Centre for Internet and Society

Publishing Next

praskrishna — 2014-09-30T07:50:28Z

T. Vishnu Vardhan was a speaker at Publishing Next organized by CinnamonTeal Publishing, a Margao (Goa)-based publishing house that provides publishing services to authors and publishers. The event was held in Goa on September 19 and 20.

For speakers click here. Read the full description on Publishing Next website.

Schedule | publishing next

Schedule

For descriptions of each session, please view this page.

19th September 2014			20th September 2014
	Hall 1 (Panel Discussions and Presentations)	Hall 2 (Workshops)		Hall 1 (Panel Discussions and Presentations)	Hall 2 (Workshops)
09:00 – 10:00	Registration of attendees		09:30 – 10:00	Insight Talk by Klaus Willberg
10:00 – 10:20	Inauguration / Address		10:00 – 11:30	A Pulse on Publishing
10:20 – 11:00	Keynote Address		11:30 – 12:00	Tea
11:00 – 11:20	Tea		12:00 – 13:15	Worse Off Without Verse?	Physical Distribution in a Global World: 12.00-12.45
11:20 – 11:45	Presentation by Netex Knowledge Factory		13:15 – 14:00	Lunch
11:45 – 13:15	Publishing in Indian languages		14:00 – 14:20	Presentation by HP India
13:15 – 14:00	Lunch		14:20 – 15:20	The Art of the Book	Fiction/History/Research : 14:20 – 15:00
14:00 – 14:20	Presentation by NewsHunt		15:20 – 15:45	Q&A on ISBN Issues
14:20 – 15:45	Open Publishing, Copyright and Copyleft	Face to Face: Printers and Publishers: 14:20 – 16:15	15:45 – 16:15	Tea
15:45 – 16:15	Tea		16:15 – 16:30	Presentation by IppStar	Publishing Environments in Brazil and Sri Lanka: 16:15 – 17:00
16:15 – 17:30	The Business of Graphic Books	Publishing Translated Literature: 16:15-17:00	16:30 – 18:00	e-Publishing in India
17:30 – 19:00	Are There Enough Good Books for Children?	eBook Development and Distribution: 17.30-18.30	18.00 – Publishing Next Industry Awards Presentation Ceremony
20:30 – Networking Dinner at Hotel Sandalwood

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/publishing-next

Overview of Responses

praskrishna — 2014-09-30T06:49:53Z

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

Consultation Paper on Media Law

praskrishna — 2014-09-30T06:47:54Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/consultation-paper-media-law.pdf

National Consultation on Media Law Schedule

praskrishna — 2014-09-30T06:34:57Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/national-consultation-on-media-law-schedule.pdf

Changing Usage Models: Desktops to Ubiquitous Cloud-Based Mobile Computing (Interviews with Semiconductor Industry - Part 1)

maggie — 2014-12-26T12:08:34Z

This is the first of a four-part blog series highlighting findings from a small sample of interviews with fabless semiconductor industry professionals in Taiwan. These industry insiders was approached for the intent of understanding expert knowledge on the process of integrated circuit design. However, the conversations resulted in leanings far beyond that scope. This post explores the trends of personal computing technology, which provides the pretext for the narrowing of the Pervasive Technologies project scope to a focus on the mobile phone.

Since the mid-1990s, the dissemination of information communications technologies (ICTs) has been hailed as the solution to bridging the digital divide. This rationale led to a multitude of programs, including One Laptop per Child, the Aakash tablet, and most recently, Modi's 'Digital India' campaign, to ensure all Indians have a mobile phone by the year 2019.

The Pervasive Technologies project looking at Access to Knowledge has come to understand that mobile phone technology have become ubiquitous, with 79% of internet users accessing the internet through mobiles in 2014. Particularly for low-income consumers, those who do not have access to computing rely on their mobile phones for accessing tools ranging from the common email, text messaging, calling; and the more advanced and revolutionary - mobile banking (e.g. m-PESA), crowd-sourced environmental protection (e.g. SpillMap), and more.

The evolution to the ubiquity of mobile technology was a valuable learning gained from recent interviews in Taiwan with professionals from the fabless semiconductor chip design industry. A senior executive with over 20 years experience in the field provided some insight to trends/changes in personal computing technology upon inquiring about the recent trends and changes within the industry.

One significant change that has been occurring is the usage model of consumers. Desktops and even laptops are not fully mobile since they cannot be used in one's hands. As broadband have become more pervasive, smartphones and tablets have resulted in new usage models where computing can be done virtually anywhere. People now tend to vale this more than the desktop experience.

The 'cloud' has also changed computing because the performance requirements for PC processors and other technologies no longer have to be as advanced. In addition, there has been a big shift from desktop content creation to mobile computing. This has mostly been catered towards content consumption (e.g. accessing email, viewing photos, using social media, etc.).

As a result of changing usage models and cloud competing, there has been a general industry shift away from computers. The PC market has slowed down, and the smartphone and tablet markets have exploded. They are generally cheeper, don't have as many bugs, and are much more convenient. Previously, the big names were desktop providers HP, and Dell; but now "there's less sex appeal around it… we're not excited by it.. it's the smartphone that's very exciting". The tech revolution has brought to light exciting smartphone brands like HTC, Samsung, Google and Apple.

In addition to big name smartphone brands, smaller, low-cost manufacturers like Xiaomi are developing a new business model through service, or application shopping. Prices of smartphones are continuing to decrease, so manufacturers using this model are looking to sell their hardware with smaller margins, and profit mainly through software. According to Digi-Capital, an investment bank for mobile apps and games, by 2017, mobile apps could reach $70 billion in annual revenue. Thus, greater affordability for the physical devices are naturally occurring within the market due to changing business models.

Accessibility of mobile phones through decreased costs are also supplemented by the trend of technology becoming much more open in the past 10-20 years. "One of the biggest challenges in the last 10 years is that you've got open source, you've got open hardware…things like the maker movement….", including Arduino, Linux, and others. There is a general market trend of consumers wanting to know more about their products.

However, one interviewee believed it was still much too closed, likening today's lack of openness to selling a vacuum cleaner without the user guide explaining how it works. "It's basically the same as buying a Hoover for home, and you don't get the user manual. How am I supposed to change the bag inside? They're not going to tell you."

When asked if this demand for more openness will change the industry, he responded: "There is a demand, there is a lot of demand, but very little supply. There is demand from the outside, and those within the company. We have to convince our departments to be more open. We have to convince the engineers. It's a lot like convincing politicians, there is no immediate reward."

Given these trends, it was of one interviewees' belief that increased accessibility of technology through both decreased cost and increased availability may not necessarily lie in the legal environment or the policy sphere, but rather requires patience for the industry to adapt to a changing marketplace.

Understanding the modes and mediums which information, culture, and ultimately knowledge is accessed is fundamental to the Pervasive Technologies research as an Access to Knowledge issue. Thus, getting a grasp on technological trends, and being able to predict upcoming business models was a very valuable learning.

Guha, Romit, and Anandita Mankotia Mankotia. “PM Modi’s Digital India Project: Government to Ensure That Every Indian Has Smartphone by 2019.” The Economic Times 25 Aug. 2014. Web. 2 Sept. 2014.

See the research proposal for the Pervasive Technologies project here: http://cis-india.org/a2k/pervasive-technologies-research-proposal.pdf

“Smartphone Users Worldwide Will Total 1.75 Billion in 2014.” eMarketer. N.p., 16 Jan. 2014. Web. 3 Sept. 2014.

Takahashi, Dean. “Mobile Apps Could Hit $70B in Revenues by 2017.” VentureBeat. N.p., 29 Apr. 2014. Web. 7 Sept. 2014.

This will be further explored in the last blog post of this series.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/interviews-with-semi-conductor-industry-professionals-in-taiwan-1

Centre for Internet and Society joins the Dynamic Coalition for Platform Responsibility

jyoti — 2014-10-07T10:54:03Z

The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) has joined the multistakeholder cooperative engagement amidst stakeholders towards creating Due Diligence Recommendations for online platforms and Model Contractual Provisions to be enshrined in ToS. This blog provides a brief background of the role of dynamic coalitions within the IGF structure, establishes the need for the coalition and provides an update on the action plan and next steps for interested stakeholders.

"Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations."
Tunis Agenda (Para 72.g)

The first United Nations Internet Governance Forum (IGF), in 2006 saw the emergence of the concept of Dynamic Coalition and a number of coalitions have been established over the years. The IGF is structured to bring together multistakeholder groups to,

"Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet."
Tunis Agenda (Para 72.a)

While IGF workshops allow various stakeholders to jointly analyse "hot topics" or to examine progress that such issues have undertaken since the previous IGF, dynamic coalitions are informal, issue-specific groups comprising members of various stakeholder groups. With no strictures upon the objects, structure or processes of dynamic coalitions claiming association with the IGF, and no formal institutional affiliation, nor any access to the resources of the IGF Secretariat, IGF Dynamic Coalitions allow collaboration of anyone interested in contributing to their discussions. Currently, there are eleven active dynamic coalitions at the IGF and can be divided into three distinct types—networks, working groups and Birds of Feather (BOFs).

Workshops at the IGF are content specific events that, though valuable in informing participants, are limited in their impact by being confined to the launch of a report or by the issues raised within the conference room. The coalitions on the other hand are expected to have a broader function, acting as a coalescing point for interested stakeholders to gather and analyse progress around identified issues and plan next steps. The coalitions can also make recommendations around issues, however, no mechanism has been developed so far, by which the recommendations can be considered by the plenary body. The long-term nature of coalition is perhaps, most suited to engage stakeholders in heterogeneous groups, towards understanding and cooperating around emerging issues and to make recommendations to inform policy making.

Platform Responsibility

Social networks and other interactive online services, give rise to 'cyber-spaces' where individuals gather, express their personalities and exchange information and ideas. The transnational and private nature of such platforms means that they are regulated through contractual provisions enshrined in the platforms' Terms of Service (ToS). The provisions delineated in the ToS not only extend to users in spite of their geographical location, the private decisions undertaken by platform providers in implementing the ToS are not subject to constitutional guarantees framed under national jurisdictions.

While ToS serve as binding agreement online, an absence of binding international rules in this area despite the universal nature of human rights represented is a real challenge, and makes it necessary to engage in a multistakeholder effort to produce model contractual provisions that can be incorporated in ToS. The concept of 'platform responsibility' aims to stimulate behaviour in platform providers to provide intelligible and solid mechanisms, in line with the principles laid out by the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and equip platform users with common and easy-to-grasp tools to guarantee the full enjoyment of their human rights online. The utilisation of model contractual provisions in ToS may prove instrumental in fostering trust in online services for content production, use and dissemination, increasing demand of services and ultimately consumer demand may drive the market towards human rights compliant solutions.

The Dynamic Coalition on Platform Responsibility

To nurture a multi-stakeholder endeavour aimed at the elaboration of model contractual-provisions, Mr. Luca Belli, Council of Europe / Université Paris II, Ms Primavera De Filippi, CNRS / Berkman Center for Internet and Society and Mr Nicolo Zingales, Tilburg University / Center for Technology and Society Rio, initiated and facilitated the creation of the Dynamic Coalition on Platform Responsibility (DCPR). DCPR has over fifty individual and organisational members from civil society organisations, academia, private sector organisations and intergovernmental organisations and held its first meeting at the IGF in Istanbul. The meeting began with an overview of the concept of platform responsibility, highlighting relevant initiatives from Council of Europe, Global Network Initiative, Ranking Digital Rights and the Center for Democracy and Technology have undertaken in this regard. Existing issues such as difficulty in comprehension and lack of standardization of redress across rights were raised along with the fundamental lack of due process in terms of transparency across existing mechanisms.

Online platforms compliance to human rights is often framed around the duty of States to protect human rights and often, Internet companies do not sufficient consideration of the effects of their business practices on users fundamental rights undermining trust.

The meeting focused it efforts with a call to identify issues of process and substance and specific rights and challenges to be addressed by the DCPR. The procedural issues raised concerned 'responsibility' in decision-making e.g., giving users the right to be heard and an effective remedy before an impartial decision-making body, and obtaining their consent for changes in the contractual terms. The concerns raised around substantive rights such as privacy and freedom of expression eg., disclosure of personal information and content removal and need to promote 'responsibility' through establishing concrete mechanisms to deal with such issues.

It was suggested that concept of responsibility including in case of conflict between different rights could be grounded in Human Rights case law eg., from European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence. It was also established that any framework that would evolve from this coalition would consider the distinction between users (eg., adults, children, and people with or without continuous access to the Internet) and platforms (eg., in terms of size and functionality).

Action Plan

The participants at the DCPR meeting agreed to establish a multistakeholder cooperative engagement amidst stakeholders that will go beyond dialogue and produce concrete proposals. Particularly, participants suggested developing:

Due Diligence Recommendations: Recommendations to online platforms with regard to processes of compliance with internationally agreed human rights standards.
Model Contractual Provisions: Elaboration of a set of principles and provisions protecting platform users’ rights and guaranteeing transparent mechanisms to seek redress in case of violations.

DCPR will ground the development of these frameworks in the preliminary step of compilation of existing projects and initiatives dealing with the analysis of ToS compatibility with human rights standards. Members, participants and interested stakeholders are invited to highlight and share relevant initiatives by 10th October regarding:

Processes of due diligence for human rights compliance;
The evaluation of ToS cocompliance with human rights standards;

Further to this compilation, a first recommendation draft regarding online platforms' due diligence will be circulated on the mailing list by 30th October 2014. CIS will be contributing to the drafting which will be led and elaborated by the DCPR coordinators. This draft will be open for comments via the DCPR mailing list until 30th November 2014 and we encourage you to sign up to the mailing list (http://lists.platformresponsibility.info/listinfo/dcpr).

A second draft will be developed compiling the comments expressed via the mailing-list and shared for comments by 10 December 2014. The final version of the recommendation will be drafted by 30 December. Subsequently, the first set of model contractual provisions will be elaborated building upon such recommendation. A call for inputs will be issued in order to gather suggestions on the content of these provisions.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-joins-dynamic-coalition-for-platform-responsibility

Report on CIS' Workshop at the IGF:'An Evidence Based Framework for Intermediary Liability'

jyoti — 2014-09-24T10:47:30Z

An evidence based framework for intermediary liability' was organised to present evidence and discuss ongoing research on the changing definition, function and responsibilities of intermediaries across jurisdictions.

The discussion from the workshop will contribute to a comprehensible framework for liability, consistent with the capacity of the intermediary and with international human-rights standards.

Electronic Frontier Foundation (USA), Article 19 (UK) and Centre for Internet and Society (India) have come together towards the development of best practices and principles related to the regulation of online content through intermediaries. The nine principles are: Transparency, Consistency, Clarity, Mindful Community Policy Making, Necessity and Proportionality in Content Restrictions, Privacy, Access to Remedy, Accountability, and Due Process in both Legal and Private Enforcement. The workshop discussion will contribute to a comprehensible framework for liability that is consistent with the capacity of the intermediary and with international human-rights standards. The session was hosted by Centre for Internet and Society (India) and Centre for Internet and Society, Stanford (USA) and attended by 7 speakers and 40 participants.

Jeremy Malcolm, Senior Global Policy Analyst EFF kicked off the workshop highlighting the need to develop a liability framework for intermediaries that is derived out of an understanding of their different functions, their role within the economy and their impact on human rights. He went on to structure the discussion which would follow to focus on ongoing projects and examples that highlight central issues related to gathering and presenting evidence to inform the policy space.

Martin Husovec from the International Max Planck Research School for Competition and Innovation, began his presentation, tracking the development of safe harbour frameworks within social contract theory. Opining that safe harbour was created as a balancing mechanism between a return of investments of the right holders and public interest for Internet as a public space, he introduced emerging claims that technological advancement have altered this equilibrium. Citing injunctions and private lawsuits as instruments, often used against law abiding intermediaries, he pointed to the problem within existing liability frameoworks, where even intermediaries, who diligently deal with illegitimate content on their services, can be still subject to a forced cooperation to the benefit of right holders. He added that for liability frameworks to be effective, they must keep pace with advances in technology and are fair to right holders and the public interest.

He also pointed that in any liability framework because the ‘law’ that prescribes an interference, must be always sufficiently clear and foreseeable, as to both the meaning and nature of the applicable measures, so it sufficiently outlines the scope and manner of exercise of the power of interference in the exercise of the rights guaranteed. He illustrated this with the example of the German Federal Supreme Court attempts with Wi-Fi policy-making in 2010. He also raised issues of costs of uncertainty in seeking courts as the only means to balance rights as they often, do not have the necessary information. Similarly, society also does not benefit from open ended accountability of intermediaries and called for a balanced approach to regulation.

The need for consistency in liability regimes across jurisdictions, was raised by Giancarlo Frosio, Intermediary Liability Fellow at Stanford's Centre for Internet and Society. He introduced the World Intermediary Liability Map, a project mapping legislation and case law across 70 countries towards creating a repository of information that informs policymaking and helps create accountability. Highlighting key takeaways from his research, he stressed the necessity of having clear definitions in the field of intermediary liability and the need to develop taxonomy of issues to deepen our understanding of the issues at stake towards an understanding of type of liability appropriate for a particular jurisdiction.

Nicolo Zingales, Assistant Professor of Law at Tilburg University highlighted the need for due process and safeguards for human rights and called for more user involvement in systems that are in place in different countries to respond to requests of takedown. Presenting his research findings, he pointed to the imbalance in the way notice and takedown regimes are structured, where content is taken down presumptively, but the possibility of restoring user content is provided only at a subsequent stage or not at all in many cases. He cited several examples of enhancing user participation in liability mechanisms including notice and notice, strict litigation sanction inferring the knowledge that the content might have been legal and shifting the presumption in favor of the users and the reverse notice and takedown procedure. He also raised the important question, if multistakeholder cooperation is sufficient or adequate to enable the users to have a say and enter as part of the social construct in this space? Reminding the participants of the failure of the multistakeholder agreement process regarding the cost for the filters in the UK, that would be imposed according to judicial procedure, he called for strengthening our efforts to enable users to get more involved in protecting their rights online.

Gabrielle Guillemin from Article 19 presented her research on the types of intermediaries and models of liability in place across jurisdictions. Pointing to the problems associated with intermediaries having to monitor content and determine legality of content, she called for procedural safeguards and stressed the need to place the dispute back in the hands of users and content owners and the person who has written the content rather than the intermediary. She goes on to provide some useful and practically-grounded solutions to strengthen existing takedown mechanisms including, adding details to the notices, introducing fees in order to extend the number of claims that are made and defining procedure regards criminal content.

Elonnai Hickok introduced CIS' research to the UNESCO report Fostering Freedom Online: the Role of Internet Intermediaries, comparing a range of liability models in different stages of development and provisions across jurisdictions. She argued for a liability framework that tackles procedural and regulatory uncertainty, lack of due process, lack of remedy and varying content criteria.

Francisco Vera, Advocacy Director, Derechos Digitales from Chile raised issues related to mindful community policy-making expounding on Chile's implementation of intermediary liability obligation with the USA, the introduction of judicial oversight under Chilean legislation which led to US objection to Chile on grounds of not fulfilling their standards in terms of Internet property protection. He highlighted the tensions that arise in balancing the needs of the multiple communities and interests engaged over common resources and stressed the need for evidence in policy-making to balance the needs of rights holders and public interest. He stressed the need for evidence to inform policy-making and ensure it keeps pace with technological developments citing the example of the ongoing Transpacific Partnership Agreement negotiations that call for exporting provisions DMCA provisions to 11 countries even though there is no evidence of the success of the system for public interest. He concluded by cautioning against the development of frameworks that are or have the potential to be used as anti-competitive mechanisms that curtail innovation and therby do not serve public interest.

Malcolm Hutty associated with the European Internet Service Providers Association, Chair of the Intermediary Reliability Committee and London Internet Exchange brought in the intermediaries' perspective into the discussion. He argued for challenging the link between liability and forced cooperation, understated the problems arising from distinction without a difference and incentives built in within existing regimes. He raised issues arising from the expectancy on the part of those engaged in pre-emptive regulation of unwanted or undesirable content for intermediaries to automate content. Pointing to the increasing impact of intermediaries in our lives he underscored how exposing vast areas of people's lives to regulatory enforce, which enhances power of the state to implement public policy in the public interest and expect it to be executed, can have both positive and negative implications on issues such as privacy and freedom of expression.

He called out practices in regulatory regimes that focus on one size fits all solutions such as seeking automating filters on a massive scale and instead called for context and content specific solutions, that factor the commercial imperatives of intermediaries. He also addressed the economic consequences of liability frameworks to the industry including cost effectiveness of balancing rights, barriers to investments that arise in heavily regulated or new types of online services that are likely to be the targeted for specific enforcement measures and the long term costs of adapting old enforcement mechanisms that apply, while networks need to be updated to extend services to users.

The workshop presented evidence of a variety of approaches and the issues that arise in applying those approaches to impose liability on intermediaries. Two choices emerged towards developing frameworks for enforcing responsibility on intermediaries. We could either rely on a traditional approach, essentially court-based and off-line mechanisms for regulating behaviour and disputes. The downside of this is it will be slow and costly to the public purse. In particular, we will lose a great deal of the opportunity to extend regulation much more deeply into people's lives so as to implement the public interest.

Alternatively, we could rely on intermediaries to develop and automate systems to control our online behaviour. While this approach does not suffer from efficiency problems of the earlier approach it does lack, both in terms of hindering the developments of the Information Society, and potentially yielding up many of the traditionally expected protections under a free and liberal society. The right approach lies somewhere in the middle and development of International Principles for Intermediary Liability, announced at the end of the workshop, is a step closer to the developing a balanced framework for liability.

See the transcript on IGF website.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/report-on-cis-workshop-at-igf

Expanding the World of Telugu Wikipedia – CIS-A2K and ALC join hands

T Vishnu Vardhan and Rahmanuddin Shaik — 2014-09-30T05:11:29Z

Students and faculty of Andhra Loyola College in Vijayawada aim to enhance Telugu Wikipedia through increased contributions to Wikipedia and make it available under free license.

The Access to Knowledge (A2K) programme of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) in its quest to catalyze the growth of open knowledge movement in Indic languages recently added another feather to its cap by signing a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Andhra Loyola College (ALC) in Vijayawada on August 14, 2014 to work collaboratively to improve Telugu Wikipedia and Telugu Wikisource. College Principal Fr. G.A.P. Kishore, Vice-Principals Fr. P. Anil Kumar and Fr. Rex Angelo, correspondent Fr. Raju signed the agreement with CIS-A2K programme director T. Vishnu Vardhan.

The MoU signed with ALC is for a period of five years and encompasses four activities: Open knowledge creation in Telugu across various disciplines on Telugu Wikipedia: ALC faculty and students will be trained by CIS-A2K staff and interested Telugu Wikimedians to understand the principles that govern Wikipedia in order to generate quality entries. Faculty from Botany, Physics, Statistics, Ethics, Religion, Telugu Literature, and Music will work with CIS-A2K. Each of the faculty in the coming months will come up with a plan to generate open knowledge in Telugu in their respective disciplines. Content donation and digitization on Telugu Wikisource: ALC through its networks will help CIS-A2K to bring Telugu content under CC-BY-SA 4.0 license. The Telugu department of the college expressed keen interest to work with CIS-A2K in digitizing historical Telugu content and to make it available on Telugu Wikisource. Various competitions will be planned in the future. Creating a free software environment at Andhra Loyola College: 400 machines within various labs on the campus will be converted into FOSS systems with free and open source software including support for Telugu and other Indic languages. It should be noted that all the existing computers of ALC are run on proprietary software. As a pilot initiative CIS-A2K has already converted 30 systems in a lab and named it as Loyola FOSS Lab. CIS-A2K to revise the FIT (Fundamentals in Information Technology): A mandatory course for all undergraduate students which will introduce students to FOSS, Openness and Wikipedia. This is an outcome of the FOSS orientation done by T. Vishnu Vardhan and Rahimanuddin Shaik during the two workshops that were held at ALC.

CIS-A2K will put every effort to involve Telugu Wikimedians and FOSS community in taking this collaboration with ALC forward. CIS-A2K will also create a project page on Telugu Wikipedia to actively document and publicly share the detailed plans and progress. More updates will also be shared on this website.


Above: Representatives from ALC and CIS-A2K seen during the signing ceremony.

The signing of the MoU was done at a public event in the presence of students, faculty and management of ALC and various representatives from media. The media covered this event enthusiastically. The Hindu coverage can be found here and Eenadu article coverage is here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/expanding-the-world-of-telugu-wikipedia-cis-and-alc-join-hands

Fighting battles online

praskrishna — 2014-09-16T04:19:55Z

Internet policy maverick Sunil Abraham feels that accessibility is key to democratising the Internet space.

The article by Nikhil Varma was published in the Hindu on September 2, 2014.

Forty-year-old Sunil Abraham essays many roles, of a social entrepreneur, free software advocate and as policy director of the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society that focuses on accessibility, access to knowledge, internet governance, telecom and digital humanities.

When he finished his engineering degree and was job hunting in Bangalore, the internet was an entity he had heard about, but never worked on.

“Family constraints meant that I had to look for jobs that paid me more than the salaries offered by industries for a 9 to 6 job. I decided to knock doors in the non profit sector. I met T. Pradeep, who ran Samuha, an NGO in Northern Karnataka that focused on integrated rural development.

Sunil says, “He offered me a job provided I learnt to work on the Internet. My job was to set up the organisation’s website. By 1998, I became the head of the IT department. Many spinoffs from Samuha were also becoming very successful. Pradeep gave us Rs.14 lakh and asked us to spin off and create a new organisation called Mahiti, with a mandate to serve non profits and provide them with affordable IT services. I just came into the picture to fulfil someone else’s dream. We provided email services to non-profit organisations at affordable rates. We ran a bulletin board service and also offered a free webpage for select NGOs.”

In 99, Sunil was offered an Ashoka fellowship. “It is a US non-profit that that supports social entrepreneurs. The idea that won me the fellowship was exploring the democratic potential of the internet. It is very similar to the work that I do at the CIS. The internet remains a tool that can be used for empowering and disempowering purposes that could have hegemonic implications for society. I also worked with the UNDP, after giving a speech about free and open software at one of their meetings. I was hired as a consultant.”

Till June 07’, Sunil worked with the UNDP, managing the open-source network spanning 42 countries. “I cut my policy teeth in the UN and learnt to work with governments and had a better idea of free software and open content. I made a lot of contacts in the course of my work.”

It was at the end of the UN stint that philanthropist Anurag Dikshit decided to set up the Centre for Internet and society in India and Sunil decided to take up the assignment. “Anurag has been a great help from the start. His funds have been very vital for the organization.”

CIS deals with a host of issues, ranging from making the internet and mobile phones disabled friendly to creating more Wikipedia pages in Indic languages and enhancing internet penetration in rural India. The organization is also

With government surveillance taking on newer dimensions in the internet Sunil says, “Surveillance is like adding salt in cooking. It is essential in small quantities, but counter productive even if it is slightly in excess. While surveillance may be a good idea to keep public servants occupying high office under scrutiny, employing mass surveillance on everybody may not work well.”

He adds, “A rational approach is needed. We believe that privacy is inversely proportional to the power a person yields, while transparency is directly proportional to the power a person yields.”

Sunil is deeply apprehensive about some of the steps governments take to stem the flow of information. “A couple of years ago, the government had banned text messages beyond a certain limit to prevent rumours from circulating. This resulted in people moving to Whatsapp, which is more difficult to monitor. The government agencies ended up being the actual losers. The more unrestricted surveillance, better chances that it could be compromised.”

Another vital issue that plagues our times are the limits to free speech and expression. “Different countries have different sets of laws and traditions that govern all aspects of life. We have not managed to arrive on a consensus on food habits, mankind is a long way from developing a uniform policy about internet usage. In India, there are some limits on free speech.”

He says, “If something is illegal offline, it is bound to illegal online. I do not think we need specific laws to police the internet. If you try to ban something, it may end up getting more consumed. It happened in the case of Wendy Doniger’s book being withdrawn by Penguin. The sales of the book skyrocketed when it was published by another publisher.”

Sunil adds, “It is an important that good laws are made and these laws have been enforced properly. Enforceability must also be taken into account during framing laws.”

A scanned version of the article published in the newspaper can be found below:

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-nikhil-varma-september-2-2014-fighting-battles-online

Google aims to win 40% of India with Android One

praskrishna — 2014-09-12T05:50:23Z

When Google launches its low-cost Android One devices next Monday, Indian users will be able to give voice commands, type messages and use almost all major mobile applications in Hindi.

The article by Varun Aggarwal was published in the Economic Times on September 11, 2014. Sunil Abraham gave his inputs.

This is because the California, US based internet giant is hoping that the devices, which have been tailor-made for emerging markets, will help it capture the non-English speaking user base in the country.

Over 40 per cent of the population in India lists Hindi as its first language. Android One will come bundled with local language support and users will not have to download any external application to access their smartphone in Hindi, a person with knowledge of the development told ET.

"Google has been constantly working on developing more salience around Indic computing, providing regional language support to users for its various products and services," a Google spokesman said in an email. Internet users in India could increase by nearly a fourth if local language content is provided, according to a 2014 report from Internet and Mobile Association of India and IMRB International.

In rural India, 43 per cent said they would adopt the Internet if they had content in their local language. Local language consumption growth is estimated to be more than four times that of English, according to Google. The company is trying to take a lead over its competitors by taking advantage of this trend.

Google is working to create more Hindi content online through local partnerships and is expected to launch more products keeping the Indic audience in mind.

"So far different vendors were offering different ingredients of the Indian language meal and users were expected to cook it themselves," said Venkatesh Hariharan, founder of Alchemy Business Solutions, a company which works on Indic computing and technology for development.

"If Google offers a comprehensive experience that works out-of-the-box in Indian languages that could attract millions of new users." Indic computing has so far been limited to enthusiasts who had to download a keyboard from one site, a local language dictionary from another and fonts from a third.

"If we really want widespread adoption, then using a mobile phone in Indian languages should be as easy as using it in English," Hariharan said. This is what Google hopes to achieve by introducing devices in partnership with Indian handset makers Micromax, Spice and Karbonn, which will launch the Android One devices for Rs 5,000 to Rs 7,000 next week.

The availability of such devices will also help internet companies such as Facebook and Yahoo promote their products in Indian languages. Facebook currently supports 13 Indian languages. "We are focused on enabling all major Indic languages and on actively promoting them on various platforms," a Facebook spokesperson said.

On the other hand, Yahoo shifted its multilingual support from websites to only mobile apps. For instance, the Yahoo Mail mobile app supports eight Indian languages.

"We can confirm we recently closed down the Indian language sites to better focus on our core offerings," a Yahoo representative said. While experts welcomed Google's push towards Hindi, some want the technologies to be open source.

"Now you'll have some people who will specialise on building Indic computing tools on Google and others doing the same on some other platform," said Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bangalore based research organisation, The Centre for Internet and Society. "At least Google, which seems to have understood and taken advantage of free software, should give back to the free software movement."

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-economic-times-varun-aggarwal-september-11-2014-google-aims-to-win-india-with-android-one

September 2014 Bulletin

praskrishna — 2015-01-02T01:26:03Z

Welcome you to the ninth issue of the newsletter (September 2014).

We at the Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) welcome you to the ninth issue of the newsletter (September 2014). Archives of our newsletters can be accessed at: http://cis-india.org/about/newsletters

Highlights

Nishant Shah was part of a working group writing a white paper on big data and social change, over the last six months. This white paper produced by a group of activists, researchers and data experts was published by Oxford.
As part of the Pervasive Technologies project Maggie Huang interviewed Semiconductor Industry Professionals in Taiwan on the trends and changes in technology and understanding mobile chip manufacturing.

CIS entered into a memorandum of understanding with the Andhra Loyola College for a period of 5 years to enhance Telugu Wikipedia through increased contributions to Wikipedia and make it available under free license.
CIS-A2K signed a memorandum of understanding with Nirmala Institute of Education, Goa to enhance digital literacy in Konkani in the education sector across Goa.
Tejaswini Niranjana and Tanveer Hasan wrote a report on the workshop Developing Digital Open Knowledge Resources in Indian Languages for which CIS-A2K was one of the organizers.

CIS joined the Dynamic Coalition for Platform Responsibility towards creating due diligence recommendations for online platforms.
CIS organized a workshop on an evidence-based framework for intermediary liability at the IGF held in Istanbul on September 3, 2014. Jyoti Panday coordinated the workshop in collaboration with Stanford Centre for Internet & Society.
Elonnai Hickok contributed a thematic chapter on Intermediary Liability and Surveillance in the GISWatch Report.
The Supreme Court of India revised the law on electronic evidence in the case of Anvar v. P. K. Basheer. Bhairav Acharya has done an analysis on this. It was published by Law and Policy in India and subsequently mirrored on our website.

Accessibility and Inclusion

Under a grant from the Hans Foundation we are doing two projects. The first project is on creating a national resource kit of state-wise laws, policies and programmes on issues relating to persons with disabilities in India. CIS in partnership with CLPR (Centre for Law and Policy Research) compiled the National Compendium of Policies, Programmes and Schemes for Persons with Disabilities (29 states and 6 union territories). The updated draft is being reviewed by the Office of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities. The draft chapters and the quarterly reports can be accessed on the project page. The second project is on developing text-to-speech software for 15 Indian languages. The progress made so far in the project can be accessed here.

NVDA and eSpeak

Monthly Update

Work Report for September (Suman Dogra; August 31, 2014).

Blog Entry

Study on Budget Allocation and Expenditure by States on Schemes for Persons with Disabilities (Anandhi Viswanathan; September 29, 2014).

Access to Knowledge

As part of the Access to Knowledge programme we are doing two projects. The first one (Pervasive Technologies) under a grant from the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) is for research on the complex interplay between pervasive technologies and intellectual property to support intellectual property norms that encourage the proliferation and development of such technologies as a social good. The second one (Wikipedia) under a grant from the Wikimedia Foundation is for the growth of Indic language communities and projects by designing community collaborations and partnerships that recruit and cultivate new editors and explore innovative approaches to building projects.

Pervasive Technologies

Interviews with Semiconductor Industry Professionals in Taiwan: Trends and Changes in Technology (Maggie Huang; September 26, 2014).
Interviews with Semiconductor Industry Professionals in Taiwan: Understanding Mobile Chip Manufacturing (Maggie Huang; September 30, 2014).

Wikipedia

As part of the project grant from the Wikimedia Foundation we have reached out to more than 3500 people across India by organizing more than 100 outreach events and catalysed the release of encyclopaedic and other content under the Creative Commons (CC-BY-3.0) license in four Indian languages (21 books in Telugu, 13 in Odia, 4 volumes of encyclopaedia in Konkani and 6 volumes in Kannada, and 1 book on Odia language history in English).

Event Report

Developing Digital Open Knowledge Resources in Indian Languages (Tejaswini Niranjana and Tanveer Hasan; September 30, 2014). The workshop was organized by Krantijyoti Savitribai Phule Women's Studies Centre, University of Pune (KSPWSC), Centre for Indian Languages in Higher Education (CILHE), Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai and CIS-A2K.

Blog Entries

NIE Steps in to Grow Konkani Wikipedia (T. Vishnu Vardhan; September 6, 2014).
Expanding the World of Telugu Wikipedia - CIS-A2K and ALC join hands (T. Vishnu Vardhan and Rahmanuddin Shaik; September 17, 2014).

The following were published in August and mirrored on our website in September:

OpenGLAM at Wikimania 2014 (Subhashish Panigrahi; OpenGLAM; August 27, 2014).
We are Wikipedia (By Subhashish Panigrahi; Wikimedia Deutschland; August 25, 2014). Wikimedia Deutchland has included a paragraph about WeAreWikipedia on their blog.

Event Organized

Kannada Wikipedia Workshop for Students (Tumkur University; Tumkur; September 27, 2014). Dr. U.B.Pavanaja conducted the workshop. Fifty people participated in the event.

Event Co-organized

Kannada Wikipedia Workshop (Organized by Basaveshwara Science College and CIS-A2K; September 20, 2014). Dr. U.B.Pavanaja conducted the workshop.

News and Media Coverage

CIS-A2K team gave its inputs to the following media coverage:

Implementation of IT in Kannada (Prajavani; September 21, 2014).
105 Kannada books released under Creative Commons (Shyam Prasad S; Bangalore Mirror; September 29, 2014).

Participation in Events

State Level Seminar on "Odia alphabet and order teaching in primary education" (Co-organized by Institute of Odia Studies and Research and Odia Bhasa Pratisthan, Bhubaneswar; September 14, 2014). Subhashish Panigrahi participated in the event and discussed about the applied aspects of Odia language in the context of primary education and need for reforms in the total number and order in the character-set citing problems with computer and internet.
Publishing Next (Organized by CinnamonTeal Publishing; Goa; September 19 - 20, 2014). T. Vishnu Vardhan was a panelist at the 5th edition of Publishing Next the annual conference on the future of publishing. He spoke on Open Access, Copyright and Copyleft.

Internet Governance

Privacy

As part of our Surveillance and Freedom: Global Understandings and Rights Development (SAFEGUARD) project with Privacy International we are engaged in enhancing respect for the right to privacy in developing countries. We have produced the following outputs during the month:

Note: The White Paper below is not a part of the SAFEGUARD project .

White Paper

Big Data and Positive Social Change in the Developing World: A White Paper for Practitioners and Researchers (Nishant Shah; Oxford: Oxford Internet Institute; September 30, 2014). Nishant Shah was part of a group of activists, researchers and data experts in producing this white paper.

Analysis

Anvar v. Basheer and the New (Old) Law of Electronic Evidence (Bhairav Acharya; September 30, 2014).

Announcement

CIS joins the Dynamic Coalition for Platform Responsibility (Jyoti Panday; September 23, 2014).

Blog Entries

The Aadhaar Case (Vipul Kharbanda; September 5, 2014).
UID: A Data Subject's Registration Tale (Mukta Batra; September 11, 2014).
Biometrics: An 'Angootha Chaap' nation? (Mukta Batra; September 19, 2014).
UID and NPR: Towards Common Ground (September 19, 2014): This is an anonymous post.

CIS @ IGF

The ninth Internet Governance Forum ("IGF2014") was hosted by Turkey in Istanbul from September 2 to 5, 2014. A BestBits pre-event, which saw robust discussions on renewal of the IGF mandate, the NETmundial Initiative and other live Internet governance processes, flagged off a week of many meetings and sessions. CIS participated in multiple workshops and panels:

WS112: Implications of post-Snowden Internet localization proposals (Organized by Center for Democracy and Technology, Istanbul, September 2, 2014). Sunil Abraham was a speaker at this IGF workshop.
WS63: Preserving a universal Internet: Costs of fragmentation (Organized by OECD and Centre for International Governance Innovation; September 3, 2014). Sunil Abraham was a speaker at this IGF workshop.
WS2 Mobile, Trust and Privacy (Organized by GSM Association; September 4, 2014). Sunil Abraham was a speaker.
Transparency reporting as a tool for Internet governance (Organized by Global Network Initiative; September 3, 2014). Pranesh Prakash was a panelist.
WS149: Aligning ICANN policy with the privacy rights of users (Organized by Yale ISP; September 5, 2014). Pranesh Prakash was a moderator.

Other Participation

Launch of the GISWatch Report (Association for Progressive Communications and the Humanist Institute for Cooperation with Developing Countries (Hivos). Elonnai Hickok contributed a thematic chapter on Intermediary Liability and Surveillance to this report.

Participation in Events

Re-Wiring Women's Rights Debates in the Digital Age (Organized by IT for Change in partnership with Kutch Mahila Vikas Sangathan and ANANDI; September 13 - 14, 2014). Rohini Lakshane was a speaker.
Workshop on Enabling Information Systems for Local Governance (Organized by Jamia Milla Islamia, Tagore Hall; New Delhi; September 18, 2014). Sunil Abraham was a participant.
National Consultation on Media Law (Organized by Law Commission of India and the National University, Delhi; India Habitat Centre, New Delhi; September 27 - 28, 2014). Nehaa Chaudhari, Jyoti Panday and Anubha Sinha participated in the event.

Upcoming Event

CPDP 2015 : The eighth international conference on computers, privacy and data protection will be held in Brussels from January 21 to 23, 2015. CIS is a moral supporter of CPDP.

News & Media Coverage

CIS gave its inputs to the following media coverage:

Fighting battles online (Nikhil Varma; The Hindu; September 2, 2014).
Colonial yoke or bureaucratic insouciance? (Vidya Venkat with additional reporting by K.T. Sangameswaran in Chennai; The Hindu; September 7, 2014).
Social Media Aids Rescue Efforts in Flood-Hit Kashmir (Anjana Pasricha, September 10, 2014).
Google aims to win 40% of India with Android One (Varun Aggarwal; Economic Times; September 11, 2014).

Digital Humanities

CIS is building research clusters in the field of Digital Humanities. The Digital will be used as a way of unpacking the debates in humanities and social sciences and look at the new frameworks, concepts and ideas that emerge in our engagement with the digital. The clusters aim to produce and document new conversations and debates that shape the contours of Digital Humanities in Asia:

Event Organized

Consultation on New Figures of Learning in the Digital Context (CIS, Bangalore, September 22, 2014). P.P. Sneha wrote a report on the event.

About CIS

The Centre for Internet and Society is a non-profit research organization that works on policy issues relating to freedom of expression, privacy, accessibility for persons with disabilities, access to knowledge and IPR reform, and openness (including open government, FOSS, open standards, etc.), and engages in academic research on digital natives and digital humanities.

Follow us elsewhere

Twitter: https://twitter.com/CISA2K
Facebook group: https://www.facebook.com/cisa2k
Visit us at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/India_Access_To_Knowledge
E-mail: a2k@cis-india.org

Support Us

Please help us defend consumer / citizen rights on the Internet! Write a cheque in favour of 'The Centre for Internet and Society' and mail it to us at No. 194, 2nd 'C' Cross, Domlur, 2nd Stage, Bengaluru - 5600 71.

Request for Collaboration
We invite researchers, practitioners, and theoreticians, both organisationally and as individuals, to collaboratively engage with Internet and society and improve our understanding of this new field. To discuss the research collaborations, write to Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, atsunil@cis-india.org or Nishant Shah, Director - Research, at nishant@cis-india.org. To discuss collaborations on Indic language Wikipedia, write to T. Vishnu Vardhan, Programme Director, A2K, at vishnu@cis-india.org.

CIS is grateful to its primary donor the Kusuma Trust founded by Anurag Dikshit and Soma Pujari, philanthropists of Indian origin for its core funding and support for most of its projects. CIS is also grateful to its other donors, Wikimedia Foundation, Ford Foundation, Privacy International, UK, Hans Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, and IDRC for funding its various projects.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/newsletters/september-2014-bulletin

NIE Steps in to Grow Konkani Wikipedia

vishnu — 2014-10-10T11:26:26Z

The Centre for Internet & Society's Access to Knowledge team (CIS-A2K) signed a memorandum of agreement (MoU) with Nirmala Institute of Education, Goa to enhance digital literacy in Konkani in the education sector across Goa.

The Access to Knowledge (A2K) programme of CIS, in its sustained efforts to enhance the content and reach of Kokani Wikepedia (which is in incubation), has signed an MoU for a period of five years with Nirmala Insitute of Education (NIE), a Secondary Teacher Education College established in 1963 by the Society of the Daughters of the Heart of Mary in response to the then urgent need for trained teachers in post liberation Goa. The key objectives of this partnership are: a) to design, develop and execute a certificate course titled "Teaching in the Age of Wikipedia", which is aimed at middle and high school teacher-trainees and teachers; and b) to introduce Wikimedia projects into the pedagogic curriculum of NIE.

Both CIS and NIE share a mutual interest in conserving, developing and disseminating knowledge free of cost in Konkani, which incidentally is Goa’s official language. Konkani as a language faces several challenges — it has no official script. The population who speak it are dispersed across the world and have little motivation to further the cause of Konkani, and there are few educational venues that offer a formal course to study Konkani or offer Konkani based curriculum. NIE Principal Dr. Denzil Martins welcomed this MoU and said that "it will guide our teacher-trainees to upload relevant information in Konkani that can be freely accessed by the local population" and "provide the volunteer-trainees with skills that they will be able to use to contribute and enhance the free knowledge in Konkani". The MoU was signed by Dr. Denzil Martins from NIE and T. Vishnu Vardhan (Programme Director, Access to Knowledge, CIS) in the presence of staff and students of NIE and volunteers Harriet Vidyasagar and Gayathri Rao Konkar. Dr. Rita Paes, ex-Principal of NIE who worked to forge this MoU sent her best wishes.

CIS-A2K since 2013, has worked to develop partnerships with key educational institutions to promote and grow Konkani Wikipedia. It has previously worked with NIE to design and implement a program to enroll 100 B.Ed. students to increase the amount of information available in Goan villages and towns on Konkani Wikipedia. A2K has also been instrumental in convincing Goa University to re-release Konkani Vishwakosh (encyclopedia) under CC-BY-SA 3.0 , making it freely available to public, giving them the right to share, use and even build upon the work that has already been done.

The course ‘Teaching in the Age of Wikipedia’ will enable the teacher participant to have a) a comprehensive understanding of changes due to digital technology to the knowledge domain; b) an introduction to various openness movements that inform the discourse on Open Educational Resources; c) exposure and training to participate on open knowledge platforms like Wikipedia; and d) practical examples and best practices of using Wikipedia and sister projects within the classroom context. The parties will also co-design and jointly implement programmes to introduce Wikipedia in the NIE curriculum. The curriculum for this workshop is positioned within the context of indian languages (particularly Konkani) and school education to ensure that any learning is practical and can be applied within the teachers immediate pedagogic environment. Speaking about the relevance of this course Gayathri and Harriet (who have been associated with NIE as volunteers) mentioned that "the Goa government has handed out tablets to all school going children in Goa. In order to use them effectively in the classroom will require teachers to rethink their role and teaching methodologies and this course is an important step towards that". Agreeing with this Denzil Martins feels that this course "will provide the teacher-trainees with ideas and inputs for using Wikipedia in creative ways in the classroom".

This partnership could bring huge momentum and scale for the growth of Konkani as participants who graduate from this course will as teachers act as anchors and mentors to teach and assign Wikipedia editing assignments in their respective schools and classrooms.

As Gayathri feels "such courses once fine tuned should be made available to teachers from all over the country and should be part of the package for introducing the digital technology in the school system. Today it ends with setting up computer labls in schools or distribution of hardware to students - they may have a 'computer teacher' but the class and subject teachers never become part of these new initiatives. Only when this happens can we move away from 'teaching computers' to using computers as tools to learn and teach, which is the primary objective of digital technology in schools".

CIS will develop this open course and welcomes anyone to partner in this effort, which will be made available for anyone to use it within their context. The efforts to build free and open knowledge platforms like Konkani Wikipedia will continue and partnerships like NIE will play a crucial role in building a robust knowledge society in India.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/nie-steps-in-to-grow-konkani-wikipedia

Zero Draft of Content Removal Best Practices White Paper

jyoti — 2014-09-10T07:11:09Z

EFF and CIS Intermediary Liability Project is aimed towards the creation of a set of principles for intermediary liability in consultation with groups of Internet-focused NGOs and the academic community.

The draft paper has been created to frame the discussion and will be made available for public comments and feedback. The draft document and the views represented here are not representative of the positions of the organisations involved in the drafting.

http://tinyurl.com/k2u83ya

3 September 2014

Introduction

The purpose of this white paper is to frame the discussion at several meetings between groups of Internet-focused NGOs that will lead to the creation of a set of principles for intermediary liability.

The principles that develop from this white paper are intended as a civil society contribution to help guide companies, regulators and courts, as they continue to build out the legal landscape in which online intermediaries operate. One aim of these principles is to move towards greater consistency with regards to the laws that apply to intermediaries and their application in practice.

There are three general approaches to intermediary liability that have been discussed in much of the recent work in this area, including CDT’s 2012 report called “Shielding the Messengers: Protecting Platforms for Expression and Innovation.” The CDT’s 2012 report divides approaches to intermediary liability into three models: 1. Expansive Protections Against Liability for Intermediaries, 2. Conditional Safe Harbor from Liability, 3. Blanket or Strict Liability for Intermediaries.^[1]

This white paper argues in the alternative that (a) the “expansive protections against liability” model is preferable, but likely not possible given the current state of play in the legal and policy space (b) therefore the white paper supports “conditional safe harbor from liability” operating via a ‘notice-to-notice’ regime if possible, and a ‘notice and action’ regime if ‘notice-to-notice’ is deemed impossible, and finally (c) all of the other principles discussed in this white paper should apply to whatever model for intermediary liability is adopted unless those principles are facially incompatible with the model that is finally adopted.

As further general background, this white paper works from the position that there are three general types of online intermediaries- Internet Service Providers (ISPs), search engines, and social networks. As outlined in the recent draft UNESCO Report (from which this white paper draws extensively);

“With many kinds of companies operating many kinds of products and services, it is important to clarify what constitutes an intermediary. In a 2010 report, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) explains that Internet intermediaries “bring together or facilitate transactions between third parties on the Internet. They give access to, host, transmit and index content, products and services originated by third parties on the Internet or provide Internet-based services to third parties.”

Most definitions of intermediaries explicitly exclude content producers. The freedom of expression advocacy group Article 19 distinguishes intermediaries from “those individuals or organizations who are responsible for producing information in the first place and posting it online.” Similarly, the Center for Democracy and Technology explains that “these entities facilitate access to content created by others.” The OECD emphasizes “their role as ‘pure’ intermediaries between third parties,” excluding “activities where service providers give access to, host, transmit or index content or services that they themselves originate.” These views are endorsed in some laws and court rulings. In other words, publishers and other media that create and disseminate original content are not intermediaries. Examples of such media entities include a news website that publishes articles written and edited by its staff, or a digital video subscription service that hires people to produce videos and disseminates them to subscribers.

For the purpose of this case study we will maintain that intermediaries offer services that host, index, or facilitate the transmission and sharing of content created by others. For example, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) connect a user’s device, whether it is a laptop, a mobile phone or something else, to the network of networks known as the Internet. Once a user is connected to the Internet, search engines make a portion of the World Wide Web accessible by allowing individuals to search their database. Search engines are often an essential go-between between websites and Internet users. Social networks connect individual Internet users by allowing them to exchange messages, photos, videos, as well as by allowing them to post content to their network of contacts, or the public at large. Web hosting providers, in turn, make it possible for websites to be published and to be accessed online.”^[2]

General Principles for ISP Governance - Content Removals

The discussion that follows below outlines nine principles to guide companies, government, and civil society in the development of best practices related to the regulation of online content through intermediaries, as norms, policies, and laws develop in the coming years. The nine principles are: Transparency, Consistency, Clarity, Mindful Community Policy Making, Necessity and Proportionality in Content Restrictions, Privacy, Access to Remedy, Accountability, and Due Process in both Legal and Private Enforcement. Each principle contains subsections that expand upon the theme of the principle to cover more specific issues related to the rights and responsibilities of online intermediaries, government, civil society, and users.

Principle I: Transparency

“Transparency enables users’ right to privacy and right to freedom of expression. Transparency of laws, policies, practices, decisions, rationale, and outcomes related to privacy and restrictions allow users to make informed choices with respect to their actions and speech online. As such - both governments and companies have a responsibility in ensuring that the public is informed through transparency initiatives.” ^[3]

Government Transparency

In general, governments should publish transparency reports:

As part of the democratic process, the citizens of each country have a right to know how their government is applying its laws, and a right to provide feedback about the government’s legal interpretations of its laws. Thus, all governments should be required to publish online transparency reports that provide information about all requests issued by any branch or agency of government for the removal or restriction of online content. Further, governments should allow for the submission of comments and suggestions by a webform hosted on the same webpage where that government’s transparency report is hosted. There should also be some legal mechanism that requires the government to look at the feedback provided by its citizens, ensure that relevant feedback is passed along to legislative bodies, and provide for action to be taken on the citizen-provided feedback where appropriate. Finally, and where possible, the raw data that constitutes each government’s transparency report should be made available online, for free, in a common file format such as .csv, so that civil society may have easy access to it for research purposes.

Governments should be more transparent about content orders that they impose on ISPs
The legislative process proceeds most effectively when the government knows how the laws that it creates are applied in practice and is able to receive feedback from the public about how those laws should change further, or remain the same. Relatedly, regulation of the Internet is most effective when the legislative and judicial branches are aware of what the other is doing. For all of these reasons, governments should publish information about all of the court orders and executive requests for content removals that they send to online intermediaries. Publishing all of this information in one place necessarily requires that some single entity within the government collects the information, which will have the benefits of giving the government a holistic view of how it is regulating the internet, encouraging dialogue between different branches of government about how best to create and enforce internet content regulation, and encouraging dialogue between the government and its citizens about the laws that govern internet content and their application.

Governments should make the compliance requirements they impose on ISPs public
Each government should maintain a public website that publishes as complete a picture as possible of the content removal requests made by any branch of that government, including the judicial branch. The availability of a public website of this type will further many of the goals and objectives discussed elsewhere in this section. The website should be biased towards high levels of detail about each request and towards disclosure that requests were made, subject only to limited exceptions for compelling public policy reasons, where the disclosure bias conflicts directly with another law, or where disclosure would reveal a user’s PII. The information should be published periodically, ideally more than once a year. The general principle should be: the more information made available, the better. On the same website where a government publishes its ‘Transparency Report,’ that government should attempt to provide a plain-language description of its various laws related to online content, to provide users notice about what content is lawful vs. unlawful, as well as to show how the laws that it enacts in the Internet space fit together. Further, and as discussed in section “b,” infra, government should provide citizens with an online feedback mechanism so that they may participate in the legislative process as it applies to online content.

Governments should give their citizens a way to provide input on these policies
Private citizens should have the right to provide feedback on the balancing between their civil liberties and other public policies such as security that their government engages in on their behalf. If and when these policies and the compliance requirements they impose on online intermediaries are made publicly available online, there should also be a feedback mechanism built into the site where this information is published. This public feedback mechanism could take a number of different forms, like, for example, a webform that allowed users to indicate their level of satisfaction with prevailing policy choices by choosing amongst several radio buttons, while also providing open text fields to allow the user to submit clarifying comments and specific suggestions. In order to be effective, this online feedback mechanism would have to be accompanied by some sort of legal and budgetary apparatus that would ensure that the feedback was monitored and given some minimum level of deference in the discussions and meetings that led to new policies being created.

Government should meet users concerned about its content policies in the online domain. Internet users, as citizens of both the internet and the country their country of origin, have a natural interest in defining and defending their civil liberties online; government should meet them there to extend the democratic process to the Internet. Denying Internet users a voice in the policymaking processes that determine their rights undermines government credibility and negatively influences users’ ability to freely share information online. As such, content policies should be posted in general terms online and users should have the ability to provide input on those policies online.

ISP Transparency
“The transparency practices of a company impact users’ freedom expression by providing insight into the scope of restriction that is taking in place in specific jurisdiction. Key areas of transparency for companies include: specific restrictions, aggregate numbers related to restrictions, company imposed regulations on content, and transparency of applicable law and regulation that the service provider must abide by.”^[4]

“Disclosure by service providers of notices received and actions taken can provide an important check against abuse. In addition to providing valuable data for assessing the value and effectiveness of a N&A system, creating the expectation that notices will be disclosed may help deter fraudulent or otherwise unjustified notices. In contrast, without transparency, Internet users may remain unaware that content they have posted or searched for has been removed pursuant due to a notice of alleged illegality. Requiring notices to be submitted to a central publication site would provide the most benefit, enabling patterns of poor quality or abusive notices to be readily exposed.”^[5] Therefore, ISPs at all levels should publish transparency reports that include:

Government Requests

All requests from government agencies and courts should be published in a periodic transparency report, accessible on the intermediary’s website, that publishes information about the requests the intermediary received and what the intermediary did with them in the highest level of detail that is legally possible. The more information that is provided about each request, the better the understanding that the public will have about how laws that affect their rights online are being applied. That said, steps should be taken to prevent the disclosure of personal information in relation to the publication of transparency reports. Beyond redaction of personal information, however, the maximum amount of information about each request should be published, subject as well to the (ideally minimal) restrictions imposed by applicable law. A thorough Transparency Report published by an ISP or online intermediary should include information about the following categories of requests:

Police and/or Executive Requests
This category includes all requests to the intermediary from an agency that is wholly a part of the national government; from police departments, to intelligence agencies, to school boards from small towns. Surfacing information about all requests from any part of the government helps to avoid corruption and/or inappropriate exercises of governmental power by reminding all government officials, regardless of their rank or seniority, that information about the requests they submit to online intermediaries is subject to public scrutiny.

Court Orders
This category includes all orders issued by courts and signed by a judicial officer. It can include ex-parte orders, default judgments, court orders directed at an online intermediary, or court orders directed at a third party presented to the intermediary as evidence in support of a removal request. To the extent legally possible, detailed information should be published about these court orders detailing the type of court order each request was, its constituent elements, and the actions(s) that the intermediary took in response to it. All personally identifying information should be redacted from any court orders that are published by the intermediary as part of a transparency report before publication.

First Party
Information about court orders should be further broken down into two groups; first party and third party. First party court orders are orders directed at the online intermediary in an adversarial proceeding to which the online intermediary was a party.

Third Party
As mentioned above, ‘third party’ refers to court orders that are not directed at the online intermediary, but rather a third party such as an individual user who posted an allegedly defamatory remark on the intermediary’s platform. If the user who obtains a court order approaches an online intermediary seeking removal of content with a court order directed at the poster of, say, the defamatory content, and the intermediary decides to remove the content in response to the request, the online intermediary that decided to perform the takedown should publish a record of that removal. To be accepted by an intermediary, third party court orders should be issued by a court of appropriate jurisdiction after an adversarial legal proceeding, contain a certified and specific statement that certain content is unlawful, and specifically identify the content that the court has found to be unlawful, by specific, permalinked URL where possible.

This type of court order should be broken out separately from court orders directed at the applicable online intermediary in companies’ transparency reports because merely providing aggregate numbers that do not distinguish between the two types gives an inaccurate impression to users that a government is attempting to censor more content than it actually is. The idea of including first party court orders to remove content as a subcategory of ‘government requests’ is that a government’s judiciary speaks on behalf of the government, making determinations about what is permitted under the laws of that country. This analogy does not hold for court orders directed at third parties- when the court made its determination of legality on the content in question, it did not contemplate that the intermediary would remove the content. As such, the court likely did not weigh the relevant public interest and policy factors that would include the importance of freedom of expression or the precedential value of its decision. Therefore, the determination does not fairly reflect an attempt by the government to censor content and should not be considered as such.

Instead, and especially considering that these third party court order may be the basis for a number of content removals, third party court orders should be counted separately and presented with some published explanation in the company’s transparency report as to what they are and why the company has decided it should removed content pursuant to its receipt of one.

Private-Party Requests
Private-party requests are requests to remove content that are not issued by a government agency or accompanied by a court order. Some examples of private party requests include copyright complaints submitted pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act or complaints based on the laws of specific countries, such as laws banning holocaust denial in Germany.

Policy/TOS Enforcement
To give users a complete picture of the content that is being removed from the platforms that they use, corporate transparency reports should also provide information about the content that the intermediary removes pursuant to its own policies or terms of service, though there may not be a legal requirement to do so.

User Data Requests
While this white paper is squarely focused on liability for content posted online and best practices for deciding when and how content should be removed from online services, corporate transparency reports should also provide information about requests for user data from executive agencies, courts, and others.

Principle II: Consistency

Legal requirements for ISPs should be consistent, based on a global legal framework that establishes baseline limitations on legal immunity
Broad variation amongst the legal regimes of the countries in which online intermediaries operate increases compliance costs for companies and may discourage them from offering their services in some countries due to the high costs of localized compliance. Reducing the number of speech platforms that citizens have access to limits their ability to express themselves. Therefore, to ensure that citizens of a particular country have access to a robust range of speech platforms, each country should work to harmonize the requirements that it imposes upon online intermediaries with the requirements of other countries. While a certain degree of variation between what is permitted in one country as compared to another is inevitable, all countries should agree on certain limitations to intermediary liability, such as the following:

Conduits should be immune from claims about content that they neither created nor modified
As noted in the 2011 Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and the Internet, “[n]o one who simply provides technical Internet services such as providing access, or searching for, or transmission or caching of information, should be liable for content generated by others, which is disseminated using those services, as long as they do not specifically intervene in that content or refuse to obey a court order to remove that content, where they have the capacity to do so (‘mere conduit principle’).”^[6]

Court orders should be required for the removal of content that is related to speech, such as defamation removal requests
In the Center for Democracy and Technology’s Additional Responses Regarding Notice and Action, CDT outlines the case against allowing notice and action procedures to apply to defamation removal requests. They write:

“Uniform notice-and-action procedures should not apply horizontally to all types of illegal content. In particular, CDT believes notice-and-takedown is inappropriate for defamation and other areas of law requiring complex legal and factual questions that make private notices especially subject to abuse. Blocking or removing content on the basis of mere allegations of illegality raises serious concerns for free expression and access to information. Hosts are likely to err on the side of caution and comply with most if not all notices they receive, because evaluating notices is burdensome and declining to comply may jeopardize their protection from liability. The risk of legal content being taken down is especially high in cases where assessing the illegality of the content would require detailed factual analysis and careful legal judgments that balance competing fundamental rights and interests. Intermediaries will be extremely reluctant to exercise their own judgment when the legal issues are unclear, and it will be easy for any party submitting a notice to claim a good faith belief that the content in question is unlawful. In short, the murkier the legal analysis, the greater the potential for abuse.

To reduce this risk, removal of or disablement of access to content based on unadjudicated allegations of illegality (i.e., notices from private parties) should be limited to cases where the content at issue is manifestly illegal – and then only with necessary safeguards against abuse as described above.

CDT believes that online free expression is best served by narrowing what is considered manifestly illegal and subject to takedown upon private notice. With proper safeguards against abuse, for example, notice-and-action can be an appropriate policy for addressing online copyright infringement. Copyright is an area of law where there is reasonable international consensus regarding what is illegal and where much infringement is straightforward. There can be difficult questions at the margins – for example concerning the applicability of limitations and exceptions such as “fair use” – but much online infringement is not disputable.

Quite different considerations apply to the extension of notice-and-action procedures to allegations of defamation or other illegal content. Other areas of law, including defamation, routinely require far more difficult factual and legal determinations. There is greater potential for abuse of notice-and-action where illegality is less manifest and more disputable. If private notices are sufficient to have allegedly defamatory content removed, for example, any person unhappy about something that has been written about him or her would have the ability and incentive to make an allegation of defamation, creating a significant potential for unjustified notices that harm free expression. This and other areas where illegality is more disputable require different approaches to notice and action. In the case of defamation, CDT believes “notice” for purposes of removing or disabling access to content should come only from a competent court after full adjudication.

In cases where it would be inappropriate to remove or disable access to content based on untested allegations of illegality, service providers receiving allegations of illegal content may be able to take alternative actions in response to notices. Forwarding notices to the content provider or preserving data necessary to facilitate the initiation of legal proceedings, for example, can pose less risk to content providers’ free expression rights, provided there is sufficient process to allow the content provider to challenge the allegations and assert his or her rights, including the right to speak anonymously.”^[7]

Principle III: Clarity

All notices that request the removal of content should be clear and meet certain minimum requirements
The Center for Democracy and Technology outlined requirements for clear notices in a notice and action system in response a European Commission public comment period on a revised notice and action regime.^[8] They write:

“Notices should include the following features:

Specificity. Notices should be required to specify the exact location of the material – such as a specific URL – in order to be valid. This is perhaps the most important requirement, in that it allows hosts to take targeted action against identified illegal material without having to engage in burdensome search or monitoring. Notices that demand the removal of particular content wherever it appears on a site without specifying any location(s) are not sufficiently precise to enable targeted action.
Description of alleged illegal content. Notices should be required to include a detailed description of the specific content alleged to be illegal and to make specific reference to the law allegedly being violated. In the case of copyright, the notice should identify the specific work or works claimed to be infringed.
Contact details. Notices should be required to contain contact information for the sender. This facilitates assessment of notices’ validity, feedback to senders regarding invalid notices, sanctions for abusive notices, and communication or legal action between the sending party and the poster of the material in question.
Standing: Notices should be issued only by or on behalf of the party harmed by the content. For copyright, this would be the rightsholder or an agent acting on the rightsholderʼs behalf. For child sexual abuse images, a suitable issuer of notice would be a law enforcement agency or a child abuse hotline with expertise in assessing such content. For terrorism content, only government agencies would have standing to submit notice.
Certification: A sender of a notice should be required to attest under legal penalty to a good-faith belief that the content being complained of is in fact illegal; that the information contained in the notice is accurate; and, if applicable, that the sender either is the harmed party or is authorized to act on behalf of the harmed party. This kind of formal certification requirement signals to notice-senders that they should view misrepresentation or inaccuracies on notices as akin to making false or inaccurate statements to a court or administrative body.
Consideration of limitations, exceptions, and defenses: Senders should be required to certify that they have considered in good faith whether any limitations, exceptions, or defenses apply to the material in question. This is particularly relevant for copyright and other areas of law in which exceptions are specifically described in law.
An effective appeal and counter-notice mechanism. A notice-and-action regime should include counter-notice procedures so that content providers can contest mistaken and abusive notices and have their content reinstated if its removal was wrongful.
Penalties for unjustified notices. Senders of erroneous or abusive notices should face possible sanctions. In the US, senders may face penalties for knowingly misrepresenting that content is infringing, but the standard for “knowingly misrepresenting” is quite high and the provision has rarely been invoked. A better approach might be to use a negligence standard, whereby a sender could be held liable for damages or attorneys’ fees for making negligent misrepresentations (or for repeatedly making negligent misrepresentations). In addition, the notice-and-action system should allow content hosts to ignore notices from senders with an established record of sending erroneous or abusive notices or allow them to demand more information or assurances in notices from those who have in the past submitted erroneous notices. (For example, hosts might be deemed within the safe harbor if they require repeat abusers to specifically certify that they have actually examined the alleged infringing content before sending a notice).”^[9]

All ISPs should publish their content removal policies online and keep them current as they evolve
The UNESCO report states, by way of background, that “[c]ontent restriction practices based on Terms of Service are opaque. How companies remove content based on Terms of Service violations is more opaque than their handling of content removals based on requests from authorized authorities. When content is removed from a platform based on company policy, [our] research found that all companies provide a generic notice of this restriction to the user, but do not provide the reason for the restriction. Furthermore, most companies do not provide notice to the public that the content has been removed. In addition, companies are inconsistently open about removal of accounts and their reasons for doing so.”^[10]

There are legitimate reasons why an ISP may want to have policies that permit less content, and a narrower range of content, than is technically permitted under the law, such as maintaining a product that appeals to families. However, if a company is going to go beyond the minimal legal requirements in terms of content that it must restrict, the company should have clear policies that are published online and kept up-to-date to provide its users notice of what content is and is not permitted on the company’s platform. Notice to the user about the types of content that are permitted encourages her to speak freely and helps her to understand why content that she posted was taken down if it must be taken down for violating a company policy.

When content is removed, a clear notice should be provided in the product that explains in simple terms that content has been removed and why
This subsection works in conjunction with “ii,” above. If content is removed for any reason, either pursuant to a legal request or because of a violation of company policy, a user should be able to learn that content was removed if they try to access it. Requiring an on-screen message that explains that content has been removed and why is the post-takedown accompaniment to the pre-takedown published online policy of the online intermediary: both work together to show the user what types of content are and are not permitted on each online platform. Explaining to users why content has been removed in sufficient detail may also spark their curiosity as to the laws or policies that caused the content to be removed, resulting in increased civic engagement in the internet law and policy space, and a community of citizens that demands that the companies and governments it interacts with are more responsive to how it thinks content regulation should work in the online context.

The UNESCO report provides the following example of how Google provides notice to its users when a search result is removed, which includes a link to a page hosted by Chilling Effects:^[11]

“When search results are removed in response to government or copyright holder demands, a notice describing the number of results removed and the reasons for their removal is displayed to users (see screenshot below) and a copy of the request to the independent non-proft organization ChillingEffects.org, which archives and publishes the request. When possible the company also contacts the website’s owners.”^[12]

This is an example of the message that is displayed when Google removes a search result pursuant to a copyright complaint.^[13]

Requirements that governments impose on intermediaries should be as clear and unambiguous as possible
Imposing liability on internet intermediaries without providing clear guidance as to the precise type of content that is not lawful and the precise requirements of a legally sufficient notice encourages intermediaries to over-remove content. As Article 19 noted in its 2013 report on intermediary liability:

“International bodies have also criticized ‘notice and takedown’ procedures as they lack a clear legal basis. For example, the 2011 OSCE report on Freedom of Expression on the internet highlighted that: Liability provisions for service providers are not always clear and complex notice and takedown provisions exist for content removal from the Internet within a number of participating States. Approximately 30 participating States have laws based on the EU E-Commerce Directive. However, the EU Directive provisions rather than aligning state level policies, created differences in interpretation during the national implementation process. These differences emerged once the national courts applied the provisions.

These procedures have also been criticized for being unfair. Rather than obtaining a court order requiring the host to remove unlawful material (which, in principle at least, would involve an independent judicial determination that the material is indeed unlawful), hosts are required to act merely on the say-so of a private party or public body. This is problematic because hosts tend to err on the side of caution and therefore take down material that may be perfectly legitimate and lawful. For example, in his report, the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression noted:

[W]hile a notice-and-takedown system is one way to prevent intermediaries from actively engaging in or encouraging unlawful behavior on their services, it is subject to abuse by both State and private actors. Users who are notiﬁed by the service provider that their content has been ﬂagged as unlawful often has little recourse or few resources to challenge the takedown. Moreover, given that intermediaries may still be held ﬁnancially or in some cases criminally liable if they do not remove content upon receipt of notiﬁcation by users regarding unlawful content, they are inclined to err on the side of safety by overcensoring potentially illegal content. Lack of transparency in the intermediaries’ decision-making process also often obscures discriminatory practices or political pressure affecting the companies’ decisions. Furthermore, intermediaries, as private entities, are not best placed to make the determination of whether a particular content is illegal, which requires careful balancing of competing interests and consideration of defenses.”^[14]

Considering the above, if liability is to be imposed on intermediaries for certain types of unlawful content, the legal requirements that outline what is unlawful content and how to report it must be clear. Lack of clarity in this area will result in over-removal of content by rational intermediaries that want to minimize their legal exposure and compliance costs. Over-removal of content is at odds with the goals of freedom of expression.

The UNESCO Report made a similar recommendation, stating that; “Governments need to ensure that legal frameworks and company policies are in place to address issues arising out of intermediary liability. These legal frameworks and policies should be contextually adapted and be consistent with a human rights framework and a commitment to due process and fair dealing. Legal and regulatory frameworks should also be precise and grounded in a clear understanding of the technology they are meant to address, removing legal uncertainty that would provide opportunity for abuse.”^[15]

Similarly, the 2011 Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and the Internet states:

“Consideration should be given to insulating fully other intermediaries, including those mentioned in the preamble, from liability for content generated by others under the same conditions as in paragraph 2(a). At a minimum, intermediaries should not be required to monitor user-generated content and should not be subject to extrajudicial content takedown rules which fail to provide sufficient protection for freedom of expression (which is the case with many of the ‘notice and takedown’ rules currently being applied).”^[16]

Principle IV: Mindful Community Policy Making

“Laws and regulations as well as corporate policies are more likely to be compatible with freedom of expression if they are developed in consultation with all affected stakeholders – particularly those whose free expression rights are known to be at risk.”^[17] To be effective, policies should be created through a multi-stakeholder consultation process that gives voice to the communities most at risk of being targeted for the information they share online. Further, both companies and governments should embed an ‘outreach to at-risk communities’ step into both legislative and policymaking processes to be especially sure that their voices are heard. Finally, civil society should work to ensure that all relevant stakeholders have a voice in both the creation and revision of policies that affect online intermediaries. In the context of corporate policymaking, civil society can use strategies from activist investing to encourage investors to make the human rights and freedom of expression policies of Internet companies’ part of the calculus that investors use to decide where to place their money. Considering the above;

Human rights impact assessments, considering the impact of the proposed law or policy on various communities from the perspectives of gender, sexuality, sexual preference, ethnicity, religion, and freedom of expression, should be required before:
New laws are written that govern content issues affecting ISPs or conduct that occurs primarily online
“Protection of online freedom of expression will be strengthened if governments carry out human rights impact assessments to determine how proposed laws or regulations will affect Internet users’ freedom of expression domestically and globally.”^[18]

Intermediaries enact new policies
“Protection of online freedom of expression will be strengthened if companies carry out human rights impact assessments to determine how their policies, practices, and business operations affect Internet users’ freedom of expression. This assessment process should be anchored in robust engagement with stakeholders whose freedom of expression rights are at greatest risk online, as well as stakeholders who harbor concerns about other human rights affected by online speech.”^[19]

Multi-stakeholder consultation processes should precede any new legislation that will apply to content issues affecting online intermediaries or online conduct
“Laws and regulations as well as corporate policies are more likely to be compatible with freedom of expression if they are developed in consultation with all affected stakeholders – particularly those whose free expression rights are known to be at risk.”^[20]

Civil society and public interest groups should encourage responsible investment in companies who implement policies that reflect best practices for internet intermediaries
“Over the past thirty years, responsible investors have played a powerful role in incentivizing companies to improve environmental sustainability, supply chain labor practices, and respect for human rights of communities where companies physically operate. Responsible investors can also play a powerful role in incentivizing companies to improve their policies and practices affecting freedom of expression and privacy by developing metrics and criteria for evaluating companies on these issues in the same way that they evaluate companies on other “environmental, social, and governance” criteria.”^[21]

Principle V: Necessity and Proportionality in Content Restriction

Content should only be restricted when there is a legal basis for doing so, or the removal is performed in accordance with a clear, published policy of the ISP
As CDT outlined in its 2012 intermediary liability report, “[a]ctions required of intermediaries must be narrowly tailored and proportionate, to protect the fundamental rights of Internet users. Any actions that a safe-harbor regime requires intermediaries to take must be evaluated in terms of the principle of proportionality and their impact on Internet users’ fundamental rights, including rights to freedom of expression, access to information, and protection of personal data. Laws that encourage intermediaries to take down or block certain content have the potential to impair online expression or access to information. Such laws must therefore ensure that the actions they call for are proportional to a legitimate aim, no more restrictive than is required for achievement of the aim, and effective for achieving the aim. In particular, intermediary action requirements should be narrowly drawn, targeting specific unlawful content rather than entire websites or other Internet resources that may support both lawful and unlawful uses.”^[22]

When content must be restricted, it should be restricted in the most minimal way possible (i.e., prefer domain removals to IP-blocking)
There are a number of different ways that access to content can be restricted. Examples include hard deletion of the content from all of a company’s servers, blocking the download of an app or other software program in a particular country, blocking the content on all IP addresses affiliated with a particular country (“IP-Blocking”), removing the content from a particular domain of a product (i.e., removing from a link from the .fr version of a search engine that remains accessible on the .com version), blocking content from a ‘version’ of an online product that is accessible through a ‘country’ or ‘language’ setting on that product, or some combination of the last three options (i.e., an online product that directs the user to a version of the product based on the country that their IP address is coming from, but where the user can alter a URL or manipulate a drop-down menu to show her a different ‘country version’ of the product, providing access to content that may otherwise be inaccessible).

While almost all of the different types of content restrictions described above can be circumvented by technical means such as the use of proxies, IP-cloaking, or Tor, the average internet user does not know that these techniques exist, much less how to use them. Of the different types of content restrictions described above, a domain removal, for example, is easier for an individual user to circumvent than IP-Blocked content because you only have to change the URL of the product you are using to, i.e. “.com” to see content that has been locally restricted. To get around an IP-block, you would have to be sufficiently savvy to employ a proxy or cloak your true IP address.

Therefore, the technical means used to restrict access to controversial content has a direct impact on the magnitude of the actual restriction on speech. The more restrictive the technical removal method, the fewer people that will have access to that content. To preserve access to lawful content, online intermediaries should choose the least restrictive means of complying with removal requests, especially when the removal request is based on the law of a particular country that makes certain content unlawful that is not unlawful in other countries. Further, when building new products and services, intermediaries should built in removal capability that minimally restricts access to controversial content.

If content is restricted due to its illegality in a particular country, the geographical scope of the content restriction should be as minimal as possible
Building on the discussion in “ii,” supra, a user should be able to access content that is lawful in her country even if it is not lawful in another country. Different countries have different laws and it is often difficult for intermediaries to determine how to effectively respond to requests and reconcile the inherent conflicts that result. For example, content that denies the holocaust is illegal in certain countries, but not in others. If an intermediary receives a request to remove content based on the laws of a particular country and determines that it will comply because the content is not lawful in that country, it should not restrict access to the content such that it cannot be accessed by users in other countries where the content is lawful. To respond to a request based on the law of a particular country by blocking access to that content for users around the world, or even users of more than one country, essentially allows for extraterritorial application of the laws of the country that the request came from. While it is preferable to standardize and limit the legal requirements imposed on online intermediaries throughout the world, to the extent that this is not possible, the next-best option is to limit the application of laws that are interpreted to declare certain content unlawful to the users that live in that country. Therefore, intermediaries should choose the technical means of content restriction that is most narrowly tailored to limit the geographical scope and impact of the removal.

The ability of conduits (telecommunications/internet service providers) to filter content should be minimized to the extent technically and legally possible

The 2011 Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and the Internet made the following points about the dangers of allowing filtering technology:

“Mandatory blocking of entire websites, IP addresses, ports, network protocols or types of uses (such as social networking) is an extreme measure – analogous to banning a newspaper or broadcaster – which can only be justified in accordance with international standards, for example where necessary to protect children against sexual abuse.

Content filtering systems which are imposed by a government or commercial service provider and which are not end-user controlled are a form of prior censorship and are not justifiable as a restriction on freedom of expression.

Products designed to facilitate end-user filtering should be required to be accompanied by clear information to end-users about how they work and their potential pitfalls in terms of over-inclusive filtering.”^[23]

In short, filtering at the conduit level is a blunt instrument that should be avoided whenever possible. Similar to how conduits should not be legally responsible for content that they neither host nor modify (the ‘mere conduit’ rule discussed supra), conduits should technically restrict their ability to filter content such that it would be inefficient for government agencies to contact them to have content filtered. Mere conduits are not able to assess the context surrounding the controversial content that they are asked to remove and are therefore not the appropriate party to receive takedown requests. Further, when mere conduits have the technical ability to filter content, they open themselves to pressure from government to exercise that capability. Therefore, mere conduits should limit or not build in the capability to filter content.

Notice and notice, or notice and judicial takedown, should be preferred to notice and takedown, which should be preferred to unilateral removal
Mechanisms for content removal that involve intermediaries acting without any oversight or accountability, or those which only respond to the interests of the party requesting removal, are unlikely to do a very good job at balancing public and private interests. A much better balance is likely to be struck through a mechanism where power is distributed between the parties, and/or where an independent and accountable oversight mechanism exists.

Considered in this way, there is a continuum of content removal mechanisms that ranges from those are the least balanced and accountable, and those that are more so. The least accountable is the unilateral removal of content by the intermediary without legal compulsion in response to a request received, without affording the uploader of the content the right to be heard or access to remedy.

Notice and takedown mechanisms fit next along the continuum, provided that they incorporate, as the DMCA attempts to do, an effective appeal and counter-notice mechanism. However where notice and takedown falls down is that the cost and incentive structure is weighted towards removal of content in the case of doubt or dispute, resulting in more content being taken down and staying down than would be socially optimal.

A better balance is likely to be struck by a “notice and notice” regime, which provides strong social incentives for those whose content is reported to be unlawful to remove the content, but does not legally compel them to do so. If legal compulsion is required, a court order must be separately obtained.

Canada is an example of a jurisdiction with a notice and notice regime, though limited to copyright content disputes. Although this regime is now established in legislation, it formalizes a previous voluntary regime, whereby major ISPs would forward copyright infringement notifications received from rightsholders to subscribers, but without removing any content and without releasing subscriber data to the rightsholders absent a court order. Under the new legislation additional record-keeping requirements are imposed on ISPs, but otherwise the essential features of the regime remain unchanged.

Analysis of data collected during this voluntary regime indicates that it has been effective in changing the behavior of allegedly infringing subscribers. A 2010 study by the Entertainment Software Association of Canada (ESAC) found that 71% of notice recipients did not infringe again, whereas a similar 2011 study by Canadian ISP Rogers found 68% only received one notice, and 89% received no more than two notices, with only 1 subscriber in 800,000 receiving numerous notices.^[24] However, in cases where a subscriber has a strong good faith belief that the notice they received was wrong, there is no risk to them in disregarding the erroneous notice – a feature that does not apply to notice and takedown.

Another similar way in which public and private interests can be balanced is through a notice and judicial takedown regime, whereby the rightsholder who issues a notice about offending content must have it assessed by an independent judicial (or perhaps administrative) authority before the intermediary will respond by taking the content down.

An example of this is found in Chile, again limited to the case of copyright.^[25] In response to its Free Trade Agreement with the United States, the system introduced in 2010 is broadly similar to the DMCA, with the critical difference that intermediaries are not required to take material down in order to benefit from a liability safe harbor, until such time as a court order for removal of the material is made. Responsibility for evaluating the copyright claims made is therefore shifted from intermediaries onto the courts.

Although this requirement does impose a burden on the rightsholder, this serves a purpose by disincentivizing the issue of automated or otherwise unjustified notices that are more likely to restrict or chill freedom of expression. In cases where there is no serious dispute about the legality of the content, it is unlikely that the lawsuit would be defended. In any case, the legislation authorizes the court to issue a preliminary injunction on an ex parte basis, on condition of payment of a bond.

Intermediaries should be allowed to charge for the time and expense associated with processing legal requests
As an intermediary, it is time consuming and relatively expensive to understand the obligations that each country’s legal regime imposes on you, and to accurately how each legal request should be handled. Especially for intermediaries without many resources, such as forum operators or owners of home Wifi networks, the costs associated with being an intermediary can be prohibitive. Therefore, it should be within their rights to charge for their compliance costs if they are either below a certain user threshold or can show financial necessity in some way.

Legal requirements imposed on intermediaries should be a floor, not a ceiling- ISPs can adopt more restrictive policies to more effectively serve their users as long as they have published policies that explain what they are doing
The Internet has space for a wide range of platforms and applications directed to different communities, with different needs and desires. A social networking site directed at children, for example, may reasonably want to have policies that are much more restrictive than a political discussion board. Therefore, legal requirements that compel intermediaries to take down content should be seen as a ‘floor,’ but not a ‘ceiling’ on the range and quantity that of content those intermediaries may remove. Intermediaries should retain control over their own policies as long as they are transparent about what those policies are, what type of content the intermediary removes, and why they removed certain pieces of content.

Principle VI: Privacy

It is important to protect the ability of Internet users to speak by narrowing and making less ambiguous the range of content that intermediaries can be held liable for, but it is also very important to make users feel comfortable sharing their view by ensuring that their privacy is protected. Protecting the user’s ability to share her views, especially when those views are controversial or have a direct bearing on important political issues, requires that the user can trust the intermediaries that she uses. This concept can be further broken down into three sub-principles:

The user’s personal information should be protected to the greatest extent possible given the state of the art in encryption, security, and policy
Users will be less willing to speak on important topics if they have legitimate concerns that their data may be taken from them. As stated in the UNESCO Report, “[b]ecause of the amount of personal information held by companies and ability to access the same, a company’s practices around collection, access, disclosure, and retention are key. To a large extent a service provider’s privacy practices are influenced by applicable law and operating licenses required by the host government. These can include requirements for service providers to verify subscribers, collect and retain subscriber location data, and cooperate with law enforcement when requested. Outcome: The implications of companies trying to balance a user’s expectation for privacy with a government’s expectation for cooperation can be serious and are inadequately managed in all jurisdictions studied.”^[26]

Where possible, ISPs should help to preserve the user’s right to speak anonymously
An important aspect of an Internet user’s ability to exercise her right to free expression online is ability to speak anonymously. Anonymous speech is one of the great advances of the Internet as a communications medium and should be preserved to the extent possible. As noted by special rapporteur Frank LaRue, “[i]n order for individuals to exercise their right to privacy in communications, they must be able to ensure that these remain private, secure and, if they choose, anonymous. Privacy of communications infers that individuals are able to exchange information and ideas in a space that is beyond the reach of other members of society, the private sector, and ultimately the State itself. Security of communications means that individuals should be able to verify that only their intended recipients, without interference or alteration, receive their communications and that the communications they receive are equally free from intrusion. Anonymity of communications is one of the most important advances enabled by the Internet, and allows individuals to express themselves freely without fear of retribution or condemnation.”^[27]

The user’s PII should never be sold or used without her consent, and she should always know what is being done with it via an easily comprehensible dashboard
The user’s trust in the online platform that she uses and relies upon is influenced not only by the relationships the intermediary maintains with the government, but also with other commercial entities. A user, who feels that her data will be constantly shared with third parties, perhaps without her consent and/or for marketing purposes, will never feel like she is able to freely express her opinion. Therefore, it is the intermediary’s responsibility to ensure that its users know exactly what information it retains about them, who it shares that information with and under what circumstances, and how to change the way that her data is shared. All of this information should be available on a dashboard that is comprehensible to the average user, and which gives her the ability to easily modify or withdraw her consent to the way her data is being shared, or the amount of data, or specific data, that the intermediary is retaining about her.

Principle VII: Access to Remedy

As noted in the UNESCO Report, “Remedy is the third central pillar of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, placing an obligation both on governments and on companies to provide individuals access to effective remedy. This area is where both governments and companies are almost consistently lacking. Across intermediary types, across jurisdictions and across the types of restriction, individuals whose content is restricted and individuals who wish to access such content are offered little or no effective recourse to appeal restriction decisions, whether in response to government orders, third party requests or in accordance with company policy. There are no private grievance or due process mechanisms that are clearly communicated and readily available to all users, or consistently applied.”^[28]

Any notice and takedown system is subject to abuse, and any company policy that results in the removal of content is subject to mistaken or inaccurate takedowns, both of which are substantial problems that can only be remedied by the ability for users to let the intermediary know when the intermediary improperly removed a specific piece of content and the technical and procedural ability of the intermediary to put the content back. However, the technical ability to reinstate content that was improperly removed may conflict with data retention laws. This conflict should be explored in more detail. In general, however, every time content is removed, there should be:

A clear mechanism through which users can request reinstatement of content
When an intermediary decides to remove content, it should be immediately clear to the user that content has been removed and why it was removed (see discussion of in-product notice, supra). If the user disagrees with the content removal decision, there should be an obvious, online method for her to request reinstatement of the content.

Reinstatement of content should be technically possible
When intermediaries (who are subject to intermediary liability) are building new products, they should build the capability to remove content into the product with a high degree of specificity so as to allow for narrowly tailored content removals when a removal is legally required. Relatedly, all online intermediaries should build the capability to reinstate content into their products while maintaining compliance with data retention laws.

Intermediaries should have policies and procedures in place to handle reinstatement requests
Between the front end (online mechanism to request reinstatement of content) and the backend (technical ability to reinstate content) is the necessary middle layer, which consists of the intermediary’s internal policies and processes that allow for valid reinstatement requests to be assessed and acted upon. In line with the corporate ‘responsibility to respect’ human rights, and considered along with the human rights principle of ‘access to remedy,’ intermediaries should have a system in place from the time that an online product launches to ensure that reinstatement requests can be made and will be processed quickly and appropriately.

Principle VIII: Accountability

Governments must ensure that independent, transparent, and impartial accountability mechanisms exist to verify the practices of government and companies with regards to managing content created online
“While it is important that companies make commitments to core principles on freedom of expression and privacy, make efforts to implement those principles through transparency, policy advocacy, and human rights impact assessments, it is also important that companies take these steps in a manner that is accountable to stakeholders. One way of doing this is by committing to external third party assurance to verify that their policies and practices are being implemented to a meaningful standard, with acceptable consistency wherever their service is offered. Such assurance gains further public credibility when carried out with the supervision and affirmation of multiple stakeholders including civil society groups, academics, and responsible investors. The Global Network Initiative provides one such mechanism for public accountability. Companies not currently participating in GNI, or a process of similar rigor and multi-stakeholder involvement, should be urged by users, investors, and regulators to do so.”^[29]

Civil society should encourage comparative studies between countries and between ISPs with regards to their content removal practices to identify best practices
Civil society has the unique ability to look longitudinally across this issue to determine and compare how different intermediaries and governments are responding to content removal requests. Without information about how other governments and intermediaries are handling these issues, it will be difficult for each government or intermediary to learn how to improve its laws or policies. Therefore, civil society has an important role to play in the process of creating increasingly better human rights outcomes for online platforms by performing and sharing ongoing, comparative research.

Civil society should establish best practices and benchmarks against which ISPs and government can be measured, and should track governments and ISPs over time in public reports
“A number of projects that seek, define and implement indicators and benchmarks for governments or companies are either in development (examples include: UNESCO’s Indicators of Internet Development project examining country performance, Ranking Digital Rights focusing on companies) or already in operation (examples include the Web Foundation’s Web Index, Freedom House’s Internet Freedom Index, etc.). The emergence of credible, widely-used benchmarks and indicators that enable measurement of country and company performance on freedom of expression will help to inform policy, practice, stakeholder engagement processes, and advocacy.”^[30]

Principle IX: Due Process - In Both Legal and Private Enforcement

ISPs should always consider context before removing content and Governments and courts should always consider context before ordering that certain content be removed
“Governments need to ensure that legal frameworks and company policies are in place to address issues arising out of intermediary liability. These legal frameworks and policies should be contextually adapted and be consistent with a human rights framework and a commitment to due process and fair dealing. Legal and regulatory frameworks should also be precise and grounded in a clear understanding of the technology they are meant to address, removing legal uncertainty that would provide opportunity for abuse.”^[31]

Principles for Courts

An independent and impartial judiciary exists, at least in part, to preserve the citizen’s due process rights. Many have called for an increased reliance on courts to make determinations about the legality of content posted online in order to both shift the censorship function from unaccountable private actors and to ensure that courts only order the removal of content that is actually unlawful. However, when courts do not have an adequate technical understanding of how content is created and shared on the internet, the rights of the intermediaries that facilitate the posting of the content, and who should be ordered to remove unlawful content, they do not add value to the online ecosystem. Therefore, courts should keep certain principles in mind to preserve the due process rights of the users that post content and the intermediaries that host the content.

Preserve due process for intermediaries- do not order them to do something before giving them notice and the opportunity to appear before the court

In a dispute between two private parties over a specific piece of content posted online, it may appear to the court that the easy solution is to order the intermediary who hosts the content to remove it. However, this approach does not extend any due process protections to the intermediary and does not adequately reflect the intermediary's status as something other than the creator of the content. If a court feels that it is necessary for an intermediary to intervene in a legal proceeding between two private parties, the court should provide the intermediary with proper notice and give them the opportunity to appear before the court before issuing any orders.

Necessity and proportionality of judicial determinations- judicial orders determining the illegality of specific content should be narrowly tailored to avoid over-removal of content

With regards to government removal requests, the UNESCO Report notes that “[o]ver-broad law and heavy liability regimes cause intermediaries to over-comply with government requests in ways that compromise users’ right to freedom of expression, or broadly restrict content in anticipation of government demands even if demands are never received and if the content could potentially be found legitimate even in a domestic court of law.”^[32] Courts should follow the same principle: only order the removal of the bare minimum of content that is necessary to remedy the harm identified and nothing more.

Courts should clarify whether ISPs have to remove content in response to court orders directed to third parties, or only have to remove content when directly ordered to do so (first party court orders) after an adversarial proceeding to which the ISP was a party

See discussion of the difference between first party and third party court orders (supra, section a., “Transparency”). Ideally, any decision that courts reach on this issue would be consistent across different countries.

Questions- related unresolved issues that should be kicked to the larger group

How should the conflict between access to remedy and data retention laws that say content must be hard deleted after a certain period of time be resolved? I think the access to remedy has to be subordinated to the data protection laws. Let's make that our draft position, but continue to flag it for discussion.

Should ISPs have to remove content in response to court orders directed to third parties, or only have to remove content when directly ordered to do so (first party court orders) after an adversarial proceeding to which the ISP was a party? I think first party orders. Let's make that our draft position, but continue to flag it for discussion.

[1] Center for Democracy and Technology, Shielding the Messengers: Protecting Platforms for Expression and Innovation at 4-15 (Version 2, 2012), available at https://www.cdt.org/files/pdfs/CDT-Intermediary-Liability-2012.pdf (see pp.4-15 for an explanation of these different models and the pros and cons of each).

[2] UNESCO, “Fostering Freedom Online: The Roles, Challenges, and Obstacles of Internet Intermediaries” at 6-7 (Draft Version, June 16th, 2014) (Hereinafter “UNESCO Report”).

[3] UNESCO Report at 56.

[4] UNESCO Report at 37.

[5] Center for Democracy and Technology, Additional Responses Regarding Notice and Action, Available at https://www.cdt.org/files/file/CDT%20N&A%20supplement.pdf.

[6] The United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Representative on Freedom of the Media, the Organization of American States (OAS) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information, Article 19, Global Campaign for Free Expression, and the Centre for Law and Democracy, JOINT DECLARATION ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND THE INTERNET at 2 (2011), available at http://www.osce.org/fom/78309 (Hereinafter “Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression).

[7] Center for Democracy and Technology, Additional Responses Regarding Notice and Action, Available at https://www.cdt.org/files/file/CDT%20N&A%20supplement.pdf.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] UNESCO Report at 113-14.

[11] ‘Chilling Effects’ is a website that allows recipients of ‘cease and desist’ notices to submit the notice to the site and receive information about their legal rights. For more information about ‘Chilling Effects’ see: http://www.chillingeffects.org.

[12] Id. at 73. You can see an example of a complaint published on Chilling Effects at the following location. “DtecNet DMCA (Copyright) Complaint to Google,” Chilling Effects Clearinghouse, March 12, 2013, www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=841442.

[13] UNESCO Report at 73.

[14] Article 19, Internet Intermediaries: Dilemma of Liability (2013), available at http://www.article19.org/data/files/Intermediaries_ENGLISH.pdf.

[15] UNESCO Report at 120.

[16] Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and the Internet at 2.

[17] Id.

[18] Id.

[19] Id. at 121.

[20] Id. at 104.

[21] Id. at 122.

[22] Center for Democracy and Technology, Shielding the Messengers: Protecting Platforms for Expression and Innovation at 12 (Version 2, 2012), available at https://www.cdt.org/files/pdfs/CDT-Intermediary-Liability-2012.pdf.

[23] Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression at 2-3.

[24] Geist, Michael, Rogers Provides New Evidence on Effectiveness of Notice-and-Notice System (2011), available at http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2011/03/effectiveness-of-notice-and-notice/

[25] Center for Democracy and Technology, Chile’s Notice-and-Takedown System for Copyright Protection: An Alternative Approach (2012), available at https://www.cdt.org/files/pdfs/Chile-notice-takedown.pdf

[26] UNESCO Report at 54.

[27] “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue (A/HRC/23/40),” United Nations Human Rights, 17 April 2013, http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf, § 24, p. 7.

[28] UNESCO Report at 118.

[29] UNESCO Report at 122.

[30] Id.

[31] UNESCO Report at 120.

[32] Id. at 119.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/zero-draft-of-content-removal-best-practices-white-paper

August 2014 Bulletin

praskrishna — 2014-10-04T06:09:57Z

Eighth issue of the newsletter (August 2014) below:

We at the Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) welcome you to the eighth issue of the newsletter (August 2014). Archives of our newsletters can be accessed at: http://cis-india.org/about/newsletters

Highlights

CIS published a policy guide on Privacy in Healthcare that seeks to understand the legal regulations governing data flow in the health sector - particularly hospitals, and how these regulations are implemented.
Nehaa Chaudhari wrote two articles on the Karnataka Goondas Act in Spicy IP. The first one is an overview on the various provisions of the law and discusses the potential impact of the amendment . The second one is a note on legislative competence .

Andhra Loyola College and CIS entered into a memorandum of understanding (MoU) to steward the growth of Telugu Wikipedia and to make available free knowledge in Telugu to all Telugus across the globe.
In July 2014, the Department of Biotechnology and the Department of Science, Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India released a draft Open Access Policy. CIS participated in discussions along with experts brought on board by the Drafting Committee to develop and review the open access policy. As a follow-up, CIS prepared comments to the draft Policy .

Anandini K. Rathore wrote a report on the second privacy and surveillance roundtable held in New Delhi at the India International Centre on July 4, 2014.
As part of its project on mapping cyber security experts in Asia with funding from Citizen's Lab, CIS interviewed Tibetan monkGyanak Tsering and Saumil Shah, security expert.

Published a white paper on content removal best practices and put it up for feedback. The draft paper has been created to frame the discussion towards the creation of a set of principles for intermediary liability in consultation with groups of Internet-focused NGOs and the academic community.
Shyam Ponappa's monthly column Transformation, or Drift? published in Business Standard and Organizing India Blogspot was mirrored on the CIS website.
P.P. Sneha blogged on the emergence of the phenomenon of the alt-academy in the West and the nuances and possibilities of such a space in the Indian context .

Accessibility and Inclusion

NVDA and eSpeak

Monthly Update

Work Report for August (by Suman Dogra, August 31, 2014).

Blog Entry

Smartphones and the Return to Dependency (by Anandhi Viswanathan, August 30, 2014).

Participation in Event

Towards an Accessible Internet for People with Disabilities (organized by International Centre for Free and Open Source Software and ISOC Australia, Delhi, August 4, 2014). Sunil Abraham was a speaker at this workshop organized as part of APrIGF.

Access to Knowledge

Blog Entries

Preventive Detention for Copyright Violation: Karnataka Amends the 'Goondas' Act (by Nehaa Chaudhari, August 13, 2014).

Karnataka Goondas Act - A note on Legislative Competence (by Nehaa Chaudhari, August 28, 2014).

Interviews with App Developers: [dis]regard towards IPR vs. Patent Hype - Part II (by Samantha Cassar, August 14, 2014).

Openness

Submission

Comments on the Department of Biotechnology and Department of Science Open Access Policy (by Anubha Sinha, August 22, 2014).

Participation in Event

Connecting the Next Two Billion: The Role of FOSS (organized by ICFOSS, Noida, August 4, 2014). Sunil Abraham was a speaker at this workshop held as part of the APrIGF.

Wikipedia

Announcement

Andhra Loyola College and the Centre for Internet & Society sign MoU for Better Net Access (by Rahmanuddin Shaik, August 19, 2014): Ten theosophical books authored by Rev. Fr. P. Jojaiah, SJ were released under free license (CC-BY-SA-4.0); For the first time an educational institution in the state of Andhra Pradesh is signing an MoU with CIS-A2K to work collaboratively to qualitatively improve Telugu Wikipedia; ALC faculty and students will create free e-content in Telugu on Telugu Wikipedia; Digital content from the fields of Botany, Physics, Chemistry, Telugu, Statistics, Ethics and Religion, Music and Dance will be produced on Telugu Wikipedia.

News and Media Coverage

CIS-A2K team gave its inputs to the following media coverage:

Now, Christ students will contribute to Wikipedia (by H.M.Shruthi, Deccan Herald, August 5, 2014).

CIS-A2K Signs MoU with Andhra Loyola College in Vijayawada (Eenadu, August 15, 2014).

ALC signs MoU for better net access (The Hindu, August 15, 2014).

Participation in Event

Konkani Global Enclave (organized by Jagotik Konknni Songhotton, Kalaangann, Shaktinagar, August 24, 2014). T. Vishnu Vardhan participated in the event.

Internet Governance

Privacy

Policy Guide

Privacy in Healthcare: Policy Guide (by Tanvi Mani, August 26, 2014).

Event Report

Second Privacy and Surveillance Roundtable (by Anandini K Rathore, August 6, 2014).

Blog Entries

Surat's Massive Surveillance Network Should Cause Concern, Not Celebration (by Joe Sheehan, August 3, 2014).

Learning to Forget the ECJ's Decision on the Right to be Forgotten and its Implications (by Divij Joshi, August 14, 2014).

Participation in Events

Learning Event - The Internet and Economic, Cultural and Social Rights (organized by the International Development Research Centre and Association for Progressive Communications, August 8 - 10, 2014). Sunil Abraham was a remote participant.

Understanding Surveillance and Privacy in India (organized by Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, August 28, 2014). Bhairav Acharya delivered a lecture.

Free Speech

As part of our project on Freedom of Expression (funded through a grant from the MacArthur Foundation) to study the restrictions placed on freedom of expression online by the Indian government and contribute to the debates around Internet governance and freedom of expression at forums like ICANN, ITU, IGF, WSIS, etc., we bring you the following outputs:

White Paper

Zero Draft of Content Removal Best Practices White Paper (by Jyoti Panday, August 31, 2014).

News & Media Coverage

CIS gave its inputs to the following media coverage:

'I'm going to ruin you, dear' (by Prasun Chaudhuri with additional reporting by Varuna Verma in Bangalore, August 3, 2014).
We the goondas (by Shyam Prasad, Bangalore Mirror, August 4, 2014).
Sunil Abraham | The online warrior (by Anirban Sen, Livemint, August 9, 2014).
Dot Bharat domain to roll out on August 21 (originally published by IANS and mirrored in FirstPost, August 19, 2014).
The Uncertain Future of India's Plan to Biometrically Identify Everyone (by Jessica Mckenzie, TechPresident, August 28, 2014).
Will domain dot भारत spur the growth of Indian languages on the internet? (by Rohan Venkataramakrishnan, August 29, 2014).
SC seeks govt reply on PIL challenging powers of IT Act (by Shreeja Sen, Livemint, August 30, 2014).

Cyber Stewards

As part of its project on mapping cyber security actors in South Asia and South East Asia with the Citizen Lab, Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto and the International Development Research Centre, Canada, CIS conducted 2 new interviews. With this it has finished a total of 21 interviews:

Video Interviews

Saumil Shah (August 30, 2014).

Gyanak Tsering (August 31, 2014).

Telecom

CIS is involved in promoting access and accessibility to telecommunications services and resources and has provided inputs to ongoing policy discussions and consultation papers published by TRAI. It has prepared reports on unlicensed spectrum and accessibility of mobile phones for persons with disabilities and also works with the USOF to include funding projects for persons with disabilities in its mandate:

Newspaper Column

Transformation, or Drift? (by Shyam Ponappa, Business Standard, August 6, 2014 and Organizing India Blogspot, August 7, 2014).

Blog Entry

"OTTs Eating Into Our Revenue": Telcos in India (by Geetha Hariharan, August 7, 2014).

Digital Humanities

Blog Entry

Digital Humanities and the Alt-Academy (by P.P. Sneha, August 19, 2014).

About CIS

► Follow us elsewhere

Twitter: https://twitter.com/CISA2K
Facebook group: https://www.facebook.com/cisa2k
Visit us at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/India_Access_To_Knowledge
E-mail: a2k@cis-india.org

► Support Us

► Request for Collaboration:

We invite researchers, practitioners, and theoreticians, both organisationally and as individuals, to collaboratively engage with Internet and society and improve our understanding of this new field. To discuss the research collaborations, write to Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, atsunil@cis-india.org or Nishant Shah, Director - Research, at nishant@cis-india.org. To discuss collaborations on Indic language Wikipedia, write to T. Vishnu Vardhan, Programme Director, A2K, at vishnu@cis-india.org.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/newsletters/august-2014-bulletin

Access to Knowledge Bulletin — August 2014

praskrishna — 2014-10-04T15:51:15Z

The Access to Knowledge (Wikipedia) newsletter for the month of August 2014:

India Access to Knowledge/Newsletter/August 2014 - Meta

Andhra Loyola College and the Centre for Internet & Society sign MoU for Better Net Access

Andhra Loyola College (ALC) and the Centre for Internet and Society's Access to Knowledge team (CIS-A2K) have entered into a memorandum of understanding (MoU) to steward the growth of Telugu Wikipedia and to make available free knowledge in Telugu to all Telugus across the globe.
Highlights

Ten theosophical books authored by Rev. Fr. P. Jojaiah, SJ released under free license (CC-BY-SA-4.0)
For the first time an educational institution in the state of Andhra Pradesh is signing an MoU with CIS-A2K to work collaboratively to qualitatively improve Telugu Wikipedia.
ALC faculty and students to create free e-content in Telugu on Telugu Wikipedia.
Digital content from the fields of Botany, Physics, Chemistry, Telugu, Statistics, Ethics and Religion, Music and Dance to be produced on Telugu Wikipedia.

Blog Entries

We are Wikipedia (by Subhashish Panigrahi, Global Voices Online, June 18, 2014)
OpenGLAM at Wikimania 2014 (by Subhashish Panigrahi, OpenGlam, August 27, 2014)

News and Media Coverage

CIS-A2K team gave its inputs to the following media coverage:

Now, Christ students will contribute to Wikipedia (by H.M.Shruthi, Deccan Herald, August 5, 2014).
CIS-A2K Signs MoU with Andhra Loyola College in Vijayawada (Eenadu, August 15, 2014).
ALC signs MoU for better net access (The Hindu, August 15, 2014).

Wikimedia Foundation has funded A2K to anchor the growth of Wikimedia movement in India. The A2K team consists of six members, four based in Bangalore: T. Vishnu Vardhan, Dr. U.B. Pavanaja, Subhashish Panigrahi and Rahmanuddin Shaikh. One team member Nitika Tandon has left from the organisation -- We wish Nitika all the best for her career. We also have one Advisor Dr. Tejaswini Niranjana working with us. Archives of our newsletters can be accessed here. Wikipedians from various communities can request for outreach programs, technical bugs, logistics-merchandize and media, public relations and communications here.

About CIS

Follow us elsewhere

Twitter: https://twitter.com/CISA2K
CIS group on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/cis.india
Visit us at: https://cis-india.org

Request for Collaboration:

We invite researchers, practitioners, and theoreticians, both organisationally and as individuals, to collaboratively engage with Internet and society and improve our understanding of this new field. To discuss the research collaborations, write to Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, at sunil@cis-india.org or Nishant Shah, Director – Research, at nishant@cis-india.org. To discuss collaborations on Indic language wikipedia, write to T. Vishnu Vardhan, Programme Director, A2K, at vishnu@cis-india.org.

Retrieved from "http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=India_Access_to_Knowledge/Newsletter/August_2014&oldid=9929126"

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/newsletters/access-to-knowledge-bulletin-august-2014