Centre for Internet and Society

Whose Change is it Anyway?

praskrishna — 2013-07-02T15:41:46Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/digital-natives/blog/whose-change-is-it-anyway.pdf

Who Minds the Maxwell's Demon (Revisiting Communication Networks through the Lens of the Intermediary)

sharath — 2013-03-05T07:37:37Z

A holistic reflection on information networks and it’s regulatory framework is possible only when the medium-specific boundary that has often separated the Internet and Telecom networks begins to dissolve, to objectively reveal points of contention in the communication network where the dynamics of network security and privacy are at large – namely, within the historic role of the intermediary at data/signal switching and routing nodes.

It is unfair to contextualize the history of the Internet without looking at how analog information networks like cable and wireless telegraph and later, the telephone, almost coincidentally necessitated the invention of automated networks for remote machine control and peer-to- peer communication over the Internet that promised to drastically reduce intermediary overheads. While the whole world was fraught in patent wars over wired private networks, the first nodes of the ‘open’ internet were built in a two-week global meeting of computer scientists who were flown down to simply prepare for ‘a public exhibition’ of the ARPANET in 1971.

While India only received it’s first telephone in New Delhi late into the 20^th century, “Telegraph Laws” to most of the Indian working class always remained an ominously urgent telegram that brought the news of a dear one who had taken seriously ill. And so, on a lateral note, it is apt to bring to light the life of one Mr Almond Brown Strowger, wherein the idea of an automatic telephone exchange was given birth to by the ‘business of death’.

The Automatic Telephone Exchange

Almond Strowger was an undertaker based in Missouri, in a town where there was yet another undertaker, who’s wife incidentally was an operator in the then manual telephone exchange. Strowger came to believe the reason he received fewer phone calls was that his business competitor’s wife ended up preferentially routing all callers seeking Strowger’s funeral services to her undertaker husband instead. Strowger conceived the initial idea in 1888 and patented ‘The Automatic Telephone Exchange’ in 1891. http://goo.gl/oieIJ

Popularly known as the ‘Strowger Switch’, the Step-by Step switch (SXS switch) consisted of two interfaces – One at the customer’s end that used telegraph keys (and later a rotary dial) to send a train of electric current pulses corresponding to the digits 0 -9 all the way to the exchange. The actual Strowger switch at the exchange, used an electromechanical device that could move vertically to select one of 10 contacts, and then rotated to select one of another 10 in each row – a total of 100 choices. Consequently was formed in 1892, the Strowger Automatic Telephone Exchange Company at Indiana with about 75 subscribers. Strowger later sold his patents for $10,000 in 1898 to the Automatic Electric Company, a competitor of Bell System’s Western Electric. His patents were eventually acquired by Bell systems for $2.5 million in 1916, showing just how much growth and investor interest the telephone industry had gained by then.

Switching Paradigms

The architecture of global communication was headed towards different ideals and directions. Most media historians contrast these methodologies into ‘circuit switching’ and ‘packet switching’, or a connection-oriented fault intolerant system on one hand and another connection-less fault tolerant protocol respectively, both of which were being developed concurrently. In reality however, a major driving factor were the stakeholders backing the infrastructure of the rapidly growing communication industry, who were looking for growing returns on their investments. And hence these parallel ramifications may also be looked at through the lens of closed proprietary and medium specific networks versus an open, shared, medium in-specific paradigm of information theory.

Circuit switching relied on an assured dedicated connection between 2 nodes, and was especially patronized by the industry that saw telecommunication as the latest fad in urban luxury (a key factor in the distinction of suburban areas as the affluent moved into urban areas that were ‘connected’ by telephone). Owners and manufacturers of the hardware infrastructure became the most significant stakeholders. The revenue model was based on the amount of time the network was used and hence was popular in analog voice telephone networks. The entire bandwidth of the channel was made available for the duration of the session along with a fixed delay between communicating nodes. Therefore, even if there was no information being transmitted during a session, the channel would not be made available to anyone else waiting to use it unless released by the previous party. Early telephone exchanges relied on manual labour to facilitate switching until the automated exchange came about.

Packet switching on the other hand, leaned towards the paradigm of shared bandwidth and resources, and more importantly approached communication with complete disregard to the medium of transmission, be it wired or wireless. Furthermore, it also disregarded the content, modality and form of communication with an objectified data-centric approach. Information to be transmitted was divided into structured “packets” or “capsules”. These packets were all ‘thrown’ into the shared network pool consisting of numerous other such packets, each with its own destination, to be carefully buffered, stored and forwarded by intermediary routers in the network. Apart from occasional packet loss, the time taken to send a message is indeterminate and is dependent on the overall traffic load on the network at any given time.

INTERFACE MESSAGE PROCESSOR and the ICCC ‘Hackathon’

Plans forged on into the early 1960s towards the development of an open architecture to enable network communication between computer systems, culminating in the invention of the ‘interface message processor’ that promised to herald the coming of an era of packet switching by enabling the ARPANET (Advanced Research Projects Agency Network), the first wide area packet switched network – and precursor to the world wide web as we know it today.

While the Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO) had previously contracted Larry Roberts who in 1965 developed the first packet switched network between two computers , the TX-2 at MIT with a Q-32 in California, a growing need was felt to have a centralized terminal with access to multiple sites that would enable any computer to connect to any site. The first IMP was commissioned to be built by the engineering firm BBN (Bolt, Beranek and Newman, a professor student trio from MIT).

(The very first Interface Message Processor by BBN: Courtesy: http://goo.gl/tvo8n)

By 1971, the four original nodes that connected the ARPANET (viz, UCLA, Stanford Research Institute, University of Utah and University of California at Santa Barbara) had expanded to 15 nodes, but the lack of a common host protocol meant that a full-scale implementation and adoption of the ARPANET was far from complete. The time had come to allow the public to engage with the promising future that the Internet held. What entailed was the organization of first public International Conference on Computer Communication (1972) (http://goo.gl/PFhtL) under the umbrella of the IEEE Computer Society at the Hilton Hotel, Washington D.C. In many ways the event was the original version of a modern day new media art ‘hackathon’ and involved about 50 computer scientists who were flown in from around the globe alongside the likes of Vint Cerf and Bob Metcalfe. The deadline of a public demonstration provided the much-needed impetus to drive the network to functional completion. Exhibits included a variety of networked applications like the famed dialogue between the ‘paranoid patient’ chatbot PARRY and doctor ELIZA, motion control of the LOGO ‘Turtle’ across the network and remote access of digital files that were printed on paper locally. A milestone in distributed packet switching had been achieved and the stage had been set to compete with the archaic paradigm of circuit switched networks, even as delegates from AT&T (incidentally one of the funders of the event) watched on with the hope that the demonstration would run into a fatal glitch.

Who Minds the Maxwell's Demon

It may not be boldly evident from the vast corpus of policy research surrounding the regulation of communication networks (be it the issues of network security, privacy, anonymity, surveillance or billing systems) that key-points in the control system where dynamics play at large, are at the interfacing nodes and data/signal switches at either transceiver nodes as well as intermediary nodes. This is further underlined by the historical fact that the invention of the automatic telephone exchange was fuelled by the necessity to ensure a paradigm of unbiased circuit switching within the context of a networked business.

Just a glimpse at the number of patents that directly or indirectly refer to the Automatic Telephone Exchange patent shall bring to light myriad applications that range from “Linking of Personal Information Management Data”, “Universal Data Aggregation”, “Flexible Billing Architecture”, ”Multiple Data Store Authentication” , “Managing User to User Contact using Inferred Presence Detection” to various paradigms surrounding distributed systems for cache defeat detection, most of which are part of PUSH technology services that manage networked smartphone applications from instant messaging to email access. Other proposed systems for spectrum management and dynamic bandwidth allocation, such as policy alternatives to spectrum auction that entail frequency hopping at the transmitter level shall invariably depend on a centralized automated intermediary who shall in theory have transparent access to data flow. The role of routing intermediaries with specialized access, poses many interesting questions with regards to policy issues that surround network privacy and security.

This brings us back to the seemingly comical reference that this article makes to a mysterious entity named the ‘Maxwell’s Demon’. A thought experiment proposed by James Clerk Maxwell, involved a chamber of gas molecules at equilibrium that was divided into two halves along with a ‘door’ controlled by the “Maxwell’s Demon”. The demon had the ability to ‘open’ the door to allow faster than average molecules to enter one side of the chamber while slower molecules ended up on the other side of the chamber, causing the former side to heat up while the other side gradually cooled down, thereby establishing a temperature difference without doing any work, and thus violating the 2^nd Law of Thermodynamics. The parallel drawn in this article between networked switching intermediaries and the Maxwell’s demon does not go beyond this simple functional similarity.

However for the ambitious reader, it maybe interesting to note that ever since the invention of digital computers, scientists have actively pursued the paradox of Maxwell’s demon to revisit physical fundamentals governing information theory and information processing, which has involved analyzing the thermodynamic costs of elementary information manipulation in digital circuits – A study that probably constantly engages Google as they pump water through steel tubes to cool their million servers.

We shall save all this for another day, but on yet another related note, everytime say an email sent to an invalid address bounces back to your inbox as a “Mailer Daemon”, let it be known that the “Daemon” in Operating System terminology that refers to an invisible background process that the user has no control over, infact directly owes it’s etymology to the paradox of ‘Maxwell’s Demon’.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/telecom/blog/who-minds-the-maxwells-demon

Who Governs the Internet? Implications for Freedom and National Security

sunil — 2014-04-05T16:23:36Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Opportunity for India

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

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

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

What is the scope of Internet Governance?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So who really governs the Internet?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

White Paper on RTI and Privacy V1.2

vipul — 2014-11-09T02:53:51Z

This white paper explores the relationship between privacy and transparency in the context of the right to information in India. Analysing pertinent case law and legislation - the paper highlights how the courts and the law in India address questions of transparency vs. privacy.

Introduction

Although the right to information is not specifically spelt out in the Constitution of India, 1950, it has been read into Articles 14 (right to equality), 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and 21 (right to life) through cases such as Bennet Coleman v. Union of India,[1] Tata Press Ltd. v. Maharashtra Telephone Nigam Ltd.,[2] etc. The same Articles of the Constitution were also interpreted in Kharak Singh v.State of U.P.,[3] Govind v. State of M.P., [4] and a number of other cases, to include within their scope a right to privacy. At the very outset it appears that a right to receive information -though achieving greater transparency in public life - could impinge on the right to privacy of certain people. The presumed tension between the right to privacy and the right to information has been widely recognized and a framework towards balancing the two rights, has been widely discussed across jurisdictions. In India, nowhere is this conflict and the attempt to balance it more evident than under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (the "RTI Act").

Supporting the constitutional right to information enjoyed by the citizens, is the statutorily recognized right to information granted under the RTI Act. Any potential infringement of the right to privacy by the provisions of the RTI Act are sought to be balanced by section 8 which provides that no information should be disclosed if it creates an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of any individual. This exception states that there is no obligation to disclose information which relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. [5] The Act further goes on to say that where any information relating to or supplied by a third party and treated by that party as confidential, is to be disclosed, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer has to give written notice to that party within five days of receiving such a request inviting such third party (within ten days) to make its case as to whether such information should or should not be disclosed.[6]

A plain reading of section 11 suggests that for the section to apply the following three conditions have to be satisfied, i.e. (i) if the PIO is considering disclosing the information (ii) the information relates to the third party or was given to a Public Authority by the third party in confidence; and (iii) the third party treated the information to be a confidential. It has been held that in order to satisfy the third part of the test stated above, the third party has to be consulted and therefore a notice has to be sent to the third party. Even if the third party claims confidentiality, the proviso to the section provides that the information cannot be withheld if the public interest in the disclosure outweighs the possible harm or injury that may be caused to the third party, except in cases of trade or commercial secrets.[7] The Courts have also held that section 11 should be read keeping in mind the exceptions contained in section 8 (discussed in detail later) and the exceptions contained therein. [8]

This principle of non disclosure of private information can be found across a number of common law jurisdictions. The United Kingdom's Freedom of Information Act, 2000 exempts the disclosure of information where it would violate the data protection principles contained in the Data Protection Act, 1998 or constitute an actionable breach of confidence.[9] The Australian Freedom of Information Act, 1982 categorizes documents involving unreasonable disclosure of personal information as conditionally exempt i.e. allows for their disclosure unless such disclosure would be contrary to public interest.[10] The Canadian Access to Information Act also has a provision which allows the authorities to refuse to disclose personal information except in accordance with the provisions of the Canadian Privacy Act. [11]

An overview of the RTI Act, especially sections 6 to 8 seems to give the impression that the legislature has tried to balance and harmonize conflicting public and private rights and interests by building sufficient safeguards and exceptions to the general principles of disclosure under the Act. [12] This is why it is generally suggested that section 8, when applied, should be given a strict interpretation as it is a fetter on not only a statutory right granted under the RTI Act but also a pre-existing constitutional right. [13] Logical as this argument may seem and appropriate in some circumstances, it does present a problem when dealing with the privacy exception contained in section 8(1)(j). That is because the right to privacy envisaged in this section is also a pre-existing constitutional right which has been traced to the same provisions of the Constitution from which the constitutional right of freedom of information emanates.[14] Therefore there is an ambiguity regarding the treatment and priority given to the privacy exception vs. the disclosure mandate in the RTI Act, as it requires the balancing of not only two competing statutory rights but also two constitutional rights.

The Privacy Exception

As discussed earlier, the purpose of the RTI Act is to increase transparency and ensure that people have access to as much public information as possible. Such a right is critical in a democratic country as it allows for accountability of the State and allows individuals to seek out information and make informed decisions. However, it seems from the language of the RTI Act that at the time of its drafting the legislature did realize that there would be a conflict between the endeavor to provide information and the right to privacy of individuals over the information kept with public authorities, which is why a privacy exception was carved into section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act. The Act does not only protect the privacy of the third party who's information is at risk of being disclosed, but also the privacy of the applicant. In fact it has now been held that a private respondent need not give his/her ID or address as long as the information provided by him/her is sufficient to contact him/her.[15]

It is interesting to note that although the RTI Act gives every citizen a right to information, it does not limit this right with a stipulation as to how the information shall be used by the applicant or the reason for which the applicant wants such information. [16] This lack of a purpose limitation in the Act may have privacy implications as non sensitive personal information could be sought from different sources and processed by any person so as to convert such non-sensitive or anonymous information into identifiable information which could directly impact the privacy of individuals.

The exception in S. 8(1)(j) prohibits the disclosure of personal information for two reasons (i) its disclosure does not relate to any public activity or interest or (ii) it would be an unwarranted invasion into privacy. The above two conditions however get trumped if a larger public interest is satisfied by the disclosure of such information.

One interesting thing about the exception contained in section 8(1)(j) is that this exception itself has an exception to it in the form of a proviso. The proviso says that any information which cannot be denied to the central or state legislature shall not be denied to any person. Since the proviso has been placed at the end of sub-section 8(1) which is also the end of clause 8(1)(j), one might be tempted to ask whether this proviso applies only to the privacy exception i.e. clause 8(1)(j) or to the entire sub-section 8(1) (which includes other exceptions such as national interest, etc.). This issue was put to rest by the Bombay High Court when it held that since the proviso has been put only after clause 8(1)(j) and not before each and every clause, it would not apply to the entire sub-section 8(1) but only to clause 8(1)(j), thus ensuring that the exceptions to disclosure other than the right to privacy are not restricted by this proviso.[17]

Scope of Proviso to section 8(1)(j)
Though the courts have agreed that the proviso is applicable only to section 8(1)(j), the import of the proviso to section 8(1)(j) is a little more ambiguous and there are conflicting decisions by different High Courts on this point. Whereas the Bombay High Court has laid emphasis on the letter of the proviso and derived strength from the objects and overall scheme of the Act to water down the provisions of section 8(1)(j), [18] the Delhi High Court has disagreed with such an approach which gives "undue, even overwhelming deference" to Parliamentary privilege in seeking information. Such an approach would render the protection under section 8(1)j) meaningless, and the basic safeguard bereft of content.[19] In the words of the Delhi High Court:

" The proviso has to be only as confined to what it enacts, to the class of information that Parliament can ordinarily seek; if it were held that all information relating to all public servants, even private information, can be accessed by Parliament, Section 8(1)(j) would be devoid of any substance, because the provision makes no distinction between public and private information. Moreover there is no law which enables Parliament to demand all such information; it has to be necessarily in the context of some matter, or investigation. If the reasoning of the Bombay High Court were to be accepted, there would be nothing left of the right to privacy, elevated to the status of a fundamental right, by several judgments of the Supreme Court. "

The interpretation given by the Delhi High Court thus ensures that section 8(1)(j) still has some effect, as otherwise the privacy exception would have gotten steamrolled by parliamentary privilege and all sorts of information such as Income Tax Returns, etc. of both private and public individuals would have been liable to disclosure under the RTI Act.

Unfortunately, the RTI Act does not describe the terms "personal information" or "larger public interest" used in section 8(1)(j), which leaves some amount of ambiguity in interpreting the privacy exception to the RTI Act. Therefore the only option for anyone to understand these terms in greater depth is to discuss and analyse the case laws developed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Courts which have tried to throw some light on this issue.

We shall discuss some of these landmark judgments to understand the interpretations given to these terms and then move on to specific instances where (applying these principles) information has been disclosed or denied.

Personal Information
The RTI Act defines the term information but does not define the term "personal information". Therefore one has to rely on judicial pronouncements to understand the term a more clearly. Looking at the common understanding and dictionary meaning of "personal" as well as the definition of "information" contained in the RTI Act it could be said that personal information would be information, information that pertains to a person and as such it takes into its fold possibly every kind of information relating to the person. Now, such personal information of the person may, or may not, have relation to any public activity, or to public interest. At the same time, such personal information may, or may not, be private to the person. [20]

The Delhi High Court has tried to draw a distinction between the term "private information" which encompasses the personal intimacies of the home, the family, marriage, motherhood, procreation, child rearing and of the like nature and "personal information" which would be any information that pertains to an individual. This would logically imply that all private information would be part of personal information but not the other way round. [21] The term 'personal information' has in other cases, been variously described as "identity particulars of public servants, i.e. details such as their dates of birth, personal identification numbers",[22] and as including tax returns, medical records etc.[23] It is worth noting that just because the term used is "personal information" does not mean that the information always has to relate to an actual person, but may even be a juristic entity such as a trust or corporation, etc.[24]

Larger Public Interest
The term larger public interest has not been discussed or defined in the RTI Act, however the Courts have developed some tests to determine if in a given situation, personal information should be disclosed in the larger public interest.

Whenever a Public Information Officer is asked for personal information about any person, it has to balance the competing claims of the privacy of the third party on the one hand and claim of public interest on the other and determine whether the public interest in such a disclosure satisfies violating a person's privacy. The expression "public interest" is not capable of a precise definition and does not have a rigid meaning. It is therefore an elastic term and takes its colors from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with the time and the state of the society and its needs. This seems to be the reason why the legislature and even the Courts have shied away from a precise definition of "public interest". However, the term public interest does not mean something that is merely interesting or satisfies the curiosity or love of information or amusement; but something in which a class of the community have some interest by which their rights or liabilities are affected.[25]

There have been suggestions that the use of the word "larger" before the term "public interest" denotes that the public interest involved should serve a large section of the society and not just a small section of it, i.e. if the information has a bearing on the economy, the moral values in the society; the environment; national safety, or the like, the same would qualify as "larger public interest".[26] However this is not a very well supported theory and the usage of the term "larger public interest" cannot be given such a narrow meaning, for example what if the disclosure of the information could save the lives of only 10 people or even just 5 children? Would the information not be released just because it violates one person's right to privacy and there is not a significant number of lives at stake? This does not seem to be what all the cases on the right to privacy, right from Kharak Singh[27] all the way to Naz Foundation, [28] seem to suggest. Infact, in the very same judgment where the above interpretation has been suggested, the Court undermines this argument by giving the example of a person with a previous crime of sexual assault being employed in an orphanage and says that the interest of the small group of children in the orphanage would outweigh the privacy concerns of the individual thus requiring disclosure of all information regarding the employee's past.

In light of the above understanding of section 8(1)(j), there seem to be two different tests that have been proposed by the Courts, which seem to connote the same principle although in different words:

1. The test laid down by Union Public Service Commission v. R.K. Jain:

(i) The information sought must relate to „Personal information‟ as understood above of a third party. Therefore, if the information sought does not qualify as personal information, the exemption would not apply;

(ii) Such personal information should relate to a third person, i.e., a person other than the information seeker or the public authority; AND

(iii) (a) The information sought should not have a relation to any public activity qua such third person, or to public interest. If the information sought relates to public activity of the third party, i.e. to his activities falling within the public domain, the exemption would not apply. Similarly, if the disclosure of the personal information is found justified in public interest, the exemption would be lifted, otherwise not; OR (b) The disclosure of the information would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual, and that there is no larger public interest involved in such disclosure. [29]

2. The other test was laid down in Vijay Prakash v. Union of India, but in the specific circumstances of disclosure of personal information relating to a public official:

(i) whether the information is deemed to comprise the individual's private details, unrelated to his position in the organization;

(ii) whether the disclosure of the personal information is with the aim of providing knowledge of the proper performance of the duties and tasks assigned to the public servant in any specific case; and

(iii) whether the disclosure will furnish any information required to establish accountability or transparency in the use of public resources. [30]

Constitutional Restrictions
Since there is not extensive academic discussion on the meaning of the term "larger public interest" or "public interest" as provided in section 8(1)(j), one is forced to turn to other sources to get a better idea of these terms. One such source is constitutional law, since the right to privacy, as contained in section 8(1)(j) has its origins in Articles 14,[31] 19(1)(a) [32] and 21[33] of the Constitution of India. The constitutional right to privacy in India is also not an absolute right and various cases have carved out a number of exceptions to privacy, a perusal of which may give some indication as to what may be considered as 'larger public interest', these restrictions are:

a) Reasonable restrictions can be imposed on the right to privacy in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence; ^{^[34]}

b) Reasonable restrictions can be imposed upon the right to privacy either in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe;^{^[35]}

c) The right to privacy can be restricted by procedure established by law which procedure would have to satisfy the test laid down in the Maneka Gandhi case.^{^[36]}

d) The right can be restricted if there is an important countervailing interest which is superior; ^{^[37]}

e) It can be restricted if there is a compelling state interest to be served by doing so; ^{^[38]}

f) It can be restricted in case there is a compelling public interest to be served by doing so; ^{^[39]}

g) The Rajagopal tests - This case lays down three exceptions to the rule that a person's private information cannot be published, viz. i) person voluntarily thrusts himself into controversy or voluntarily raises or invites a controversy, ii) if publication is based on public records other than for sexual assault, kidnap and abduction, iii) there is no right to privacy for public officials with respect to their acts and conduct relevant to the discharge of their official duties. It must be noted that although the Court talks about public records, it does not use the term 'public domain' and thus it is possible that even if a document has been leaked in the public domain and is freely available, if it is not a matter of public record, the right to privacy can still be claimed in regard to it.^{^[40]}

Section 8(1)(j) in Practice

The discussion in the previous chapter regarding the interpretation of section 8(1)(j), though (hopefully) helpful still seems a little abstract without specific instances and illustrations to drive home the point. In this chapter we shall endeavor to briefly discuss some specific cases regarding information disclosure where the issue of violation of privacy of a third party was raised.

Private Information of Public Officials
Some of the most common problems regarding section 8(1)(j) come up when discussing information (personal or otherwise) regarding public officers. The issue comes up because an argument can be made that certain information such as income tax details, financial details, medical records, etc. of public officials should be disclosed since it has a bearing on their public activities and disclosure of such information in case of crooked officers would serve the interests of transparency and cleaner government (hence serving a larger public interest). Although section 8(1)(j) does not make any distinction between a private person and a public servant, a distinction in the way their personal information is treated does appear in reality due to the inherent nature of a public servant. Infact it has sometimes been argued that public servants must waive the right to privacy in favour of transparency.[41] However this argument has been repeatedly rejected by the Courts, [42] just because a person assumes public office does not mean that he/she would automatically lose their right to privacy in favour of transparency.

If personal information regarding a public servant is asked for, then a distinction must be made between the information that is inherently personal to the person and that which has a connection with his/her public functions. The information exempted under section 8(1)(j) is personal information which is so intimately private in nature that the disclosure of the same would not benefit any other person, but would result in the invasion of the privacy of the third party.[43] In short, the Courts have concluded that there can be no blanket rule regarding what information can and cannot be disclosed when it comes to a public servant, and the disclosure (or lack of it) would depend upon the circumstances of each case.

Although the earlier thinking of the CIC as well as various High Courts of the country was that information regarding disciplinary proceedings and service records of public officials is to be treated as public information in order to boost transparency,[44] however this line of thinking took almost a U-turn in 2012 after the decision of the Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner,[45] and now the prevailing principle is that such information is personal information and should not be disclosed unless a larger public interest is would be served by the disclosure.

It would also be helpful to look at a list of the type of information regarding public servants which has been disclosed in the past, gleaned from various cases, to get a better understanding of the prevailing trends in such cases:

(i) Details of postings of public servants at various points of time, since this was not considered as personal information; [46]

(ii) Copies of posting/ transfer orders of public servants, since it was not considered personal information; [47]

(iii) Information regarding transfers of colleagues cannot be exempted from disclosure, since disclosure would not cause any unwarranted invasion of privacy and non disclosure would defeat the object of the RTI Act;[48]

(iv) Information regarding the criteria adopted and the marks allotted to various academic qualifications, experience and interview in selection process for government posts by the state Public Service Commission;[49]

(v) Information regarding marks obtained in written test, interview, annual confidential reports of the applicant as well as the marks in the written test and interview of the last candidate selected, since this information was not considered as personal information; [50]

(vi) Information relating to the appointment and educational certificates of teachers in an educational institution (which satisfies the requirements of being a public authority) was disclosed since this was considered as relevant to them performing their functions. [51]

The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. To understand this better below is a brief list of the type of information that has been considered by the Courts as personal information which is liable to be exempt from disclosure under section 8(1)(j):

(i) (a) Salary details, (b) show cause notice, memo and censure, (c) return of assets and liabilities, (d) details of investment and other related details, (e) details of gifts accepted, (f) complete enquiry proceedings, (g) details of income tax returns;[52]

(ii) All memos issued, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are personal information. Cannot be revealed unless a larger public interest justifies such disclosure;[53]

(iii) Disciplinary information of an employee is personal information and is exempt under section 8(1)(j); [54]

(iv) Medical records cannot be disclosed due to section 8(1)(j) as they come under "personal information", unless a larger public interest can be shown meriting such disclosure;[55]

(v) Copy of personnel records and service book (containing Annual Confidential Reports, etc.) of a public servant is personal information and cannot be disclosed due to section 8(1)(j);[56]

(vi) Information regarding sexual disorder, DNA test between an officer and his surrogate mother, name of his biological father and step father, name of his mother and surrogate step mother and such other aspects were denied by the Courts as such information was considered beyond the perception of decency and was an invasion into another man's privacy.[57]

It is not just the issue of disclosure of personal details of public officials that raises complicated questions regarding the right to information, but the opposite is equally true, i.e. what about seemingly "public" details of private individuals. A very complicated question arose with regard to information relating to the passport details of private individuals.

Passport Information of Private Individuals
The disclosure of passport details of private individuals is complicated because for a long time there was some confusion because of the treatment to be given to passport details, i.e. would its disclosure cause an invasion of privacy since it contains personally identifying information, specially because photocopies of the passport are regularly given for various purposes such as travelling, getting a new phone connection, etc. The Central Information Commission used a somewhat convoluted logic that since a person providing information relating to his residence and identity while applying for a passport was engaging in a public activity therefore such information relates to a public activity and should be disclosed. This view was rejected by the Delhi High Court in the case of Union of India v. Hardev Singh,[58] and the view taken inHardev Singh was later endorsed and relied upon in Union of India v. Rajesh Bhatia, [59] while hearing a number of petitions to decide what details of a third party's passport should be disclosed and what should be exempt from disclosure.

A list of the Courts conclusions is given below:

Information that can be revealed:

(i) Name of passport holder;

(ii) Whether a visa was issued to a third party or not;

(iii) Details of the passport including dates of first issue, subsequent renewals, dates of application for renewals, numbers of the new passports and date of expiry;

(iv) Nature of documents submitted as proof;

(v) Name of police station from where verification for passport was done;

(vi) Whether any report was called for from the jurisdictional police;

(vii) Whether passport was renewed through an agent or through a foreign embassy;

(viii) Whether it was renewed in India or any foreign country;

(ix) Whether tatkal facility was availed by the passport holder;

Information that cannot be revealed:

(i) Contents of the documents submitted with the passport application;

(ii) Marital status and name and address of husband;

(iii) Whether person's name figures as mother/guardian in the passport of any minor;

(iv) Copy of passport application form;

(v) Residential address of passport holder;

(vi) Details of cases filed/pending against passport holder;

(vii) Copy of old passport;

(viii) Report of the police and CID for issuing the passport;

(ix) Copy of the Verification Certificate, if any such Verification Certificate was relied upon for the issue of the passport.

Other Instances

Apart from the above two broad categories of information that has been the subject of intense judicial discussion, certain other situations have also arisen where the Courts have had to decide the issue of disclosure under section 8(1)(j), a brief summary of such situations is given below:

(i) names and details of people who received money as donations from the President out of public funds was considered as information which has a definite link to public activities and was therefore liable to be disclosed;[60]

(ii) information regarding the religion practiced by a person, who is alleged to be a public figure, collected by the Census authorities was not disclosed since it was held that the quest to obtain the information about the religion professed or not professed by a citizen cannot be in any event; [61]

(iii) information regarding all FIRs against a person was not protected under section 8(1)(j) since it was already a matter of public record and Court record and could not be said to be an invasion of the person's privacy;[62]

(iv) information regarding the income tax returns of a public charitable trust was held not to be exempt under section 8(1)(j), since the trust involved was a public charitable trust functioning under a Scheme formulated by the District Court and registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act as such due to its character and activities its tax returns would be in relation to public interest or activities.[63]

Conclusion

A discussion of the provisions of section 8 and 11 of the RTI Act as well as the case laws under it reveals that the legislature was aware of the dangers posed to the privacy of individuals from such a powerful transparency law. However, it did not want the exceptions carved out to protect the privacy of individuals to nullify the objects of the RTI Act and therefore drafted the legislation to incorporate the principle that although the RTI Act should not be used to violate the privacy of individuals, such an exception will not be applicable if a larger public interest is to be served by the disclosure. This principle is in line with other common law jurisdictions such as the U.K, Austalia, Canada, etc. which have similar exceptions based on privacy or confidentiality.

However it is disappointing to note that the legislature has only left the legislation at the stage of the principle which has left the language of the exception very wide and open to varied interpretations. It is understandable that the legislature would try to keep specifics out of the scope of the section to make it future proof. It is obvious that it would be impossible for the legislature or the courts to imagine every single circumstance that could arise where the right to information and the right to privacy would be at loggerheads. However, such wide and ambiguous drafting has led to cases where the Courts and the Central Information Commission have taken opposing views, with the views of the Court obviously prevailing in the end. This was illustrated by the issue of disclosure of passport details of private individuals with a large number of CIC cases taking different views till the High Court of Delhi gave categorical findings on the issue in the Hardev Singh and Rajesh Bhatia cases. Similar was the issue of service details of public officials since before the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande in 2012 the prevailing thinking of the CIC was that details of disciplinary proceedings against public officials are not covered by section 8(1)(j), however this thinking has now taken a U-turn as the Supreme Court's understanding of the right to privacy has taken stronger roots and such information is now outside the scope of the RTI Act, unless a larger public interest in the disclosure can be shown.

The ambiguity that arises in application when trying to balance the right to privacy against the right to information is a drawback in incorporating only a principle and leaving the language ambiguous in any legislation. This paper does not advocate that the legislature try to list out all the instances of this problem that are possibly imaginable, this would be too time consuming and may even be counterproductive. However, it is possible for the legislature to adopt an accepted practice of legislative drafting and list certain instances where there is an obvious balancing required between the two rights and put them as "Illustrations" to the section. This device has been utilised to great effect by some of the most fundamental legislations in India such as the Contract Act, 1872 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860. An alternative to this approach could be to utilize the approach taken in the Australian Freedom of Information Act, where the Act itself gives certain factors which should be considered to determine whether access to a particular document would be in the public interest or not.

List of References

Primary Sources

1. Australia Freedom of Information Act, 1982.

2. Bennet Coleman v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 106.

3. Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner, 2008 (64) AIC 284 (Del).

4. Calcutta High Court, WP (W) No. 33290 of 2013, dated 20-11-2013.

5. Canadian Access to Information Act.

6. Canara Bank v. Chief Information Commissioner, 2007 (58) AIC Ker 667

7. Constitution of India, 1950.

8. Govind v. State of M.P., Supreme Court of India, WP No. 72 of 1970, dated 18-03-1975.

9. Haryana Public Service Commission v. State Information Commission, AIR 2009 P & H 14.

10. Jamia Millia Islamia v. Sh. Ikramuddin, Delhi High Court, WP(C) 5677 of 2011 dated 22-11-2011.

11. Jitendra Singh v. State of U.P., 2008 (66) AIC 685 (All).

12. Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 129.

13. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, Supreme Court of India, WP No. 231 of 1977, dated 25-01-1978.

14. Naz Foundation Delhi High Court, WP(C) No.7455/2001 dated 02-07-2009.

15. P.C. Wadhwa v. Central Information Commission, Punjab and Haryana High Court, LPA No. 1252 of 2009 dated 29-11-2010.

16. Paardarshita Public Welfare Foundation v. Union of India and others, AIR 2011 Del 82.

17. President's Secretariat v. Nitish Kumar Tripathi, Delhi High Court, WP (C) 3382 of 2012, dated 14-06-2012.

18. Public Information Officer v. Andhra Pradesh Information Commission,2009 (76) AIC 854 (AP).

19. R. Rajagopal v. Union of India, Supreme Court of India, dated 7-10-1994.

20. Rajendra Vasantlal Shah v. Central Information Commissioner, New Delhi, AIR 2011 Guj 70.

21. Rajinder Jaina v. Central Information Commission, 2010 (86) AIC 510 (Del. H.C.).

22. Right to Information Act, 2005

23. Secretary General, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra, Delhi High Court - Full Bench, LPA No.501/2009, dated 12-01-2010.

24. Srikant Pandaya v. State of M.P., AIR 2011 MP 14.

25. Surendra Singh v. State of U.P, AIR 2009 Alld. 106.

26. Surup Singh Hyra Naik v. State of Maharashtra, 2007 (58) AIC 739 (Bom).

27. Tata Press Ltd. v. Maharashtra Telephone Nigam Ltd., (1995) 5 SCC 139.

28. U.K. Freedom of Information Act, 2000.

29. UCO Bank v. Central Information Commissioner and another, 2009 (79) AIC 545 (P&H).

30. Union Centre for Earth Science Studies v. Anson Sebastian, AIR 2010 Ker. 151

31. Union of India v. Hardev Singh WP(C) 3444 of 2012 dated 23-08-2013.

32. Union of India v. Rajesh Bhatia WP(C) 2232/2012 dated 17-09-2013.

33. Union Public Service Commission v. R.K. Jain, Delhi High Court W.P.(C) 1243/2011 & C.M. No. 2618/2011 ( for stay), dated 13-07-2012.

34. Vijay Prakash v. Union of India, 2009 (82) AIC 583 (Del).

Secondary Sources

1. "Country Report for U.K.", Privacy International, available at https://www.privacyinternational.org/reports/united-kingdom.

2. "Country Report for Australia", Privacy International, available at https://www.privacyinternational.org/reports/australia.

3. "Country Report for Canada", Privacy International, available at https://www.privacyinternational.org/reports/canada.

[1] AIR 1973 SC 106. This case held that the freedom of the press embodies in itself the right of the people to read.

[2] (1995) 5 SCC 139.

[3] AIR 1963 SC 129.

[4] Supreme Court of India, WP No. 72 of 1970, dated 18-03-1975.

[5] Section 8(1) in its entirety states as follows:

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,-

(a) information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;

(b) information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;

(d) information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;

(e) information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;

(f) information received in confidence from foreign Government;

(g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;

(h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;

(i) cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers:

Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over:

Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed;

(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:

Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.

[6] Section 11 of the RTI Act.

[7] The Registrar General v. A. Kanagaraj, (Madras High Court, 14 June 2013, available at http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/36226888/.

[8] Arvind Kejriwal v. Central Public Information Officer, (Delhi High Court, 30 September 2011, available at http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1923225/.

[9] Sections 40 and 41 of the U.K. Freedom of Information Act, 2000.

[10] Section 11A read with section 47-F of the Australia Freedom of Information Act, 1982.

[11] Section 19 of the Canadian Access to Information Act.

[12] Public Information Officer v. Andhra Pradesh Information Commission,2009 (76) AIC 854 (AP).

[13] Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner, 2008 (64) AIC 284 (Del).

[14] Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

[15] Calcutta High Court, WP(W) No. 33290 of 2013, dated 20-11-2013.

[16] Jitendra Singh v. State of U.P., 2008 (66) AIC 685 (All).

[17] Surup Singh Hyra Naik v. State of Maharashtra, 2007 (58) AIC 739 (Bom).

[18] Surup Singh Hyra Naik v. State of Maharashtra, 2007 (58) AIC 739 (Bom), para 14. Where the Court held that since the medical records of a convict cannot be denied to Parliament or State legislature therefore they cannot be exempted from disclosure under the Act.

[19] Vijay Prakash v. Union of India, 2009 (82) AIC 583 (Del).

[20] Union Public Service Commission v. R.K. Jain, Delhi High Court W.P.(C) 1243/2011 & C.M. No. 2618/2011 ( for stay), dated 13-07-2012.

[21] Union Public Service Commission v. R.K. Jain, Delhi High Court W.P.(C) 1243/2011 & C.M. No. 2618/2011 ( for stay), dated 13-07-2012.

[22] Vijay Prakash v. Union of India, 2009 (82) AIC 583 (Del).

[23] Secretary General, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra, Delhi High Court - Full Bench, LPA No.501/2009, dated 12-01-2010.

[24] Jamia Millia Islamia v. Sh. Ikramuddin , Delhi High Court, WP(C) 5677 of 2011 dated 22-11-2011.

[25] Union Public Service Commission v. R.K. Jain, Delhi High Court W.P.(C) 1243/2011 & C.M. No. 2618/2011 ( for stay), dated 13-07-2012.

[26] Union Public Service Commission v. R.K. Jain, Delhi High Court W.P.(C) 1243/2011 & C.M. No. 2618/2011 ( for stay), dated 13-07-2012.

[27] AIR 1963 SC 129.

[28] Delhi High Court, WP(C) No.7455/2001 dated 02-07-2009.

[29] Union Public Service Commission v. R.K. Jain, Delhi High Court W.P.(C) 1243/2011 & C.M. No. 2618/2011 (for stay), dated 13-07-2012. This ruling was overturned by a Division Bench of the High Court relying upon a subsequent Supreme Court ruling, however, it could be argued that the Division Bench did not per se disagree with the discussion and the principles laid down in this case, but only the way they were applied.

[30] Vijay Prakash v. Union of India, 2009 (82) AIC 583 (Del).

[31] Right to equality.

[32] Freedom of speech and expression.

[33] Right to life.

[34] Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India, 1950.

[35] Article 19(5) of the Constitution of India, 1950.

[36] Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, Supreme Court of India, WP No. 231 of 1977, dated 25-01-1978. The test laid down in this case is universally considered to be that the procedure established by law which restricts the fundamental right should be just, fair and reasonable.

[37] Govind v. State of M.P., Supreme Court of India, WP No. 72 of 1970, dated 18-03-1975.

[38] Govind v. State of M.P., Supreme Court of India, WP No. 72 of 1970, dated 18-03-1975.

[39] Govind v. State of M.P., Supreme Court of India, WP No. 72 of 1970, dated 18-03-1975. However the Court later used phrases such as "reasonable restriction in public interest" and "reasonable restriction upon it for compelling interest of State" interchangeably which seems to suggest that the terms "compelling public interest" and "compelling state interest" used by the Court are being used synonymously and the Court does not draw any distinction between them. It is also important to note that the wider phrase "countervailing interest is shown to be superior" seems to suggest that it is possible, atleast in theory, to have other interests apart from public interest or state interest also which could trump the right to privacy.

[40] R. Rajagopal v. Union of India , Supreme Court of India, dated 7-10-1994. These tests have been listed as one group since they are all applicable in the specific context of publication of private information.

[41] Vijay Prakash v. Union of India, 2009 (82) AIC 583 (Del).

[42] Secretary General, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra, Delhi High Court - Full Bench, LPA No.501/2009, dated 12-01-2010. Also see Vijay Prakash v. Union of India, 2009 (82) AIC 583 (Del).

[43] Canara Bank v. Chief Information Commissioner, 2007 (58) AIC Ker 667. This case also held that information cannot be denied on the ground that it would be too voluminous.

[44] Union Centre for Earth Science Studies v. Anson Sebastian, AIR 2010 Ker. 151; Union Public Service Commission v. R.K. Jain, Delhi High Court W.P.(C) 1243/2011 & C.M. No. 2618/2011 (for stay), dated 13-07-2012

[45] 2012 (119) AIC 105 (SC).

[46] Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner, 2012 (119) AIC 105 (SC).

[47] Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner, 2012 (119) AIC 105 (SC).

[48] Canara Bank v. Chief Information Commissioner, 2007 (58) AIC Ker 667.

[49] Haryana Public Service Commission v. State Information Commission, AIR 2009 P & H 14.

[50] UCO Bank v. Central Information Commissioner and another, 2009 (79) AIC 545 (P&H).

[51] Surendra Singh v. State of U.P, AIR 2009 Alld. 106.

[52] Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner, 2012 (119) AIC 105 (SC).

[53] Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner, 2012 (119) AIC 105 (SC).

[54] R.K. Jain v. Union Public Service Commission, Delhi High Court, LPA No. 618 of 2012, dated 12-11-2012.

[55] Secretary General, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra, Delhi High Court - Full Bench, LPA No.501/2009, dated 12-01-2010.

[56] Srikant Pandaya v. State of M.P., AIR 2011 MP 14.

[57] Paardarshita Public Welfare Foundation v. Union of India and others, AIR 2011 Del 82. It must be mentioned that this case was not exactly under the procedure prescribed under the RTI Act but was a public interest litigation although the courts relied upon the provisions of the RTI Act.

[58] WP(C) 3444 of 2012 dated 23-08-2013.

[59] WP(C) 2232/2012 dated 17-09-2013.

[60] President's Secretariat v. Nitish Kumar Tripathi, Delhi High Court, WP (C) 3382 of 2012, dated 14-06-2012.

[61] P.C. Wadhwa v. Central Information Commission, Punjab and Haryana High Court, LPA No. 1252 of 2009 dated 29-11-2010.

[62] Rajinder Jaina v. Central Information Commission, 2010 (86) AIC 510 (Del. H.C.).

[63] Rajendra Vasantlal Shah v. Central Information Commissioner, New Delhi, AIR 2011 Guj 70.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/white-paper-on-rti-and-privacy-v-1.2

Where is the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Headed?

sinha — 2016-09-17T14:15:05Z

The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) – the Asian answer to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is still being furiously scripted.

The blog post was originally published in Spicy IP on September 7, 2016. It can be read here.

The US-led TPP and China-led RCEP were always touted as rivals racing to set global trade standards before the conclusion of the other. Well, TPP gunned ahead and is currently in the ratification phase, where as RCEP is yet to be concluded and talks may very well enter 2017. The latest round of RCEP talks ended last month and paints a worrisome picture for the global south, given that it will bring 3.5 billion people and 12% of world trade into its fold.

Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) do not enable zero-sum free trade. In fact, each country leaves with disproportionate gains and losses in their kitty, after the conclusion of the agreement. And the worst casualties are environment, public health, labour rights, SMEs and local markets. Since there is plenty of give and take occurring in a context of fluid foreign policy relations, it becomes imperative to locate the ‘barter’. Last month, Balaji wrote an excellent comparative analysis(I & II) of the RCEP IPR text, and this post complements that. I present a regional overview of negotiations and the impact on course of the agreement, as gathered from press coverage of the meetings and the leaks; and to provide a more wholesome picture of the barters, I discuss other relevant chapters at the end of this post. Further, as the negotiations are conducted in secrecy, different organisations and individuals have ‘leaked’ draft texts. KEI and bilaterals.org are two such organizations that regularly collate and release latest RCEP texts. I rely on RCEP’s IP Chapter(October 15, 2015 version) and Terms of Reference by the Working Group on Electronic Commerce(August 2015 version). Analysing the Telecommunications Services chapter is outside the scope of the post, and I link it here for the interest of our readers.

Impact on E-commerce

What is currently available are the terms for reference establishing the Working Group’s mandate on drafting a chapter on e-commerce. The document acknowledges the need for inclusion of a provision for special and differential treatment, and additional flexibilities to the least developed ASEAN countries. It draws a list of relevant elements for possible inclusion in the RCEP. I reproduce the list here (emphasis supplied is mine):

I. General Provisions

Cooperation
Electronic Supply of Services

II. Trade Faciliation

Paperless Trading
Electronic Signature and Digital Certification

III. Creating a Conducive Environment for Electronic Commerce

Online Consumer Protection
Online Personal Data Protection
Unsolicited Commercial E-mail
Domestic Regulatory Frameworks
Custom Duties
Non-Discriminatory Treatment of Digital Products

IV. Promoting Cross Border Electronic Commerce

Prohibition on Requirements Concerning the Location of Computing Facilities
Prohibition on Requirements Concerning Disclosure of Source Code
Cross- Border Transfer of Information by Electronic Means

While there is no clarity on customs duties, there is a mention of non-discriminatory treatment of digital products. While India has no law on non-discriminatory treatment of digital products, this may conflict with the Indian government’s policy on adoption of open source software for government use.

More alarmingly, the first prohibition restrains governments from mandating data localisation. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) also bar governments from making rules on data localisation, i.e. requiring physical situation of servers and storage in their countries’ territories. This is a worrisome provision because it may effectuate surreptitious surveillance. The prohibition on disclosure of source code is also troublesome and is aimed to stop examination and review of code in computing devices. This would effectively ban security researchers from finding security vulnerabilities in devices, and the if the provision is drafted like its counterpart in the TPP, there will also be prohibitions on checks by regulating authorities.

Re ‘Cross- Border Transfer of Information by Electronic Means’, the provision will be most likely drafted to favour big data and advertising companies’ operations enabling unrestricted transfer of personal data(like the TPP). If that is the case, then it will be in conflict with Rule 7 of the Information Technology (Reasonable security practices and sensitive personal data or information) Rules 2011, which permits cross-border flow of personal information only in situations where the recipient of the information complies with Indian data protection standards as a bare minimum.

Impact on farmer's seeds

RCEP is bound to hit farmers the worst: not only are countries reducing tariffs for increased import of agricultural products, there also exists an obligation to join the International Union for Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV system), which would mandate members to introduce a new IPR: the breeders’ right over new plant varieties. Japan and Korea want RCEP members to join UPOV 1991, and Japan has proposed criminal penalties for the infringement of breeders’ rights.

While India has applied to become a member to the UPOV Convention, in 2001 it passed the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, and thereby built a sui generis system of protection (ambitiously trying to balance breeders’ rights and farmers’ rights). It will be naive to expect a similar attempt in balanced lawmaking by other countries. Furthermore, “…India’s current legislation is less stringent than UPOV 1991. It allows farmers to continue with their seed practices, except they cannot sell packaged seeds of protected varieties. The space for both small farmers and public breeders to freely work with seeds will be lost of RCEP goes the way of what Korea and Japan are proposing.” Using FTAs to reduce farmers’ freedom has been well documented, and you may read more on that here.

The text also desires all RCEP members to codify traditional knowledge and make it available to various patent offices. This push is widely regarded as problematic, as it is feared that documenting and digitization of existing knowledge may propel companies to use that information for commercial gains, to the detriment of the indigenous people and farming communities. On the other hand, it would be feasible to share such data in a confidential manner with patent offices, as India has done under the TKDL.

Massive reduction in tariffs

Tariffs emerged as an enormous sticking point in the August round, and there was pressure on India to eliminate tariffs completely. India proposed a differential tariff reduction plan, but countries kept pushing for a single-tier plan – particularly Japan. Finally, in what is seen as a big loss, India offered tariff cuts as high as 80% goods trade for all RCEP partners, except China. With China, India said that it was only comfortable with a 65% tariff cut initially, given the skewed trade deficit between China and India. It is worth noting that for India, RCEP will become the first FTA to forge trade partnerships with China, Australia,and New Zealand.

As a result of the heavy concession in tariffs, the Kerala Agriculture Minister has moved a cabinet note, and written a letter to the Centre expressing serious concerns on lowering of tariffs for agricultural products. He also requested to include Kerala in the RCEP pre-negotiation talks.

Staving off ISDS

Provisions on investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS) are being pushed by Japan and South Korea. Countries are not convinced about agreeing to this, especially India. In fact, India is in the process of rolling back on bilateral investment treaties, and has already moved for BIT termination with 57 countries. We’ve already seen ISDS being (mis)used by private entities against governments – there have been enough challenges to countries’ IPR laws and policies as well.

Mobilised Movements against the RCEP

Individuals and organizations are advocating for scrapping the RCEP, given the impact that it is expected to have on people’s rights and freedoms. A ‘People’s Strategy Meeting’ last month conducted large-scale sessions to inform civil society organizations, NGOs, trade unions, farmers groups and other peoples’ movements in the Asia-pacific region. Many have also been persistently calling out for a meeting with negotiators of their respective countries and for a public hearing on the RCEP. The Asia Pacific Research Network has released a policy brief on the RCEP, and you may read that here.

The road ahead

Looking at the larger picture, it is evident now that neo-FTAs’ focus on trade has descended into attacks on sovereign states’ economic and social policies.

With respect to the RCEP IPR text, India is trying to eliminate TRIPS plus provisions from the text. And after heavy concessions on the tariff front, it will be bargaining for liberalisation in services in the next rounds. India’s aim is to clinch a deal allowing for free-er movement of its workers and professionals. Further, the negotiations are going to proceed quickly now. Members are becoming desperate to lock down the text, and therefore, this year we will see more rounds than the usual scheduled ones. The urgency is driven largely by Japan and Korea – both of which wish to ratify the TPP soon and would like the RCEP to work in tandem.

In another worrisome development, Phillipines, Thailand and Indonesia have met with US trade officials on what they need to do to join the TPP, once it is implemented. These countries are considering making serious changes to their labour, environmental, IP, and other standards. Yesterday, US Prez. Obama arrived in Vietnam for the Asean summit, trying hard to sell the TPP. Japan and Korea are already TPP members, and if ASEAN countries come under TPP’s fold as well, we may see an upping of standards at the RCEP.

India will have to deploy serious negotiating chops at the upcoming rounds if it is remotely hopeful of steering the RCEP standards away from the TPP.

Author’s note: Added the sentence “On the other hand, it would be feasible to share such data in a confidential manner with patent offices, as India has done under the TKDL.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/spicy-ip-september-7-2016-anubha-sinha-where-is-the-regional-comprehensive-economic-partnership-headed

Where Are There So Few Books For The Print-Impaired?

nirmita — 2016-11-04T01:20:57Z

India publishes approximately 90,000 books each year in 24 different languages. We have over 16,000 publishers, and are one of the top nations for English book publishing in the world. Clearly we are a nation which values and fosters a culture of reading and passing on knowledge in different domains ranging from literature, to yoga, language, education, science, fiction and many others.

This article was published in the Huffington Post on November 3, 2016.

We are also the world's second most populous nation with an extremely large population with disabilities, including persons with print impairments. However, the total number of books accessible to the print impaired in India is only 19,000, a fraction of what is available yearly to the general public. How is it that despite our prowess in publishing and technology, persons with print impairments in India remain deprived of access to books and other forms of information which are key to an inclusive and fulfilling life?

There are presently approximately 19,000 books converted till date, a pathetic contrast to the 90,000 books published just in India every year.

Before going further into this question, let us understand the term "print disability". Very broadly, print-impaired persons are those who cannot access printed material due to some form of disability, such as blindness or low vision, dyslexia, autism etc. For these persons to be able to read, the material needs to be converted into some other format such as Braille or accessible electronic formats which can be read using some assistive device like a screen reader or e-book reader, fitted in a laptop, mobile or stand alone device. For assistive technology to be able to read the content, it needs to conform to universal standards such as Unicode for Indic font or EPUB 3.0.

The challenges

Until 2012, one of the biggest hurdles to access printed content for the print-disabled was the fact that they had to obtain permission from the copyright holder of the work, every time they wanted to convert a book into audio/ Braille/ other formats. This was often unsuccessful, time consuming and required resources beyond the means of most blindness organizations, who could convert only a bare minimum of books, mostly excerpts from school text books for their readers. After over a decade of sustained advocacy, the Government included section 52 (1)(zb) in the Indian Copyright Act, a fair use exception which permitted conversion of copyrighted works into any accessible format for the benefit of a person with a disability on a non-profit basis. For profit, conversion is permitted on certain terms. This considerably opened up the world of books for persons with print impairments in India. In September 2016, the Marrakesh Treaty for the Visually Impaired also came into force, which means that cross-border sharing of accessible books can happen between countries which have ratified the Treaty.

However, despite these measures, the availability of books remains abysmal. While the legal issues have been sorted out to a large extent, the practical situation is harder to deal with and there are significant hurdles in creation and dissemination as well as equipping users to read accessible books.

Firstly, organizations serving the print-impaired do not have the bandwidth to undertake large scale conversions of each and every book that gets published. At present, organizations have to spend considerable time and resources converting content into an accessible electronic format before they can make it available to end users. Consider this, the cost of typing out one page of a regional language like Telugu is approximately ₹30 So it would cost ₹3000 to type out a 100-page Telugu book, in addition to the price already paid to purchase the book. Apart from the unaffordability, the lack of equipment and personnel necessitates conversion being carried out in a very limited manner and mostly for books which are critical for studies and in high demand, since state boards do not provide accessible versions of school text books.

The simplest way to address accessible book creation would be for publishers to adopt EPUB 3.0 and ensure that books are "born accessible"...

While the Daisy Forum of India, along with the Government of India recently opened an online accessible digital library called the Sugamya Pustakalaya, it needs to be populated with accessible content. There are presently approximately 19,000 books converted till date, a pathetic contrast to the 90,000 books published just in India every year. Even international organizations such as Bookshare which have been expending millions to convert books in different countries have only succeeded in making 500,000 accessible books available in all, and these too are not equally available to persons in every country due to copyright issues.

The other challenge is to equip each and every print-impaired person with a device such as a laptop or mobile phone on which he/ she can read and work with the book. Of course, merely providing devices is pointless—appropriate training in how to use them is essential.

There are also issues of inadequate distribution networks to reach out to print impaired persons in urban and remote parts of India, which still need to be addressed.

Apart from the challenges specific to creating and disseminating accessible books, other digitization activities can also add to the problem. For instance, the Digital Library of India project, a spectacular effort to digitize books of all genres, is said to have a library of 550,603 books including several really old manuscripts and historical books. However, all of these are scanned and saved as inaccessible image files, rendering them of no use to the print-impaired.

Another problem is in the case of Indian language content which is often created in a nonUnicode font, making it unreadable for persons using screen readers.

How can we improve the situation?

The simplest way to address accessible book creation would be for publishers to adopt EPUB 3.0 and ensure that books are "born accessible" since they anyway produce a digital file of a book before bringing it out in print. This would obviate the entire cost, time and effort spent on conversion. Also, selling accessible e-versions to the print impaired could be a huge business opportunity for publishers, considering the large market for such books in India and globally. More information on this can be obtained from Accessible Book Consortium or by writing to BookShare.

We also need to ensure all digitization activities consider accessibility requirements and create resources that conform to accessibility standards.

We have the law, the technology, the books and the people, but need a concerted effort from multiple stakeholders... to bring all of these together.

On the technology front, an NGO-driven project over the past four years has now made text to speech available for several Indian languages using the open source text to speech engine e-Speak, which works with both laptops and Android phones. The government, with institutions like the IIT, is also driving initiatives to develop text to speech and optical character recognition (OCR) software for Indian languages. However, there is some way to go before these become available to end users.

To sum up, we have the law, we have the technology, the books and the people, but need a concerted effort from multiple stakeholders—the government, publishers, educational institutions and NGOs—to bring all of these together, so that every print-impaired person in India can enjoy the right to read.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/huffington-post-november-3-2016-nirmita-narasimhan-where-are-there-so-few-books-for-print-impaired

When Whistle Blowers Unite

sunil — 2012-03-21T10:17:48Z

Leaking corporate or government information in public interest through popular Web service providers is risky but Wikileaks.org is one option that you could try out.

Leaking corporate or government information in public interest in the age of Satyam has new challenges. You couldn't just upload it to a blog, social networking website or even a document management system like Google documents. Google, Yahoo and most other Web service providers nearly always comply with the national law and cooperate with enforcement agencies. In India there have been several arrests in connection with alleged illegal email messages and content on social networking websites. It did not take court order – just a request from the local police station. Furthermore, you would have to undertake additional risky activity online to draw media attention to your documents. Also those who stand to lose from the leak can send a couple of copyright take down notices which will lead to deletion. So your only real option is Wikileaks.org, where they boast: Every source protected. No documents censored. All legal attacks defeated.

Launched in December 2006, Wikileaks.org stands alone on the Internet as the last refuge for the truth. Even though the promoters are European and US academic organisations, journalists and NGOs – a near neutral point of view is realised by sparing no one across the political and ideological spectrum. It is the archive of the whistle-blowers of the world and it is ugly: login information and private emails of a holocaust denier, secret documents from the Church of Scientology, Internet block-lists from Thailand and standard operating procedures for US guards at Guantanamo Bay, et cetera. One could safely assume that these guys have very few friends. Unlike Wikipedia.org whose technology it employs, Wikileaks does not have an open and participatory editorial policy. It accepts documents through a trusted journalist–source system.

Leaking controversial documents can result in loss of job, limb and life, so extreme caution is always advised. Remember that India still does not have laws protecting whistle blowers, in spite of a bill being introduced in 2006. What follows is only a very rough guide to digital whistle blowing, so please get expert advice before you try these at home:

Download and install military grade encryption software like Pretty Good Privacy. Generate a pair of keys – a public and a private one. Use your private key in combination to a journalist's public key to send him or her, a 'for your eyes only message' email. Only the journalist will be able to decrypt the message using your public key and his private key. Note however, that an Indian court under the 2008 amendment of the IT Act can ask you to disclose your key-pair.
Step outside. Working from home is a bad idea since DOT mandates that all ISPs retain logs for all users and for all services utilized for an indeterminate time-period. Office is still worse as your network administrator might be also logging your activities.
Find an anonymous public access point. Cyber-cafes, especially in New Delhi, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu are asking users to provide identity cards and record contact details and in some cases web-cam photographs as well. Using your laptop in a coffee shop may work but DOT is considering cracking down on open wifi networks.
Use an anonymizing service so that the chain of digital evidence leading up to Wikileaks is obliterated. TOR is the anonymizing solution of choice. Several TOR servers that provide private tunnels across the Internet work in unison, to form a cloud of anonymity.

If you were leaking large amounts of data, uploading it may be too risky. Burn the data on DVDs and mail them to Wikileaks. However, do ensure that all digital files have been purged of personal information. For word files this can be done by converting to PDF. Also you may not want to leave any finger-prints on the package. India will soon have a database of finger prints thanks to the National Unique Identity (NUID) project. We know this thanks to the leaked NUID project document on Wikileaks.org, days before the consultation.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/whistle-blowers-unite

When technology is able but the mindset is not

praskrishna — 2014-12-14T06:01:06Z

There are enough digital products and services to help people with disabilities. Widespread ignorance stands between them and digital inclusion.

The story by Geetanjali Minhas appeared in December 1-15, 2014, issue.

Twenty-four-year-old Bhavesh Patel moves around giving a demonstration of the screen reader Dolphin Supernova in such a sure-footed manner that no one can imagine he is totally blind. The device has a voiceover function that can be used on iPhone.

Not just that, Patel travels every day from his home in Vikhroli to his office in Goregaon, changing buses and trains with minimal assistance.

Patel’s colleague, Debashish, who is autistic, and no less capable, is known for his immaculate spellings within the company.

Team leader Priti Rohra, despite low vision, skillfully heads the testing team for websites and meticulously ensures that guidelines for the disabled are adhered to. Rohra works on policies and research and has prepared many reports for BarrierBreak, a company where 75 percent of the staff has disabilities like autism, inhibited vision and impaired hearing. Its unique competitive advantage has allowed the company to help develop niche products and services for converting textbooks into more disabled-friendly formats like digital talking books (Epub Conversion). Till now, it has produced 1.5 million pages of disabled-friendly textbooks.

“When the government provides technology to its own employees it is enhancing their productivity,” says Shilpi Kapoor, founder-director of BarrierBreak and a member of the Nasscom Disability Advisory Group. “The fundamental difference here is that internationally, disability inclusion is a mandate, whereas in India it is considered charity and therefore a challenge. As a result many disabled are denied jobs as per their calibre and given salaries as doles.”

The priority given to policies for development of disabled-friendly information technology tools and services has been relatively low in India. Usually, it stems from an inaccurate understanding that the development of such tools and services will cost more money, and there will be no opportunity to recover it from the market.

A critical component of digital inclusion is to make websites and applications disabled-friendly. Most websites are not compliant with international guidelines on disabled-friendly requirements. Developers, officials and policy makers give disability accessibility a cold shoulder, retrofitting it into existing policies and processes as an after-thought.

An attitudinal shift might come if the new national policy on universal electronic accessibility (NPUEA) notified by DeitY is implemented, resulting in nearly 7,000 government websites becoming accessible to the disabled, especially visually impaired.

Various reports, including a 2012 survey by the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), found that almost 25 percent of 7,800 government websites failed to open and the remaining had accessibility barriers. The web accessibility survey report of Indian government websites by the national centre for promotion of employment for disabled people (NCPEDP) in 2012 too revealed that of the 200 government websites tested, only two were found to be disabled-friendly. “Disability is a major social issue that India is grappling with. It needs to be addressed through not just policy, but also through assistive technology solutions,” says Prakash Kumar, CEO, Goods and Services Tax Network.

CIS executive director Sunil Abraham, who was on the committee that formulated the NPUEA, says besides non-confirmation of websites to international norms, there are many technical hurdles. Text-to-speech and speech-to-text software, mature optical character recognition systems, speech and grammar check and machine translation are some of the features that are still not available for most Indian languages, he adds. “Many government websites use font encoding for Indian languages which results in the failure of text-to-speech technologies.”

DeitY, under the ministry of communication and information technology, is supporting some technology interventions for the disabled, across different Indian languages. This also includes text-to-speech tools. “Mobile phone manufacturers should also provide in-built tools to cater to the needs of disabled people,” points out Ajay Kumar, joint secretary, DeitY. Emphasising a strong legal framework for implementation of the policy, Kumar adds that though the new policy promotes disability inclusion, the information technology ministry does not have the legal backing to enforce it. “The ministry of social justice and empowerment is creating a legal framework for the bill that is under consideration by the concerned committee to mandate some of these things, including technology assistance for the disabled,” he adds.

Abraham says besides ensuring that websites and services are accessible to the disabled, the new policy must be updated to include a mandate that all parties providing essential services to the general public must comply with accessibility standards. “Manufacturers of ICT products should provide at least one accessible model of their products within each price range that they are operating within,” he says.

Sam Taraporevala, associate professor and head of sociology department, St. Xavier’s College, Mumbai and the director of Xavier’s resource centre for the visually challenged, says with the government accepting a policy that IT tools should follow accessibility standards, it is now a question of monitoring, and, perhaps, even judicial activism. Nirmita Narasimhan, policy director, CIS, who works closely with various government departments to bring accessibility into their policies and programmes, concurs. “There must be accountability and a monitoring mechanism to check whether websites are disability compliant,” she says.

Maharashtra is the only state to make it compulsory for every department to have a scheme for procuring disability access products. Yet, compliance remains a problem. “Despite the government holding awareness camps at various districts, barriers are created for accessing government schemes. Resistance on part of government agencies to give out equipment to disabled people and lack of awareness among people about the availability of such facilities are the other stumbling blocks. Yet, there are ways for getting these products,” says Kapoor.

Experts say the needs and requirements of the disabled vary according to their disability and affordability of tools. Also, low income levels of many disabled people is a dissuading factor toprocuring equipment. “Most available tools and technologies are proprietary and, hence, costly and we are not able to scale them up in a big way,” says Kumar.

Taraporevala, born with 100% visual impairment, was instrumental in getting the guidelines for opening and operating demat accounts for visually impaired persons implemented. He also says mainstream consumer product companies are moving into touchscreen modes in mobile phones forgetting a large chunk of disabled population. “While the standards are there, implementation suffers due to lack of awareness which, in turn, leads to less demand,” he says.

The way forward
Governance Now also asked experts if corporate social responsibility (CSR) towards disability inclusion could address challenges in recruitment of disabled persons. “Instead of a hammer approach, a care approach has to be adopted,” says Rita Soni, CEO, Nasscom Foundation. According to Kumar, “Absence of commercial interest in promoting disability accessibility products has afflicted the sector with neglect.” However, Kapoor says, “This has to be an equal opportunity business. There will be differential costs, but at the same time the total number of disabled people in India is close to 70 million and a billion world over. How can you not treat them like a client?”

Speaking of the revised CSR rules under the Companies Act, Soni adds, “You can support skilling of persons with disabilities that has nothing to do with your business and have it considered as CSR expenditure. But if you make your office building or internet accessible, it does not count. Creating incentives around disability will make us a more inclusive society and make disability more amenable to office environment.”

Maharashtra IT secretary Rajesh Aggarwal adds, except for the metro, none of our public transport systems are disabled-friendly. As per national building code of India, while giving permissions for public buildings there must be a checklist to ensure that buildings and toilets are wheelchair and blind-friendly. Similarly, hotels must have few rooms which are disabled-friendly.” This awareness has not yet set in,” he says.

The Asia-Pacific region study of UNESCO global report 2013 has said many countries in the developing world are struggling to attain their millennium development goals of providing universal primary education to all by 2015. Our education system, on the other hand, has serious flaws. “We do not teach professionals about assistive technologies and for that reason an eye doctor does not know about low vision aids or a speech therapist does not know how to use communication devices,” says Kapoor.

Taraporevala is of the view that universal (architectural) design needs to be actively woven into every design curriculum across the spectrum, instead of being an optional subject. Physical infrastructure, building standards, for instance, need to reflect this and there needs to be active lobbying to ensure that certificates for public places are not given if they lack certain standards.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/accessibility/news/governance-now-december-1-2014-geetanjali-minhas-when-technology-is-able-but-mindset-is-not

When technology is able but the mindset is not

praskrishna — 2014-12-19T01:33:22Z

There are enough digital products and services to help people with disabilities. But widespread ignorance stands between them and digital inclusion reports Geetanjali Minhas.

The story appeared in 1-15 December 2014 issue of Governance Now

Not just that, Patel travels every day from his home in Vikhroli to his office in Goregaon, changing buses and trains with minimal assistance.

Patel’s colleague, Debashish, who is autistic, and no less capable, is known for his immaculate spellings within the company.

Team leader Priti Rohra, despite low vision, skillfully heads the testing team for websites and meticulously ensures that guidelines for the disabled are adhered to. Rohra works on policies and research and has prepared many reports for BarrierBreak, a company where 75 percent of the staff has disabilities like autism, inhibited vision and impaired hearing.

Its unique competitive advantage has allowed the company to help develop niche products and services for converting textbooks into more disabled-friendly formats like digital talking books (Epub Conversion). Till now, it has produced 1.5 million pages of disabled-friendly textbooks.

“When the government provides technology to its own employees it is enhancing their productivity,” says Shilpi Kapoor, founder-director of BarrierBreak and a member of the Nasscom Disability Advisory Group. “The fundamental difference here is that internationally, disability inclusion is a mandate, whereas in India it is considered charity and therefore a challenge. As a result many disabled are denied jobs as per their calibre and given salaries as doles.”

The priority given to policies for development of disabled-friendly information technology tools and services has been relatively low in India. Usually, it stems from an inaccurate understanding that the development of such tools and services will cost more money, and there will be no opportunity to recover it from the market.

A critical component of digital inclusion is to make websites and applications disabled-friendly. Most websites are not compliant with international guidelines on disabled-friendly requirements. Developers, officials and policy makers give disability accessibility a cold shoulder, retrofitting it into existing policies and processes as an after-thought.

An attitudinal shift might come if the new national policy on universal electronic accessibility (NPUEA) notified by DeitY is implemented, resulting in nearly 7,000 government websites becoming accessible to the disabled, especially visually impaired.

Various reports, including a 2012 survey by the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), found that almost 25 percent of 7,800 government websites failed to open and the remaining had accessibility barriers. The web accessibility survey report of Indian government websites by the national centre for promotion of employment for disabled people (NCPEDP) in 2012 too revealed that of the 200 government websites tested, only two were found to be disabled-friendly.

“Disability is a major social issue that India is grappling with. It needs to be addressed through not just policy, but also through assistive technology solutions,” says Prakash Kumar, CEO, Goods and Services Tax Network.

CIS executive director Sunil Abraham, who was on the committee that formulated the NPUEA, says besides non-confirmation of websites to international norms, there are many technical hurdles. Text-to-speech and speech-to-text software, mature optical character recognition systems, speech and grammar check and machine translation are some of the features that are still not available for most Indian languages, he adds. “Many government websites use font encoding for Indian languages which results in the failure of text-to-speech technologies.”

DeitY, under the ministry of communication and information technology, is supporting some technology interventions for the disabled, across different Indian languages. This also includes text-to-speech tools. “Mobile phone manufacturers should also provide in-built tools to cater to the needs of disabled people,” points out Ajay Kumar, joint secretary, DeitY.

Emphasising a strong legal framework for implementation of the policy, Kumar adds that though the new policy promotes disability inclusion, the information technology ministry does not have the legal backing to enforce it. “The ministry of social justice and empowerment is creating a legal framework for the bill that is under consideration by the concerned committee to mandate some of these things, including technology assistance for the disabled,” he adds.

Abraham says besides ensuring that websites and services are accessible to the disabled, the new policy must be updated to include a mandate that all parties providing essential services to the general public must comply with accessibility standards. “Manufacturers of ICT products should provide at least one accessible model of their products within each price range that they are operating within,” he says.

Sam Taraporevala, associate professor and head of sociology department, St. Xavier’s College, Mumbai and the director of Xavier’s resource centre for the visually challenged, says with the government accepting a policy that IT tools should follow accessibility standards, it is now a question of monitoring, and, perhaps, even judicial activism.

Nirmita Narasimhan, policy director, CIS, who works closely with various government departments to bring accessibility into their policies and programmes, concurs. “There must be accountability and a monitoring mechanism to check whether websites are disability compliant,” she says.

Maharashtra is the only state to make it compulsory for every department to have a scheme for procuring disability access products. Yet, compliance remains a problem. “Despite the government holding awareness camps at various districts, barriers are created for accessing government schemes. Resistance on part of government agencies to give out equipment to disabled people and lack of awareness among people about the availability of such facilities are the other stumbling blocks. Yet, there are ways for getting these products,” says Kapoor.

Experts say the needs and requirements of the disabled vary according to their disability and affordability of tools. Also, low income levels of many disabled people is a dissuading factor toprocuring equipment. “Most available tools and technologies are proprietary and, hence, costly and we are not able to scale them up in a big way,” says Kumar.

Taraporevala, born with 100% visual impairment, was instrumental in getting the guidelines for opening and operating demat accounts for visually impaired persons implemented. He also says mainstream consumer product companies are moving into touchscreen modes in mobile phones forgetting a large chunk of disabled population. “While the standards are there, implementation suffers due to lack of awareness which, in turn, leads to less demand,” he says.

The way forward

Governance Now also asked experts if corporate social responsibility (CSR) towards disability inclusion could address challenges in recruitment of disabled persons. “Instead of a hammer approach, a care approach has to be adopted,” says Rita Soni, CEO, Nasscom Foundation. According to Kumar, “Absence of commercial interest in promoting disability accessibility products has afflicted the sector with neglect.” However, Kapoor says, “This has to be an equal opportunity business. There will be differential costs, but at the same time the total number of disabled people in India is close to 70 million and a billion world over. How can you not treat them like a client?”

Speaking of the revised CSR rules under the Companies Act, Soni adds, “You can support skilling of persons with disabilities that has nothing to do with your business and have it considered as CSR expenditure. But if you make your office building or internet accessible, it does not count. Creating incentives around disability will make us a more inclusive society and make disability more amenable to office environment.”

Maharashtra IT secretary Rajesh Aggarwal adds, except for the metro, none of our public transport systems are disabled-friendly. As per national building code of India, while giving permissions for public buildings there must be a checklist to ensure that buildings and toilets are wheelchair and blind-friendly. Similarly, hotels must have few rooms which are disabled-friendly.” This awareness has not yet set in,” he says.

The Asia-Pacific region study of UNESCO global report 2013 has said many countries in the developing world are struggling to attain their millennium development goals of providing universal primary education to all by 2015. Our education system, on the other hand, has serious flaws. “We do not teach professionals about assistive technologies and for that reason an eye doctor does not know about low vision aids or a speech therapist does not know how to use communication devices,” says Kapoor.

Taraporevala is of the view that universal (architectural) design needs to be actively woven into every design curriculum across the spectrum, instead of being an optional subject. Physical infrastructure, building standards, for instance, need to reflect this and there needs to be active lobbying to ensure that certificates for public places are not given if they lack certain standards.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/accessibility/news/e-gov-reach-december-15-2014-geetanjali-minhas-when-technology-is-able-but-mindset-is-not

When Copyright Goes Bad

praskrishna — 2011-08-04T04:37:21Z

A part of the Access to Knowledge Project, this short film by Consumers International is available on DVD and online at A2Knetwork.org/film.

For centuries, copyright law has existed to protect creative production whilst promoting public access. But the digital age is challenging this balance and fundamentally changing how we produce, access and distribute content. Suddenly, copyright rules no longer do what they are supposed to do. They have gone bad.

This is a film about how copyright has become one of the most important consumer issues of the digital age; why corporate lobbying risks criminalising the actions of hundreds of thousands of people; and what the future holds for the fight for fairer copyright laws.

When Copyright Goes Bad is an introduction to the renegotiation of copyright and is for anyone interested in how copyright is affecting consumers. It features some of the key players in the copyright debate, including: Fred Von Lohmann - Electronic Frontier Foundation; Michael Geist - University of Ottawa Law School; Jim Killock - Open Rights Group; and Hank Shocklee - Co-founder of Public Enemy.

Quotes from When Copyright Goes Bad

“People have realised that copyright affects them every day and the direction that we’ve seen over the last few years really troubles them. That’s why so many people are speaking out.” Michael Geist

“In the U.S, over 35,000 Americans were targeted for lawsuits for downloading music. In ten years time, everyone will look back at that as incredibly unjust and ridiculous. No-one thinks that suing music fans one at a time is the business model of the future.” Fred Von Lohmann

“The industry is trying to demonise consumer behaviour. They’re trying to create the idea that it’s a moral debate: is downloading something wrong or right? Is it theft or not? These are the wrong questions and they will only ever produce the wrong answers.” Jim Killock

Making copyright, right

When Copyright Goes Bad is being released under a Creative Commons (CC) licence, which means it’s free to copy and adapt, as long as content is attributed and the same CC licence is used.
We will also be making available extended interviews with all the contributors, as well as with other experts not featured in the film, under the same CC licence at A2Knetwork.org/film. By providing access in this way we are allowing others to go on and create further work around the issue.

View it on youtube

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/when-copyright-goes-bad

What's Needed Is User-Centric Design, Not Good Intentions

Shyam Ponappa — 2013-01-25T11:26:40Z

The inadequacy of essentials and conveniences around us results from a slack approach to both design and execution. We know we are deficient in execution, but we need to be more aware of deficiencies in approach and design. Good intentions, while important, cannot substitute for good systems design and execution.

Shyam Ponappa's column was published in Organizing India Blogspot on January 6, 2013 and in the Business Standard on January 3, 2013.

Things That Work…
Simple aspects of everyday living that actually work in India can leave one wonderstruck. Like the daily newspapers, organised and delivered seamlessly, reasonably early in the day, almost regardless of where one lives provided it’s a city or town. Or the availability of milk, eggs, bread, vegetables, fruit, and whatever else for daily provisions. And this despite the supposed shortcomings of our logistics and organisation in the context of wholesale and retail markets. Some of the revolutions that we’ve lived through in the last two decades include the manifestation of such wonders, like the phenomenal and ubiquitous growth in the supply of dairy and poultry products.

On a different plane, as it were, are the changes in the quality of automobiles and the improvements in India’s roads, although patchy and considerably lagging. Likewise, there have been revolutions in mobile communications and in air travel, disregarding anomalies such as the horror of Mumbai airport on private airlines, with its incompetent cab mafia on arrival, and a disorganised and demeaning crush on departure, squeezing past crowded boarding gates. (This is the state of the commercial capital? Woe betide us — but I digress...) Another source of wonder is the performance of the Indian Railways. Much abused by exploitative politicians, given short shrift on everything from cleanliness and toilets to much else, overloaded by hapless passengers in desperate need of transportation. One can only marvel at these services.

…And Things That Don’t
And yet, there are debilitating areas that seem utterly intractable, like sanitation, water, power supply and communications services for data (apart from voice).

Comparing the state of sanitation or power with the railways, one might say the latter had the benefit of being set up as an integrated system since the 1850s, although deprived in recent times of systematic development and investment, and so reduced to decrepitude. By contrast, sanitation has been playing catch-up on our old, established society, behind the curve for hundreds of years, never having had the advantage of installation as ab initio systems. Open drains are an Indian feature, even in Delhi. A similar situation obtains in power supply, where the contradictions and inequities of piecemeal, encapsulated interventions that tried to address power generation first were followed by sporadic efforts to address transmission and distribution, with realpolitik all the while playing to the users’ self-indulgence of having it all without paying for it. This sense of entitlement without accountability has resulted in the vicious circle of “free power” that leads to no power, annihilating possibilities for improvement.

In communications services for data (broadband), we have a different kind of problem. For one, governments, citizens and activists don’t seem to get it that these services are as essential to infrastructure as energy and transportation. There is no logic to their exclusion, but it has taken the National Telecom Policy of 2012 (NTP-2012) to announce the objective that telecom is part of infrastructure, although the associated benefits, such as lower interest rates, are yet to follow.

User-Centric Systems
The malady with sectors such as power, communications and transport is that solutions seem to be designed without an integrated, end-to-end, goal-oriented perspective favouring users. For instance, otherwise successful initiatives like the Delhi Metro provide services from an islanded “product perspective” that is simply not user-centric in its orientation. This results in insufficient feeder buses, inadequate parking at the Metro stations, a gaggle of disorganised cycle-rickshaws at stations like Mayur Vihar, and so on. Instead of being an unadulterated blessing, a Metro station in the neighbourhood becomes a curse, because user needs are not treated as being central to the delivery of the service. Passengers are left floundering while people in the environs (like the denizens of Mayur Vihar) are left to fend for themselves. There is also the question of capacity and demand. Again, the “product perspective” results in overcrowding and other inconveniences. On the flip side, well-meaning though misguided critics attack attempts to build capacity in anticipation of demand, as was the Metro by proponents of a Bus Rapid Transit system pushing for the latter as a silver bullet instead of as an adjunct.

What Could Have Been, But Isn’t Yet
The Unique Identification Authority of India’s Aadhaar augured a potentially revolutionary electronic enabler. In practice, however, its design has been baffling. A brilliant concept – abstracting a smart identification number from a smart card – has been reduced to an identifier for cash transfers to bank accounts. The question is, why to bank accounts and not to transactions, whether for retail or for services, activated by a mobile phone? Kenya’s M-Pesa was the pioneer for mobile money transfer, subsequently enhanced to include interest earned on virtual accounts.[*] Introduced in India by ICICI Bank with Vodafone in November 2012 and State Bank of India in January 2013, not only would this be much more practicable as the majority of our population doesn’t have bank accounts, it would cost far less, while being much more convenient for users. It would obviate setting up millions of physical micro-accounts at relatively high cost at banks, as well as giving users proximate access to products and services.

Another puzzling aspect is the contradictory, sometimes changing signals about Aadhaar. It is supposedly voluntary, yet reportedly mandatory now for marriage registrations, yet not accepted by banks for account opening, nor by some mobile phone operators, nor for passport applications, nor for driver’s licences. And inexplicably, except as a ruse to garner votes from non-citizens, it is for all residents (who choose to apply?), and although it could include citizenship information, it doesn’t.

It is best to start out right, recognising that we need user-centric, end-to-end systems design and execution, and apply this approach across the board going forward.

[*]. http://on.ft.com/UpzONs

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/telecom/blog/organizing-india-blogspot-shyam-ponappa-january-6-2013-what-is-needed-is-user-centric-design-not-good-intentions

What's in a Name? Or Why Clicktivism May Not Be Ruining Left Activism in India, At Least For Now

anja — 2011-08-02T09:25:39Z

In a recent piece in the Guardian titled “Clicktivism Is Ruining Leftist Activism”, Micah White expressed severe concern that, in drawing on tactics of advertising and marketing research, digital activism is undermining “the passionate, ideological and total critique of consumer society”. His concerns are certainly shared by some in India: White's piece has been circulating on activist email lists where people noted with concern that e-activism may be replacing “the real thing” even in this country. But is the situation in India really this dire?

Among those who consider themselves activists in a more traditional fashion, critical debates on what it means to be an activist certainly remain alive and well. Among India's social movements, perhaps most prominent, over the past decade, have been those that protest against large-scale “development” projects and the displacement they tend to cause – projects of which especially India's tribal people, or adivasis, often are the victims. In these circles, arguments against the use of the Internet for activism often focus on the elitist character of this tool: in a country where Internet penetration rates continue to hover around a meagre five percent, frequently neither the people affected nor the wider groups that need to be mobilised have access to this resource. Clearly then, organising online is never sufficient and, perhaps not surprisingly, debates about what is called “armchair activism” consequently are both common and intense. In a recent video posted on YouTube, for example, the respected Himanshu Kumar – who everyone will recognise as a grassroots activist – called on the nation to support the adivasis and their causes. In the same video, he also explicitly requested people to get off the Internet:

Is me jo shehero me rehne wale log hai, mujhe unse khas tor se kehna hai ki aap sheher me baithe rahenge, net par thoda sa likh denge – usse sarkar ko koi farak padne wala nahi hai. Na janta Internet padthi hai na sarkar Internet padthi hai. Hum jo activist hai wohi aapas mein Internet par pad lethe hai. Usse sarkar ki koi policiyan nahi badal payenge, sarkar par pressure nahi create kar payenge. Jab tak ham aam janta ke beech mein nahi jayenge, na to hame desh ki problems pata challenge, na ham desh ke logon ko jaga payenge.

[To the people in the cities, I want to especially say that, you keep sitting in the cities, you write something on the Internet - it doesn't make any difference to the government. Neither do people read the Internet, nor does the government read the Internet. Only activists like you and me read on the Internet. Through that, we cannot change the policies of the government, we cannot create pressure on the government. As long as we don't go among/approach the common people, neither will we come to know the country's problems, nor will we be able to awaken the people].

Not everybody I spoke to would have agreed with Kumar's argument. The importance of mass mobilisation and the need to be in touch with grassroots realities are recognised by all movement activists, as is consequently the requirement to get active offline as much as online. But whether mass mobilisation at the grassroots is the only way forward is not something that everyone is convinced of. In the context of the Free Binayak Sen campaign, for example, there is considerable recognition that the website was a vital complement to a well-organised offline campaign to free Dr. Binayak Sen from jail, which kicked off in the spring of 2008. Sen is a community health doctor and civil liberties activist who had worked for more than twenty five years among the adivasis of Chhattisgarh, the heart of the current Maoist conflict, when he was arrested on the basis of what many considered completely baseless, yet non-bailable charges of being a Maoist himself, and left to languish in jail for two years. A regularly updated website, and related Facebook group and email list, soon became the focal point for a massive outpouring of support for Sen from different parts of the world, including in the form of a letter from twenty Nobel Prize winners, as well as an important source of information on the campaign for activists within the country. In May 2009, the Indian Supreme Court finally released granted bail to Dr. Binayak Sen. The Doctor's trial is currently ongoing.

In this context of critical debates, how do those who do see themselves as activists, yet draw on the Internet as a significant tool to publicise struggles, justify themselves? If the Internet can play a role in changing matters at the grassroots, and has proven to do so in the past, does it become possible to intensely use this tool and still be recognised as an activist in a more traditional reading of this word? The fact that most middle-class English speaking cadres of movements are online, despite their protestations against online activism for being elitist, may well play in the favour of advocates of online protest: it does open up a space to argue for the relevance of this medium, even if for a limited group, and for the importance of its responsible use. Indeed, it may well be for this reason that it is possible to watch on YouTube a number of videos in which Himanshu Kumar shares his experiences at the grassroots, his own discomfort with the medium notwithstanding. But it is not this ambiguity that is at the heart of the claims to credibility of advocates of online activism. Rather, as has always been the case, it is their continued connectedness to the grassroots. How much you are in the know of what happens at the grassroots; whether you have physically joined struggles; to what extent you get your hands dirty offline and show up for meetings, rallies, poster pasting, rather than limiting your engagement to the online route – these are the kind of elements that determine whether you are an online activist. What you do offline remains as important as ever. To only work online is not sufficient.

Importantly, such readings are frequently mirrored by those who do not have such connections to the grassroots. In my research, I have more than once come across “online activists” who started their conversation with me by stating that they were not, in fact, activists at all. Interestingly, Maesy Angelina has observed a similar reluctance to identify as an activist among participants in the Blank Noise project (personal communication and Angelina, forthcoming), a campaign to combat street sexual harassment and, with its extensive use of online tools over the seven years of its existence, one of the paragons of online activism in India. While Maesy herself will blog more about how Blank Noise participants understand activism later on here, (earlier posts are available as well) at least in my research, the reason why people refused the “activist” label was generally not because they disapproved of what it might stand for. Rather, they saw a clear difference between their own contribution and that of the full-time activists who ceaselessly mobilise and organise people on the ground, those who in many cases draw on a distinct and easily-recognisable language of protest that infuses everything from the shape protests take to activists' dressing sense in the process – the “jholawallahs”, as one person I follow on Twitter calls them, after the trademark cotton bag that they often carry around. Those who refused the namecard of an “activist” were clear that they would never have chosen such a full-time activist's life; what new technology allowed them to do, however, was to nevertheless make a contribution, even if often on a smaller scale, of their own. As one person put it quite movingly:

I believe that, I think that ordinary people, and I am convinced, that they can do, can use this medium to actually make a difference, you know or bring about change, to change the world. You know, these dreams that you have sometimes, “I want to change the world in some way” [laughs]. You know? I do believe that... it's possible. And you don't have to be an activist or working in an NGO. You can be working anywhere, you can be doing anything as your day job, you know, or your regular job. But, you can contribute.

Clearly, then, critical readings of what it means to be an activist are common not only among those who are activists in a more traditional sense, but among those who focus on exploring the use of new tools for social change as well: the kind of credibility, based on offline experience, that attaches to more traditional activists is not something they claim for themselves. But what they understand is that new technologies have facilitated a qualitatively new kind of engagement with movements, with activism, with social change. And what such “not-activists” do claim is that this has made it possible for ordinary people to now also make a difference, even though small that difference often may be.

In many ways this type of involvement is actually not new, as contributions of non-activists have always played an important role in the survival and evolutions of movements, especially at times of great urgency: doctors who are ready to treat patients for free; lawyers who supply legal advice without expecting anything in return; people with comfortable jobs in the private sector who one knows one can rely on for donations when required (most movements in India survive financially by relying solely or mostly on donations by private persons). What is new with the introduction of the Internet is that the possibility of contributions by people who are not activists are now extended into new areas, as it has become much easier to contribute to publicising and building community around issues that are close to movements' heart as well.

So how to evaluate White's claim that clicktivism is ruining Left activism in the Indian context then? For one thing, it is important to remember that we simply do not – or not yet at least – have platforms such as MoveOn or Avaaz, that draw, as White explains, on market ideology to conveniently break down a seemingly endless number of political campaigns into little bites for easy individual consumption with the click of a mouse button. Left activism in India, even online, remains firmly embedded in communities of engagement. Surely e-petitions, for example, are popular here as much as elsewhere. But the point to remember is that they rarely circulate in isolation. Instead, they emerge from the email lists, from the postings and repostings as well as conversations on Facebook, from the blogs around which much Left activism online revolves. And crucial to these uses of the Internet as a tool for social change is not clicking, but engagement and conversation. Perhaps it is for this reason that even a landmark campaign such as Free Binayak Sen has hardly received any attention in the international online activists' arena: campaigns such as this do not revolve around the number of clicks they get, nor around flash-points or events shaped to satisfy the hunger of the international media, valuable as some may argue these can be; rather, they are intended for the long haul, as they attempt to build on existing collectives to extend the communities of solidarity around issues that move and drive the Left in this neoliberal age. Even online, the politics can and does infuse the method, at least for now.

This, then, gives something to ponder over. It is true that working among people, offline, remains of crucial importance if Left movements in the country are to achieve their goals. But perhaps it is worth considering more seriously the value and role of this pool of people willing and available to help building such communities in a more or less sustained fashion online (I am not talking about the accidental activist here), without necessarily wanting to take on a core “activist”'s role. Yes, perhaps their work does not amount to activism as we know it. But nevertheless, it may well be that in many cases the efforts of these committed individuals do not amount to distractions, but to gravy: extras that help ensuring that more and more people start to care as the message of social movements is amplified to a much larger audience than might have otherwise been the case, perhaps even getting many more people involved, while also acutely aware of their own limitations when it comes to achieving fundamental, lasting social change. In fact, perhaps the Left would also do well to wonder whether it can afford to lose this valuable support: as I will document in a future blog post, with the rise of the Internet in India, online initiatives have also emerged that take neither of the stances described above, but that instead explicitly, and at times aggressively, seek to present themselves as a forward-looking alternative to the existing progressive politics in this country. A lack of engagement on the part of the Left with supporters online would effectively entail a ceding of the space to such challengers.

The point to remember for now, however, is that many of those active in online campaigns are acutely aware themselves not only of the potential of their work, but also of its limitations. What we do need to do, however, is to keep firmly alive this tension and debate surrounding what it means to be an activist, as well as to remain vigilant that the dazzling charms of the tools do not, in the long term, blind us to our politics. At the moment, it seems to be the continuing vibrancy of the Left in India that makes it difficult for anyone who wants to get seriously involved with movement politics to consider online activism a sufficient replacement. It is the endurance of these attitudes of continuous critical inquiry that will ensure that, clicktivism or not, Left activism will remain firmly alive in this country in the future as well – in the hearts and minds of activists and non-activists alike.

With thanks to Prasad Krishna for assistance with the translation.

References

Angelina, M. (forthcoming). 'Beyond the Digital: Understanding Contemporary Youth Activism in Urban India' (working title). MA thesis. The Hague, International Institute of Social Studies – Erasmus University of Rotterdam.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/blogs/revolution-2.0/whats-in-a-name-or-why-clicktivism-may-not-be-ruining-left-activism-in-india-at-least-for-now

What Women Want: The ability debates

praskrishna — 2011-04-02T12:08:44Z

In this article published in the Hindu, Deepa Alexander argues that the proposed amendments to the Copyright Act (1957) are restrictive and discriminatory.

The triumphs and disasters of the differently-abled in India are two ends of the spectrum. Among the 70 million disabled in our country are those who have conquered peaks, won gold at the Paralympics, and raced in Himalayan and desert car rallies. But, millions more struggle to meet daily challenges in a society that tends to portray the disabled as either heroes or victims with little or no access to their rightful resources. The proposed amendments to the Copyright Act (1957) are seen as restrictive and discriminatory, as the copyright exception, which aims at allowing persons with disability easy access to copyrighted material, applies only to certain types of disability. We spoke to activists who address these issues, not as charity or welfare but as matters of development and dignity.

Change in attitude

National Trust's programmes work on building capacity, changing patronising attitudes, building trust in the abilities of people with developmental disability and creating an equal playing field. Unfortunately, deeply entrenched attitudes continue to exclude people with disabilities. Even if an opportunity is given, it is given only once; if a person with disability fails, incapacity is assumed.

But, in the recent case of a young woman with intellectual disability who had been raped in a women's home, the Supreme Court upheld her right to ‘choose' to keep her baby, and she has proved to be a competent mother. However, the disapproval of the intelligentsia in the media is an indicator of the social prejudices people with disabilities have to live with.

Poonam Natarajan, Chairperson, National Trust (Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment), New Delhi

Implement their rights

Ability Foundation's thrust is on creating an equitable society. Through our magazine Success & Ability, we spread this message at a time when service to the disabled was seen only at the physical, and not at the emotional level. Persons with disabilities need access to inclusive education, employment and public places. Being ‘accounted' in the Census 2011 will open up a plethora of possibilities. Accurate data will enable Government intervention at various levels, leading to proactive action. We need ramps for wheelchair users, audio announcements in bus / train stations for the visually-impaired, and video announcements for the hearing-impaired. Floor numbers in Braille for lifts, sign language interpreters in every hospital, police station and court of law, slip-proof flooring in malls, and large-print books in public libraries for those with low vision are the other needs. The implementation of the rights of persons with disabilities as per the United Nations convention and the Persons with Disabilities Act (PWD), in letter and spirit, is also essential.

Jaysheree Ravindran, Founder and Honorary Executive Director, Ability Foundation, Chennai

A development issue

My daughter Tamana was born with cerebral palsy. It pushed me to found an organisation in 1984 to fulfil the dreams of children with special needs and those of their parents. Therapy and counselling for children and their families is essential for optimum adult rehabilitation. Since Independence, the disabled have been categorised along with sections such as women, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. While these have had powerful political lobbies, there has been no spokesperson for the disabled. The dichotomies between the Ministries of Education and Social Justice further worsen the exclusion. Most policy-makers look at disability as a welfare, not a development issue. Disability should be jointly addressed by the Ministries of Health, Women and Child Development, HRD, Social Justice and Empowerment. The definition of disability in the PWD Act does not include autism, which leaves out nearly two million autistic persons in India. Admitting disabled children in normal schools is not enough — you need to have professionally trained staff, who are sensitised. I also hope for a different curriculum for special children, even as they are being integrated in the mainstream. Better pay scales will also bring in more jobs in the disability sector.

Dr. Shyama Chona, President, Tamana, New Delhi

Public-private partnership

NGO-run establishments provide free schooling for disabled children. The Government has provided legislative intent through the Inclusive Education Act, which makes it mandatory to include all kinds of impaired children. However, Government schools that cater to the poor are generally marked by grossly inadequate infrastructure and teaching aids, so imagine the predicament of the disabled.

I would like a public-private partnership for day-care and residential institutions which provide educational and recreational service on a long-term basis. This needs to be supported by research institutions which focus on technology, communication and teaching aids. We need to benefit from global expertise, and customise them to local needs.

As Childline's primary mandate is child protection, I feel that the Government must compulsorily provide for a child protection policy in any institution that deals with disabled children, as, such children are more vulnerable to abuse.

Kajol Menon, Executive Director, Childline India Foundation, Mumbai

The copyright angle

The Centre for Internet and Society is associated with the copyright amendment movement for persons with disabilities, and is one of the founding organisations for the Indian Right to Read campaign. At present, the proposed copyright amendment is detrimental to the disability sector's needs. The exception extends only to ‘specially designed' formats such as Braille and sign language, and does not benefit the millions who have cerebral palsy, dyslexia and low vision, and the visually-impaired persons who do not know Braille. Such persons require audio, reading material with large fonts and electronic texts, which are not ‘specially designed' formats. For conversion to non-specialised formats, the amendment proposes a licensing system, which will permit only organisations working for the benefit of the disabled to undertake conversion and distribution. This will prevent educational institutions, SHGs, other NGOs and print-disabled individuals from undertaking conversion. The licensing system will also require approaching the Copyright Board for each work, which will be extremely time-consuming. The waiting period for obtaining permissions and subsequent conversion will result in students losing academic years, a violation of their right to education.

The proposed amendment violates the Constitutional guarantee of equality under Article 14 since it discriminates between those visually-impaired persons who know Braille and those print-disabled persons who do not. It is important for the nation as a whole to take the concern of persons with disabilities as a mainstream concern.

Nirmita Narasimhan, Programme Manager, Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore

Read the original article in the Hindu

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/what-women-want

What is Wikimedia Education SAARC Conference?

sailesh — 2019-06-22T09:37:23Z

The Wikimedia Education SAARC conference is on 20th June 2019. A conference for Wikimedians, Wikimedia education leaders, educators and researchers engaged with Open Education and free knowledge movement.

The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) is the regional union of nations in South Asia. Wikimedians belonging to these nations share several common challenges and many of them are emerging communities within the Wikimedia movement. The community members to attend the Wikimedia Education SAARC conference are involved in Indic language Wikimedia projects.

Wikimedia Education SAARC conference will be the first of its kind conference in SAARC countries which will engage Wikimedians, education program leaders, educators and researchers engaged with Open Education and free knowledge movement. We believe that the students of all ages should not only consume the knowledge available on the Internet but also be a part of the larger Open Internet movement, and help in creating open knowledge resources.

The event will be organised in and by the Christ (Deemed to be University) in Bengaluru from 20th June 2019 to 22nd June 2019. CIS-A2K team has been working with the department of languages in this university from 2013, where students of the university are contributing to multiple Wikimedia projects. Our education activity at this university has inspired us to plan this event. To know more about this university, Please see here.

This conference will allow us to understand the different efforts made by the SAARC communities involved in the Wikimedia Education movement. This will help us to create models, templates and documents that can be replicated in by other institutions or programs.

Conference Goals:

To know the Wikimedia Education activities happening in South Asia by different community members/Languages.
Sharing the knowledge and best practices of how to build "trust relationship" with new partners/teachers and how to improve trust in Wikimedia projects.
Challenges on student retention and how to engage them in the broader Wikimedia movement.
The best method to evaluate and measure the quality of the work done by the students.
To introduce tools like the dashboard, not in your language, and other tools which will be useful for the tracking, assessment, allocation of the topics and others.

The program structure for Wikimedia Education SAARC conference has been developed by keeping the general and specific challenges and opportunities in South Asia, and the submission selected from the participants.

Follow the hashtag #EduWikiSAARC19 for more updates.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/what-is-wikimedia-education-saarc-conference-1

What is net neutrality and why it is important

praskrishna — 2014-02-03T08:24:34Z

Internet is built around the idea of openness. It allows people to connect and exchange information freely, if the information or service is not illegal.

The article was published in the Times of India on January 20, 2014. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

Much of this is because of the idea of net neutrality. If you like the current state of the internet, you should know about net neutrality. Many web users are aware of it. But if you are not, don't worry. We explain it here:

What is net neutrality?
Net neutrality is an idea derived from how telephone lines have worked since the beginning of the 20th century. In case of a telephone line, you can dial any number and connect to it. It does not matter if you are calling from operator A to operator B. It doesn't matter if you are calling a restaurant or a drug dealer. The operators neither block the access to a number nor deliberately delay connection to a particular number, unless forced by the law. Most of the countries have rules that ask telecom operators to provide an unfiltered and unrestricted phone service.

When the internet started to take off in 1980s and 1990s, there were no specific rules that asked that internet service providers (ISPs) should follow the same principle. But, mostly because telecom operators were also ISPs, they adhered to the same principle. This principle is known as net neutrality. An ISP does not control the traffic that passes its servers. When a web user connects to a website or web service, he or she gets the same speed. Data rate for Youtube videos and Facebook photos is theoretically same. Users can access any legal website or web service without any interference from an ISP.

Some countries have rules that enforce net neutrality but most don't. Instead, the principle is followed because that is how it has always been. It is more of a norm than a law.

How did net neutrality shape the internet?
Net neutrality has shaped the internet in two fundamental ways.

One, web users are free to connect to whatever website or service they want. ISPs do not bother with what kind of content is flowing from their servers. This has allowed the internet to grow into a truly global network and has allowed people to freely express themselves. For example, you can criticize your ISP on a blog post and the ISP will not restrict access to that post for its other subscribers even though the post may harm its business.

But more importantly, net neutrality has enabled a level playing field on the internet. To start a website, you don't need lot of money or connections. Just host your website and you are good to go. If your service is good, it will find favour with web users. Unlike the cable TV where you have to forge alliances with cable connection providers to make sure that your channel reaches viewers, on internet you don't have to talk to ISPs to put your website online.

This has led to creation Google, Facebook, Twitter and countless other services. All of these services had very humble beginnings. They started as a basic websites with modest resources. But they succeeded because net neutrality allowed web users to access these websites in an easy and unhindered way.

What will happen if there is no net neutrality?
If there is no net neutrality, ISPs will have the power (and inclination) to shape internet traffic so that they can derive extra benefit from it. For example, several ISPs believe that they should be allowed to charge companies for services like YouTube and Netflix because these services consume more bandwidth compared to a normal website. Basically, these ISPs want a share in the money that YouTube or Netflix make.

Without net neutrality, the internet as we know it will not exist. Instead of free access, there could be "package plans" for consumers. For example, if you pay Rs 500, you will only be able to access websites based in India. To access international websites, you may have to pay a more. Or maybe there can be different connection speed for different type of content, depending on how much you are paying for the service and what "add-on package" you have bought.

Lack of net neutrality, will also spell doom for innovation on the web. It is possible that ISPs will charge web companies to enable faster access to their websites. Those who don't pay may see that their websites will open slowly. This means bigger companies like Google will be able to pay more to make access to Youtube or Google+ faster for web users but a startup that wants to create a different and better video hosting site may not be able to do that.

Instead of an open and free internet, without net neutrality we are likely to get a web that has silos in it and to enter each silo, you will have to pay some "tax" to ISPs.

What is the state of net neutrality in India?
Legally, the concept of net neutrality doesn't exist in India. Sunil Abraham, director of Centre for internet and Society in Bangalore, says that Trai, which regulates the telecom industry, has tried to come up with some rules regarding net neutrality several times. For example it invited comments on the concept of net neutrality from industry bodies and stakeholders in 2006. But no formal rules have been formed to uphold and enforce net neutrality.

However, despite lack of formal rules, ISPs in India mostly adhere to the principal of net neutrality. There have been some incidents where Indian ISPs have ignored net neutrality but these are few and far between.

Will the concept of net neutrality survive?
Net neutrality is sort of gentlemen's agreement. It has survived so far because few people realized the potential of internet when it took off around 30 years ago. But now when the internet is an integral part of the society and incredibly important, ISPs across the world are trying to get the power to shape and control the traffic. But there are ways to keep net neutrality alive.

Consumers should demand that ISPs continue their hands-off approach from the internet traffic. If consumers see a violation of net neutrality, they ought to take a proactive approach and register their displeasure with the ISP. They should also reward ISPs that uphold the net neutrality.

At the same time, as Abraham says, Trai needs to come out with a set of clear and precise rules that protect the net neutrality. "We have started seeing ISPs trying to take control of the traffic that flows from their servers but Trai can regulate them. It can keep the internet open and consumer-friendly by forming rules that protect net neutrality. These are early days so it is easy to do. If ISPs manage to change the system, it may become too late," he says.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/times-of-india-january-20-2014-what-is-net-neutrality-and-why-is-it-important