Centre for Internet and Society

Human rights, freedom of expression and free flow of information on the Internet

praskrishna — 2013-11-09T03:38:59Z

This session will offer a multistakeholder overview of the current status of human rights, freedom of expression and free flow of information on the Internet. Pranesh Prakash was a speaker at this event.

Click to read the details posted on IGF website here.

The interactive discussion will touch upon many of the key issues that will be discussed in related workshops prior to the session and will give all stakeholders an equal platform to address issues related to human rights and the Internet to find points of consensus, points of convergence and points of further action/research/referral to other institutions or actors if appropriate.

Policy related questions that this session will address include:

What are/have been the main themes at the nexus of the Internet and human rights in 2013? What have been the policy responses? What are the key strategies and actions for responding to these themes?
What is working well to promote human rights, freedom of expression and the free flow of information on the Internet? What are areas for concern?
What HR standards can be applied in the digital environment?
The HRC adopted a milestone resolution in 2012, in which governments agreed that the same HR apply online as offline (Res 20/8). Do all stakeholders agree with this core concept? What is the relevance of this resolution to Internet public policy making? What has been the impact of the revelations of wide-spread mass surveillance been on taking the implications of this resolution forward?
How can all stakeholders, taking their different roles and responsibilities into account, respect, protect and promote human rights on the Internet nationally, regionally and globally?

Speakers:

Host Country Chair: Prof. Dr. Harkristuti Harkrisnowo (Director General of Human Right, Ministry of Law and Human Right)
Moderators: Anja Kovacs, Internet Democracy Project, New Delhi and Johan Hallenborg, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Stockholm, supported by Anriette Esterhuysen, APC, Johannesburg.
Remote Moderator: TBC
Rapporteur: Joy Liddicoat, APC, Wellington (The rapporteur will summarise the session at the end and report into 'Taking Stock')

PART 1: Regional perspectives on human rights on the Internet [45 minutes]

To get the discussion going, the moderators will ask the following people to respond, from a regional perspective, to the question: What are/have been the main themes at the nexus of the Internet and human rights in 2013 in your region?

Eduardo Bertoni, CELE, University of Palermo, Buenos Aires
Fadlah Adams, South African Human Rights Commission, Cape Town
Gayathry Venkiteswaran, Executive Director, Southeast Asian Press Alliance, Bangkok
Jochai Ben-Avie, Access, New York
Moez Chakchouk, ATI, Tunis
Lee Hibbard, Council of Europe, Strasbourg

PART 2: Delving into specific issues [45 minutes]

What is working well to promote human rights, freedom of expression and the free flow of information on the Internet? What are areas for concern? What HR standards can be applied in the digital environment?
Potential Speakers from the Audience:

Freedom of expression: Guy Berger, UNESCO, Paris; Cynthia Wong, Human Rights Watch, Washington DC; Beryl Aidi, Kenyan Human Rights Commission, Nairobi; Ramiro Alvarez Ugarte, Association for Civil Rights, Buenos Aires.
Internet intermediary liability: Gbenga Sesan, Paradigm Initiative, Lagos; Zahid Jamil, Barrister-at-law, Karachi; Malcolm Hutty, LINX, London.
Sexual rights (rights of LGBT communities): Bishakha Datta, Point of View, New Delhi; Nadine Mouawad, EROTICS, Beirut.
Free flow of information, access to knowledge and IP issues: Stuart Hamilton, International Federation of Library Associations, The Hague; Nick Aston Hart, International Digital Economy Alliance (IDEA), Geneva; Pranesh Prakash, CIS, Bangalore; Claudio Ruiz, Derechos Digitales, Santiago.

Network neutrality (in terms of free flow of information): Lisl Brunner, GNI, US/Europe; Luca Belli, Dynamic Coalition on Net Neutrality, Tech and academic community, Europe; Paul Mitchell, Microsoft, US.

Surveillance and transborder access to data: global and national dimensions: Nicolas Seidler, ISOC, Geneva, Ross LaJeunesse, Global Head of Free Expression and International Relations, Google, Mountain View; Seth Bouvier, US Dept. of State, Government, Washington DC; Meryem Merzouki, EDRI (European Digital Rights), Paris.

PART 3: Input from IGF workshops, dynamic coalitions, open forums and other focus sessions [45 minutes]

Organisers of workshops etc. related to Human Rights will be asked to respond to further questions from the moderators, from the perspective of the outcome of their workshop/event.

How can all stakeholders, taking their different roles and responsibilities into account, respect, protect and promote human rights in Internet related public policy making nationally, regionally and globally?

What are some points of consensus; points of convergence; points of further action/research/referral to other institutions or actors that emerged from their sessions?

PART 4: Discussion and going forward [45 minutes]

The following questions will be addressed:

The Human Rights Council adopted a milestone resolution in which governments agreed that the same HR apply online as offline. Do all stakeholders agree with this core concept? What is the relevance of this resolution to Internet public policy making? What has been the impact of the revelations of wide-spread mass surveillance been on taking the implications of this resolution forward?

What do you think we should do next and what is the role of the IGF?

The rapporteur will be given 6 minutes at the end to summarise.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/igf-2013-october-24-human-rights-freedom-of-expression-free-flow-of-information-on-internet

Human Rights vs National Security

praskrishna — 2017-05-20T02:48:20Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/human-rights-versus-national-security.pdf

Human Machine Interfaces: The History of an Uncertain Future

sharath — 2013-01-04T11:30:47Z

"Multimodal interfaces maybe re-engineered much more easily now and can transform the ways in which the physically,cognitively and sensorially disabled can access information and interact with the digital world", says Sharath Chandra Ram.

Fundamental inspirations in digital information practices sprouted from the hypothetical electro-mechanical device ‘Memex’ proposed by renowned scientist Vannevar Bush in 1945, who incidentally, as the graduate professor of Claude Shannon, also paved the way for digital circuit design theory. The Memex (Memory + Index) concept entailed a system where a user could add associative trails to notes, books, communication and audio-visual experiences involving both him and others. Memex in Bush’s view was to create trails of links in temporal sequences of subjective experiences of a person, accessible to him (and others) anytime — a sort of augmented and extended memory. So implausible was considered this ambitious proposal of his, that the word ‘vannevar’ has entered the dictionary as a noun used to describe something that is unfeasibly fantastic and imaginative.

Wholly new forms of encyclopedias will appear, readymade with a mesh of associative trails running through them, ready to be dropped into the memex and there amplified.[1]

The Memex idea had an immediate bearing on the conception of the World Wide Web and also influenced Ted Nelson’s coinage of ‘hyperlink’ that mapped a single word in a document to other associative content. Douglas Engelbart inspired by Bush’s essay, invented an interface that aided the very metaphor of pinpointed navigation through hyperlinks — the X-Y Indicator — that later came to be known to the world as the Computer Mouse. Not much has changed in the ways by which humans have interacted at the interface level. The WIMP paradigm (Windows, Icons ,Menus and Pointers) has been here to stay.

The X-Y indicator that previously mapped motions made on a two dimensional track pad onto the screen has simply been infused onto touch screens. While this may have eased the process of visual design automation, could our interaction be more natural, expressive, immersive and creative? Our experience in the real world is multi modal and we communicate with others using our body, hands, visual cues and sound. Is there a way by which our interaction in the virtual world could closely mimic our real world behavior?

The answer to the above questions came around the same time that the mouse was invented — Myron Kreuger's Videoplace. Unarguably the first and finest immersive virtual reality created way back in the 1970s, ‘Videoplace’ combined two cultural forces — the television (a purveyor of passive experience) and computer (symbol of forbidding technology) to create an expressive medium for communicating playfulness and active participation. Kreuger argued that "computer art which ignores responsiveness is using the computer only for visual design automation, rather than as a basis for a new medium." Kreuger used image processing and gestural interaction as early as in the 70s to interact with virtual objects in the digital world and has inspired a whole generation of computer vision artists including the likes of Golan Levin. If one recalls the seemingly futuristic gestural interface that Tom Cruise used in the film ‘Minority Report’ — be assured it’s already here! Jaron Lanier, a pioneer in virtual reality systems who headed the National Tele Immersion Initiative developed the entire working set of the film.

It seems Kreuger’s work had remained in a niche closet due to early commercialization and large scale adoption of the XY mouse and touch devices. ‘User centric design’ has become increasingly device dependent and really only caters to enticing users to information that the interface wants to disseminate rather than let the user engage with the interface intuitively.

Today, natural interfacing techniques are regaining much commercial interest. A landmark event was the massively viral YouTube video of Johnny Lee Cheung hacking the Nintedo Wiimote’s infrared sensor to track the head movement of a user in real time and provide an illusion of 3-Dimensional Virtual Reality. Within a year, Microsoft hired Cheung to develop the Kinect Camera for gestural interaction with it’s X-box gaming console and also bought all assets of 3DV system’s 3D sensor ‘ZCam’ -- the most affordable option available to new media artists until then. Within a week of the Kinect’s release, it’s drivers were hacked and exposed by the opensource art community that responded to Adafruit’s USD 2000 Kinect hack challenge.

With similar gestural devices by ASUS and the much-awaited Leap sensor, we are on the brink of a paradigm shift in the ways of accessing information that shall redefine concepts in human computer interaction. Cognitive interface solutions by NeuroSky and Emotiv Systems have already paved the way to neuronal signal activated interactions and games. The OpenEEG project has propelled research into open hardware schematics for brain computer interaction.

The linear presentation of search engine results on a browser across millions of pages , I predict, will change this decade as the GUI will transform into a 4 Dimensional Space layered in time, with relevant search results being clustered onto a connected graph node structure and distanced based on their mutual relevance. This calls for a more natural interface that depends not on the traditional keyboard-mouse interaction but on the use of intelligent interfaces such as eye-tracking , gaze , gesture ,speech and thought waves to sift through large databases that shall present themselves in totality along with multimodal feedback to the user.

While all this will transform the ways in which the specially-abled shall access digital information, such transparent interfaces shall also raise a number of policy questions related to privacy and who knows ,one day, even freedom of thought!!

On one hand, we would like to see the price of natural interfaces being made affordable to the commoner, on the other it will require us to unlearn traditional means of information interaction that we have been made quite comfortably accustomed to. Until then it is anyone’s guess what Microsoft’s recent acquisition of Skype along with the desktop version of the Kinect would turn bedroom and boardroom interactions into!

[1].Ironically sourced from a present day Wikipedia article linking to Bush’s 1945 article in The Atlantic Monthly titled “As We May Think”. See http://goo.gl/4mZKx

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/human-machine-interfaces-the-history-of-an-uncertain-future

How To Win Friends, FB Style

praskrishna — 2015-10-18T12:02:10Z

True to form—and Facebook—there was a warm, friendly and familial feel to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s townhall meeting at Melon, California, with Mark Zuckerberg on September 27. Modi got emotional (yet again) while talking about his mother. Zuckerberg, the youngish founder of the world’s largest social networking site, got his parents to meet and pose with Modi.

The article by Arindam Mukherjee was published in Outlook on October 12, 2015. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

“The most amazing moment was when I talked about our families,” Zuckerberg wrote in a post, “and he (Modi) shared stories of his childhood....” That’s just the kind of stuff we would see and post on Facebook—the benign visage of a profitable, all-pervasive US-based corporation. (Needless to say, everyone who has worked on this story is a registered user).

Of course, we know Modi too is on Facebook. No other Indian politician has so effectively utilised the power of ‘likes’: and he has got 30 million. The problem with this chummy approach is that one could almost forget that the PM is also the supreme leader of a country that is Facebook’s second-largest market in the world with 125 million users. A few days earlier, Zuckerberg flew to Seattle to meet Chinese President Xi Jinping. Facebook is not present in China. “On a personal note, this was the first time I’ve ever spoken with a world leader entirely in a foreign language,” wrote Zuckerberg in another post.

In contrast, Modi and Zuckerberg were speaking the same language. In fact, they even jointly updated their profile picture on Facebook—wrapped in the shades of the Indian tricolour—to support the Modi government’s Digital India initiative. Millions of Indians followed suit. And that’s when the shit hit the internet—it was discovered that people supporting the Digital India campaign were also putting in a ‘yes’ vote for Facebook’s contentious initiative internet.org (free but restricted net access; see accompanying faqs for all the details). Immediately, Modi became a party to the raging debate in India over net neutrality. This is unfortunate as the Modi government is yet to put on paper its stand on net neutrality. The nervous reaction to this engagement is also a function of the new truism of our times—“with this government, you never know”.

What we do know is that the internet.org class name was built into the code for support for Digital India. Many experts feel this is not a coincidence; rather a clever ploy by Facebook to get the support of Indians and promote its internet.org initiative. This upset a vocal community of activists who see internet.org on the opposite camp. This led to the charge that Facebook was trying to influence the debate. Says Sunil Abraham, executive director with the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), “The moves by Facebook are quite juvenile as it is trying to use the Modi visit to further muddy the net neutrality debate. We should be concerned about Facebook trying to damage the debate in India to spin the PM’s participation in its own favour.” Of course, there are two sides to this debate. There are many people within the government who feel net neutrality is an elitist concern—increasing internet penetration, which Facebook and other such initiatives promise, is the way forward in a poor, unconnected country like India. “Today to talk about net neutrality is to talk about the 20 per cent who have access to the internet,” says telecom expert Mahesh Uppal. “It is unreasonable to dismiss out of hand anybody who offers free service to a subset of websites or services. Eventually, access to internet must come first before we talk about net neutrality.”

Facebook promoted internet.org along with Samsung, Nokia, Qualcomm, Ericsson, MediaTek and Opera Software, the aim being to provide free internet service to developing nations. India, obviously, is a hot target for Facebook. Facebook has a partnership with Reliance in the country; the free internet service will be available only to Reliance users and the free access will be limited to Facebook’s partner sites. The debate over internet.org too has picked up steam in India—big media companies like NDTV and Times of India have pulled out of it on these issues. While Facebook has stressed that internet.org will ensure that the internet reaches people who do not have access to it, there have been concerns that it will restrict internet access only to sites that are internet.org’s partners.

On its part, Facebook has been quick to refute the charge. A spokesperson in the US said, “There is absolutely no connection between updating your profile picture for Digital India and internet.org. An engineer mistakenly used the words ‘internet.org profile picture’ as a shorthand name he chose for part of the code.” The code was changed soon after. Despite repeated requests, representatives from Facebook India were unavailable for comment.

But the damage has been done. Many now openly question Facebook’s motives in India and whether they have been truthful or not. Given all this brouhaha, questions will naturally be raised about Modi’s alignment with Facebook. Digital India is many things—but obviously increasing net penetration is one its goals. “Now whatever he does on net neutrality, it will be seen in terms of whether it will benefit Google or Facebook. That is the risk he took. I would like to know why the diplomatic advisors took the risk of putting the PM in a bargaining position instead of a bonus at the end of a deal,” says Prof Narendar Pani, who teaches at the National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore.

All this matters because the Modi government positions itself as digital-friendly, even though its moves on this front have been invasive (the push for Aadhar despite a legal sanction and increasing reports of monitoring digital conversations), and contradictory (the abortive porn and WhatsApp bans, among others). “The PM is going way beyond the e-governance plan to a stage where the government will just sit and watch people speaking. It is scary,” says internet activist Usha Ramanathan. She feels it doesn’t make sense to have companies like Google sharing ideas with the government while Indian people are being kept out of the loop. “And now Facebook will be joining that gang, it doesn’t make sense. What has Facebook done to get that privilege?” she asks.

Here again there is a carefully worded counter-argument. Former telecom entrepreneur and Rajya Sabha MP Rajeev Chandrashekhar says, “Net neutrality is a definition that would be made in the public domain. It will not be influenced by the PM’s engagement with Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg. Anyone who tries to mess with the definition of net neutrality will be met with a public outcry and judicial intervention.” The substance of this view is that Modi was within his rights to speak to corporations to further Digital India, or Make in India for that matter, and that there should be an open debate on the future direction of net neutrality.

Clearly, the political knives are out. “Either the prime minister is not being briefed properly or he does not read his brief properly,” says former UPA minister Manish Tewari. Arguing that governments should be discussing rules of engagement in cyberspace, and not stakeholders, he asks, “Is India comfortable with that construct especially when the bulk of the technology companies, the root servers which form the underlying hardware of the internet, are all based in the US, and one being in Europe?”

Although the government is yet to firm up its decision on net neutrality and a policy on it is yet to be announced, the debate has already acquired political colour in India, with the Congress and Aam Aadmi Party putting their weight behind the people’s voice. This is the first time that there has been a nation-wide upsurge of such an unprecedented size and magnitude on an internet policy. Says AAP’s Adarsh Shastri, “Facebook, Google etc are just tools. People can use them at will. To make them the mainstay of your programme for digital empowerment is to step on the civil rights and liberties of citizens. Doing this is a complete no-no. Let people access internet as they want is the way to go.”

A consultation paper floated by telecom regulator Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) got almost 15 lakh responses from the Indian public in support of net neutrality. There was also strong opposition to zero rating platforms announced by telecom companies like Airtel which sought to provide free access to some websites on their platform in much the same way that internet.org proposes. And the reactions to the Facebook coding error are a pointer to what people in India think. Says Nikhil Pahwa, editor of Medianama and a leading net neutrality activist, “The reactions of the people to the Facebook event were heartening and showed that people are emotive and there is still mass support for net neutrality. The reaction to the TRAI paper was not a flash in the pan.”

Interestingly, a couple of months ago, a department of telecommunications committee had said that internet.org was a violation of net neutrality and should not be allowed. It will be difficult for Modi and the government to overrule that and give it full and free access in India. Internet experts feel that the engagement with India and Modi was a desperate move by Facebook to get numbers from India. Says internet expert Mahesh Murthy, “Facebook is pulling out all stops to get favour for internet.org and is desperate about it. If India says yes, many others will say yes, but if India says no, other countries will follow.”

Murthy says Facebook’s real problem is that it is finding it difficult to justify its price to earnings ratio as against its user numbers vis-a-vis Google which is much better in this respect. For this, it is desperately trying to get numbers, and with China banning Facebook, the only country left to get numbers is India. The massive electronic and print campaign at the cost of Rs 40-50 crore is a pointer towards this. He says everything about internet.org is about hooking Indians to it.

No wonder, Facebook has been cultivating Indian media. The Modi visit has also been tarnished by the news that Facebook paid for the travel and accommodation of journalists from three Indian newspapers and one magazine to go and cover the Facebook-Modi meeting and get favourable coverage. Says writer-activist Arundhati Roy, “Many journalists covering the event for the Indian media were flown in from India by Facebook. So were some who asked pre-assigned questions at the event. I don’t know who sponsored the crocodile tears and the clothes.” It is also quite strange that the entire display picture and source code controversy got almost no play in the national media which chose instead to talk about Modi’s speech and his tears.

All said and done, it is obvious that Facebook may be seeing India as an easy and vulnerable target which can be manipulated for its own advantage. Says Parminder Jeet Singh, executive director with IT for Change, an NGO working on information society, “India has low internet penetration and lots of people want to get on to the internet. There is low purchasing power but lots of aspiration. So the moment a free service is offered, a whole lot of people are likely to jump on it.” And that is something Facebook may be looking and aiming at.

Currently, three processes are on that will determine how India will look at net neutrality—one at the DoT, one at TRAI and a third one at a parliamentary standing committee. But given the massive people’s response net neutrality has got vis-a-vis TRAI’s paper and also during the present Facebook issue, the outcome is predictable. Or so it seems. There’s a lot of money power at stake. For now, millions of internet Indians have already voted with that dislike button. And then, governments move in mysterious ways.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/outlook-india-october-12-2015-arindam-mukherjee-how-to-win-friends-fb-style

How to Engage in Broadband Policy and Regulatory Processes

praskrishna — 2014-04-03T06:07:04Z

LIRNEasia with the support of the Ford Foundation offered a four-day course in Gurgaon from March 7 to 10, 2014. Sunil Abraham taught on Surveillance and Privacy.

Click to see Sunil Abraham's presentation on Surveillance and Privacy. Also read it on LIRNE asia website here.

Goal

To enable members of Indian civil-society groups (including academics and those from the media) to marshal available research and evidence for effective participation in broadband policy and regulatory processes including interactions with media, thereby facilitating and enriching policy discourse on means of increasing broadband access by the poor.

Outcomes

The objective of the course is to produce discerning and knowledgeable consumers of research who are able to engage in broadband policy and regulatory processes. The course will benefit those working in government and at operators as well.

At the end of the course attendees will:

Be able to find and assess relevant research & evidence

Be able to summarize the research in a coherent and comprehensive manner
Have an understanding of broadband policy and regulatory processes in India
Have the necessary tools to improve their communication skills
Have some understanding of how media function and how to effectively interact with media

Participants will be formed into teams on day1. Both group assignments are connected.

The first assignment requires each group to research on a National Broadband Network (NBN) assigned to them (one of US, Singapore, Hong Kong, Brazil, South Africa, Korea or Colombia) and writing it up based on a template that will be provided. Each team will have to present their findings about the NBN at the end of day 2.

The second assignment is to be performed by teams. It is an oral presentation, accompanied by a policy brief of two pages max. at a mock public hearing at which the Indian Department of Telecommunications (DoT) is seeking input on the question of subsidizing fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) as the second phase of the current INR 20,000 Crore (USD 4 Billion) National Optical Fiber Network initiative. Each team will be assigned a role and they should present the recommendations from the point of view of the assigned ‘role’. All presentations must be evidence based. It is expected that participants will use what they learnt about other NBNs on day 2 to support their argument. Additional research must be conducted on Days 3 and 4.

	Day1 (March 7)	Day2 (March 8)	Day3 (March 9)	Day4 (March 10)
09.00 10.30	S1 Introduction (Rohan Samarajiva RS)	S5 Interrogating supply-side indicators (RS & RLG)	S8 Indian broadband policy & regulatory environment in relation to comparator countries (Satyen Gupta SG)	S13 Lessons from Mexico (Ernesto Flores EF)
10.30 11.00	Break	Break	Break	Break
11.00 12.00	S2 Research on significance of broadband/Internet (Payal Malik PM)	S6 Assessing & summarizing research (RS & NK)	S9 Research on subsidies in broadband eco system (PM)	S14 Spectrum policy debates (Martin Cave (MC)
12.00 13.00	S3 Finding research (Nilusha Kapugama NK)	S7 The art of media interaction (RS)	S10 Making policy & doing regulation (SG & Rajat Kathuria RK) panel discussion	S15 Framing issues (RS)
13.00 14.00	Lunch	Lunch	Lunch	Lunch
14.00 15.00	A1 Group formation; Assignments explained and introduction of Broadband Website (Roshanthi Lucas Gunaratne RLG)	A2 Rewriting research summaries & preparing presentations	S11 Surveillance and Privacy (RS & Sunil Abraham SA)	A5 Mock public hearing (RS & panel)
15.00 15.30	Break	Break	Break	Break
15.30 17.00	S4 Demand-side research (NK)	A3 Presentation & critique of research summaries (RS & Panel)	S12 International policy debates on Internet and broadband (RS)	A5 Mock public hearing & critique (RS & panel)
17.00 onwards	Group work	Group work	Group work	Certificate dinner

Faculty

Rohan Samarajiva, PhD
Rohan Samarajiva, was the founding CEO (2004 - 2012) and Chair (2004 – onwards) of LIRNEasia.

Previously he was the Team Leader at the Sri Lanka Ministry for Economic Reform, Science and Technology (2002-04) responsible for infrastructure reforms, including participation in the design of the USD 83 million e Sri Lanka Initiative. He was Director General of Telecommunications in Sri Lanka (1998-99), a founder director of the ICT Agency of Sri Lanka (2003-05), Honorary Professor at the University of Moratuwa in Sri Lanka (2003-04), Visiting Professor of Economics of Infrastructures at the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands (2000-03) and Associate Professor of Communication and Public Policy at the Ohio State University in the US (1987-2000). He was Policy Advisor to the Ministry of Post and Telecom in Bangladesh (2007-09).

He serves as Senior Advisor to Sarvodaya (Sri Lanka’s largest community based organization) on ICT matters. Samarajiva is a Board Member of Communication Policy Research south, an initiative to identify and foster policy intellectuals in emerging Asia. He serves on the editorial boards of seven academic journals.

His full CV can be found at http://lirneasia.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/CVApril1long.pdf

Martin Cave, PhD
Martin Cave is a regulatory economist specialising in competition law and in the network industries, including airports, broadcasting, energy, posts, railways, telecommunications and water. He has published extensively in these fields, and has held professorial positions at Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, UK, and the Department of Economics, Brunel University, UK. In 2010/11, Martin held the BP Centennial Chair at the London School of Economics, based in the Department of Law. He is now Visiting Professor at Imperial College Business School.

He is a Deputy Chair of the Competition Commission from January 2012. He has provided expert advice to governments, competition authorities, regulators and firms around the world, focussing particularly upon the communications industries. This work has included reviews of spectrum policies for the Governments of Australia, Canada and the UK; advice on market analysis and access remedies to a large number of regulators in Asia, Australia, Europe and Latin America, including the European Commission. He has provided advice and expert testimony in competition and sector-specific regulatory proceedings to a number of major international firms in Asia, Australasia and Europe. He has also advised UK ministers on matters relating to the water sector, housing, legal services and airports, and advised regulators in the railway and energy sectors. He was a founder member of the Academic Advisory Committee of the Brussels-based think tank, the Centre for Regulation in Europe (www.cerre.eu). In 2009 he was awarded the OBE for public service.

His full CV available on http://www.martincave.org.uk/index.php

Payal Malik
Payal Malik is a Senior Research Fellow of LIRNEasia and an Associate Professor of Economics at the Delhi University. She is currently on deputation to the Competition Commission of India. She is also associated with National Council of Applied Economic Research and Indicus Analytics. She received her Master of Philosophy (M.Phil.), and MA in Economics from the Delhi School of Economics and BA in Economics from Lady Shriram College, University of Delhi. She also has a MBA in Finance from the University of Cincinnati.

She has several years of research experience on the issues of competition and regulation in network industries like power, telecommunication and water. In addition, she has done considerable research on the ICT sector. Recently she has been actively engaged in competition policy research. At LIRNEasia, she has led research on measuring India’s telecom sector and regulatory performance, including a study on Universal Service Instruments. She has written both for professional journals as well as for the economic press. Currently she is a regular columnist for the Financial Express, India and a referee for the Information Technologies and International Development journal published by University of Southern California, Annenberg. Click here to download a detailed version of CV.

Satyen Gupta
Satyen Gupta is the founder and Secretary General, NGN Forum, India. Previously he was the chief of Corporate Affairs, Sterlite Technologies Ltd and headed the Regulatory and Govt. Affairs for BT global Services for SAARC Region and handled Licencing, Regulation, compliance, competition and Industry Advocacy issues. He is also a member, Advisory Board of Creation and Implementation of National Optical Fibre Network for the government of India (2011 onwards). From 2000-2006 he served as the Principle Advisor, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India at the level of additional secretary to the government of India and headed the fixed network division. He is the author of “Everything Over IP-All you want to know about NGN” (2011).

He has conducted and taught many courses on telecommunication technologies, policy and regulation. He is also a Govt. Affairs and Regulatory advocate. He graduated with Hons, in Engineering in 1979 from NIT, Kurukshetra University, INDIA and went on to complete his post graduate studies in Electronics Design Technology at CEDT, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore.

Rajat Kathuria, PhD
Rajat Kathuria is Director and Chief Executive at Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER), New Delhi. He has over 20 years experience in teaching and 10 years experience in economic policy, besides research interests on a range of issues relating to regulation and competition policy. He worked with Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) during its first eight years (1998-2006) and gained hands on experience with telecom regulation in an environment changing rapidly towards competition. The role entailed analysis of economic issues relating to telecom tariff policy, tariff rebalancing, interconnection charges and licensing policy. Market research and questionnaire development and analysis formed an integral part of this exercise. It also involved evaluation of macro level initiatives for transforming the telecom industry. He wrote a number of consultation papers which eventually formed the basis of tariff and interconnection orders applicable to the industry. He has an undergraduate degree in Economics from St. Stephens College, a Masters from Delhi School of Economics and a PhD degree from the University of Maryland, College Park.

Ernesto Flores, PhD
Ernesto M. Flores-Roux majored in Mathematics from the National University of Mexico (UNAM), obtained partial credits in a Masters in Economics (ITAM), and received his PhD in Statistics from The University of Chicago (1993). From 1993 to 2004, he worked for McKinsey & Co., Inc. (Mexico, Brazil), one of the most prestigious international consulting firms, first as a Consultant, then as Partner, and finally as the Partner in charge of McKinsey's Rio de Janeiro office. He specialized in several aspects of the telecommunications industry, including regulation, planning, strategy, and marketing. He assisted the governments of Mexico and Brazil in their deregulation and privatization processes. In 2004, he joined Telefonica, first as Director of Marketing and Strategy in Mexico and then transferring to Telefónica's operations in Peru, China (Beijing), and Brazil. In 2008 he joined the Ministry of Communications and Transport (SCT) in Mexico as Chief of Staff of the Deputy Minister of Communications. In 2009 he joined CIDE (Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas, Mexico City) as an associate professor of CIDE's telecommunications program (Telecom CIDE). He has published several papers in telecommunications policy and has written reports for the IDB, GSMA, UN/CEPAL , Ahciet, CAF, OECD, as well as other publications in industry and academic journals. In 2011 he became a member of the Advisory Council of the Mexican telecommunications regulator (Cofetel – Comisión Federal de Telecomunicaciones).

Sunil Abraham
Sunil Abraham is the Executive Director of Bangalore based research organization, the Centre for Internet and Society. He founded Mahiti in 1998, a company committed to creating high impact technology and communications solutions. Today, Mahiti employs more than 50 engineers. Sunil continues to serve on the board. Sunil was elected an Ashoka fellow in 1999 to 'explore the democratic potential of the Internet' and was also granted a Sarai FLOSS fellowship in 2003. Between June 2004 and June 2007, Sunil 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.

Nilusha Kapugama
Nilusha Kapugama is a Research Manager at LIRNEasia and manages the electricity component of the 2012-2014 IDRC Project on ‘Achieving e-inclusion by improving government service delivery & exploring the potential of “big data” for answering development questions’.

She is also working on a systematic review looking at the economic impacts of mobile phones. Previously she managed the Knowledge Based Economy project at LIRNEasia, which looked at the information and knowledge gaps in agriculture supply chains. She also worked on CPR south, LIRNEasia’s capacity-building initiative to develop Asia-Pacific expertise and knowledge networks in ICT policy regulation. She has also done research on broadband quality indicators and national regulatory authority (NRA) website indicators. She has also worked on LIRNEasia’s Virtual Organization Project. She has experience organizing international conferences and training courses.

She holds a master’s degree in development economics and policy from the University of Manchester, UK.

Roshanthi Lucas Gunaratne
Roshanthi is a Research Manager at LIRNEasia and is currently managing the Ford Foundation Funded project on Giving Broadband Access to the Poor in India.

She is also contributing to the IDRC Customer Lifecycle Management Practices Project by conducting research on customer lifecycle management practices in telecommunication sector in Bangladesh.

Before joining LIRNEasia, Roshanthi worked at the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, Geneva, Switzerland as a Strategic Information Officer. She contributed to the process of defining the Global Fund Key Performance Indicators, and also worked on improving the performance measurements of their grants. Prior to that, she worked as a telecom project manager at Dialog Telecom, and Suntel Ltd in Sri Lanka. As Suntel she managed the design and implementation of corporate customer projects.

She holds a MBA from the Judge Business School, University of Cambridge, UK and a BSc. Eng (Hons) specializing in Electronics and Telecommunication from the University of Moratuwa, Sri Lanka.

Resource Materials

Bauer, Johannes M.; Kim, Junghyun; & Wildman, Steven S. (2005). An integrated framework for assessing broadband policy options. MICH. ST. L. REV. 21, pp. 21-50. http://www.msulawreview.org/PDFS/2005/1/Bauer-Kim.pdf

Broadband Commission (2012). The state of broadband 2012: Achieving digital inclusion for all. http://www.broadbandcommission.org/Documents/bb-annualreport2012.pdf

Government of India, Department of Telecommunications (2012). National Telecom Policy 2012. http://www.dot.gov.in/ntp/NTP-06.06.2012-final.pdf

Government of India, Department of Telecommunications (2004). Broadband policy. http://www.dot.gov.in/ntp/broadbandpolicy2004.htm

Junio, Don Rodney (2012). Does a National Broadband Plan Matter? A Comparative Analysis of Broadband Plans in Hong Kong and Singapore http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2146566

InfoDev. Broadband strategies toolkit. http://broadbandtoolkit.org/en/toolkit/contents

Samarajiva, Rohan (2010). Leveraging the budget telecom network business model to bring broadband to the people, Information Technology and International Development, 6, special edition: 93-97. http://itidjournal.org/itid/article/view/630/270

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/how-to-engage-in-broadband-policy-and-regulatory-processes

How to do GuerillaGLAM

subha — 2015-05-28T15:30:15Z

A proposal titled How to do GuerrillaGLAM" that I had submitted for the Wikimania 2015 has been accepted. I will be presenting this on July 18.

See the details on Wikipedia page. Click to view the programme schedule.

Submission no. 5008

Title of the submission: How to do GuerillaGLAM

Type of submission (discussion, hot seat, panel, presentation, tutorial, workshop): Presentation

Author of the submission: Subhashish Panigrahi

E-mail address: psubhashishgmail.com

Username: psubhashish

Country of origin: India

Affiliation, if any (organisation, company etc.): Centre for Internet and Society, Bengaluru, India

Personal homepage or blog: psubhashish.com

Abstract

Building partnership with GLAM institutions is a great way of funneling the cultural content acquisition and bringing open access to such valuable data. But it is not that easy given the complications each country has in terms of formal agreement, organizational framework, etc. This presentation will detail about the learning curve of institutional partnership building, leveraging personal contacts in small scale GLAM projects and bringing in several indie-projects to cut implication cost, and execute low-cost models.

During this presentation I will present two case studies of contrasting nature: India's first GLAM project at the National Crafts Museum, New Delhi, and various small-scale collaborative projects. Where the first one would have learning from the six months long project, the second one will draw inspirations from many initiatives that have really no cost or low cost implication and less implementation time involved. At times, institutional collaborations become liabilities and labor intensive with low Return on Investment. Training staff and implementing GLAM projects are not always easy and retaining contributors is a challenge. Alternatively GuerrillaGLAM could be thought of when having a Wikimedian-in-Residence is not feasible. This presentation will be useful for those who can mobilize a small team of volunteers equipped with digital camera, access to local cultural institutions and some level of expertise of curating data. Making documentaries and building narratives based on acquired content to creating learning resources and promotional materials will be another aspect of this presentation. building partnerships with many federal or private institutions also needs sustained long-term engagement and volunteer time is not always enough to devote for a long term GLAM project. This presentation will detail about going the guerrilla way to acquire data from GLAM institutions. This will involve low cost models, leveraging various factors, and getting the most out from cultural institutions where collaboration and long term engagement has high cost and time implications.

Track: GLAM Outreach

Length of session (if other than 30 minutes, specify how long): 30 minutes

Will you attend Wikimania if your submission is not accepted?: Yes

Slides or further information (optional)

Special requests

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/how-to-do-guerilla-glam

How the Telecom Act undermines personal liberties

Rajat Kathuria and Isha Suri — 2024-02-20T00:54:29Z

In this article, Prof. Rajat Kathuria and Isha Suri analyse whether the law has enough safeguards and an independent regulatory architecture to protect the rights of citizens. The authors posit that the current version leaves the door open for an overenthusiastic enforcement machinery to suppress fundamental rights without any meaningful checks and balances.

The Telecommunications Act cements government’s power to suspend internet services, does not establish independent oversight mechanism for interception, suspension orders. The article originally published in the Indian Express can be read here.

“Is Big Brother watching you? At the press of a button a civil servant can inspect just about every detail of your life your tax, your medical record and periods of unemployment. That civil servant could be your neighbour. There is mounting concern over this powerful weapon that the computer revolution has put in the government’s hand. But no civil servant will be allowed to examine personal files from another department, without written authority from a Minister. I shall be announcing legislation enabling citizens to take action against any civil servant who gains unauthorised access to his file.” (Yes Minister). The year is 1980, the computer revolution is just about beginning and questions of surveillance have become pertinent; safeguards in the form of separation of powers between the executive and legislative are announced by the Minister for the protection of citizens.

Although theatrical, Yes Minister can yet be invoked to characterise governments in most parliamentary democracies especially India’s.

More than four decades on, the Indian Parliament witnessed the smooth passage of several pieces of legislation, including the Telecommunications Act (TA) 2023, which justifiably seeks to bury remnants of colonial-era laws. While the modern digital age creates conditions for unprecedented surveillance reflecting the Benthamite tenet of maximum monitoring at minimum cost, the question on everyone’s minds is whether the law has enough safeguards and an independent regulatory architecture to protect the rights of citizens.

Before contemplating this weighty query, let us set the narrative in context with a quick recap of the major markers in digital governance in India that have concluded, at least for the moment, in the passing of TA 2023.

The institutional regime for telecommunications dates back to the late 1990s and was created more by accident and less by design. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) became necessary because private sector investment came in when the public sector operator was both player and referee. Massive litigation followed, leading to the setting up of TRAI. Within a few years, the Telecom Dispute Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) was carved from TRAI to fast-track excessive litigation. In between, there was the dissolution of the first TRAI, only confirming who the “boss” was.

The desire to serve in regulatory regimes has surely been tainted by the goal of securing sinecures. This is not just an Indian phenomenon. For example, the Biden administrators wish they continue in office for long. It is in the nature of such positions that many of those appointed will never again be in a position of authority. There have been few instances after its dissolution that TRAI has taken on the government. The relationship between the legislature and the executive is complex but suffice it to say that such a separation in telecom is met much more in the breach.

The regulatory regime for telecom described above notifies subordinate legislation, enforces and adjudicates disputes — it performs the role of the executive and the adjudicator. One key safeguard for the protection of ordinary citizens is, therefore, already undermined. The separation of powers remains on paper and the exercise of authority through delegated rule-making ensures the government can intervene with little resistance.

In this background, TA 2023 poses challenges. Although undoing colonial-era laws is one of the stated goals, the re-purposing of some existing provisions and ambiguous drafting does little justice to that aim. For example, the definition of telecommunication services has been left open to interpretation. Internet-based services like WhatsApp and Gmail are, therefore, likely to fall under the Act’s ambit. Provisions empowering the government to notify standards and conformity measures or ask for alternatives to end-to-end encryption such as client-side scanning could undermine privacy. Further requiring messages to be disclosed in an “intelligible format” is irreconcilable with end-to-end privacy engineering. Tinkering with end-to-end encryption for compliance could create potential points of vulnerability.

The grounds on which such information may be sought, outlined in Section 20 (2) include sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state and public order. Prima facie these appear reasonable. However, the current phrasing leaves room for expansive interpretation by overenthusiastic enforcement machinery — it could go beyond the letter of the law to please political masters. Research conducted in 2021 by Vrinda Bhandari and others found that many orders issued under the guise of public order restrictions would not qualify as legal per se. The Act cements the government’s power to suspend internet services (Section 20(2)(b)) and does not include procedural safeguards envisaged in the Supreme Court’s Anuradha Bhasin judgment such as the proportionality test, exploration of suitable alternatives and the adoption of least intrusive measures.

The Act also does not establish an independent oversight mechanism for interception and suspension orders related to telecommunications. These rules, framed in 1996 in line with the directions of the Supreme Court in PUCL v. Union of India and requiring a committee consisting exclusively of senior government officials, reflect inadequate separation. In the UK the law mandates approval of interception warrants by judicial commissioners. Separation of powers is however not a panacea; it is just a necessary condition for the effective functioning of institutions. We must also observe the counsel of John Stuart Mill for the maintenance of institutional integrity namely, not “to lay [their] liberties at the feet of even a great man, or to trust him with powers which enable him to subvert [their] institutions” — JS Mill, quoted by BR Ambedkar on November 25 1949, requoted by sitting Chief Justice of India on Constitution Day (November 26, 2018).

Kathuria is Dean, School of Humanities and Social Sciences and Professor of Economics at the Shiv Nadar Institution of Eminence and Suri is Research Lead, CIS.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/telecom/blog/indian-express-january-25-2024-how-the-telecom-act-undermines-personal-liberties

How Technology Is and Isn't Helping Fight Corruption in India

praskrishna — 2013-06-05T06:43:43Z

I recently sat down with Sunil Abraham, the founder and executive director of the Center for Internet & Society (CIS) in Bangalore to talk about the center, and his views on the role of technology and openness in politics and society.

The blog post by David Eaves was published in Techpresident on May 28, 2013. Sunil Abraham was interviewed by the author.

Abraham, who founded the CIS in 2008, has been active in the open source and technology space for almost two decades, constantly balancing research and theory, with a strong desire to get his hands dirty and actually make things happen. Prior to starting CIS he held both a Sarai FLOSS fellowship and Ashoka fellowship in which he explored the democratic potential of the Internet. However, before this he worked as a social entrepreneur and free software advocate, founding Mahiti, a company that implemented free software solutions for volunteer organizations. The company continues to thrive today employing over 50 engineers.

Today the Center for Internet and Society serves as a non-profit think tank and advocacy organization that research and explores policy options on freedom of expression, privacy, accessibility for persons with disabilities, access to knowledge and IPR reform, and openness. Over the past five years it has seen its influence grow as it becomes increasingly recognized for its expertise and critical view, within both government and the media, in India.

For part of the conversation I asked Abraham his thoughts on I Paid a Bribe, a website launched in August 2010 that allows users to report when and where they were asked to pay a bribe to a public official.

What follows is a fascinating critique of not just I Paid a Bribe but the UID (biometric ID program being rolled out across India):

Sunil Abraham:

The first complication with I Paid A Bribe is it is a quantitative approach to the problem.

Second, it assumes that those reporting the bribes are honest and don't have any other agendas.

Third, it also depends on the novelty effect. People can get bored when there is no feedback. The loop is not closed. To close the loop, some of the things that go on with anonymous reporting cannot happen, and to close the loop it almost needs to become a paralegal infrastructure. It has to talk to law enforcement and people have to be arrested, prosecuted and put away. To really address a problem like that is complex.

So it fails at each of those challenges.

The real challenge in India is high-ticket bribes that happen at the top of the pyramid. And those bribes are done in a very sophisticated fashion. Ordinarily minds cannot understand those transactions. Take the 2G spectrum scam. [the 2G spectrum scam was a significant scandal in India involving a shortfall of hundreds of millions of dollars in the licenses fees Indian telecom companies were supposed to pay the government for their 2G cellphone spectrum licenses. It is believed that officials were paid off so that lower license fees could be paid]. People still don't know what was the bribe and who paid who the bribe. Nobody knows! There are now 8 or 9 books on the scam and none of these books will tell you who did what. There are lots of charts about where money flowed but what component of that was the bribe and what component of that was legit … why none of these money trails link back to the primary accused … nobody can explain.

[And the big challenge with these high-ticket bribes is that…] The rate of evolution in corruption keeps pace with the rate of innovation in anti-corruption. It will always innovate and modify to protect itself against new approaches.

There are many honest people in government, otherwise this country would be in tatters! If everyone in government was corrupt … but what the system does is almost assume everyone within government is corrupt but that everyone outside of government is innocent. But this is not true at all.

The government represents a sample of the population, so if half the population is corrupt then half the people in government will probably be corrupt, it is not dramatically different. So how does one prevent potential witch hunts or the waste of law enforcement resources following false leads?

With the novelty effect – it feels very difficult to maintain the volume [of complaints] and make grand claims like place "A" is more corrupt than place "B". After some time there will be regional difference and the data will no longer even sound credible to the people involved and its credible will collapse. There is no easy answer this.

So the most effective use of technology in fighting corruption [in India] has been in sting operations.

There you go after high value targets, you don't go after petty corruption at the bottom of the pyramid. You use a competent team, people that know the technology and know the evidentiary value of the technology in a court, you work within the immunity afforded by law to media organizations. Then you build a proper case. Unfortunately the last case that strikes at the heart of corruption in India – the corporate post – you saw how it was crushed by mainstream media because it was not run by a main stream media outfit. And the enemies were too big: the banks that are money laundering. And all banks are money laundering. This is the most fundamental problem to address really because when the bulk of society is outside the tax bracket or the bulk of their transactions are outside the tax bracket then you have normalized criminal behavior in society. It means it is accepted that the average person will engage in tax reduction or tax avoidance. Those type of really high ticket targets – and there are ways to use technology to address issues like this – it needs champions. What "I Paid a Bribe" is trying to do is say that a particular configuration of technology is going to be the solution and that the crowd will address its own problem. This is the assumption there.

That is very different than saying that the solution is never technology, the solution is always people and we need people to drive this, and ethical institutions that are created by these people to drive this. Than what your story of change automatically takes for granted is every time the technology innovates around your current technology fix your going to innovate also. With the other narrative since your technology configuration IS your solution then somehow you hold it sacrosanct and you assume that the corruption is never going to innovate around your fix.

David Eaves: So I think the hope of I Paid a Bribe - right or wrong - was that you could have a radically scaling solution…

Abraham:

If you are going after high-ticket forms of corruption you have to be sophisticated. If you are going after low ticket, bottom of the pyramid forms of corruption you may not have to be.

Take the UID project (biometric ID).

In order to crack bottom of the pyramid corruption, one way to do this is by using biometrics so that the actual recipient who IS supposed to get subsidy or welfare actually gets the subsidy or welfare. But if you just think that through you realize there are so many problems with that.

When the intended beneficiary goes to collect he could be told there is no connectivity, or there is no electricity, or even if the authentication system answered a yes he could be told it was in fact a no. Or even if the authentication system answers a yes he could be given half his entitlement instead of his full entitlement.

And even if the authentication system says yes he may have not been eligible in the first place but could be a local elite who is taking the entitlement.

But on the other hand if we had a system through which there was necessary disclosure of everybody receiving the entitlement and their details were published on a public notice board in the village… then people in the village themselves could tell if those people were the right people to get these subsidies. The local media could come and inspect this, civil society organizations could inspect this. So it is the government becoming more transparent to the citizen rather than the other way around, which with the UID is what happens – the citizen becomes more transparent to the state.

Technology has to be configured in a very careful way at each stage in order to address different types of corruption, and each of those specific technologic choices you make can either increase corruption or decrease corruption or increase the power asymmetry or make it more equitable.

Eaves:So what are the conditions in which I Paid a Bribe might work more effectively?

Abraham:

It might be that I Paid a Bribe only allows for one type of participation. If you look at other forms of commons based peer production projects. I think they offer many types of contributions to the project. So if through the examination of a particular government budget a platform identifies all the public works that are going to be constructed using that budget and then allows state or town or even a locality to monitor the progress on those works then it allows for contributions that are necessarily antagonistic but it also allows for contributions that are antagonistic. So it allows for a conversation with a much more diverse set of people participating.

With I Paid a Bribe, because they want the scale they have taken the simplification very seriously. And it is a light touch transaction – which means once you register a bribe you can more or less forget about it. I think other peer production projects, even Wikipedia, once you start editing a particular page, you may develop an interest in that page. You can set a notification system that will notify you every time that page is edited. It is like the same story on a mailing list, that the rules that existed during the initial days when the mailing list was very small change and get more sophisticated as the mailing list scales. The technological solution has to grow to compliment the age of the community and the community has to be gardened very carefully to retain members. I Paid a Bribe risk ending up being a venting mechanism for the post bribe trauma moment. Which is fine! That is useful in of itself. But if your vision is more than that, if you want to have a movement which is an anti-corruption movement then it cannot be just be a venting mechanism for the anti-bribe trauma.

This is the complication. I'm not dismissing I Paid a Bribe. All I'm saying is, in order to build a community and take it along with you, you cannot keep anything sacred. Not your technological configuration, not how you message, address and bring people into the community, not even your target community – that might change – so it is just like the challenge we have in growing Wikipedia in India. If you were that simple we would the same solution for the different language wikipedias and we would do one homogenous thing across the nation. But the Kannada Wikipedia has only seven active editors, as does the Punjabi Wikipedia, the Hindi Wikipedia has hundreds of editors but they don't like each other and they don't meet in real life. Very unlike the Maleren Wikipedia. So the strategy that needs to be employed is very different for each of these communities. There is almost an automatic tension between simple, scalable and authentic bottom up movement forces.

So as the number of bribes reported on I Paid a Bribe increase – what do you do to ensure that the quality of those reports gets better? And how do you move people from being anonymous reporters to the system to becoming more and more identified? How does a senior cohort of the community get created? I don't know – these things may exist but I don't see it from the outside.

Look at the different in other peer production projects. The brand of the individual and the attribution afforded to each individual is quite explicit and public. I Paid a Bribe is mostly anonymous although I think some of them choose to be public.

Eaves: And you need to feel incredibly confident in your personal security and status to be public in I Paid a Bribe.

Abraham:

Exactly.

This post has been corrected to fix a transcription error. Sunil Abraham said the Kannada Wikipedia has only seven active editors.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/techpresident-david-eaves-may-28-2013-how-technology-is-and-isnt-helping-fight-corruption-in-india

How Open Access Content helps Fuel Growth in Indian-language Wikipedias

subha — 2016-10-25T01:39:42Z

Mobile Internet connectivity is growing rapidly in rural India, and because most Internet users are more comfortable in their native languages, websites producing content in Indian languages are going to drive this growth. In a country like India in which only a handful of journals are available in Indian languages, open access to research and educational resources is hugely important for populating content for the various Indian language Wikipedias.

This was published by Opensource.com on October 24, 2016.

Indian-language Wikipedias and open access

Most commonly spoken Indian languages have had Wikipedia projects for almost a decade. Languages like Konkani and Tulu are new entrants in the Wikipedia family, and currently there are 23 Indian language Wikipedias. One example of high-quality open access content is the Open Textbook of Medicine, an offline encyclopedia consisting of Wikipedia articles related to medicine, which was created by a group of dedicated volunteer medical professionals that happen to be Wikipedia editors. There is enormous potential to grow Wikipedia in multiple languages with high-quality, open content like this.

To help fuel the growth of Wikipedia and its various projects, such as the Indian-language Wikipedias, the Wikipedia community has created an ecosystem with Wikimedia chapters and other affiliates, which are run by both volunteers and paid staff from the Wikimedia Foundation, an organization responsible for fundraising, technical, and community support. In India, Wikimedia India, the Centre for Internet and Society’s Access to Knowledge program (CIS-A2K), and Punjabi Wikimedians are three such official affiliates working on catalyzing the growth of the content and the communities.

Whereas Wikimedia India focuses on expanding all the Indian-languages content, Punjabi Wikimedians focus on Punjabi language content (in both Gurmukhi and Shahmukhi scripts), and CIS-A2K focuses on five languages: Kannada, Konkani, Marathi, Odia, and Telugu.

Indian-language Wikipedia projects can only grow with the help of volunteers editing their own language Wikipedias and adding missing information from a reliable sources, which is where open access content can help.

Open in action

The 2016 International Open Access Week will be held October 24-30, 2016. The theme this year is Open in Action. The announcement explains, "International Open Access Week has always been about action, and this year's theme encourages all stakeholders to take concrete steps to make their own work more openly available and encourage others to do the same. From posting preprints in a repository to supporting colleagues in making their work more accessible, this year’s Open Access Week will focus on moving from discussion to action in opening up our system for communicating research."

Indian contributors show the spirit of Open in Action as they help add content to the various Indian-languages Wikipedias. They depend on open access to research and other publications to help millions of people, including those living in rural areas, who are joining us online.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/opensource.com-subhashish-panigrahi-october-24-2016-open-access-growth-indian-language-wikipedias

How ISPs block websites and why it doesn’t help

praskrishna — 2012-08-25T06:56:41Z

Banning websites is ineffective against malicious users as workarounds are easy and well known.

Gopal Sathe's article was published by LiveMint on August 24, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

India blocked 245 web pages for provocative content on Monday in an effort to prevent the spread of hate messages and lessen communal tensions in the country, and suggested via an official release on the website of the Press Information Bureau that more could follow.

As was widely reported in the days that followed, most websites blocked were not related to the ethnic clashes in Assam.

Pranesh Prakash, programme manager with the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society, analysed the sites which were listed by the government. In his analysis, 33% of all blocked addresses were on Facebook, 27.8% on YouTube, 9.7% on Twitter and the rest were spread over a number of different websites including Wikipedia, Firspost.com and TimesofIndia.Indiatimes.com.

Prakash says, “I don’t believe that the decision to block sites was politically motivated, but I do believe that in trying to prevent harm, the government has gone overboard.”

He also writes in his analysis, “Even though many of the items on that list do deserve (in my opinion) to be removed [...] the people and companies hosting the material should have been asked to remove it, instead of ordering the ISPs to block them.”

Prakash also pointed out, “There are numerous egregious mistakes. Even people and posts debunking rumours have been blocked, and it is clear that the list was not compiled with sufficient care.”

Of course, India’s overall record on Internet censorship isn’t great, with the current laws encouraging Internet service providers (ISPs) to take down content without investigating individual cases properly. And that is not even taking into consideration official government orders, such as this decision to block websites.

The process of blocking content for an ISP is very simple. After all, any content that is coming from a website to your computer has to travel through the ISP, giving it ample opportunity to observe and censor banned content.

Think of it like this—you’re on an island, with no way to reach the mainland (Internet) where all the websites are. The ISP builds a bridge connecting you to the mainland, and charges you to let cars (data) from the sites come to you, by opening the road. Each web page has a unique ID, like a licence plate. If the government tells the ISP to block a specific page, it’s added to the blacklist, and isn’t allowed on the bridge. The government could also block a full domain, such as Facebook.com, which would be like blocking all cars with DL plates, instead of specific numbers.

New Delhi based cyber security consultant Dominic K. says, “The content is still there and can be accessed from outside India, so these measures are really very ineffective. People can use proxies or a virtual private network (VPN) to circumvent these measures with ease, by appearing to be a different site; so banning sites does nothing to deter malicious users.”

Proxies are websites that load blocked sites for you—if the proxy is not using the ISP doing the block, they can still load the content from the blocked site and present it to the users, since the blocklists simply block websites, and not their content.

VPNs work in a similar fashion, creating a virtual presence for the user outside of their own country. This can be done to circumvent blocks and access region-specific content, but is also a perfectly legitimate tool, and can increase your security greatly.

It’s a pretty crude system but it’s used around the world. In Australia, for example, the government has a page that directly lists their web censorship activities. It wants to block material that includes child sexual abuse imagery, bestiality, sexual violence, detailed instruction in crime, violence or drug use and/or material that advocates the doing of a terrorist act. However, as noted on the same page, these measures can be easily circumvented. Since the content remains on the Internet, and is only blocked, it can be accessed by “any technically competent user”.

China, meanwhile, is frequently criticized for what is called, tongue-in-cheek, “the great firewall of China”. Reporters without Borders, a French organization that works for freedom of the press, has a list of countries that are “enemies of the Internet”. China, Iran, North Korea and Burma are some of the worst offenders, but Australia, India, Egypt, France and South Korea are also on the watchlist as “countries under surveillance”.

Saudi Arabia and the UAE publish detailed information on their filtering practices but other countries such as China return connection errors, and fake “file not found” errors.

There is a long history of Internet censorhip in India, and a perception that the laws have been used for political ends. Net censorship has been around for a while—in 1999, VSNL blocked access to Pakistani newspapers. Later, in 2006 the government wanted to block certain separatist groups of the Yahoo! Groups platform. While the government issued specific pages for the ban, initially, the whole Yahoo! Groups domain was blocked by ISPs. In 2007, Orkut was told to remove “defamatory” pages created by users.

Cartoon pornography website Savitabhabi.com was also blocked in 2009, while several blogging services such as Typepad were blocked last year for a few weeks, and then the block was lifted, with no explanations.

Like Australia, in the UK too, child pornography is filtered by the government, though users there have to opt-in for this filtering. Other countries such as Denmark, Norway and Sweden also see such content being filtered. The Indian IT Act also notes various kinds of illegal content which is not permissible, such as child pornography and hate speech.

Other countries, such as the US, also have aggressive Internet censorship of copyrighted content. Prakash says, “Internet censorship is not restricted to India alone. Every country in the world has been doing this in different ways. The United States, for example, has even seized domains in copyright cases, which were legally hosted in other countries. With regards to political censorship, which some feel is a concern now, I don’t think that the Indian government is doing that. I believe that they are sincerely trying to address a serious issue, but people are going overboard.”

He adds, “The biggest concern is that there is no transparency about what is being blocked, or why, and this leaves things open for active misuse in the future.”

In Google’s 2011 Transparency Report, released in June this year, India did not feature very favourably. According to Google, the number of content removal requests the company received increased by 49% from 2010. There were five court orders from India ordering the Internet giant to remove content and there were 96 other requests by Indian government agencies for 246 individual items.

In comparison, the US made only 77 requests in the same period. They also revealed that 70% of the content removal requests from India were related to defamation. National security and religious offence attracted far fewer removal requests. Google received only one request from Indian agencies from July to December 2011 for removal of pornographic content.

Our government might not be politically motivated in this instance—however, the possibility for abuse is high, and what’s more, the measures that are being taken are limited at best. Instead of ordering ISPs to block content directly, the government should be working with the content owners and platforms offering the content to have it taken down properly. Instead, we get crude measures which do nothing to deter malicious users, and only serve to inconvenience the general users.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/www-livemint-com-aug-24-2012-gopal-sathe-how-isps-block-websites-and-why-it-doesnt-help

How Can We Make Open Education Truly Open?

nishant — 2013-11-30T08:45:55Z

I have spent the last month being unpopular. I have been in conversation with many ‘Open Everything’ activists and practitioners. At each instance, we got stuck because I insisted that we begin by defining what ‘Open’ means in the easy abuse that it is subject to.

Dr. Nishant Shah's article was originally published in DML Central on November 22.

It has been a difficult, if slightly tedious exercise, because not only was there a lack of consensus around what constitutes openness, but also a collective confusion about what we mean when we attribute openness to an object, a process or to people. It was easy to define openness as opposed to a closed system – attributes of transparency, ownership, collaboration and a multidirectional panopticon were invoked in trying to understand the form, function and role of openness. However, it was quickly clear that even with people who are on the same side of the battle-lines around openness, there is a disjunction in their imagination of what an Open Society can mean. Hence, the ‘Open’ in ‘Open Government’ for instance, had very little cross-over with the ‘Open’ in ‘Open Education’. Apart from the larger infrastructure industry that supports the various implementations of Open systems ranging from participatory governments to Digital Humanities, there seems to be silos of openness that co-exist but do not converse.

One of the ways of doing away with the cultures of ambiguity that seem to have developed around Openness, where it is the object of inquiry, the process through which inquiries are made, the lens of critique and the aspiration of movements, perhaps need to be unpacked. And one of the ways of doing this would be to shift the focus from Open as an adjective to Open as a verb – to focus not on what it is, but what it works towards. This shift in thinking of Open as a verb, allows to produce a political critique of the Open paradigm, which is otherwise often missed out in the self-avowed goodness of Open movements.

This is probably a good space for me to declare that I am not an Openness dis-evangelist. I appreciate, endorse and celebrate the values of collaboration, engagement, participation, access and empowerment that Open movements work with and indeed belong to quite a handful of them. However, I do want to move away from the Open as self-explanatory and ask the more difficult questions – What is it that we are opening? Who are we opening it for? What is the Open working towards? In whose service and to what purposes? So when I look at ‘Open Education’, I don’t just want to look at how we open up education for mass access but also how do we make transparent the politics that surround the opening up of education.

Open as an Adjective vs Open as a Verb

One of the most celebrated accounts of open education has found its impetus in two distinct narratives – the first is that the University as we have inherited it is in ruins. The University has been described as inadequate, in desperate need of change to fit the requirements of the contemporary times we live in. The second is that education and learning are in a moment of crisis. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does entail the development of new pedagogic and technological structures which can construct new modes of engaging with knowledge practices. Both of these narratives are more or less taken for granted. There are staged battles between those who swear by MOOCs as the answer and those who swear at MOOCs as amplification of the problem; or between those who call for more public investment in education and learning and those who think that privatising education is the way forward. But in all these debates, which often take the tones of sombre zealots who argue over the nature of the divine, there is almost no questioning of the idea that the university is in crisis. Thus, when it comes to Open Education disputants, they never question the narrative of the university in crisis, but merely in how to resolve this crisis.

Sharmila Rege, a Dalit-feminist and an educator at the Pune University in India, who had made it her life work to critically intervene in debates around education and its intersections with social and political processes, suggests that what we need to do is reverse engineer the generation of this crisis. While the University seems to be ubiquitously crumbling across the globe – despite the fact that an historically unprecedented portion of the global population is enrolled in education programmes – this narrative of ruin is not new. Indeed, nor is the narrative of Openness. In Rege’s material history of education and gender in India, she invokes the figure of Savitribai Phule, the icon of India’s modernity, who, as an educated woman dedicated her life to ‘opening up’ education for those who were underprivileged and broken. Along with her husband, a modernist and a social reformer, Phule was the prototype feminist and development worker who radically opened up the modern education system in Maharashtra to those who were the intended beneficiaries but more often than not, excluded from the benefits that the system promised. In fact, as Rege shows us, in Phule’s account of the world, the university was essentially a system that justified its existence through the principles of openness and inclusion which we have now separated from it. While it might be a fallacy to claim these visions for a universal education system, it is still worth recognising that in different forms and formats, the establishment of the public education system has necessarily been one of openness.

When then, did this open system suddenly become closed? When did the university, which was a response to the closed education systems that were limited to the upper castes and classes of India, enter a state of crisis? In India, especially with the huge public discourse around affirmative action, quotas and reservations for different underprivileged communities, and the continued investment in public education infrastructure – the number of private universities, when you compare them with the developed North, is ridiculously low – we really need to figure out what it is that the university failed to do in its visions of openness for itself. Rege suggests that the generation of the crisis narrative for the university is actually a response to the university as an open structure. In the 1990s, with the renewed focus on universal education in the country, especially after the epoch marking agitations against affirmative actions which included massive mobilisations of upper class and caste students against the recommendations of the Mandal Commissions for continued reservation of seats for women and dalits, the university was at its open best. Both in terms of infrastructure, public policy and regulatory mechanisms, we had created universities that invited participation and presence of bodies which were otherwise systemically excluded from education processes.

Over the next two decades, the university then, has become a more inclusive space. It is populated with unexpected bodies and subjects. It has been de-gentrified and has been heralded as one of the few public institutions where a critique of sectarian and preferential politics has emerged. According to Rege, it is this very opening up of the University to women and Dalits, and the ‘vulgarization’ of education that led to the engineering of a crisis in the narratives around the university. This crisis, propelled equally by a neo-liberal development agenda and the need to create exclusive and exclusionary spaces for the elites of the country who did not necessarily want to find their privilege by escaping to the Ivy League universities in the North-West, sustains the idea that the university is in shambles and hence proposes the new Open Education movements, of which the MOOCs and the private universities are the two key embodiments. In a country that is starkly divided across linguistic and technology access lines, it is clear that both these structures, which are the key advocates of Open Education and learning, are in the service of those who can afford it. Or in other words, it is clear that the new openness movements, while they propose to be in the service of mass, distributed and universal education, are actually very urban, Anglophone, and available to a very small fraction of the society that already had privileged access to different and varied education resources historically.

These Open Education policies now offer alternatives to the public education model by suggesting that it is in crisis and thus finding viable options. These alternatives further demand that the Public University, becomes a professionalised space that produces workers and skilled labour for the new information and knowledge industries, while the more privileged sites of critical philosophy, thought and art move on to safer havens where those with rights of entitlement can study them in peace. The open Digital Humanities projects or the institution of private and satellite university campuses, which continue with their ad hoc, de-skilled, meritocratic logic of working with adjuncts and temporary knowledge workers, invest more in the technological development which is again a masculine domain of privilege even in countries like India where we witness massive mobilisation of people being trained to work in the IT industries.

This reverse engineering of what Open Education can mean in a country like India probably has similar narratives of the context and generation of the crisis across different geographies and time-zones. Openness, with the euphoria and the promise of radical transformation often produces this ellipsis that fails to see the larger structures that inform and shape the open education policies and regulations. In its closeness to the Big Data proponents, it even makes us believe that open education is about data and information management, forgetting that these practices have a direct implication on the material conditions that have been historically shaped. Just like we have developed a critique of well-intentioned development agendas that are purportedly pro-poor but eventually only benefit the wealthy by depositing more power in their coffers, openness in education and in governance needs to be re-examined more closely. Yes, Openness has some fantastic virtues that we need to aspire towards. But to open something, it first needs to be closed. And especially when it comes to the modern education system, we need to question the closeness that is easily attributed to and presumed for the public university. It is time to not only implement open education, but also see the larger constellations of privilege and inequity that often get elided in the blanket acceptance of the Open as necessarily the good or the desirable.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/dml-central-nishant-shah-november-22-2013-how-can-we-make-open-education-truly-open

Home Alone

praskrishna — 2012-07-06T08:34:26Z

Digital Natives newsletter, April 2012 issue.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/digital-natives/alone-together.pdf

Hits and Misses With the Draft Encryption Policy

sunil — 2015-09-26T16:46:53Z

Most encryption standards are open standards. They are developed by open participation in a publicly scrutable process by industry, academia and governments in standard setting organisations (SSOs) using the principles of “rough consensus” – sometimes established by the number of participants humming in unison – and “running code” – a working implementation of the standard. The open model of standards development is based on the Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) philosophy that “many eyes make all bugs shallow”.

The article was published in the Wire on September 26, 2015.

This model has largely been a success but as Edward Snowden in his revelations has told us, the US with its large army of mathematicians has managed to compromise some of the standards that have been developed under public and peer scrutiny. Once a standard is developed, its success or failure depends on voluntary adoption by various sections of the market – the private sector, government (since in most markets the scale of public procurement can shape the market) and end-users. This process of voluntary adoption usually results in the best standards rising to the top. Mandates on high quality encryption standards and minimum key-sizes are an excellent idea within the government context to ensure that state, military, intelligence and law enforcement agencies are protected from foreign surveillance and traitors from within. In other words, these mandates are based on a national security imperative.

However, similar mandates for corporations and ordinary citizens are based on a diametrically opposite imperative – surveillance. Therefore these mandates usually require the use of standards that governments can compromise usually via a brute force method (wherein supercomputers generate and attempt every possible key) and smaller key-lengths for it is generally the case that the smaller the key-length the quicker it is for the supercomputers to break in. These mandates, unlike the ones for state, military, intelligence and law enforcement agencies, interfere with the market-based voluntary adoption of standards and therefore are examples of inappropriate regulation that will undermine the security and stability of information societies.

Plain-text storage requirement

First, the draft policy mandates that Business to Business (B2B) users and Consumer to Consumer (C2C) users store equivalent plain text (decrypted versions) of their encrypted communications and storage data for 90 days from the date of transaction. This requirement is impossible to comply with for three reasons. Foremost, encryption for web sessions are based on dynamically generated keys and users are not even aware that their interaction with web servers (including webmail such as Gmail and Yahoo Mail) are encrypted. Next, from a usability perspective, this would require additional manual steps which no one has the time for as part of their daily usage of technologies. Finally, the plain text storage will become a honey pot for attackers. In effect this requirement is as good as saying “don’t use encryption”.

Second, the policy mandates that B2C and “service providers located within and outside India, using encryption” shall provide readable plain-text along with the corresponding encrypted information using the same software/hardware used to produce the encrypted information when demanded in line with the provisions of the laws of the country. From the perspective of lawful interception and targeted surveillance, it is indeed important that corporations cooperate with Indian intelligence and law enforcement agencies in a manner that is compliant with international and domestic human rights law. However, there are three circumstances where this is unworkable: 1) when the service providers are FOSS communities like the TOR project which don’t retain any user data and as far as we know don’t cooperate with any government; 2) when the service provider provides consumers with solutions based on end-to-end encryption and therefore do not hold the private keys that are required for decryption; and 3) when the Indian market is too small for a foreign provider to take requests from the Indian government seriously.

Where it is technically possible for the service provider to cooperate with Indian law enforcement and intelligence, greater compliance can be ensured by Indian participation in multilateral and multi-stakeholder internet governance policy development to ensure greater harmonisation of substantive and procedural law across jurisdictions. Options here for India include reform of the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) process and standardisation of user data request formats via the Internet Jurisdiction Project.

Regulatory design

Governments don’t have unlimited regulatory capability or capacity. They have to be conservative when designing regulation so that a high degree of compliance can be ensured. The draft policy mandates that citizens only use “encryption algorithms and key sizes will be prescribed by the government through notification from time to time.” This would be near impossible to enforce given the burgeoning multiplicity of encryption technologies available and the number of citizens that will get online in the coming years. Similarly the mandate that “service providers located within and outside India…must enter into an agreement with the government”, “vendors of encryption products shall register their products with the designated agency of the government” and “vendors shall submit working copies of the encryption software / hardware to the government along with professional quality documentation, test suites and execution platform environments” would be impossible for two reasons: that cloud based providers will not submit their software since they would want to protect their intellectual property from competitors, and that smaller and non-profit service providers may not comply since they can’t be threatened with bans or block orders.

This approach to regulation is inspired by license raj thinking where enforcement requires enforcement capability and capacity that we don’t have. It would be more appropriate to have a “harms”-based approach wherein the government targets only those corporations that don’t comply with legitimate law enforcement and intelligence requests for user data and interception of communication.

Also, while the “Technical Advisory Committee” is the appropriate mechanism to ensure that policies remain technologically neutral, it does not appear that the annexure of the draft policy, i.e. “Draft Notification on modes and methods of Encryption prescribed under Section 84A of Information Technology Act 2000”, has been properly debated by technical experts. According to my colleague Pranesh Prakash, “of the three symmetric cryptographic primitives that are listed – AES, 3DES, and RC4 – one, RC4, has been shown to be a broken cipher.”

The draft policy also doesn’t take into account the security requirements of the IT, ITES, BPO and KPO industries that handle foreign intellectual property and personal information that is protected under European or American data protection law. If clients of these Indian companies feel that the Indian government would be able to access their confidential information, they will take their business to competing countries such as the Philippines.

And the good news is…

On the other hand, the second objective of the policy, which encourages “wider usage of digital Signature by all entities including Government for trusted communication, transactions and authentication” is laudable but should have ideally been a mandate for all government officials as this will ensure non-repudiation. Government officials would not be able to deny authorship for their communications or approvals that they grant for various applications and files that they process.

Second, the setting up of “testing and evaluation infrastructure for encryption products” is also long overdue. The initiation of “research and development programs … for the development of indigenous algorithms and manufacture of indigenous products” is slightly utopian because it will be a long time before indigenous standards are as good as the global state of the art but also notable as an important start.

The more important step for the government is to ensure high quality Indian participation in global SSOs and contributions to global standards. This has to be done through competition and market-based mechanisms wherein at least a billion dollars from the last spectrum auction should be immediately spent on funding existing government organisations, research organisations, independent research scholars and private sector organisations. These decisions should be made by peer-based committees and based on publicly verifiable measures of scientific rigour such as number of publications in peer-reviewed academic journals and acceptance of “running code” by SSOs.

Additionally the government needs to start making mathematics a viable career in India by either employing mathematicians directly or funding academic and independent research organisations who employ mathematicians. The basis of all encryptions standards is mathematics and we urgently need the tribe of Indian mathematicians to increase dramatically in this country.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-wire-26-09-2015-sunil-abraham-hits-and-misses-with-draft-encryption-policy

History of the Internet: Building Conceptual Frameworks

nishant — 2014-01-08T07:56:16Z

In this module Nishant Shah analyses the understanding of the Internet, cyberspace and everyday life and why do we need to know the history of the internet.

Introduction: Understanding the Internet

Let’s begin at the beginning. Before we get into the history of the Internet, it might be a good thing to try and figure out what the Internet is and what exactly are we talking about when we say ‘Internet’. Let’s take a moment and figure out what the Internet is. If you pause right now, and try and define the Internet it is going to be tricky. However, if you look at other media and communication technologies you realise that the same is true for all the other technologies that you daily deal with. Try and define what a book is. Or, what is a film? It is one of the signs that a technology has become internal, personal and ubiquitous that it becomes transparent. It doesn’t require us to think about how it works. Almost like magic, the technologies just ease our way into life and perform crucial tasks of everyday living, without really making their internal mechanics transparent. So it is highly possible that unless you are trained in technologies, you have a vague idea of what the Internet is and how it works.

At a very basic level, the Internet is a network of computers that are able to talk to each other using a protocol that is popularly known as the TCP/IP suite. That is it. At a most cursory level, that is all there is to the Internet. An extensive network – even a network of network – that makes it possible for billions of users across the globe, to exchange information using digital data, in asynchronous and distributed forms. And this has been historically the case. The origins of the Internet are in military and state funded research in the United States of America in 1960s, where they were developing robust communication networks that could account for redundancy – which is to say that they wanted a network which would function even when particular nodes fell out of service, or certain flow-lines within the network were blocked. A history of the Internet then, will be a history of its technological development – the different protocols, programmes and innovations that allowed for this network to grow out of the defense research labs in the 1960s, be used extensively in American and European academia in the 1980s and then made available to the public in the 1990s. So that is one history that we might need to look at. It is a technological history of the Internet, that allows us to understand what the challenges, strengths, weaknesses and vulnerabilities of the Internet technologies have been and how we have constantly innovated to meet these problems and aspirations.

However, as you can imagine, that is a technical history of technology which is well documented, well, on the Internet. A look at the page on Wikipedia[1] will show you all the different technological, institutional and digital innovations that have shaped the Internet from its early days residing on the ARPANET to the global phenomenon that we know now. It is a history of facts and dates, names and numbers and it is easily accessible to anybody who wants to look at the different institutions, technologies and conversations shaped what we understand as the Internet today. You might also want to look at these three different accounts of that history to get the facts,[2] anecdotes[3] and stories[4] in order.

You will realise from the sources that the Internet is the backbone of our digital experience. It hosts a vast range of services, like peer-2-peer networks, voice and text chats, hypertext documents, and indeed, the most prominent of them all – the World Wide Web. We need to understand that the Internet is thus larger than the World Wide Web and what we have access to, using the WWW, is a very small subset of this larger global digital network. To know the structure of the internet, how it is governed, what are the different inequities, vulnerabilities and problems it creates are important to study because they give us an entry point into understanding how the technological and technical choices that are made affect and impact our everyday concerns around questions of privacy, identity, access, usage, affordability, accessibility etc. These are questions that often get addressed under the rubric of Internet Governance[5] and will be dealt with in the subsequent sessions for this Institute that expand upon the Infrastructure and Institutions that govern the Internet[6] In the meantime, I want to begin with the personal. Instead of beginning with the technological, I want to begin with our everyday experiences on the Internet, and particularly of this thing that we call cyberspace.

Pinning down Cyberspace

Let’s take a pause and try and answer a hard question: What is Cyberspace? If you thought that defining the Internet was tough, you will quickly realise that defining Cyberspace is going to be even tougher. We know when we are on cyberspace. We use it across a variety of devices and interfaces. We think of ourselves as connected and online for most of our waking (and sleeping) hours. Cyberspace is right there – You will be able to point to it, give examples, even talk about what it facilitates. For example, cyberspace is a virtual space created by digital communication and connection. Or cyberspace is a repository of information that people create globally using computing technologies. Or cyberspace is a space where people manage their social networks. These are all different instances of cyberspace and indicate the wide variety of things that we do when we are online, but they don’t necessarily tell us what cyberspace is.

Like all good things, the origins of the word cyberspace are actually in Science Fiction. William Gibson in his iconic cyberpunk novel ‘NeuroMancer’ (1984), first coined the word cyberspace and defined it thus:

Cyberspace: A consensual hallucination experienced daily by billions of legitimate operators in every nation, by children being taught mathematical concepts... A graphic representation of data abstracted from the banks of every computer in the human system. Unthinkable complexity. Lines of light ranged in the nonspace of the mind, clusters and constellations of data. Like city lights, receding.

While there are several critiques of Gibson’s description of the word, we must remember that it is fiction and look at it to see what are the conceptual complexities that Gibson is throwing up that are now being discussed in contemporary debates. I want to highlight three things that Gibson’s definition brings up, which might be important to understand how deal and engage with cyberspace.

Consensual hallucination – This is probably one of the strongest and the strangest ways of talking about cyberspace. A hallucination is something that happens in your head. It is a space of virtuality. It is an event that nobody except for the one individual who claims it, can verify. It is thus, categorically the non-real. However, a consensual hallucination is a mystifying thing.

Let’s say that you propose that from this moment on, you are a dog (even though, as the cartoon famously says, on the internet nobody knows you are a dog). If you were to stand up in your social circles and announce that you are a dog, it would lead to some strange reactions. If you persisted in acting like a dog and responding only to a dog, chances are that you might be put into a mental asylum to be treated of this hallucination. However, if everybody else in the room consented that you are a dog, and indeed, they are all, also dogs, then your hallucination becomes real. It gains valence. It has legitimacy. It becomes a norm.

Gibson, in positing cyberspace as a ‘consensual hallucination’ is reminding us that this is indeed, the very way in which our reality is constructed. For instance, think of the colour blue. Now try and figure out how the blue that you are thinking about and the blue that I am thinking about is the same blue. We can’t verify that we are all talking about the same blue. And yet, there is a consensus among us that there is a blueness to the colour blue that we all refer to when we think of the colour blue.

Reality is a process of consensual hallucination. So is Cyberspace. Which mean that instead of making the distinction between the real and the virtual, or trying to figure out what is real and what is not, it is more fruitful for us to engage with the idea that the virtual is a part of the real. There are various processes – social, cultural, political, economic, and governmental – that structure and validate our reality. And hence, reality is always changing. The science fiction futures that were dreamt in the last century are the present times that we live in. The idea of consensual hallucination, takes us away from a debate about Virtual Reality and Real Life (VR – RL) that has been endemic to the conversations around cyberspace. Following Gibson’s lead I would encourage us, not to think of cyberspace in terms of the virtual or the unreal, but as a constitutive and generative part of our reality.
A graphic representation of abstracted data: The use of the term ‘space’ is often bewildering in Gibson’s coinage because it does not really seem to appear in the definition. Space, as we understand it, is a location metaphor. It refers to spatial dimensions of a thing. It gives us a sense of fixity. However, these are all expectations of physical space. The ‘space’ in cyberspace has more in common with the abstract concepts of space in mathematics and metaphors rather than in terms of geography and location.

We need to understand that even in geographical terms, space is an abstraction of sorts. Space is the virtual or perceived usage, volume and experience of place. If you have a piece of land, that is the place of that land. The place is geographically present. It can be materially touched and located. However, the space is what you attribute to that piece of land. It is defined by the intentions and aspirations, by what is allowed and what is not. Space is a philosophical concept. Which is why, in everyday talk, when you say, ‘I need some space’, you don’t necessarily mean that you need geographical isolation, but often refers to the head-space that is less tangible.

Similarly, the space in Cyberspace, even though it has been often used to talk about the space on the network that connects different webpages, or the immersive environments that role playing games offer, or the virtual communities on social networking sites like Facebook, it is important to remember that space is an abstraction. And cyberspace thus is not the actual mechanics and nitty-gritties of technology but what is built because of those interactions.

Bruce Sterling, in his introduction to The Hacker Crackdown quite evocatively explains this: ‘Cyberspace is the "place" where a telephone conversation appears to occur. Not inside your actual phone, the plastic device on your desk. Not inside the other person's phone, in some other city. The place between the phones. [...] in the past twenty years, this electrical "space," which was once thin and dark and one-dimensional—little more than a narrow speaking-tube, stretching from phone to phone—has flung itself open like a gigantic jack-in-the-box. Light has flooded upon it, the eerie light of the glowing computer screen. This dark electric netherworld has become a vast flowering electronic landscape. Since the 1960s, the world of the telephone has cross-bred itself with computers and television, and though there is still no substance to cyberspace, nothing you can handle, it has a strange kind of physicality now. It makes good sense today to talk of cyberspace as a place all its own.”
Non-space of the mind: In the cyberpunk universe of the novel Neuromancer, Gibson makes a difference between cyberspace and meat-space. There is a definite privileging of cyberspace, which is the world of seduction, adventure, excitement and entertainment. The meat-space, where our biological bodies survive and live, is in a state of collapse and disrepair. This bleak vision of the biological as disintegrating and the digital as becoming the primary mode of existence has been espoused by various science fiction and fantasy narratives. For all of us who have seen The Matrix, we are familiar with this idea that slowly and singularly, we are moving towards creating digital lives which are gaining precedence over our ‘real’ lives.[7] Especially when it comes to the discourse around digital objects, this hierarchy of dismissing the biological and the real over the virtual and the digital is often reinforced. However, Gibson was already reminding us, with the ‘non-space of the mind’ that the digital and the biological are not as separate or discrete as we would have liked to imagine. Let us look at what the ‘non-space’ can mean. For this, we might have to look at two different conceptual moves in philosophy.

The first is a distinction between the brain and mind. It is obvious that the brain and the mind are not the same thing. The brain is the biological organ in our cranial cavity. It is made up on cells and neurons, flesh and blood, so to speak. It is what the artificial intelligence scholar Andy Clark calls ‘a skin bag’. The brain performs various functions that keep our body alive and sapient. The mind, is an abstraction of the brain. The mind is our thoughts, memories, associations, feelings, and all the other things that make us human. The brain might support the mind but they are not the same. I hope that this is beginning to sound familiar to us – that the brain-mind relationship is the same as we have mapped out for Internet-Cyberspace. Just like cyberspace is an abstraction of data that we have consented to be real, the mind is also an abstraction that encapsulates the interiority of our selves.
The second is an understanding of binaries and opposites. We are designed, as human beings (even though we attribute this to the digital machines) to think in binaries. Black-White, Good-Bad, Day-Night. This is the way in which our cultures have been built. We think of the positive and the negative and create a spectrum in between to understand our world. These binaries are often confused with being opposites. So we would say that the opposite of Black is white. Or that the opposite of Day is Night. However, in the study of Logics, we are taught that the binary is not the same as opposite. All the way back in history, Aristotle had already posited that it is a fallacy to mistake a binary for an opposite. So, for instance the binary opposition of ‘day’ might be ‘night’, but the logical opposite of ‘day’ is ‘non-day’. Or to make it simpler, the binary opposition of the colour ‘black’ is ‘white’. However, the logical opposite of ‘black’ is ‘non-black’ and hence every other colour that is not black, is its logical opposite. We go through this to realise that in the brain-mind mapping, the brain is the place. The mind is the non-brain, or the space. And then the non-space of the mind, is the brain all over again. Gibson does this recursive negation to remind us that the things that happen in cyberspace have direct consequences on meatspace. What happens in cyberspace directly affects the non-space of our bodies, our lived realities and experiences.

Cyberspace and Everyday Life

It is important to begin with the definition that Gibson offered because it informs a lot of the debates that happened historically, around cyberspace and how we understand it. However, it also allows us to side-step these debates because they are not fruitful. They reinforce the idea that the internet and cyberspace are removed from our reality, that they are technological concerns rather than human, social and political concerns, and they insist that the internet and cyberspace are in opposition to being human. These ideas produce accounts of the internet and cyberspace which, for me, are fruitless. The leads from Gibson’s definition, instead, allow us to understand the internet and cyberspace as deeply implicated in our conditions of being human, being social and being political. They offer us a different way of rewriting the history of the Internet, not merely as a linear narrative of the technological advancements, but as a rich and complex account of how the internet and cyberspace have shaped and been shaped by the social, cultural and political milieu that they have emerged in.

And so, we approach the history of the internet in a different way. Instead of looking at the Internet as a technology, we deal with the Internet in its many forms, through cyberspace and our everyday engagement with it. Or, rather, we formulate the history of Internet & Society, thus trying to look at the ways in which the emergence of digital technologies – Internet and cyberspace – have led to questioning the ways in which understand our personal, social and political lives, and how, in-turn they have been changed through the various contexts that we live in.

Why do we need the history of the Internet?

So here is the million dollar question. Why do we need to study the history of the Internet? And if we do, for what do we need to study the history of the internet? These are both important questions and this is where I am hoping we will be able to start a critical inquiry into our own engagement with the topic.

Let us begin by questioning the very structure of history writing. What does it mean to write the history of an particular object? If we were to write, let’s say, the history of a particular building. How far in time will we go? And in what minutiae shall we record it? Shall we begin by saying, how, once where the building stood, there was a tree. And on that trees, there were leaves. The first leaf fell. The second leaf fell. The third leaf fell. It could fill up pages documenting every leaf that fell, before we even come to the building. So we know that when we write the history of a particular object, person or phenomenon, there is a very clear notion of where the history began. But we also know that if, we had an interest in the ecological history of the building, we might have actually spent time looking at that tree and its falling leaves. Which means that what constitutes history also has to do with our intentions of writing it.

And then the last point about this brief capsule on history writing that I want to make, is that history of things does not mean that we focus only on the thing. If we were to look at the cultural significance of the building under question, for example, we would talk to the society that engages with it, the people who occupy it, and the ways in which it shapes the fabric of the space and time. So history is often a large canvas – it might keep one particular object in question, but it also weaves in the complex structure of processes and flows that surround that particular object of study.

There is a rich scholarship about the problems, structures and processes of history writing. But these three points are important for us to think through why we want to delve into the history of the internet. Where do we begin? What do we study? And why do we study what we study? The minute you put these questions out, you start realising that there can be no definitive history of the internet. There can definitely not be just one history of the internet. And that the history of the internet is as much about the world as it is about the technological, but the technological only becomes a lens or an entry point into unravelling the various questions that are a part of our personal and professional lives. So we are not looking at imparting the one authoritative history of the internet. Instead, I am proposing, for this module to introduce you to different ways of thinking about the history of the internet.

We are going to begin by looking at not the Internet – but cyberspace.

We are going to examine the intersections of cyberspace with three different objects and try and see how the debates at that intersection help us to define and entry point into the rich discourse around Internet & Society.

The body in cyberspace

Perhaps one of the most interesting histories of the cyberspace has been its relationship with the body. Beginning with the meatspace-cyberspace divide that Gibson introduces, the question of our bodies’ relationship with the internet has been hugely contested. There have been some very polarized debates around this question. Where are we when we are online? Are we the person in the chair behind an interface? Are we the avatar in a social networking site interacting with somebody else? Are we a set of data running through the atmosphere? Are we us? Are we dogs? These are tantalising and teasing questions.

Early debates around the body-technology questions were polarized. There were people who offered that the cyberspace is a virtual space. What happens in that make-believe, performative space does not have any direct connections with who we are and how we live. They insisted that the cyberspace is essentially a performance space, and just like acting in a movie does not make us the character, all our interactions on the internet are also performances. The idea of a virtual body or a digital self were proposed, thinking of the digital as an extension of who we are – as a space that we occupy to perform different identities and then get on with our real lives.

Sherry Turkle, in her book Life on the Screen, was the first one to question this binary between the body and the digital self. Working closely with the first users of the online virtual reality worlds called Multiple User Dungeons, Turkle notes how being online started producing a different way of thinking about who we are and how we relate to the world around us. She indicates three different ways in which this re-thinking happens. The first, is at the level of language. She noticed how the users were beginning to think of their lives and their social relationships through the metaphors that they were using in the online world. So, for instance, people often thought of life through the metaphor of windows – being able to open multiple windows, performing multiple tasks and identities and ‘recycling’ them in their everyday life. Similarly, people saying that they are ‘low on bandwidth’ when they don’t have enough time and attention to devote to something, or thinking about the need to ‘upgrade’ our senses. We also are quite used to the idea that memory is something that resides on a chip and that computing is what machines do. These slippages in language, where we start attributing the machine characteristics to human beings are the first sign of understanding the human-technological relationship and history.

The second slippage is when the user start thinking of the avatars as human. We are quite used to, in our deep web lives, to think of machines as having agency. Our avatars act. Things that we do on the internet perform more actions than we have control of – a hashtag that we start on twitter gets used and responded to by others and takes on a life of its own. We live with sapient technologies – machines that care, artificial intelligence algorithms that customise search results for us, scripts and bots that protect us from malware and viruses. We haven’t attributed these kinds of human agencies to machines and technologies in the past. However, within the digital world, there is a complex network of actors, where all the actors are not always human. Bruno Latour, a philosopher of science and technology, posits in his ‘Actor Network Theory’ that the emergence of these non-human actors has helped us understand that we are not only dependent on machines and technologies for our everyday survival, but that many tasks that we had thought of as ‘human’ are actually performed, and performed better by these technologies. Hence, we have come to care for our machines and we also think of them as companions and have intimate relationships with them. And the machines, even as they make themselves invisible, start becoming more personal.

The third slippage that Turkle points out is the way in which the boundaries between the interior and the exterior were dissolved in the accounts of the users’ narratives of their digital adventures. There is a very simplistic understanding that what is human is inside us, it is sacred and organic and emotional. Earlier representational technology products like cinema, books, TV etc. have emphasised this distinction between real life and reel life. No actor is punished for the crime they commit in the narrative of a film. It is not very often that an author claims to be the character in a book. We have always had a very strong sense of distinction between the real person and the fictional person. But within the virtual reality worlds, these distinctions seem to dematerialize. The users not only thought of their avatars as human but also experienced the emotions, frustrations, excitement and joy that their characters were simulating for them. And what is more important, they claimed these experiences for themselves.

Namita Malhotra, who is a legal scholar and a visual artist, in her monograph on Pleasure, Porn and the Law, looks at the way in which we are in a process of data-stripping – constant revelation of our deepest darkest secrets and desires, within the user generated content rubric. Looking at the low-res, grainy videos on sites like YouTube and Vimeo, which have almost no narrative content and are often empty of sexual content, produce all of us in a global orgiastic setting, where our bodies are being extended beyond ourselves. In the monograph, Malhotra argues that the Internet is not merely an extension but almost like a third skin that we wear around ourselves – it is a wrapper, but it is tied, through ligaments and tendons, to the flesh and bone of our being, and often things that we do online, even when they are not sexual in nature, can become pornographic. Conversely, the physical connections that we have are now being made photographically and visually available in byte sized morsels, turned into a twitpic, available to be shared virally, and disseminated using mobile applications, thus making our bodies escape the biological containers that we occupy but also simultaneously marks our bodies through all these adventures that we have on the digital infobahn.

Case Study: A Rape in Cyberspace
A contemporary of Sherry Turkle, Julian Dibbell, in his celebrated account of ‘A Rape in Cyberspace’ [8] describes a case-study that corroborates many of the observations that Turkle posits. Dibbell analyses a particular incident that occurred one night in a special kind of MUD – LambdaMOO (MUD, Object-Oriented) – which was run by the Xerox Research Corporations. A MUD, is a text-based virtual reality space of fluid dimensions and purposes, where users could create avatars of themselves in textual representations. Actions and interactions within the MUD are also in long running scripts of texts. Of course, technically all this means that a specially designed database gives users the vivid impression of their own presence and the impression of moving through physical spaces that actually exists as descriptive data on some remotely located servers.

When users log into LambdaMoo, the program presents them with a brief textual description of one of the rooms (the coat closet) in the fictional database mansion. If the user wants to navigate, s/he can enter a command to move in a particular direction and the database replaces the original description with new ones, corresponding to the room located in the direction s/he chose. When the new description scrolls across the user’s screen, it lists not only the fixed features of the room but all its contents at that moment – including things (tools, toys, weapons), as well as other avatars (each character over which s/he has sole control). For the database program that powers the MOO, all of these entities are simply subprograms or data structures which are allowed to interact according to rules very roughly mimicking the laws of the physical world.

Characters may leave the rooms in particular directions. If a character says or does something (as directed by its user), then the other users who are located in the same ‘geographical’ region within the MOO, see the output describing the utterance or action. As the different players create their own fantasy worlds, interacting and socialising, a steady script of text scrolls up a computer screen and narratives are produced. The avatars, as in Second Life or even on Social Networking Sites like Orkut, have the full freedom to define themselves, often declining the usual referents of gender, sexuality, and context to produce fantastical apparitions. It is in such an environment of free-floating fantasy and role-playing, of gaming and social interaction mediated by digital text-based avatars, that a ‘crime’ happened.

Dibell goes on to give an account of events that unfolded that night. In the social lounge of LambdaMoo, which is generally the most populated of all the different nooks, corners, dimensions and rooms that users might have created for themselves, there appeared an avatar called Dr. Bungle. Dr. Bungle had created a particular program called Vodoo Doll, which allowed the creator to control avatars which were not his own, attributing to them involuntary actions for all the other players to watch, while the targeted avatars themselves remained helpless and unable to resist any of these moves. This Dr. Bungle, through his evil Vodoo Doll, took hold of two avatars – legba and Starsinger and started controlling them. He further proceeded to forcefully engage them in sexually violent, abusive, perverted and reluctant actions upon these two avatars. As the users behind both the avatars sent a series of invective and a desperate plea for help, even as other users in the room (# 17) watched, the Vodoo Doll made them enter into sexually degrading and extremely violent set of activities without their consent. The peals of his laughter were silenced only when a player with higher powers came and evicted Dr. Bungle from the Room # 17. As an eye-witness of the crime and a further interpolator with the different users then present, Dibbell affirms that most of the users were convinced that a crime had happened in the Virtual World of the digital Mansion. That a ‘virtual rape’ happened and was traumatic to the two users was not questioned. However, what this particular incident brought back into focus was the question of space.

Dibbell suggests that what we had was a set of conflicting approaches to understand the particular phenomenon:

Where virtual reality and its conventions would have us believe that legba and Starsinger were brutally raped in their own living room, here was the victim legba scolding Mr. Bungle for a breach of *civility* … [R]eal life, on the other hand, insists the incident was only an episode in a free-form version of Dungeons and Dragons, confined to the realm of the symbolic and at no point threatening any players life, limb, or material well-being…’

The meaning and the understanding of this particular incident and the responses that it elicited, lie in the ‘buzzing, dissonant gap’ between the perceived and experienced notion of Technosocial Space. The discussions that were initiated within the community asked many questions: If a crime had happened, where had the crime happened? Was the crime recognised by law? Are we responsible for our actions performed through a digital character on the cyberspaces? Is it an assault if it is just role playing?

The lack of ‘whereness’ of the crime, or rather the placelessness of the crime made it especially more difficult to pin it to a particular body. The users who termed the event as rape had necessarily inverted the expected notion of digital space as predicated upon and imitative of physical space; they had in fact done the exact opposite and exposed digital spaces as not only ‘bleeding into reality’ but also a constitutive part of the physical spaces. Their Technosocial Space was not the space of the LambdaMoo Room # 17 but the physical locations (and thus the bodies, rather than the avatars) of the players involved. However, this blurring was not to make an easy resolution of complex metaphysical questions. This blurring was to demonstrate, more than ever, that the actions and pseudonymous performances or narratives which are produced in the digital world are not as dissociated from the ‘Real’ as we had always imagined. More importantly, the notional simulation of place or a reference to the physical place is not just a symbolic gesture but has material ramifications and practices. As Dibell notes in his lyrical style,

‘Months later, the woman in Seattle would confide to me that as she wrote those words posttraumatic tears were streaming down her face -- a real-life fact that should suffice to prove that the words’ emotional content was no mere playacting. The precise tenor of that content, however, its mingling of murderous rage and eyeball-rolling annoyance, was a curious amalgam that neither the RL nor the VL facts alone can quite account for.’

The eventual decision to ‘toad’ Dr. Bungle – to condemn him to a digital death (a death only as notional as his crime) and his reappearance as another character take up the rest of Dibbell’s argument. Dibbell is more interested in looking at how a civil society emerged, formed its own ways of governance and established the space of LamdaMOO as more than just an emotional experience or extension; as a legitimate place which is almost as much, if not more real, than the physical places that we occupy in our daily material practices. Dibbell’s moving account of the entire incident and the following events leading the final ‘death’ and ‘reincarnation’ has now been extrapolated to make some very significant and insightful theorisations of the notions of the body and its representations online.

Exercise: Based on this case-study, break into small groups to determine whether a rape happened on cyberspace and how we can understand the relationship of our online personas with our bodies.

Cyberspace and the State
The history of body and technology is one way of approaching the history of the internet. However, as we realise, that more than the management of identity or the projection of our interiority, it is a narrative about governance. How does the body get regulated on the internet? How does it become the structure through which communities, networks, societies and collective can be imagined? The actions and transactions between the internet and the body can also help us to look at the larger questions of state, governance and technology which are such an integral part of our everyday experience of the internet. Questions of privacy, security, piracy, sharing, access etc. are all part of the way in which our practices of cultural production and social interaction are regulated, by the different intermediaries of the internet, of which the State is one.

Asha Achuthan, in her landmark work Re:Wiring Bodies[9] that looks at the history of science and technology in India, shows that these are not new concerns. In fact, as early as the 1930s and 1940s, when the architects of India’s Independence movements were thinking about shaping what the country is going to look like in the future, they were already discussing these questions. It is more popularly known that Jawaharlal Nehru was looking to build a ‘scientific temperament’ for the country and hoping to build it through scientific institutions as well as infrastructure – he is famously credited to having said that ‘dams are the temples of modern science.’ Apart from Nehru’s vision of a modern India, there was a particular conversation between M.K. Gandhi and Rabindranath Tagore, that Achuthan analyses in great detail. Achuthan argues that the dialogue between Gandhi and Tagore is so couched in ideology, poetry and spirituality that we often forget that these were actually conversations about a technology – specifically, the charkha or the spinning wheel.

For both Gandhi and Tagore, the process of nation building was centred around this one particular charkha. The charkha was the mobile, portable, wearable device (much like our smart phones) that was supposed to provide spiritual salvation and modern resources to overcome the evils of both traditional and conservative values as well as unemployment and production. The difference in Gandhi and Tagore was not whether the charkha – as a metaphor of production and socio-economic organisation – should be at the centre of our discourse. The difference was that Gandhi thought that the usage of charka, complete immersion in the activity, and the devotion to it would help us weave a modern nation For Gandhi, the citizen was not somebody who used the charkha, but the citizen was somebody who becomes a citizen in the process of using the charkha. Tagore, meanwhile, was more concerned about whether we are building a people-centred nation or a technology-centred device. He was of the opinion that building a nation with the technology at its core, might lead to an apocalyptic future where the ‘danava yantra’ or demonic machine might take over and undermine the very human values and ideals that we are hoping to structure the nation through.

If you even cursorily look at this debate, you will realise that the way Gandhi was talking about the charkha is in resonance with how contemporary politicians talk about the powers of the internet and the way in which, through building IT Cities, through foreign investment, through building a new class of workers for the IT industry, and through different confluences of economic and global urbanisation, we are going to Imagine India[10] of the future. Similarly, the caution that Tagore had, of the charkha as superseding the human, finds its echoes in the sceptics who have been afraid that the human is being forgotten[11] in the e-governance systems that are being set up, which concentrate more on management of data and information rather than the rights and the welfare of people.

This historical continuity between technology and governance, also finds theorisation in Ashish Rajadhyaksha’s book The Cultural Last Mile[12] that looks at the critical turns in India’s governance and policy history and how the technological paradigm has been established. Rajadhyaksha opens up the State-technology-governance triad to more concrete examples and looks at how through the setting up of community science centres, the building of India’s space and nuclear programmes, and through on-the-ground inventions like radio and chicken-mesh wire-loops, we have tried to reinforce a broadcast based model of governance. Rajadhyaksha proposes that the earlier technologies of governance which were at our disposal, helped us think of the nation state through the metaphor of broadcast. So we had the State at the Centre, receiving and transmitting information, and in fact managing all our conversation and communication by being the central broadcasting agency. And hence, because the state was responsible for the message of the state reaching every single person, but also responsible that every single person can hypothetically communicate with every other single person, the last mile became important. The ability to reach that last person became important. And the history of technology and governance has been a history of innovations to breach that last mile and make the message reach without noise, without disturbance, and in as clean and effective a way as possible.

With the emergence of the digital governance set up, especially with the building of the Unique Identity Project,[13] we now have the first time when the government is not concerned about breaching the last mile. The p2p networks that are supposed to manage the different flows of information mean that the State is not a central addressee of our communication but one of the actors. It produces new managers – internet service providers, telecom infrastructure, individual hubs and connectors, traditional media agencies – that help us think of governance in a new way. Which is why, for instance, with the UID authorities, we are no longer concerned about the relay of state information from the centre to the subject. Hence, we have many anecdotal stories of people enrolling for the Aadhaar card without actually knowing what benefits it might accrue them. We also have stories coming in about how there are people with Aadhaar numbers which have flawed information but these are not concerns. Because for once, the last mile has to reach the Government. The State is a collector but there are also other registrars. And there is a new regime here, where the government is now going to become one of the actors in the field of governance and it is more interested in managing data and information rather than directly governing the people.

This historical turn is interesting, because it means that we are being subjected to different kinds of governance structures and institutions, without necessarily realising how to negotiate with them to protect us. One of the most obvious examples, is the Terms of Services[14] that we almost blindly sign off when using online platforms and services and what happens when they violate rights that we think are constitutionally given. What happens when Facebook removes some content from your profile without your permission because it thinks that it is problematic? Who do you complain to? Are your rights as a user or a citizen? Which jurisdiction will it fall under? Conversely, what happens when you live in a country that does not grant you certain freedoms (of speech and expression, for instance) and you commit an infraction using a social media platform. What happens when your private utterances on your social networks make you vulnerable[15] to persecution and prosecution in your country?

These are all questions of the human, the technological, and the governmental which have been discussed differently and severally historically, in India and also at the global level. Asking these questions, unpacking the historical concerns and how they have leap-frogged in the contemporary governmental debates is important because it helps us realise that the focus of what is at stake, what it means to be human, what we recognise as fair, just and equal are also changing in the process. Instead of thinking of e-governance as just a digitization of state resources, we have to realise that there is a certain primacy that the technologies have had in the state’s formation and manifestation, and that the digital is reshaping these formulations in new and exciting, and sometimes, precarious ways.

Cyberspace and Criminality
The history of the internet in India, but also around the world, is bookended between pornography and terrorism. While there has been an incredible promise of equity, equality, fairness, and representation of alternative voices on the internet, there is no doubt that what the internet has essentially done is turn us all into criminals – pornographers, pirates, terrorists, hackers, lurkers… If you have been online, let us just take for granted that you have broken some law or the other, no matter how safe you have been online, and where you live. The ways in which the internet has facilitated peer-2-peer connections and the one-one access means that almost everything that was governed in the public has suddenly exploded in one large grey zone of illegality.

Ravi Sundaram calls this grey zone of illegal or semi-legal practices the new ‘cyberpublics’. For Sundaram, the new public sphere created by the internet is not only in the gentrified, middle-class, educated people who have access to the cyberspaces and are using social media and user generated content sites to bring about active social and political change. More often than not, the real interesting users of the internet are hidden. They access the internet from cybercafés, in shared names. They have limited access to the web through apps and services on their pirated phones. They share music, watch porn, gamble, engage in illicit and surreptitious social and sexual engagements and they are able to do this by circumventing the authority and the gaze of the law.

On the other side are the more tech savvy individuals who create alternative currencies like Bitcoin, trade for weapons, drugs and sex on SilkRoute, form guerrilla resistance groups like Anonymous, and create viruses and malware that can take over the world. These cyberpublics are not just digital in nature. They erupt regularly in the form of pirate bazaars, data swaps, and the promiscuous USB drive that moves around the machines, capturing information and passing it on further. These criminalities are often the defining point of internet policy and politics – they serve as the subjects that need to be governed, as well as the danger that lurks in the digital ether, from which we need to be protected. For Sundaram, the real contours and borders of the digital world are to be tested in an examination of these figures. Because, as Lawrence Liang suggests, the normative has already been assimilated in the system. The normative or the good subject is no longer a threat and has developed an ethical compass of what is desirable and not. However, this ethical subject also engages in illicit activities, while still producing itself as a good person. This contradiction makes for interesting stories.

DPS MMS: Case Study
One of the most fascinating cases of criminality that captured both public and legal attention was the notoriously cases where the ideas of Access were complicated in the Indian context, was the legal and public furore over the distribution of an MMS (Multi-Media Message) video that captured two underage young adults in a sexual act. The clip, which was dubbed in popular media as ‘DPS Dhamaka’ became viral on the internet. The video clip was listed on an auction (peer-2-peer) website as an e-book and as ‘Item 27877408 – DPS Girl having fun!!! Full video + Bazee points’ for Rs. 125. This visibility of the clip on the auction site Bazee.com, brought it to the eyes of the State where its earlier circulation through private circuits and P2P networks had gone unnoticed. Indeed, the newspapers and TV channels had created frenzy around it, this video clip would have gone unnoticed. However, the attention that Bazee.com drew led to legal intervention.

Following the visibility of the video clip, there was an attempt to find somebody responsible for the crime and be held liable for the ‘crime’ that had happened. Originally, Ravi Raj, a student at IIT Kharagpur, who had put up the clip on Bazee was arrested for possessing and selling pornography. He was arrested and kept in police custody for at least three days and so was the male student who made the clip. They were both made to go through proceedings in juvenile court (though he was the last to be arrested). Both the students in the video were suspended from school after the incident. Eventually, the most high profile arrest and follow up from the DPS MMS incident was the arrest of the CEO of Bazee.com – Avnish Bajaj. However, Bajaj was released soon because as the host of the platform and not its content, he had no liability.

This is the beginning of a series of slippages where a punishable body in the face of public outcry had to be identified. We witnessed a witch-hunt that sought to hold the boy who made the video clip responsible, the student of IIT who attempted to circulate the clip and eventually the CEO of Bazee. The string of failed prosecutions seems to indicate that the pornographer-as-a-person was slipping through the cracks of the legal system. As Namita Malhotra argues, it is not the pornographic object which is ‘eluding the grasp of the court’ but that it seems to be an inescapable condition of the age of the internet - that the all transactions are the same transactions, and all users are pornographers.

We can see in the case that the earlier positions that were easily criminalised when it came to objects in mass media – producer, consumer, distributor of obscenity, were vacated rapidly in the DPS MMS case. We have a case where the bodies, when looked at through simplified ideas of Access, could not be regulated. The girl in the clip could not be punished because she was the victim in the case that could be read as statutory rape. In the case of the boy, a stranger argument was posed – ‘that in our fast urbanising societies where parents don’t have time for children, they buy off their love by giving them gadgets – which makes possible certain kinds of technological conditions...thus the blame if it is on the boy, is on the larger society’ (Malhotra, 2011).

Eventually, the court held that the description of the object and the context of its presence indicates that the said obscene object is just a click away and such a ‘listing which informed the potential buyer that such a video clip that is pornographic can be procured for a price’. There is a suggestion that there was nobody in particular that could be fixed with the blame. What was at blame was access to technology and conditions of technology within which the different actors in this case were embedded. Malhotra points out that in earlier cases around pornography, judgements have held pornography responsible for itself.

In the case of the DPS MMS, it seemed that technology – especially access to technology by unsupervised persons – has taken that role. The eventual directive that came out of this case was a blanket warning issued to the public that ‘anyone found in possession of the clip would be fined and prosecuted’. It is as if the attention of the court was on the ways in which the video clip was produced, circulated and disseminated, rather than the content. There was an anxiety around peoples’ unsupervised access to digital technologies, the networks that facilitated access to content without the permission of the state, and modes of circulation and dissemination that generated high access to audiences which cannot be controlled or regulated.

The State’s interest in this case, is not in the sexual content of the material but in the way it sidesteps the State’s authorial positions and produces mutable, transmittable, and transferable products as well as conditions of access. Such a focus on practices and behaviours around the obscene object, rather than the content itself, seems not to disrupt the law’s neat sidestepping of the force of the image itself. These different tropes of access to technology informed the State’ attempt at control and containment of technosocial practices in the country, giving rise to imaginations of the User as being in conditions of technology which make him/her a potential criminal. This idea of access as transgression or overriding the legal regulatory framework does not get accounted for in the larger technology discourse. However, it does shape and inform the Information Technology regulations which are made manifest in the IT Act. The DPS MMS case complicated the notion of access and posited a potentially criminal technosocial subject who, because of access to the digital, will be able to consume information and images beyond the sanction of the law.

The DPS MMS case shows how the ways in which public discourse can accuse, blame and literally hang technology seems to diverge from how the court attempts to pin down an offence or crime and prosecute by constructing a technosocial subject as the pervert, while also accusing pornography as a phenomenon. The court is unable to hold technology to blame but the accused is technology-at-large and modernity, which subsumes practices around technology and separates out the good and ethical ways in which a citizen should access and use technologies to rise from the potentially criminal conditions of technology within which their Technosocial identity is formed.

Summary

We started by making a distinction between Internet and Cyberspace to see how the two are separate objects of focus and have a relationship that needs to be examined in greater detail. It was argued that while the Internet – in material, infrastructural and technological forms – is important to understand the different policies and politics at the local, regional and global level, it has an account that is easier to follow. Cyberspace, on the other hand, because it deals with human interactions and experiences, allows for a more complex set of approaches into understanding our engagement with the digital domain. We began with the original definitions and imaginations of cyberspace and the ways in which it founded and resolved debates about the real-virtual, the physical-digital, and the brain-mind divides which have been historically part of the cybercultures discourse.

It was proposed, hence, that instead of looking at the history of the Internet, we will look at the history of cyberspace, and see if we can move away from a straight forward historical narrative of the Internet which focuses largely on the institutions, numbers, names and technological advances. The ambition was not to just produce a similar history of cyberspace but think of conceptual frameworks through which cyberspace can be studied. The proposition was that instead of just looking at history as a neutral and objective account of events and facts, we can examine how and why we need to create histories. Also, that it is fruitful to look at the aspirations and ambitions we have in creating historical narratives.

It was then suggested that instead of trying to create a definitive history, or even a personal history of the internet, it might be more fruitful to look at the intersections that cyberspace has with different questions and concerns that have historically defined the relationship between technologies and society. 3 different conceptual frameworks were introduced as methods or modes by which this historical mode of inquiry can be initiated.

The first framework examined how we can understand the boundaries and contours of the internet and cyberspace by looking at its relationship with our bodies. The ways in which we understand our bodies, the mediation by technologies, and the extensions and simulations that we live with, help us to understand the human-technology relationship in more nuanced fashions. Looking at the case-study of a rape that happened in cyberspace, we mapped out the different ways in which we can think of a technosocial relationship.

The second framework drew from historical debates around technology and governance to see how the current concerns of e-governance and digital subjectivity are informed by older debates about technology and nation building. Looking at the dialogues between Gandhi and Tagore, and then the imagination of a nation through the broadcast technologies, we further saw how the new modes of networked governance are creating new actors, new conditions and new contexts within which to locate and operate technologies.

The third framework showed how the technological is not merely at the service of the human. In fact, the presence of the technological creates new identities and modes of governance that create potential criminals of all of us. Through the case-study of the DPS MMS, and in an attempt to look at the grey zone of illegal cyberpublics, we saw how at new technosocial identities are created at the intersection of law, technology, governance and everyday practices of the web. The fact that the very condition of technology access can create us as potential criminals, in need to be governed and regulated, reflects in the development of internet policy and governance.

It was the intention of this module to complicate three sets of presumptions and common knowledge that exist in the discourse around Internet and Cyberspace. The first was to move away from thinking of the Internet merely as infrastructure and networks. The second was to suggest that entering the debates around human-technology everyday relationships would offer more interesting ways of looking at accounts of the technological. The third was to propose that the history of the internet does not begin only with the digital, but it needs larger geographical and techno-science contexts in order to understand how the contemporary landscape of internet policy and governance is shaped.

The module was not designed to give a comprehensive history and account of the internet. Instead, it built a methodological and conceptual framework that would allow us to examine the ways in which we approach Internet and Society questions – in the process, it would also help us reflect on our own engagement, intentions and expectations from the Internet and how we create the different narratives and accounts for it.

[1]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet

[2]. http:\www.sigcomm.org\sites\default\files\ccr\papers\2009\October\1629607-1629613.pdf

[3]. http://www.walthowe.com/navnet/history.html

[4]. http:\www.internetsociety.org\internet\what-internet\history-internet\brief-history-internet

[5]. http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Governing_the_Internet/Introduction_to_Internet_Governance

[6]. Recommended reading: Internet Governance: Infrastructure and Institutions eds. Lee Bygrave and Jon Bing http://www.amazon.com/Internet-Governance-Infrastructure-Institutions-Bygrave/dp/0199561133

[7]. Recommended watching material to look at some of these questions: 1. The final flight of the Osiris -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueiBYxI6Eqg 2. The Second Renaissance - part 1 - http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/n5vpzw/the-second-renaissance-part-i 3. The Second Ranaissance - part 2 - http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/va807i/animatrix-second-renaissance-part2

[8]. http://www.juliandibbell.com/articles/a-rape-in-cyberspace/

[9]. http://cis-india.org/raw/rewiringdoc/view

[10]. http://www.amazon.com/Imagining-India-Idea-Renewed-Nation/dp/0143116673

[11]. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/670950

[12]. http://cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/last-cultural-mile.pdf

[13]. http://eprints.cscsarchive.org/532/

[14]. http://tosdr.org/

[15]. http://www.amazon.com/The-Googlization-Everything-Should-Worry/dp/0520258827

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/telecom/knowledge-repository-on-internet-access/history-of-internet-building-conceptual-frameworks

Here is why government twitter handles have been posting offensive and partisan messages

praskrishna — 2016-10-16T03:24:45Z

You have failed us big time Mr Kejriwal, for your petty political gains you can become headlines for Pakistani press,” read a tweet on October 5 from @IndiaPostOffice, the official twitter handle of the Indian postal service.

The article by Danish Raza was published in the Hindustan Times on October 15, 2016. Nishant Shah was quoted.

It was a reference to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal urging the Prime Minister to counter Pakistan’s propaganda over surgical strikes.

Within hours, India Post tweeted an apology saying that the account was hacked.

This is the latest in a series of opinions and statements posted from official twitter handles of government departments and bodies. Of late, the Twitter handles meant to broadcast information related to government programmes have appeared like personal accounts tweeting slander and criticism.

Last month, the Twitter handle of Digital India tweeted a poem in Hindi calling on the Indian Army to persistently fire at protesters in Kashmir.

In August, the Twitter handle of Startup India retweeted a post suggesting that the Indian Army should ‘take care’ of #Presstitutes, a reference to sections of Indian media critical of the government.

The tweets expose loopholes in the government’s social media policy and raise questions about the norms followed in the recruitment of social media professionals for ministries and government institutions.

Work in Progress

The process of adopting new tools is work in progress. While the government agencies are trying to leverage social media to enhance citizen engagement, for the vast majority of government bodies, it is unexplored territory. Babus who have traditionally been dealing in paperwork and file notings are overwhelmed to see hash tags and trends. With a tech- savvy Prime Minister at the helm, every government department is trying to increase its digital footprint. At the same time, they face the challenge of reinterpreting existing work ethics and codes of conduct and applying them to the use of social media. Ministries such as the Ministry of External Affairs, Information & Broadcasting and the Prime Minister’s Office which have cohesive programmes and big mandate, have separate social media wings of their own with well- defined protocols. But these are exceptions.

Overall, the government bodies lack social media guidelines for their own efforts or which others can learn from. According to Chinmayi Arun, executive director, Centre for Communication Governance, National Law University, Delhi, mistakes are bound to happen given that everyone is new to social media. But it should be non-negotiable that when anything is said using an official governmental handle, the government should take more responsibility than just saying ‘oops’. “One of course is a clear and unequivocal statement apologising and taking back whatever was said. However, it should take pro-active measures to train and test people who handle its public-facing accounts and publish a clear monitoring and accountability mechanism by which they can be called to account. It should not be open to anyone to misuse the government’s official handles in this manner,” said Arun.

One of the areas where the lack of sensitisation is apparent is the usage of the same mobile device for multiple twitter handles – the most common reason for such goof-ups cited by social media consultants attached to various government departments. “I believe these were inadvertently posted by people handling these accounts. It may neither have been their mandate nor their intention. It happens when the person has configured multiple twitter handles from the same device and ends up posting from the wrong account,” said Amit Malviya, BJP’s National Convener, IT.

The majority of ministries and government departments do not give phones to members of the social media teams. It is up to the individual to use his personal device or get an additional one to manage the professional handle (s). A mistake will happen if a comment which was to be posted from the personal handle is posted from the official handle.

Twitter Goof-ups from GoI Accounts

“Because of the personalised and individual nature of social media, it is easy to forget that they are representing an institution and not themselves when using these handles. This also suggests the lack of public usage training in these organisations, and the need to educate our public actors in using social media with more responsibility as office bearers of an institution rather than a personal expression or an opinion,” said Nishant Shah, co-founder of the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore.

Another issue is that access to the account is given to multiple people. “Each one of them brings their individual personality and politics to their operation of the handle,” said Shah.

Hiring Issues

Part of the problem lies in the fact that there is no standard protocol on who can access the twitter handle of Indian government bodies and how this person or team is hired.

A few ministries (example: the ministry of railways) have a team comprising of government employees and staff of private agencies handling their account. Others have outsourced the job to agencies.

During the campaigning for the 2009 election, political parties got outside expertise to mark their presence online. The selection parameters of social media consultants – established public relations firms in some cases and individuals in others – was not uniform.

Unlike the traditional public relations officers who are from the Indian Information Services cadre, the social media consultants were selected based on their expertise in the field, political affiliation, and proximity to a party or leader.

Those who started handling social media accounts of political parties and leaders included trolls and social media influencers. “Parties got youngsters who were politically motivated and willing to work for political parties. They became cheaper alternatives for social media experts,” said Ishan Russel, political communication consultant.

After the NDA came to power, almost every ministry outsourced its digital expertise to agencies. Many individuals who were earlier directly working with leaders and parties got back with them via agencies. “If an agency is looking for people to handle the twitter account or Facebook page of a certain ministry in the BJP government, then those who are politically inclined towards the BJP will apply for the vacancies and their chances of getting hired are also much higher than someone who is neutral or known to be an AAP sympathiser,” said Vikas Pandey, 32-year-old software engineer, who headed the “I Support Namo” campaign on Facebook and Twitter, as a volunteer for the BJP.

Last year, the Prime Minister felicitated more than a dozen social media enthusiasts, including Vikas. The move raised eyebrows because many felt that the government was encouraging trolls. “It illuminates the fact that trolls have found gainful employment in the Government of India. Also that the entire edifice of the centre is being taken over by woefully undereducated bigots,” said Swati Chaturvedi, senior journalist and author.

Agency, the Soft Target

Till the time the government staff is well versed with social media tools, attributing the mistakes to an ‘outside agency’ appears to be the norm.

In the case of the twitter goof-up involving Startup India, Commerce and Industry minister Nirmala Sitharaman blamed a private agency that was managing the account of Startup India. “The retweets were done by an employee of the agency hired by the department of industrial policy and promotion. The person assigned by the agency for this particular job is not decided by the department and is the sole prerogative of the agency,” she said.

S Radha Chauhan, CEO of National e-Governance Division, attributed the controversial post from Digital India’s twitter handle to an agency called Trivone. “The person responsible had mistakenly tweeted from the official handle what he wanted to tweet from his personal account,” said Chauhan.

Those familiar with the functioning of the government’s social media verticals say that agencies are mentioned to cover up for mistakes often committed by someone from the government staff. “When in crisis, blame the agency, is the thumbrule the government follows. The fact is that each twitter post is approved by the client before it is posted,” said a senior executive with a digital marketing firm attached to a ministry which has recently earned lot of praise for its social media initiatives.

Nishtha Arora, social media and digital consultant in a reputed ad agency, was handling a political account till very recently. She said that the client required her to just randomly tweet or RT to be heard by the followers of a tech-savvy minister and be his digital mouthpiece. “I often had to draft tweets which looked like press releases,” she said.

“Digital faux pas is blamed on to someone who might be an expert in the field but yet has to bow down to the client pressure so that their agenda for the day is met and the said government body or ministry remains in the news,” she added.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hindustan-times-danish-raza-october-15-2016-here-is-why-government-twitter-handles-have-been-posting-offensive-and-partisan-messages