nishant — 2012-04-10T10:38:27Z

It is now over a month that my favourite network has been dead. Library.nu the rare space for sharing of academic resources to a free and open community has succumbed to the pressures of publishing industry stalwarts who, in their quest for promoting the knowledge industry, are killing sources through which knowledge survives.

Nishant Shah's article was published in FirstPost on April 9, 2012.

True, Library.nu, that Mecca for those of us who live in countries where public libraries are not well stocked and resources for procurement of books are low, was essentially a file sharing network. It allowed people to offer digital copies of books in their possession to be shared around the world for no commercial gain.

For scholars and learners around the world, this was the place to find books which would otherwise be unavailable in their local contexts without expending a lot of time and effort. And now it is closed with an R.I.P. sign on their website which once offered such promises of joy.

This shutting down of Library.nu is not new or unexpected. Large scale global networks of sharing information online have been persecuted ever since the emergence of the WWW. From the historic battles that Napster had to fight to allow users to share music which was under copyright to large companies, to the persistent wars that ThePirateBay resolutely fights, networks which counter the logic of the libertarian web dream have always come under huge pressures to shut down.

This is a part of a much larger debate around intellectual property rights and infringement within the digital world that we live in, and voices on both the sides are always going to be strident in their discussions of free and open knowledge. However, what I want to talk about is how these acts of sharing, which are being condemned as acts of ‘stealing’ or ‘piracy’ are actually endemic conditions of building digital networks.

The network is not merely a combination of elements. While the infrastructure and logistics of a network are crucial to its sustenance, the mere assemblage of these objects does not make a network.

It is now known that the networks that we occupy are alive and need different investments of human and non-human efforts and energies to sustain them. Or in other words, just putting together of servers and platforms is not what Facebook is about. Or what is the most important thing on Pinterest is actually what you do with it.

Similarly, just getting people on to the networks is not enough – Remember Diaspora? You don’t? That’s the point. It is highly possible to have failed networks that have all requisite infrastructures and a wide corpus of people who are a part of it. What really sustains a network is the ability of the members to act within them. Networks are not only places to occupy but also sites where people can perform different activities.

And it should come as a surprise to nobody that within the digital networks, the primary activity that people perform, is sharing. We share information about our lives, relationships, likes, political causes, and cultural objects that we are fond of. We share data about things that intrigue us, things we are concerned about, things that we need to know about. We share content including books that we like, videos that amuse us, and music that we need to connect through. All these social networks of sharing and collaboration form the basis of innovation and radical change, shaping our futures.

And yet, these corporate networks which also allow for sharing are never looked at as piracy. Once in a while, a video on YouTube gets revoked because it has a sound track that might be owned by a big Music Industry. There might be an instance where Orkut or Google Plus might take down content which might be objectionable. Facebook alleges that it has bots which check for possible pirated content. But all in all, because these networks are so obviously tied in to both the circulation and production of capital and filling the coffers of wealthy corporate houses, remain unaffected by charges of piracy.

However, smaller independent networks – networks that are established to realise the true potentials of openness, sharing and collaboration – and do not necessarily run up big balances for private sectors, immediately get vilified as vice houses of piracy. The introduction of piracy as the demon to fight on the Internet has provoked many false advertisements that equate it to stealing a car, or robbing a bank.

In this, they try to obscure the fact that piracy – sharing of material – is a community activity. It subscribes to the logical flows of information and opens it to new audiences, interpretations and dialogues continually. What is often pathologised as piracy, is the basis of new and innovative knowledge practices, granting access to knowledge for constituencies and demographies which have been excluded from knowledge practice in the past.

What piracy threatens is not knowledge but the industries that seek to make their wealth out of knowledge economies. And to protect the interests of these limited few, independent file-sharing networks get targeted as promoting piracy whereas activities within corporate social networks are tolerated as benign.

Piracy, when it affects small scale producers or independent artists does need to be thought about. But at stake in those events is the larger conditions of commoditised cultural production and the alienation of the artist from their own products – forfeiting their rights to large corporate houses. What sharing as a phenomenon offers to us, is the promise of a new knowledge economy where affordability or remoteness do not become discriminatory factors for those keen to consume and share cultural products and knowledge.

The Pirate Party in Sweden has announced that File Sharing is a religion and is trying to make it into a practice that is sacred to all of us who thrive in these conditions of free and open knowledge. I want to join my voice to theirs, in the memory of that Promised Land – Library.nu – and the lords of free books, and ask for my right to Pirate Share in networks of my choice.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/sharing-in-the-time-of-facebook

Hacking, Modding & Making

praskrishna — 2012-04-09T09:51:41Z

Seeber's electronics laboratory is a room in a unit he shares with his mother. Every available space is taken up with teetering towers of electronic parts, writes Brendan Shanahan for GQ.

Like subprime lending or the line at the motor registry, patent and copyright laws control all our lives but no one really understands them. In the world of DIY Tech, however, it is not a subject that can be ignored.

" If they are infringing on patents then it's a question you have to ask within the individual jurisdiction," says Abraham. "In many jurisdictions design many not have protection. Whether it's legal or illegal is an open question."

At its heart Abraham's argument is pragmatic: the developing world, especially China, is too big to stop. Companies can fight patent wars in every world territory, hire private detectives, pressure governments and prosecute consumers who buy rip-off products, but, ultimately, they won't win. The genie is out of the bottle.

"If something has been made technologically possible, we cannot make it illegal and hope that everyone will now pretend that this is no longer technologically possible," says Abraham. "We can't have the government checking everyone's iPod and laptop. The better move is to change the model."

Abraham has many suggestions for making copyright law more flexible to benefit manufacturers and consumers. One thing is certain: in a world in which Amazon, not even five years after the launch of the Kindle, is now selling more e-books than all hard copy books combined, and technology such as 3D printing will soon be standard, it would be unwise to cling to old certainities. The music industry may come to be regarded as merely the canary in a digital coalmine of failed industries.

Read the full post here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/hacking-modding-making

Global Censorship Conference

praskrishna — 2012-03-30T11:34:07Z

The Abrams Institute for Freedom of Expression at Yale Law School is holding a conference on global censorship from March 30 to April 1, 2012, at Yale Law School. The programme is sponsored by the Information Society Project at Yale Law School and Thomson Reuters.

"This conference is the first major event for the Abrams Institute for Freedom of Expression, and it brings together an exciting group of thinkers from law, political science, computer science, business and the non-profit sector to discuss the lessons of the past few years,” explained Yale Law Professor Jack Balkin, director of the Abrams Institute and the Information Society Project. “We think the study of free expression in the digital age should be international and interdisciplinary."[1]

Rishabh Dara, Google Policy Fellow who worked at CIS office in Bangalore on freedom of expression and internet-related policy issues is participating in the event as a speaker in the panel on Case Studies of Censorship. The panel will explore recent instances of censorship in the United States, Egypt, Syria, Brazil, and India and the common themes and important differences that emerged.

This conference will consider how censorship has changed in a networked world, exploring how networks have altered the practices of both governments and their citizens. Panels will include discussions of how governments can and do censor and how speakers can command technical and legal tools to preserve their ability to speak. The conference will conclude with a discussion of new controversies in censorship, including laws designed to prevent online bullying and intellectual property infringement.

Agenda

Friday March 30, 2012

2:00	Begin Registration
3:15 – 4:45	The Means of Change, Familiar and New (co-sponsored by Sponsored by the Orville H. Schell, Jr. Center for International Human Rights) In the popular story of the political upheavals in the Middle East and North Africa, information technology stands out as the new factor that was critical to rapid mass mobilization for demanding change. The media have been credited with making popular demands for change contagious. Enthusiasts for the potential of technology to foster progressive change have labeled these apparently sudden developments a Facebook revolution. Governments responded by seeking to curtail the use of mobile phones and the Internet. What role has technology played in igniting, sustaining and shaping recent political changes in the Arab world? Anupam Chander, Professor of Law, University of California, Davis and Director, California International Law Center Rebecca MacKinnon, Bernard L. Schwartz Senior Fellow, New America Foundation John Pollock, journalist
5:00– 6:30	Keynote Lecture (co-sponsored by Sponsored by the Orville H. Schell, Jr. Center for International Human Rights) Irwin Cotler, Canadian Parliament, former Attorney General of Canada
6:30– 9:00	Reception for Panelists of the Global Censorship Conference

Saturday March 31, 2012

9:00 – 10:00	Registration and Breakfast
10:00– 11:30	Panel One: Old and New Forms of Censorship Years ago, activists met in person to plan protests and quietly shared subversive texts. Now, events can be planned over social networking sites, and arguments for change are posted online. How have governments responded to these changes? How have activist practices and governments’ reactions changed the way we conceptualize censorship? Jack Balkin, Yale Law School Yochai Benkler, Harvard Law School Navid Hassanpour, Yale Political Science Deptartment Rebecca MacKinnon, Bernard L. Schwartz Senior Fellow, New America Foundation
11:45 – 1:15	Panel Two: Technical Architectures of Censorship There are a number of choke points across the Internet and a number of different censorship mechanisms that can be deployed at various points across the network. Censorship can be executed at the router level, the Internet Service Provider (ISP) level, the Internet Content Provider (ICP) level, or the device level. Additionally, countries can employ a number of different technologies at each level. This panel will explore the many technical options for censorship and the strategic value of different choices. Laura DeNardis, Associate Professor of Communication at American University, and Affiliated Fellow, Information Society Project at Yale Law School Nagla Rizk, American University in Cairo Hal Roberts, Fellow at Berkman Center for Internet & Technology Ashkan Soltani, Independent Researcher and Consultant on Privacy and Security
1:15 – 2:15	Lunch
2:15 – 3:45	Panel Three: Case Studies of Censorship In the wake of censorship both domestically and abroad, many questions emerged about how the censorship was executed, what effects it had, if and how activists were able to route around the it, and how, if it all, it was eventually stopped. This panel will explore recent instances of censorship in the United States, Egypt, Syria, Brazil, and India and the common themes and important differences that emerged. Sherwin Siy, Deputy Legal Director and the Kahle/Austin Promise Fellow at Public Knowledge Lina Attalah, Journalist, Managing Editor of Al-Masry Al-Youm Anas Qtiesh, Blogger, Editor of Global Voices Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza, Vice-Coordinator of the Center for Technology & Society (CTS) at the Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV) Law School Rishabh Dara, Researcher at Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad
4:00 – 5:30	Panel Four: Technical Methods of Circumventing Censorship New technology may provide governments with new tools to censor, but it also creates opportunities for speakers and “hactivists” everywhere. How can individuals evade identification online and access blocked content? Can activists circumvent attempts to shut down the internet during periods of political unrest? What new methods are being developed to preserve free speech online? Roger Dingledine, The Tor Project Peter Fein, Telecomix Alex Halderman, University of Michigan, Dept. of Computer Science Sascha Meinrath, Open Technology Initiative Director, New America Foundation Wendy Seltzer, Senior Fellow, Information Society Project at Yale Law School
6:00 – 9:00	Dinner for Speakers

Sunday, April 1, 2012

9:00 – 9:30	Breakfast
9:30 – 11:00	Panel Five: Legal Solutions to Censorship Given the way censorship technologies have slowly crept into acceptable use because of concerns like piracy, child pornography, or national security, there is much debate about the role and capacity of law in combatting these new, digital forms of government censorship, domestically and internationally. This panel will discuss if and how legal solutions to censorship can be deployed most effectively. Derek Bambauer, Brooklyn Law School Jim Dempsey, Vice President of Public Policy at the Center for Democracy and Technology Molly Land, New York Law School Linda Lye, ACLU Northern California Jillian York, Director for International Freedom of Expression at the Electronic Frontier Foundation
11:15 – 12:45	Panel Six: New Controversies in Censorship Does new technology change the appropriate scope of free expression rights? Can policing intellectual property infringement burden free speech interests? Does surveillance ever have a censoring effect? This panel will wrestle with whether a variety of government activities constitutes inappropriate censorship or necessary actions to protect the public interest. Rebecca Bolin, Fellow at Information Society Project, Yale Law School Mark MacCarthy, Vice President for Public Policy, Software and Information Industry Association; Adjunct Professor, Communication, Culture and Technology Program, Georgetown University Preston Padden, Senior Fellow at the Silicon Flatirons Center and an Adjunct Professor at the University Of Colorado's Law School and Interdisciplinary Telecommunications Program David Post, Temple University, Beasley School of Law Christopher Soghoian, Graduate Fellow, Center for Applied Cybersecurity Research, Indiana University
12:45	Bagged Lunch Available

[1].Global Censorship Conference to be Held March 30-April 1 at Yale Law School | Yale Law School, last accessed on March 30, 2012, http://www.law.yale.edu/news/15140.htm

Read the original posted in Yale Law School website

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/global-censorship-conference

Open access to government data on the cards

praskrishna — 2012-03-26T07:31:48Z

The way has been cleared for public access to the data collected by Union government ministries and departments, with official approval being accorded to the National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy (NDSAP). T Ramachandran's article was published in the Hindu on March 25, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted in it.

Following its recent approval by the Union Cabinet, the policy has been notified and is in the process of being gazetted, said R. Siva Kumar, CEO of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure, and head of the Natural Resources Data Management System, Department of Science and Technology.

The use of open data as a tool for promoting governmental transparency and efficiency has been gaining ground in some parts of the world. An Open Government Partnership was launched last year by the United States and seven other governments. Forty-three other governments have joined the partnership, which has endorsed an Open Government Declaration, expressing a commitment to better “efforts to systematically collect and publish data on government spending and performance for essential public services and activities.” It acknowledges the ‘right' of citizens to seek information on governmental activities.

India has not joined the partnership, but is collaborating with the U.S. in developing an open source version of software for a data portal.

The NDSAP states that at least five ‘high value' data sets should be uploaded to a newly created portal, data.gov.in, in three months of the notification of the policy. Uploading of the remaining data sets should be completed within a year.

The Department of Science and Technology will co-ordinate the effort and create the portal through the National Informatics Centre. The Department of Information Technology will work out the implementation guidelines, including those related to technology and data standards.

Welcoming the approval for the NDSAP, Pranesh Prakash, programme manager at the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), a Bangalore-based NGO, said the removal of “a few good aspects” in an earlier draft of the policy — such as linkage with Sections 8 and 9 of the Right to Information Act that specify the kinds of information exempt from disclosure by the authorities — had weakened it “even further.” “None of the criticisms the CIS had sent in as part of the feedback requested on the draft have been addressed,” he said.

The NDSAP seeks “to provide an enabling provision and platform for providing proactive and open access to the data generated through public funds available with various departments/organisations of the government of India.”

However, the Ministries and Departments can draw up, within six months of the notification of the policy, a negative list of data-sets that will not be shared, subject to periodic review by an ‘oversight committee.'

The policy envisages three types of access to data: open, registered and restricted. Access to data in the open category will be “easy, timely, user-friendly and web-based without any process of registration/authorisation.” But data in the registered access category will be accessible “only through a prescribed process of registration/authorisation by respective departments/organisations” and available to “recognised institutions/organisations/public users, through defined procedures.” Data categorised as restricted will be made available only “through and under authorisation.”

The policy also provides for pricing, with the Ministries and Departments being asked to formulate their norms for data in the registered and restricted access categories within three months of the notification of the policy.

Read the original published in the Hindu

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/open-access-to-govt-data

Locating the Mobile: An Ethnographic Investigation into Locative Media in Melbourne, Bangalore and Shanghai

Larissa Hjorth and Genevieve Bell — 2015-10-24T13:41:47Z

From Google maps, geoweb, GPS (Global Positioning System), geotagging, Foursquare and Jie Pang, locative media is becoming an integral part of the smartphone (and shanzhai or copy) phenomenon. For a growing generation of users, locative media is already an everyday practice.

The transition from the analogue to the digital, from dial-up to broadband internet access was dramatic in how it changed our notions of space, catalysing new ways of thought and practice. In the case of locative media the uptake is more accelerated with it already engaging more than ten times those involved in the analogue-digital transition. The spread and usage of locative media is fast and promises to produce an even more dramatic transformation as the net becomes portable and pervasive.

As yet we know little about the impact locative media is having, and will have upon people’s livelihoods and identity, or on public policy around privacy, identity, security and cultural production. Discourse in the field has opened up questions of art, innovation and experimentation (de Souza e Silva & Sutko 2009; Hjorth 2010, 2011). However, there remains a dearth of nuanced research on locative media that provides in-depth, contextual accounts of its socio-cultural and political dimensions. Little work has been conducted into locative media as it migrates from art and into the ‘messy’ (Dourish & Bell 2011) area of the everyday.

Locating the Mobile seeks to address this knowledge gap by undertaking close studies of locative media in three locations—Bangalore, Melbourne and Shanghai. We aim to capture and analyse the multiplicities of locative media practice emerging in both developed and developing contexts.

These three locations have relatively high smartphones (or copies like shanzhai) usage and are indicative of twenty-first century migration, diaspora and transnational practices. As one of the leading regions for mobile media innovation (Hjorth 2009; Bell 2005; Miller & Horst 2005), the various contested localities in the Asia-Pacific provide a rich and complex case study for mobile media as it moves into locative media. The three locations also show how the presence of digital and internet technologies is ‘flattening’ the globalised landscape and bringing about dramatic changes in the ways in which these cities shape and develop (Shah 2010). We consider how place informs locative media practices and how, in turn, these practices are shaping new narratives of place.

Locating the Mobile seeks to collect and analyse some of the emergent, tacit, innovative and ‘making-do’ practices informing the rise, and resistance to, locative media. Drawing on pertinent issues for the present and future of locative media, Locating the Mobile aims to:

Pioneer and develop models and templates for comprehending the implications of locative media.
Develop a nuanced and situated understanding of locative media as part of cultural practice.
Provide, through multi-site analysis, new insights into the impact of locative media upon narratives of place and belonging.
Develop socio-cultural understandings of the role locative media plays in notions of intimacy and privacy.

By bringing together an expert team that represent a commitment to probing the social, cultural and community dimensions of technological innovation, Locating the Mobile will develop methodologies that capture the dynamic and mundane features of this emergent media practice. By doing so, Locating the Mobile will move beyond binary debates about surveillance and privacy or ‘parachute’ case studies of locative art towards nuanced and complex understandings of locative media and its implication for future cultural practices.

Significance and Innovation

The nascent field of locative media is impacting upon cultural practice, place-making and policy in ways we can only imagine. While much analysis has been conducted in mobile media (Goggin & Hjorth 2009) and experimental forms of locative media/art (de Souza e Silva & Sutko 2009), the increased ubiquity of locative media through devices such as the smartphone will undoubtedly transform the way in which place and mobility is articulated. Locating the Mobile seeks to substantially expand and contextualise upon the burgeoning area of locative media through a variety of innovative and significant ways.

Locating the Mobile is original in its topic, method, outcomes and industry collaboration. Firstly, it is significant in that it brings depth and innovation to the emergent area of locative media, and its impact upon discourses around mobile media in ideas of mobility and place-making. In the face of parachute nature of many locative art research (de Souza e Silva & Sutko 2009), Locating the Mobile is one of the first studies internationally to explore locative media over time in specific locations. Secondly, it deploys a variety of methods (such as surveys, focus groups, interviews and diaries for scenario of use, overlaid with data-mining) across different devices (mobile phone, iPad) and platforms (Foursquare, Jie Pang) to analyse the local and socio-cultural dimensions of use. With its team of experts in mobile media (Hjorth, Bell and Horst), communication for development (C4D) (Tacchi and Shah), gaming (Hjorth), social networking (Shah, Zhou and Hjorth) as well as a range of methodologies, this three-year study will investigate and contextualise locative media in Bangalore, Melbourne and Shanghai. Despite its ubiquity in many locations in the Asia-Pacific region, much of the locative media literature remains Anglophonic or Eurocentric in focus. Thirdly, through multi-site analysis of locative media practices we will provide innovative ways in which to reflect upon narratives of place, belonging and transnationalism. Fourthly, by pioneering the first multi-site analysis of locative media over time, Locating the Mobile will develop the much missing socio-cultural understandings of locative media and how it impacts upon intimacy and privacy upon individual, group and policy levels. We will now detail these four key areas of significance and innovation. We will pioneer and develop models and templates for comprehending the implications of locative media. In these models we actively address locative media in the transnational context of contemporary feelings about belonging, possession, mobility, migration, and dislocation. As locative media becomes more pervasive, the power of its banality needs further understanding beyond ‘global’ generalisations (see www.pleaserobme.com). Like the rise of mobile media that was accompanied by the ‘subversive user’ (Hjorth 2009), we need to figure out the digital subject who is shaped—both historically and socio-culturally—through the pervasive spread of locative media. As Gabriella Coleman (2010) observes in her review of ethnographic approaches to digital media, there are three main overlapping categories: research on the relationship between digital media and the cultural politics of media; the vernacular cultures of digital media; the prosaics of digital media (and this attention to the commonplace, the unromantic, the quotidian). In the case of locative media, ethnographic approaches—emphasising the situated, vernacular and prosaic—are needed in order to understand the relocations of mobility across a variety notions: technological, electronic and psychological to name a few. Moreover, given the relatively high proportion of Indian and Chinese migrants in Melbourne—and migration in Bangalore and Shanghai—exploring locative media can provide new models for conceptualising the impact of migration, diaspora, and transnationalism on place.

We will develop a nuanced and situated understanding of locative media as part of cultural practice through methods that deploy both qualitative (ethnographic) and quantitative (datamining) approaches such as ‘ethno-mining’ (Anderson et al. 2009). With the emergence of ethnomining approaches—that is, data-based mining combined with ethnography—new models for analysing media and mobility can be found. Locating the Mobile addresses this need for innovative methodologies that capture the dynamic nature of locative media by situating it within three legacies: social, cultural and historical mediatisation. Further, Locating the Mobile seeks to frame locative media as evolving through the cultural precepts informing mobile media and urbanity LP120200829 (Submitted to RO) Dr Larissa Hjorth PDF Created: 16/11/2011 Page 8 of 123 discourses. Drawing upon case studies from a region renowned for divergent and innovative use of mobile media (Hjorth 2009) and gaming (Hjorth & Chan 2009)—the Asia-Pacific—Locating the Mobile seeks to understand the lived and local dimensions of locative media and how it can inform emergent and older forms of place-making, belonging and migration. By focusing upon this nascent but burgeoning area in global mobile media practice—locative media—Locating the Mobile not only places Australia as a forerunner in innovative, original, and challenging methodologies for new media, but also, by bringing together key industry partners, Intel, CIS and Fudan University,

Locating the Mobile seeks to contextualise the research in terms of industry and community outcomes. In this sense, Locating the Mobile clearly addresses the National Priority 3, Frontier Technologies (see below for more details).

We will provide, through multi-site analysis, new insights into the impact of locative media upon narratives of place and belonging through our three case study locations—Melbourne, Bangalore and Shanghai. Locative media can provide new models for conceptualising the impact of migration, diaspora, and transnationalism on place. Although place has always mattered to mobile media (Ito 2003; Bell 2005; Hjorth 2003), locative media both amplify, redirect and redefine practices around place, community and a sense of belonging—phenomenon that impacts upon cultural policy and media regulation (Goggin 2011). Along with the digital interfaces that overlay our physical experiences as we enter into a state of augmented reality (AR), the presence of these cartographic, geospatial locative platforms also changes the ways in which the cities and how we navigate with them (Shah 2010). With the rise of locative media like Google maps we are seeing new ways to frame and narrate a sense of place through various technological lenses overlaying the social with the informational. This phenomenon is especially the case with smartphones and their plethora of applications (apps) drawing heavily upon locative media—even most photo apps come with locative media. With locative media we see the arrival of increased accessibility to augmented
reality (AR). Instead of replacing the analogue with the digital, the physical with the virtual, they open up ‘hybrid realities’ (a term used by de Souza e Silva to describe AR mobile games) that need new conceptual tools and located frameworks to unravel the dynamics. We are no longer looking at just the technology mediated hypervisual digitality but also exploring what these locative media augment and simulate in everyday practices.

We will develop socio-cultural understandings of the role locative media plays in notions of intimacy and privacy and how we might comprehend locative media’s implications on individual and cultural practices, and regulation. In the second generation of locative media that sees it move increasingly into the mainstream, questions about security, privacy and identity—and how these are shaped by the local—come into focus (Dourish & Anderson 2006). For Dourish and Anderson (2006) locative media can been viewed as a form of ‘Collective Information Practice’ that have social and cultural implications upon how privacy and security are conceptualised. For others such as Siva Vaidhyanathan (2011) locative media like Google maps and street views are about a corporate surveillance. As a burgeoning field of media practice intersecting daily life, there is a need for in-depth situated accounts into locative media and their cultural-economic dimensions to understand the impact they will have on intimacy, privacy, identity and place-making. In Locating the Mobile, by developing and implementing new hybrid models for analysing locative media (Anderson et al. 2009), we consider the role locative media plays in how place shapes, and is shaped by, these practices and the future implications around cultural policy. The comparative dimension brings a rich data-set to bear on our understanding of locative media and the questions it may pose in the future. The outputs are significant not only for Australian mobile communication, gaming and internet studies—by providing a regional context for evaluating the socio-technologies—but also demonstrates internationally Australia’s lead in ground-breaking research into locative media (Priority 3, ‘frontier technologies’) in arguably the most significant sites for global ICTs production and consumption, the Asia-Pacific.

National Research Priorities: With the rise of smartphones becoming ubiquitous, location-based services have burgeoned. And yet, little is known about this area and its impact upon individuals, LP120200829 (Submitted to RO) Dr Larissa Hjorth PDF Created: 16/11/2011 Page 9 of 123 organisations and governments. Given this phenomenon, a comprehensive understanding of the impact upon locative media upon notions of privacy, identity and place-making is needed. In the twenty-first century, locative media will become an increasingly important part of everyday life—for individuals, communities, businesses and government agencies. Thus it is imperative that we have a robust comparative understanding of locative media in Australia and across the region. By conceptualising this impact within the context of the region, Locating the Mobile ensures Australia is at the frontier of new technologies and their impact upon future technological practices and policies. Such an understanding is fundamental to Australia’s technology and cultural sectors, thus contributing to National Research Priority 3 through one of the strongest currencies in twenty-first century global market, mobile media, as well as contributing to the broader long-term project of locating Australia in the region. By drawing on qualitative, cross-cultural longitudinal research into locative media, Locating the Mobile will document, analysis and provide future recommendations for how locative media is impacting upon people’s experience of place and identity. A study like this is important as it is innovative for not only pioneering methodologies to evaluate this media phenomenon but also to understand some of its long-term implications on how mobile media intervenes and even reconfigures experiences and perceptions of place which, in turn, impact upon cultural policy.

Collaborators: Larissa Hjorth (RMIT University, Melbourne), Genevieve Bell (Intel, Shanghai)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/digital-humanities/blogs/locating-mobile/locating-the-mobile

The Digital Classroom in the Time of Wikipedia

nishant — 2015-10-05T14:53:30Z

The digital turn in education comes across a wide range of initiatives and processes. The Wikipedia which is the largest user generated content website stands as a figurehead of such a digital turn, writes Nishant Shah.

Context

The digital turn in education has been described across a wide range of initiatives and processes. These include the introduction of digital tools and gadgets as a part of the learning environment, building digital archives and repositories of learning and curriculum building, facilitating remote access to education through information and communications technologies infrastructure, improving quality of access to education and learning resources, building diverse and customised syllabi to accommodate for alternative and contesting perspectives, building peer knowledge communities of information and knowledge production, and including non-canonical material and experiences into formal institutions of education. Different locations, contexts, geo-political circumstances, socio-economic factors, and cultural differences influence the spread, rise and integration of digital technologies in mainstream education. Much academic, policy and implementation attention has been given to these processes and several models of new learning environments and infrastructure have been postulated over the last two decades. The democratising promise of internet technologies has been largely if not exclusively about education, learning, literacy and production of knowledge from different parts of the world.

Wikipedia, one of the first and possibly the largest user generated content websites, that aims to put together the ‘sum total of all human knowledge’ in an open encyclopaedia, stands as the figurehead of such a digital turn. It questions and subverts the traditional analogue forms of knowledge production and relationships. The much discussed experiment conducted by Nature (Giles, 2005 and Orlowski, 2006) that established Wikipedia as an almost equal (if not more) reliable source of information to the fountainhead of print-based knowledge Encyclopaedia Britannica, has become the touchstone by which digital collaborative knowledge structures seek their validity within mainstream classroom pedagogy and learning. Wikipedia itself has emerged as an object of deep scrutiny and contestation, with warring factions going strong about its strengths and weaknesses. The supporters look at how this collaborative peer-to-peer structure has changed knowledge relationships that defined consumers, producers and mediators of knowledge. They see in the rise of Wikipedia, and other such wiki-based structures and user generated content sites that remix, reuse and share knowledge within the digital realm, the potentials and possibilities of changing the futures of knowledge ecologies and economies. The detractors of Wikipedia make a strong case for specialised and expert curatorial practices of knowledge, without which the information explosion of the digital world would collapse all distinctions between speculative writing and rigorous accountable research.

Concerns

In the seemingly unbridgeable differences of these two contesting positions, there is however, a set of common presumptions which remained unquestioned and unchallenged. The example of Wikipedia accordingly serves to throw in sharp relief these more general questions regarding digitally produced knowledge and digitally enabled learning practices.

Design of Trust

The first among them is the concern around Authority and Authorship (Liang, 2010). Increasingly, as Wikipedia becomes a de facto global reference site available in different languages, there is a growing dependence on the authority of information available on Wikipedia. Given that the number of users of Wikipedia is exponentially higher than the number of editors on Wikipedia, there are many users who never confront the structures of participation, processes of editing, and questioning the source of information (Harouni, 2009, Broughton, 2002) found on the site. This is not a problem exclusive to Wikipedia. Given the explosion of user generated sites which often gloss over the problems of authority and authorship, misdirected or misguided information, there is a need for digital criticality which can help people sift through different kinds of information and develop the capacity for effective critical judgment regarding both truth or falsity and rhetorical persuasiveness or manipulation. Especially within the context of scholarly and academic research and learning, classroom teaching and pedagogy, there is a need to define new parameters by which information introduced in the classroom or learning environment needs to stand deeper scrutiny regarding reliability (over authority).

Flattened Politics

The second concern has to do with the depoliticized perception of participation, collaboration and knowledge production on Wikipedia (Graham, 2010). Not only are geographical counters, experiential knowledges and non-standard forms of citation (Prabhala, 2010) ignored on Wikipedia, but they are also rendered redundant under the guise of objectivity. The essentially viral nature of information online and conditions of easy replicability that allow for copy and paste cultures often means that the information gets de-contextualised and de-politicized from its original intentions and circuits of production/distribution.

In many ways, Wikipedia’s adherence to an encyclopaedic model, promotes the idea that there is universal, objective knowledge which can be produced and understood without engaging with the politics of context, language, translation, evidence, etc. This adoption of an older model of aggregating knowledge becomes problematic in the light of new perspectives and theories of reading and writing, which establish knowledge as a contested terrain rather than the benign site that can be mediated through protocols, bots and procedures (Miller, 2007 and Rosenzweig, 2006). In classrooms, students and teachers are both faced with problems when they encounter the simultaneously authoritative and collaborative, definite and tentative nature of information on Wikipedia. The flattened structure of information further complicates our engagement with the larger contexts it refers to and often hinders the learner’s ability to go beyond the self contained universe of Wikipedia, unable to engage with that which has been omitted or left-out and only concentrating on that what has been written and represented.

Technology as Tool

The third concern marks a larger anxiety with the Web 2.0 technologies and their integration with formal structures of education and learning. It has to do with new configurations of power, recalibrated hierarchies of learning and teaching, and distributed communities of learning which might not often be cohesive and concurrent. With the unqualified emphasis on digital gadgets – OLPC, Smart Boards, iPads – and ubiquitous connectivity, there is often a danger to reducing these structures to sheer functionality. There have been experiments where pedagogues have merely introduced user generated sites as reference material and ways of accessing information without actually looking at how they posit questions to existing education systems. The larger trend of distrusting non-academic spaces continues.

A lecture on the problems of Wikipedia is immediately followed by a ban on or “policing” of the use of Wikipedia as a reliable resource, trying to create a false and divisive distinction between offline and online learning tools (Davidson, 2007). With the increased focus on ‘Digital Natives’ within education policy and everyday classroom pedagogy, there is a call for changing the existing classroom and replacing it with a digital classroom – a classroom that challenges the teacher-student relationships, the authority of the prescribed curricula, and the form of learning and teaching within college and university structures. The Digital Classroom is often mistaken to be a virtualisation of the contemporary classroom, where virtual presences and cloud-based resources of learning structure the syllabi and the methods of learning. However, the larger anxieties are about rendering the physical classroom digital by establishing new relationships and structures at the levels of curricula design, teaching, learning and evaluation. The need is to look beyond the social media as a tool, and start unpacking the transparency of the digital interface and the perceived non-hierarchical nature of information filtering (Geiger, 2010) on Wikipedia and other such user generated content portals.

Quality of Access

The fourth concern draws from digital internet rhetoric of Do It Yourself. There is a heavy promotion of howthe only thing that stops a student (or anybody who is a learner) from being an intelligent and engaged student is lack of resources. This rhetoric finds bolstering in other political movements like FLOSS and A2K (Willinsky, 2006). There is a presumption that the teacher is merely a proxy for the paucity of resources and that once the students have unlimited access to the ‘sum total of all human knowledge’, they will be able to Learn everything on their own. The DIY University models, the proposition of phasing out teachers and investing in digital infrastructure instead, the idea that the digital native student has instinctive abilities to navigate through knowledge systems (like a fish does to water), all obfuscate not only the traditional learning processes but also reduce all learning to Access.

There is no debate about the quality of access. Even when factual errors are spotted, it is celebrated as an opportunity to improve so that information on Wikipedia is by definition flawed and always potentially in the process of being improved. There is little theorisation of both the role of a teacher in a classroom and the relationship with information access and learning. The presumption that the only gating factor to better education is lack of resources glosses over questions of social and economic disadvantage, political contexts, age, language, race, gender, sexuality, social support, etc., that come into play when designing inclusive education systems. Instead, there is a promotion of fact-based skill-oriented learning that fits the larger neo-liberal agenda of producing workforces who necessarily should not have to be critical in their everyday labours (Achterman, 2005). Universities and colleges are finding increasing pressure to produce students who work within such flat knowledge horizons towards market expansion and promotion of information capitalism rather than a critical learner who is able to deploy lessons learned from education in order to question and change the reality of the conditions within which s/he lives.

Rationale

Given these dramatic measures and accelerated changes happening in academia and within the university systems across the worlds, it is necessary to dwell on what a digital college classroom and learning environment looks like in the time of Wikipedia. A synthesis of perspectives from different stakeholders in varied disciplines, engaging with knowledge production, consumption, distribution and access is necessary to understand what the futures and contours of the university system and classroom pedagogy are. The ambition is to look at Wikipedia as a symptom of our times rather than a site of analyses.

Call for Proposals

This is a call for proposals towards a special Reader, from people who are interested in producing historical and contemporary accounts of relationships between education, technology, learning, and pedagogy in order to map existing crises and questions of our present times. We take the classroom as the unit where different processes and flows of the education system meet. In this context, we invite researchers, academic practitioners, students, artists, new media theorists, education policy actors and historians of knowledge to look at the Digital Classroom in the Time of Wikipedia as an opportunity to question global trends in education and ways by which Wikipedia (and other such structures) can be fruitfully integrated in formal education towards better learning. Proposals can be for producing theoretical accounts, critical analyses, case-studies from one’s practice, review of information and knowledge, narratives of art and activist interventions, regional and local snap-shots, and other innovative forms by which the diverse and complex questions can be elaborated.

Key Questions

Proposals can be inspired by but not limited to some of the questions listed below that we identify as beginning points for engaging with the area:

What does a digital classroom look like? If we had to think beyond just integration of digital tools into the classroom, what are the new models and structures of classrooms (physical, pedagogical, or otherwise) that we are looking at?
What are the new relationships that we are mapping in the time of Wikipedia – student-teacher, teacher-curriculum, student-classroom, student-student, technology-education, pedagogy-learning? How do we account for the shifts and map the transitions?
How do we understand the changing nature and function of the university and education with the rise of the internet? What are the policy and practice visions of the University of the Future?
What does the integration of Wikipedia and similar structures in everyday classroom practice lead to? What does it change and for whom?
What is the role of the teacher in the age of ubiquitous information access? How do we restructure our ideas of pedagogy, learning and evaluation?
What are the historical tensions between technology and education that are being replayed with the rise of the digital?
What does the rise of Wikipedia mean for our traditional understandings of data repositories? What are the politics and implications of Wikimedia’s other projects on Alternative Citation, Wikipictures, GLAM, etc. on the larger knowledge ecology and industry?

References:

Achterman, D. (2005). “Surviving Wikipedia: Improving student search habits through information literacy and teacher collaboration”, Knowledge Quest, 33(5), 38−40.
Davidson, C. (2007). “We can’t ignore the influence of digital technologies”, Education Digest, 73(1), 15−18.
Geiger, S. (2011). “The Lives of Bots”, Critical Point of View A Wikipedia Reader (Eds.) Geert Lovink and Nathaniel Tkacz. Institute of Network Cultures : Amsterdam.
Giles, J. (2005). “Internet encyclopedias go head to head”, Nature, 438(7070), 900−901.
Graham, M. (2011). “Wiki Space: Palimpsests and the Politics of Exclusion”, Critical Point of View A Wikipedia Reader (Eds.) Geert Lovink and Nathaniel Tkacz. Institute of Network Cultures : Amsterdam.
Harouni, H. (2009). “High School Research and Critical Literacy: Social Studies with and Despite Wikipedia”, Harvard Educational Review, 79 (3), 473-494.
Liang, L. (2011). “A brief History of the Internet from the 15th to the 18th Century”, Critical Point of View A Wikipedia Reader (Eds.) Geert Lovink and Nathaniel Tkacz. Institute of Network Cultures : Amsterdam.
Miller, N. (2007). “Wikipedia revisited” ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 64(2), 147−150.
Orlowski, A. (2006, March 26). Nature mag cooked Wikipedia study, The Register. Retrieved December 17, 2011, from http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/18/wikipedia_quality_problem/
Prabhala, A. (2011). People Are Knowledge. Documentary retrieved from December 17, 2011 from http://vimeo.com/26469276.
Rosenzweig, R. (2006). “Can history be open source? Wikipedia and the future of the past” Journal of American History, 93(1), 117–146.
Willinsky, J. (2006). The Access Principle: The Case for Open Access to Research and Scholarship. MIT Press :Massachusetts.
Collaborators: Dr. David Theo Goldberg, University of California Humanities Research Institute and Claudia Sullivan, Digital Media and Learning Initiative, HASTAC.
Photo source: Flickr (Creative Commons-licensed content for noncommercial use requiring attribution and share alike distribution).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/digital-humanities/blogs/digital-classroom/digital-classroom-in-time-of-wikipedia