Centre for Internet and Society

My First Wikipedia Training Workshop – Theatre Outreach Unit, University of Hyderabad

vishnu — 2013-08-19T06:51:16Z

On March 8, 2013, a day-long Telugu Wikipedia training workshop was organized by the Centre for Internet and Society's Access to Knowledge (CIS-A2K) team at the Golden Threshold, Nampally, Hyderabad in collaboration with Theatre Outreach Unit, University of Hyderabad. This blog post gives a concise account of the event.

CIS-A2K had planned a day long Telugu Wikipedia training workshop in collaboration with Telugu Wikipedians at the English and Foreign Languages University (EFLU), Hyderabad on March 8, 2013. The intention was to target research students at EFLU who are using Telugu material or working on topics related to Telugu and Andhra Pradesh. This event was also to be part of the Wiki Women’s month events across India. However, this event had to be cancelled in the last minute as a Research Student of EFLU committed suicide on the campus and there was major unrest. The faculty from EFLU though had informed of the possible cancellation of the event earlier, had only confirmed it on March 7, 2013. Rahmanuddin Shaik (Telugu SIG, Wikimedia India Chapter) and Dr. Rajasekhar (Telugu Wikipedia Administrator) had already blocked an entire day for this training workshop. In fact a lot of background work was already done for the EFLU event.

When I got the news of cancellation of the workshop, initially I was very dejected at the thought of informing the two active Telugu Wikipedians about it, which I had to do. As my tickets were anyhow booked to Hyderabad and there was no point cancelling them, as I was already on my way to catch the flight, I decided to go ahead with my journey. I made some couple of quick calls and with some effort managed to organize a Wikipedia Training Workshop in collaboration with the Theatre Outreach Unit (TOU), University of Hyderabad (UoH). I was anyhow planning on visiting them to explore an institutional collaboration. The Project Director of TOU Dr. Peddi Ramarao, though agreed to spread the word about the workshop, yet was not sure how many would turn up at such a short notice of one night.

	Rahmanuddin and Dr. Rajasekhar giving hands-on training to edit Telugu Wikipedia at Golden Threshold, Hyderabad

So on March 8, 2013 Rahmanuddin, Dr. Rajasekhar and I landed at the Golden Threshold hoping against hope to see at least 3 or 4 participants. But alas there were only 2 people when we reached the venue by 10 a.m.. By 10.25 a.m. we had 9 participants, which excited us all. The training workshop began with an introduction of all the participants. Following this a presentation was made on the significance of Wikipedia in the digital era and how Indian language-Wikipedias are pivotal in preserving the vernacular language and culture. This session was interactive with participants asking many questions. Dr. Peddi Ramarao, later, spoke about his experience of using Wikipedia as a reference tool and how he got introduced to contributing Wikipedia. Further, the discussion went on to the poor quality of articles on Telugu Wikipedia and how the participants can take part in improving the existing articles and contribute new articles. Rahmanuddin and Rajasekhar practically demonstrated the process of editing on Telugu Wikipedia. This was followed by a hands-on session where the participants actively participated in creating their Wikipedia User name on Telugu Wikipedia and did editing of few articles. The training programme was to officially end at Lunch time but even post lunch some of the participants were enthusiastic about learning more nuances of contributing on Telugu Wikipedia. The hands-on session thus continued until 4 p.m.

Post the Wikipedia training programme, I have had interactions with the Project Director of TOU to explore possible future collaborations. TOU, UoH agreed to offer space to host all Telugu Wikipedia meet-ups. As the Golden Threshold space was in the central part of the city, having this infrastructure accessible was a major boost for the Telugu Wikipedia community in Hyderabad. Further, in the discussions we have agreed to collaborate with TOU, UoH in hosting the first mega Telugu Wikipedia community event Telugu Wiki Mahotsavam 2013.


Telugu Wikipedia Orientation in progress

Outcomes and Impact:

Out of the 9 new Users, who were trained during this workshop, 5 people have done more than 5 edits.
One person has become a very active editor on Telugu Wikipedia with more than 1000 edits in 3 months. A detailed account of this event was put up by this user on Telugu Wikipedia here [*]
Because of CIS-A2K’s efforts, Telugu Wikipedians in Hyderabad now have a good meeting space.
The availability of this space has also encouraged the Telugu Wikipedians to meet more often than before. Since March 8, 2013 Telugu Wikipedians had a total of 6 meet-ups, and all these were held at Golden Threshold.
Golden Threshold also became a venue for hosting Telugu Wiki Mahotsavam 2013.
This visit to Hyderabad triggered a discussion about organizing Telugu Wiki Mahotsavam, which was successfully organized in a month’s time.

Looking back, though this event was done as a last minute measure without many expectations, yet it turned out to be a lucky break! Especially, because this was my first ever event as the CIS-A2K Programme Director. It will remain a very memorable one. More so because it was done in collaboration with two of the active Telugu Wikipedians. Even more so because it has created some positive energy for the Telugu Wikipedia community, which has since then become a home turf.

[*]. http://bit.ly/17WYq7X

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/my-first-wikipedia-training-workshop

Indian surveillance laws & practices far worse than US

pranesh — 2013-07-12T11:09:39Z

Explosive would be just the word to describe the revelations by National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward Snowden.

Pranesh Prakash's column was published in the Economic Times on June 13, 2013. This research was undertaken as part of the 'SAFEGUARDS' project that CIS is undertaking with Privacy International and IDRC.

Now, with the American Civil Liberties Union suing the Obama administration over the NSA surveillance programme, more fireworks could be in store. Snowden's expose provides proof of what many working in the field of privacy have long known. The leaks show the NSA (through the FBI) has got a secret court order requiring telecom provider Verizon to hand over "metadata", i.e., non-content data like phone numbers and call durations, relating to millions of US customers (known as dragnet or mass surveillance); that the NSA has a tool called Prism through which it queries at least nine American companies (including Google and Facebook); and that it also has a tool called Boundless Informant (a screenshot of which revealed that, in February 2013, the NSA collected 12.61 billion pieces of metadata from India).

Nothing Quite Private

The outrage in the US has to do with the fact that much of the data the NSA has been granted access to by the court relates to communications between US citizens, something the NSA is not authorised to gain access to. What should be of concern to Indians is that the US government refuses to acknowledge non-Americans as people who also have a fundamental right to privacy, if not under US law, then at least under international laws like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the ICCPR.

US companies such as Facebook and Google have had a deleterious effect on privacy. In 2004, there was a public outcry when Gmail announced it was using an algorithm to read through your emails to serve you advertisements. Facebook and Google collect massive amounts of data about you and websites you visit, and by doing so, they make themselves targets for governments wishing to snoop on you, legally or not.

Worse, Indian-Style

That said, Google and Twitter have at least challenged a few of the secretive National Security Letters requiring them to hand over data to the FBI, and have won. Yahoo India has challenged the authority of the Controller of Certifying Authorities, a technical functionary under the IT Act, to ask for user data, and the case is still going on.

To the best of my knowledge, no Indian web company has ever challenged the government in court over a privacy-related matter. Actually, Indian law is far worse than American law on these matters. In the US, the NSA needed a court order to get the Verizon data. In India, the licences under which telecom companies operate require them to provide this. No need for messy court processes.

The law we currently have â€” sections 69 and 69B of the Information Technology Act â€” is far worse than the surveillance law the British imposed on us. Even that lax law has not been followed by our intelligence agencies.

Keeping it Safe

Recent reports reveal India's secretive National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO) â€” created under an executive order and not accountable to Parliament â€” often goes beyond its mandate and, in 2006-07, tried to crack into Google and Skype servers, but failed. It succeeded in cracking Rediffmail and Sify servers, and more recently was accused by the Department of Electronics and IT in a report on unauthorised access to government officials' mails.

While the government argues systems like the Telephone Call Interception System (TCIS), the Central Monitoring System (CMS) and the National Intelligence Grid (Natgrid) will introduce restrictions on misuse of surveillance data, it is a flawed claim. Mass surveillance only increases the size of the haystack, which doesn't help in finding the needle. Targeted surveillance, when necessary and proportional, is required. And no such systems should be introduced without public debate and a legal regime in place for public and parliamentary accountability.

The government should also encourage the usage of end-to-end encryption, ensuring Indian citizens' data remains safe even if stored on foreign servers. Merely requiring those servers to be located in India will not help, since that information is still accessible to American agencies if it is not encrypted. Also, the currently lax Indian laws will also apply, degrading users' privacy even more.

Indians need to be aware they have virtually no privacy when communicating online unless they take proactive measures. Free or open-source software and technologies like Open-PGP can make emails secure, Off-The-Record can secure instant messages, TextSecure for SMSes, and Tor can anonymise internet traffic.

http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/economic-times-june-13-2013-pranesh-prakash-indian-surveillance-laws-and-practices-far-worse-than-us

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/economic-times-june-13-2013-pranesh-prakash-indian-surveillance-laws-and-practices-far-worse-than-us

India Subject to NSA Dragnet Surveillance! No Longer a Hypothesis — It is Now Officially Confirmed

maria — 2013-11-06T10:20:46Z

As of last week, it is officially confirmed that the metadata of everyone´s communications is under the NSA´s microscope. In fact, the leaked data shows that India is one of the countries which is under NSA surveillance the most!

This research was undertaken as part of the 'SAFEGUARDS' project that CIS is undertaking with Privacy International and IDRC. This blog was cross-posted in Medianama on 24th June 2013.

¨Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?”, the democratic senator, Ron Wyden, asked James Clapper, the director of national intelligence a few months ago. “No sir”, replied Clapper.

True, the National Security Agency (NSA) does not collect data on millions of Americans. Instead, it collects data on billions of Americans, Indians, Egyptians, Iranians, Pakistanis and others all around the world.

Leaked NSA surveillance

Verizon Court Order

Recently, the Guardian released a top secret order of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) requiring Verizon on an “ongoing, daily basis” to hand over information to the NSA on all telephone calls in its systems, both within the US and between the US and other countries. Verizon is one of America's largest telecoms providers and under a top secret court order issued on 25 April 2013, the communications records of millions of US citizens are being collected indiscriminately and in bulk supposedly until 19 July 2013. In other words, data collection has nothing to do with whether an individual has been involved in a criminal or terrorist activity or not. Literally everyone is potentially subject to the same type of surveillance.

USA Today reported in 2006 that the NSA had been secretly collecting the phone call records of millions of Americans from various telecom providers. However, the April 25 top secret order is proof that the Obama administration is continuing the data mining programme begun by the Bush administration in the aftermath of the 09/11 terrorist attacks. While content data may not be collected, this dragnet surveillance includes metadata such as the numbers of both parties on a call, location data, call duration, unique identifiers, the International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) number and the time and duration of all calls.

Content data may not be collected, but metadata can also be adequate to discover an individual's network of associations and communications patterns. Privacy and human rights concerns rise from the fact that the collection of metadata can result in a highly invasive form of surveillance of citizens´ communications and lives. Metadata records can enable the US government to know the identity of every person with whom an individual communicates electronically, as well as the time, duration and location of the communication. In other words, metadata is aggregate data and it is enough to spy on citizens and to potentially violate their right to privacy and other human rights.

PRISM

Recently, a secret NSA surveillance programme, code-named PRISM, was leaked by The Washington Post. Apparently, not only is the NSA gaining access to the meta data of all phone calls through the Verizon court order, but it is also tapping directly into the servers of nine leading Internet companies: Microsoft, Skype, Google, Facebook, YouTube, Yahoo, PalTalk, AOL and Apple. However, following these allegations, Google, Microsoft and Facebook recently asked the U.S. government to allow them to disclose the security requests they receive for handing over user data. It remains unclear to what extent the U.S. government is tapping into these servers.

Yet it appears that the PRISM online surveillance programme enables the NSA to extract personal material, such as audio and video chats, photographs, emails and documents. The Guardian reported that PRISM appears to allow GCHQ, Britain's equivalent of the NSA, to secretly gather intelligence from the same internet companies. Following allegations that GCHQ tried to circumvent UK law by using the PRISM computer network in the US, the British foreign secretary, William Hague, stated that it is “fanciful nonsense” to suggest that GCHQ would work with an agency in another country to circumvent the law. Most notably, William Hague emphasized that reports that GCHQ are gathering intelligence from photos and online sites should not concern people who have nothing to hide! However, this implies that everyone is guilty until proven innocent...when actually, democracy mandates the opposite.

James R. Clapper, the US Director of National Intelligence, stated:

“Information collected under this program is among the most important and valuable foreign intelligence information we collect, and is used to protect our nation from a wide variety of threats. The unauthorized disclosure of information about this important and entirely legal program is reprehensible and risks important protections for the security of Americans.”

So essentially, Clapper stated that in the name of US national security, the personal data of billions of citizens around the world is being collected. By having access to data stored in the servers of some of the biggest Internet companies in the world, the NSA ultimately has access to the private data of almost all the Internet users in the world.

Boundless Informant

And once the NSA has access to tons of data through the Verizon court order and the PRISM surveillance programme, how does it create patterns of intelligence and generally mine huge volumes of data?

The Guardian released top secret documents about the NSA data mining tool, called Boundless Informant; this tool is used to detail and map by country the volumes of information collected from telephone and computer networks. The focus of the Boundless Informant is to count and categorise the records of communication, known as metadata, and to record and analyse where its intelligence comes from. One of the leaked documents states that the tool is designed to give NSA officials answers to questions like: “What type of coverage do we have on country X”. According to the Boundless Informant documents, the NSA has been collecting 3 billion pieces of intelligence from US computer networks over a 30-day period ending in March 2013. During the same month, 97 billion pieces of intelligence from computer networks were collected worldwide.

The following “global heat map” reveals how much data is being collected by the NSA from around the world:

The colour scheme of the above map ranges from green (least subjected to surveillance) through yellow and orange to red (most surveillance). India is notably orange and is thus subject to some of the highest levels of surveillance by the NSA in the world.

During a mere 30-day period, the largest amount of intelligence was gathered from Iran with more than 14 billion reports, while Pakistan, Jordan and Egypt were next in line in terms of intelligence gathering. Unfortunately, India ranks 5th worldwide in terms of intelligence gathering by the NSA. According to the map above, 6.3 billion pieces of intelligence were collected from India by the NSA from February to March 2013. In other words, India is currently one of the top countries worldwide which is under the US microscope, with 15% of all information being tapped by the NSA coming from India during February-March 2013.

Edward Snowden is the 29-year-old man behind the NSA leaks...who is responsible for one of the most important leaks in US (and one may argue, global) history.

So what does this all mean for India?

In his keynote speech at the 29th Chaos Communications Congress, Jacob Appelbaum stated that surveillance should be an issue which concerns “everyone´s department”, especially in light of the NSA spying on citizens all over the world. True, the U.S. appears to have a history in spying on civilians, and the Corona, Argon, and Lanyard satellites used by the U.S. for photographic surveillance from the late 1950s is proof of that. But how does all this affect India?

By tapping into the servers of some of the biggest Internet companies in the world, such as Google, Facebook and Microsoft, the NSA does not only gain access to the data of American users, but also to that of Indian users. In fact, the “global heat map” of the controversial Boundless Informant data mining tool clearly shows that India ranked 5th worldwide in terms of intelligence gathering, which means that not only is the NSA spying on Indians, but that it is also spying on India more than most countries in the world. Why is that a problem?

India has no privacy law. India lacks privacy legislation which could safeguard citizens from potential abuse by different types of surveillance. But the worst part is that, even if India did have privacy laws, that would still not prevent the NSA from tapping into Indians´ data through the servers of Internet companies, such as Google. Moreover, the fact that India lacks a Privacy Commissioner means that the country lacks an expert authority who could address data breaches.

Recent reports that the NSA is tapping into these servers ultimately means that the U.S. government has access to the data of Indian internet users. However, it remains unclear how the U.S. government is handling Indian data, which other third parties may have access to it, how long it is being retained for, whether it is being shared with other third parties or to what extent U.S. intelligence agencies can predict the behaviour of Indian internet users through pattern matching and data mining.

Many questions remain vague, but one thing is clear: through the NSA´s total surveillance programme, the U.S. government can potentially control the data of billions of internet users around the world, and with this control arises the possibility of oppression. It´s not just about the U.S. government having access to Indians´ data, because access can lead to control and according to security expert, Bruce Schneier:

“Our data reflects our lives...and those who control our data, control our lives”.

How are Indians supposed to control their data, and thus their lives, when it is being stored in foreign servers and the U.S. has the “right” to tap into that data? The NSA leaks mark a significant point in our history, not only because they are resulting in corporations seeking data request transparency, but also because they are unveiling a major global issue: surveillance is a fact and can no longer can be denied. The massive, indiscriminate collection of Indians´ data, without their prior knowledge or consent, and without the provision of guarantees in regards to how such data is being handled, poses major threats to their right to privacy and other human rights. The potential for abuse is real, especially since the larger the database, the larger the probability for error. Mining more data does not necessarily increase security; on the contrary, it increases the potential for abuse, especially since technology is not infallible and data trails are not always accurate.

What does this mean? Well, probably the best case scenario is that an individual is targeted. The worst case scenario is that an individual is imprisoned (or maybe even murdered - remember the drones?) because his or her data “says” that he or she is guilty. Is that the type of world we want to live in?

What can we do now?

Let´s start from the basics. India needs privacy legislation. India needs privacy legislation now. India needs privacy legislation now, more than ever.

Privacy legislation would regulate the collection, access to, sharing of, retention and disclosure of all personal data within India. Such legislation could also regulate surveillance and the interception of communications, in compliance with the right to privacy and other human rights. A Privacy Commissioner would also be established through privacy legislation, and this expert authority would be responsible for overseeing the enforcement of the Privacy Act and addressing data breaches. But clearly, privacy legislation is not enough. The various privacy laws of European countries have not prevented the NSA from tapping into the servers of some of the biggest Internet companies in the world and from gaining access to the data of millions of citizens around the world. Yet, privacy legislation in India should be a basic prerequisite to ensure that data is not breached within India and by those who may potentially gain access to Indian national databases.

As a next- but immediate- step, the Indian government should demand answers from the NSA to the following questions:

What type of data is collected from India and which parties have access to it?
How long is such data retained for? Can the retention period be renewed and if so, for how long?
Is data collected on Indian internet users shared with third parties? If so, which third parties can gain access to this data and under what conditions? Is a judicial warrant required?

In addition to the above questions, the Indian government should also request all other information relating to Indians´ data collected through the PRISM programme, as well as proceed with a dialogue on the matter. Governments are obliged to protect their citizens from the abuse of their human rights, especially in cases when such abuse may occur from foreign agencies. Thus, the Indian government should ensure that the future secret collection of Indians´ data is prevented and that Internet companies are transparent and accountable in regards to who has access to their servers.

On an individual level, Indians can protect their data by using encryption, such as GPG encryption for their emails and OTR encryption for instant messaging. Tor is free software and an open network which enables online anonymity by bouncing communications around a distributed network of relays run by volunteers all around the world. Tor is originally short for “The Onion Router” and “onion routing” refers to the layers of encryption used. In particular, data is encrypted and re-encrypted multiple times and is sent to randomly selected Tor relays. Each relay decrypts a “layer” of encryption to reveal it only to the next relay in the circuit and the final relay decrypts the last “layer” of encryption. Essentially, Tor reduces the possibility of original data being understood in transit and conceals the routing of it.

To avoid surveillance, the use of HTTPS-Everywhere in the Tor Browser is recommended, as well as the use of combinations of additional software, such as TorBirdy and Enigmail, OTR and Diaspora. Tor hidden services are communication endpoints that are resistant to both metadata analysis and surveillance, which is why they are highly recommended in light of the NSA´s surveillance. An XMPP client that ships with an XMPP server and a Tor hidden service is a good example of how to avoid surveillance.

Protecting our data is more important now than ever. Why? Because global, indiscriminate, mass data collection is no longer a hypothesis: it´s a fact. And why is it vital to protect our data? Because if we don´t, we are ultimately sleepwalking into our control and oppression where basic human rights, such as freedom, would be a myth of the past.

The principles formulated by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Privacy International on communication surveillance should be taken into consideration by governments and law enforcement agencies around the world. In short, these principles are:

Legality: Limitations to the right to privacy must be prescribed by law
Legitimate purpose: Access to communications or communications metadata should be restricted to authorised public authorities for investigative purposes and in pursuit of a legitimate purpose
Necessity: Access to communications or communications metadata by authorised public authorities should be restricted to strictly and demonstrably necessary cases
Adequacy: Public authorities should be restricted from adopting or implementing measures that allow access to communications or communications metadata that is not appropriate for fulfillment of the legitimate purpose
Competent authority: Authorities must be competent when making determinations relating to communications or communications metadata
Proportionality: Public authorities should only order the preservation and access to specifically identified, targeted communications or communications metadata on a case-by-case basis, under a specified legal basis
Due process: Governments must respect and guarantee an individual's human rights, that may interference with such rights must be authorised in law, and that the lawful procedure that governs how the government can interfere with those rights is properly enumerated and available to the public
User notification: Service providers should notify a user that a public authority has requested his or her communications or communications metadata with enough time and information about the request so that a user may challenge the request
Transparency about use of government surveillance: The access capabilities of public authorities and the process for access should be prescribed by law and should be transparent to the public
Oversight: An independent oversight mechanism should be established to ensure transparency of lawful access requests
Integrity of communications and systems: Service providers are responsible for the secure transmission and retention of communications data or communications metadata
Safeguards for international cooperation: Mutual legal assistance processes between countries and how they are used should be clearly documented and open to the public
Safeguards against illegitimate access: Governments should ensure that authorities and organisations who initiate, or are complicit in, unnecessary, disproportionate or extra-legal interception or access are subject to sufficient and significant dissuasive penalties, including protection and rewards for whistleblowers, and that individuals affected by such activities are able to access avenues for redress
Cost of surveillance: The financial cost of providing access to user data should be borne by the public authority undertaking the investigation

Applying these above principles is a prerequisite, but may not be enough. Now is the time to resist unlawful and non-transparent surveillance. Now is the time for everyone to fight for their right to be free.

Is a world without freedom worth living in?

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-subject-to-nsa-dragnet-surveillance

A suggested set of values for the digital humanities

sara — 2013-07-03T09:41:19Z

In a prior blog entry the CIS has started mapping out the field of digital humanities. Subsequent to these first thoughts follows a review in several parts of an alternative publishing project edited by Matthew K. Gold of New Yorks Technology College. It is presented online as a hybrid print/digital publication stream, enabling viewers and readers to comment and highlight sections as they please. In the introductory passage, Matthew Gold addresses questions burning at the back of the research communities mind: Does digital humanities even need theory? Does it have politics?Is it more accessible than other scholarly fields? Does new media usage trivialize the professionalism of DH research?

In an attempt to answer these questions, which have mostly been discussed on microblogging platforms, making them nearly impossible to follow up on (Spiro: 2012), Lisa Spiro has drafted a first set of values, which could be of use for further discussion. She clearly states that her proposition is supposed to be exactly that, a work in progress, open to changes. At the same time it marks a necessary starting point for organizing arguments and conversations happening around the digital. Spiro suggests a values statement, which is broader than an ethical guideline, so that institutions and researching people can set their own emphasis according to what is important to them. With this, Spiro articulates what for her, and many others in the field, presents itself as one of the important set of values when working with digital humanities: openness, transparency and collaboration, putting aside classical values of academia, like professionalism and scholarly authority through specialization. These traditional values clash with the collaborative crowdsourced approach of the digital humanities field. With Tom Scheinfeldt, Spiro argues, the digital humanities community operates much like a “social network,” nimble and connected: “Digital humanities takes more than tools from the Internet. It works like the Internet. It takes its values from the Internet” (Scheinfeldt 2010). So while in many ways the internet and its hyperlinked, visual approach justify the way digital humanities work, there is little or no way of assuring the professionalism of digital humanities research. Spiro notes the difficulties that might arise in dropping those classical values of academia, as a lot of academic institutions object to the motives of open publishing and also find it difficult to assign credit to individuals when projects are collaborative. In this sense, the field of digital humanities is influencing the very way in which academia works, wiling it, to rearrange itself.

Just like the field itself is a hybrid, its value statement should consider the values of the disciplines it has evolved from. Spiro's value statement suggests a convergence of values including those of humanities, libraries, museums and cultural heritage organizations, as well as networked culture. At the core, all of these fields aspire to spread advanced knowledge, foster innovation and serve the public. Digital humanities therefore should have a claim to those values, while at the same time rejecting essentialism, as “values reveal the ideologies and interests of those who hold them” (Spiro: 2012). Spiro suggests openness, collaboration, diversity and experimentation as the core values, when working in the digital humanities. Openness and collaboration go hand in hand, just as digital humanities go hand in hand with internet methodology. Experimentation makes space for open methodology and leaves room for trial and error. Combined with openness and collaboration, this creates valuable learning opportunities for the whole field of digital humanities. By holding on to a value of diversity, Spiro means to make a note of the fact that, contrary to popular belief, equality has not yet been achieved in many social fields and one should remember that although ones own reality might seem to include everyone equally, others might have different stories to tell.

Remembering that no position has a claim to be objective, digital humanities can certainly go forth to become a inclusive way of spreading knowledge to those, who have up until now been kept from it by diverse gatekeepers. At the same time, “situated knowledge”, as Donna Haraway called the concept of remembering your own ideologies and speaking position (Haraway: 1988), a dialog can take place more easily, without having to claim ones own experiences to be able to speak for all.

Still, one should not assume that the field of digital humanities is a candy-coloured wonderland of anything goes. These values all are criticized in some field or other, which reminds us that the digital humanities have far to go. Creating knowledge in open space does not mean that it is equally accessible to all. So basic community and access work must go hand in hand with steady open source research collaborations.

In summary, Spiro's opening commentary on values in digital humanities will and has surely already been helpful as a reminder, and maybe this is as defined as one should get when it comes to a set of values that is supposed to be applicable to such a large and diverse field. However, all work in digital humanities often faces the problem of justifying their work, once professionalism and expertise is no longer regarded as a proof of worth. So, getting back to the questions at the beginning of this article, yes, digital humanities has politics, just as every research has politics. And it is one of its values and challenges, to make these transparent without failing to prove a point and add to the creation of knowledge, online and off.

continue reading on the topic: archivial practice in digital humanities

Literature:

Gold 2012 Mathew K. Gold “The Digital Humanities Moment” Debates in the Digital Humanities. Open Access Edition. Accessed 13 June 2013. http://dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/debates

Haraway 1988: Donna Haraway “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of

Partial Perspective.” Feminist Studies, Vol. 14, No. 3. (Autumn, 1988), pp. 575-599- Accessed 13 June 2013 http://www.staff.amu.edu.pl/~ewa/Haraway,%20Situated%20Knowledges.pdf

Scheinfeldt 2010: Tom Scheinfeldt “Stuff Digital Humanists Like”. Accessed 13 June 2013. http://www.foundhistory.org/2010/12/02/stuff-digital-humanists-like/

Spiro 2012: Lisa Spiro “This Is Why We Fight: Defining the Values of the Digital Humanities” Debates in the Digital Humanities. Open Access Edition. Accessed 13 June 2013. http://dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/debates/text/13

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/a-suggested-set-of-values-for-the-digital-humanities

Mapping the field of digital humanities

sara — 2013-07-03T09:40:01Z

This blog is the first in a series of blog entries evolving around digital humanities. As the research proceeds, arising questions will be addressed and attempted to map out, so that we are left with an annotated bibliography of the field which will help create parameters on how to approach research in that sector. In this first episode of the blog series, the introductory volume simply called Digital_Humanities (Anne Burdick, Johanna Drucker, Peter Lunenfeld, Todd Presner, Jeffrey Schnapp) will be combined with Patrik Svensson's Landscape of Digital Humanities, so as to assert what it is, we're dealing with, when talking about digital humanities.

Entering into the field of digital humanities, it quickly becomes clear that pinpointing an exact definition will be a difficult thing to do. Evolving from the traditional field of humanities, it still does not seem to be compliant to the same standards or discuss the same issues. The attempt to map out the field, hence, is just a collection of definitions which have no pretence of being overarching but do include some of the more cited authors, who have attempted to define the terms of research that digital humanities are based upon.

The recently published volume Digital_Humanities (Burdick et. al.: 2012), which is available freely online in an open-access edition^¹, provides a very well structured overview of the shift from humanities to digital humanities. The book states that, contrary to popular belief, humanities is not so much a field in crisis, but rather a field which is evolving to become more inclusive and thus relevant to everyday life. Within humanities research there has been a “fundamental shift in the perception of the core creative activities of being human, in which the values and knowledge of the humanities are seen as crucial for shaping every domain of culture and society” (Burdick et. Al: 2012) The book argues that with the digitalization of human life, the humanities have taken a turn away from mere text-based information and included media which allow for more collaborative and generative work in which the visual is fundamental.

While this book has interesting case studies and addresses questions of authorship, collaboration and alternative publishing, it serves well as an introduction into the field, but does not give a satisfactory overview of authors working on these topics.

So possibly more worthwhile from a theoretical perspective as opposed to the practical approach Burdick et. al. take, is Patrik Svenssons essay on The Landscape of Digital Humanities. This essay was published in 2010, prior to the Digital_Humanities volume, which might explain Svenssons need to elaborate on the new ways in which digital humanities are perceived. Svensson argues that digital humanities are a field in a loose sense, and inclusive in a sense that the field covers different activities in the intersection between humanities and digital technologies.

In an attempt to map out the sectors of the field, Svensson mentions Tara McPherson's (2009) differentiation between computing humanities (which mainly use digital tools, infrastructure and archives), blogging humanities (focussing on networked media and peer-to-peer reviews and learning) and multimodal humanities (which use scholarly tools, databases and networked writing all combined in visual and aural media). Davidson (2008) offers another aspect of differentiation, distinguishing between humanities 1.0 and 2.0 in accordance to the development of the internet itself as the central medium of digitalization. “Humanities 2.0 is distinguished from monumental, first-generation, data-based projects not just by its interactivity but also by openness about participation grounded in a different set of theoretical premises, which decenter knowledge and authority" (Davidson 2008, 711–12). What can be derived from both of these approaches is a shift towards interactivity, non-arboric knowledge growth and multimedial presentation.

This very vague categorization provides the problem of different research projects or institutions dealing with different aspects of digital humanities might have to compete for funds, as they are perceived to cover one field while actually working on very diverse topics. Svensson (2009a) argues that humanities computing provides the core, while digital humanities includes the various disciplines. This binary shows up the problems of telling the history of humanities computing as digital humanities. So the connection between the disciplines and the core is somewhat difficult because of the epistemic investment humanities computing has in technology as a tool and method, which defines it as a field. Digital humanities are not always institutionalized, and institutionalized fields like games studies etc. do not necessarily see themselves as part of digital humanities. This results from traditional ways of seeing academics, which has difficulties grasping the emergence of alternative ways of the digital. Digital humanities however, become a place for change and action, as Svensson argues with Davidson (2009). So digital humanities can be seen as 1. a developing field which lets humanities embrace the digital and create new tools to analyze it in an emergent nature or 2. a set of tools which implement technologies to make new knowledge from cultural inheritance (which is far more static, also according to Svensson).

However, research areas such as cyberculture studies and critical digital studies (digital culture and the cultural construction of information technology as a study object) are excluded from digital humanities studies, which often centralize around libraries, as they evolve around alternative ways of teaching and spreading knowledge.

Digital humanities according to Svensson has five fruitful parameters of engagement, which can be analyzed: information technology as a tool, as a study object, as an expressive medium, as an experimental laboratory and an activist venue. So there are general ways of categorizing the field, although, as this article suggests, it could be difficult to include all research aspects by mapping the field too closely.

continue reading on the topic: values in digital humanities

Literature:

Burdick et. Al 2012 Anne Burdick, Johanna Drucker, Peter Lunenfeld, Todd Presner, Jeffrey Schnapp “Digital_Humanities”. MIT Press 2010. accessed 1 June 2013. http://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/9780262018470_Open_Access_Edition.pdf

Davidson 2008 Davidson, Cathy N. "Humanities 2.0: Promise, Perils, Predictions". Publications of the Modern Language Association of America (PMLA) 123:3 (2008), 707-717.

Davidson 2009 Davidson, Cathy N. "Innovation AND Tradition". HASTAC Discussion Forum on the Future of the Digital Humanities, 03 February 2009. Accessed 1 June 2013. http://www.hastac.org/forums/hastac-scholars-discussions/future-digital-humanities.

McPherson 2008 McPherson, Tara. "Dynamic Vernaculars: Emerent Digital Forms in Contemporary Scholarship". Lecture presented to HUMLab Seminar, Umeå University, 4 March 2008. http://stream.humlab.umu.se/index.php?streamName=dynamicVernaculars.

Svensson 2009 Svensson, Patrik. "Humanities computing as digital humanities". Digital Humanities Quarterly, 3:3 (2009).

Svensson 2010 Svensson, Patrik. “The Landscape of Digital Humanities”. Digital Humanities Quarterly,4:1 http://digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/4/1/000080/000080.html

1http://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/9780262018470_Open_Access_Edition.pdf

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/digital-humanities/mapping-the-field-of-digital-humanities

Facebook, Google deny spying access

praskrishna — 2013-07-02T10:18:48Z

The CEOs of Facebook and Google on Saturday categorically denied that the US National Security Agency had "direct access" to their company servers for snooping on Gmail and Facebook users. But both acknowledged that the companies complied with the 'lawful' requests made by the US government and shared user data with sleuths.

The article by Javed Anwer was published in the Times of India on June 9, 2013. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

In a post titled "What the ...?" Google's official blog, CEO Larry Page wrote, "We have not joined any program that would give the US governmentâ€”or any other governmentâ€”direct access to our servers. We had not heard of a program called PRISM until yesterday."

A few hours later, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg responded. "Facebook is not and has never been part of any program to give the US or any other government direct access to our servers... We hadn't even heard of PRISM before yesterday," he wrote on his page at the social media site.

According to a few PowerPoint slides allegedly leaked by an NSA official, nine technology companies - Google, AOL, Apple, Yahoo, Microsoft, Skype, Facebook, YouTube and PalTalk - are providing the US government easy access to user data. While all companies have denied being part anything called PRISM, Facebook and Google have been most vocal about it.

A few hours after Facebook and Google statements, the New York Times said in a report that technology companies had "opened discussions with national security officials about developing technical methods to more efficiently and securely share the personal data of foreign users".

"In some cases, they (companies) changed their computer systems to do so," noted the NYT report.

The statements by the CEOs have done little to allay privacy fears. "The denials from the companies look highly coordinated, including similar phrases in all their responses. I don't think they are lying outright, though the NYT report suggests that they are telling a half-truth. They may not provide the US government 'direct access' to all their servers, but may be providing indirect access, or may just be responding to very broad FISA orders," said Pranesh Prakash, a policy director with Centre for Internet and Society in India.

On Friday US president Barack Obama had tacitly acknowledged NSA surveillance programmes aimed at non-US citizens. "You can't have a hundred per cent security and also then have a hundred per cent privacy and zero inconvenience. You know, we're going to have to make some choices as a society," he told reporters in the US.

Page and Zuckerberg also called on the governments to be more open about surveillance programmes. "The level of secrecy around the current legal procedures undermines the freedoms we all cherish," wrote Page.

Added Zuckerberg, "We strongly encourage all governments to be much more transparent about all programs aimed at keeping the public safe. It's the only way to protect everyone's civil liberties and create the safe and free society we all want over the long term."

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/times-of-india-javed-anwer-june-9-2013-facebook-google-deny-spying-access

Indian Government Quietly Brings In Its 'Central Monitoring System': Total Surveillance Of All Telecommunications

praskrishna — 2013-07-02T09:12:49Z

There's a worrying trend around the world for governments to extend online surveillance capabilities to encompass all citizens -- often justified with the usual excuse of combatting terrorism and/or child pornography.

The blog post was published in tech dirt on June 8, 2013. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

The latest to join this unhappy club is India, which has put in place what sounds like a massively intrusive system, as this article from The Times of India makes clear:

The government last month quietly began rolling out a project that gives it access to everything that happens over India's telecommunications network -- online activities, phone calls, text messages and even social media conversations. Called the Central Monitoring System, it will be the single window from where government arms such as the National Investigation Agency or the tax authorities will be able to monitor every byte of communication.

This project has been under development for two years, but in almost total secrecy:

"In the absence of a strong privacy law that promotes transparency about surveillance and thus allows us to judge the utility of the surveillance, this kind of development is very worrisome," warned Pranesh Prakash, director of policy at the Centre for Internet and Society. "Further, this has been done with neither public nor parliamentary dialogue, making the government unaccountable to its citizens."

That combination of total surveillance and zero transparency is a dangerous one, providing the perfect tool for monitoring and controlling political and social dissent. If India wishes to maintain its claim to be "the world's largest democracy", its government would do well to introduce some safeguards against abuse of the new system, such as strong privacy laws, as well as engaging the Indian public in an open debate about what exactly such extraordinary surveillance powers might be used for.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/tech-dirt-june-8-2013-indian-govt-quietly-brings-central-monitoring-system

Governance in the Age of the Internet and Free Trade Agreements

praskrishna — 2013-07-03T05:04:39Z

Sunil Abraham was a speaker at this event organized by Thai Netizen Network on June 8, 2013 at Queen Sirikit National Convention Center. The Ministry of Information and Communication and the National Science and Technology Development Agency were co-hosts for the event.

Click to read the details of the event published on Internet Society website

In the age of accelerated international trade and the promotion of free flowing cross-border data transactions, countries and regions are working towards forming a commonly agreed modus operandi and protocols. These protocols seek to facilitate the growth of e-trade, ensure a secure data flow(economic transactions) and protection of its data in the network. In the recent, there has been strong attention by consumers and businesses with the growing scope and content of these agreements addressing Intellectual Property (IP). Emerging trend studies show that there is a growing practices to incorporate mutually exclusive arrangements without involving other stakeholders which happens in closed door negotiations i.e. government to government.

For instance, the European’s Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) proposal and the U.S. Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP).

The bigger concern raised by other stakeholders has been the secrecy of these arrangements and the insufficient protection of consumers and citizens rights in its consideration. So far, the lack of legitimacy and proportionality of legal policy measures has created unintended consequences and collateral damages in far reaching manners whether socially, economically or technologically. Citing practices of filtering technology, deep packet inspection, and Internet cut-off, are introduced by internet service providers to meet legal requirements. Activities in question may vary from country to country, some focus on violations of intellectual property, some on the control of political voices.

Notably, list of concerns have been raised explicitly by UN Special Rapporteur to adhere to the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression were recommended.

This workshop is aim to create discussion on the related topics among stakeholders both in Thailand and in the region of the direct and indirect implications of various developments.

Target: Regulators, consumer rights, human rights activities, Lawyers

Expected Outcomes

Understanding the dynamics of free trade agreements (i.e. APEC, TPP, and ACTA) and its implications on Internet regulations, national sovereignty, and civil rights from various perspectives. (Big picture)
Basic understanding of how various policy and technology related measures or solutions (i.e. digital rights management technology and deep-packet inspection) are used to address Intellectual Property (IP) and how it directly impacts freedom of expression and individual privacy.
Looking Ahead: The developments and upcoming legislations/regulation challenges in both Thailand and the region i.e. new draft of Computer-related Crime Act, new draft of Copyright Act, and the Personal Data Protection Bill.

Panelists

Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore
Konstantinos Komaitis, Policy Advisor, Internet Society, Geneva
Nakorn Serirak, Policy Advisor, Thai Netizen Network, Bangkok
Sawatree Suksri, Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Thammasat University, Bangkok
Lokman Tsui, Policy Advisor, Google Asia Pacific, Hong Kong

Moderator

Mike Hayes, Chair, International MA Program in Human Rights, Mahidol University

Click the PDFs below to download the full details and the presentation:

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/inet-bangkok-june-8-2013-governance-in-the-age-of-internet-and-fta

Digital Humanities for Indian Higher Education

praskrishna — 2013-06-07T11:30:29Z

The Access to Knowledge team from the Centre for Internet and Society in collaboration with HEIRA-CSCS, Tumkur University, CILHE-TISS and CCS (IISc) is hosting a one day Digital Humanities consultation on July 13, 2013 at the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore.

Note: Following is a draft text which will be updated soon.

The digital age has had a huge impact on higher education in the last decade, transforming the modalities of both teaching and research. Consequently the very foundations of the systems of knowledge production and dissemination are being re-examined. This is due to the impact that the digital turn has had on already established systems, and to the exciting possibilities that it offers for radically transforming these systems. In tertiary education for instance, one of the ways in which the digital impact has made itself felt is to move the classroom online or to make resources freely available online, thereby providing access for new constituencies.

For researchers, digital archiving and digital publishing has made possible the same widening of access, while also enabling innovative ways of reading traditional objects of inquiry through the use of computational methods. While these developments are not confined to a specific domain of knowledge, the term most often used to reference them has been ‘Digital Humanities’. The term has gained currency worldwide perhaps because of the seeming incongruity of the relationship between the conventional humanities disciplines and what is deemed a technological development. This is a relationship that has not only produced new approaches to old material, but perhaps — even more significantly — reconfigured the objects and domains of inquiry themselves, and re-tooled the modes by which we conduct our research.

The five host institutions have engaged with each other in different collaborative initiatives over the years. Most significant among them have been (a) the exploration of integration, inter-disciplinarity and dialogue between the natural sciences and the social sciences/humanities; and (b) the production and deployment of critical resources in Indian languages in the higher education sector. We seek to bring these interests together in the proposed consultation aimed at setting agendas for digital humanities in India.

Exploring the possible connections between the human sciences and the digital domain could throw up many productive directions for the higher education system. One of the biggest challenges facing the system in India today is the issue of access and the quality of that access. In the coming decade, Indian higher education is estimated to achieve a Gross Enrolment Ratio of at least 20% (from the existing 12%). This immense new inflow into the education system poses significant institutional and pedagogic challenges. With English emerging as the global language for knowledge production, there is pressure on the Indian higher education system to move towards English-based teaching and learning. Simultaneously, here is a cognitive issue: of effective comprehension. Students who are first-generation learners are finding it increasingly difficult to negotiate with the English-only curriculum that presents itself to many as an insurmountable hurdle.

A new set of possibilities could open up if one were to examine this issue from the perspective of the Indian languages. For over 150 years these languages have been used in all modern institutions and practices (from banking to statecraft) and have developed their own concept ecologies and rich traditions of public intellectual discourse. Currently these languages and practices are being thrust into the background by the globalization of higher education. Re-inserting them into our classrooms and institutional arrangements would be crucial from two perspectives: a) providing newer avenues for students to re-negotiate curricular content which is predominantly in English and b) infusing new source materials into social, political, economic and cultural research on India, thereby increasing the relevance and dynamism of Indian social sciences and humanities. Needless to say, technology will play a major role in this context. Not only will technology figure prominently in addressing the question of access, equity and outreach, it will also help in bringing hitherto inaccessible intellectual resources into easily available and distributable forms. Also crucial to the question of access is the scalability that digital technology offers.

Through this interdisciplinary consultation, we hope to chart out the possible directions for digital humanities in India, which would include, among others, a strong engagement with Indian languages as well as a rethinking of how the sciences and the humanities could intersect. All of this is likely to hold paradigm-changing consequences for higher education: involving for example online learning, technologically enhanced learning, archival practices, new research methodologies, and the production of new and locally relevant knowledges.

We invite participants to make short presentations of 15 minutes each reflecting on the questions raised in this note, and bringing to the table issues raised by the initiatives in which they have taken part so far.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/events/digital-humanities-for-indian-higher-education

Use of Open Access Journals for Publishing Findings

praskrishna — 2013-06-04T10:25:00Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/use-of-open-access-journals-for-publishing-findings

Use of Open Access Journals by Indian Researchers

praskrishna — 2013-06-04T04:32:11Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/use-of-open-access-journals-by-indian-researchers

Internet Institute Agenda

praskrishna — 2013-06-03T05:42:17Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/agenda-internet-institute.pdf

May 2013 Bulletin

praskrishna — 2013-08-13T11:51:46Z

The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) welcomes you to the fifth issue of its newsletter for 2013. We bring you an overview of our research, report of events held by us and announcement of upcoming ones, events we participated in, and recent media coverage.

Celebrating 5 Years of CIS
CIS is now 5 years old and we just celebrated this by holding an open exhibition in our offices in Bangalore and Delhi from May 20 to 23, showcasing our work and accomplishments over the period. We had about 170 visitors from the general public coming in to our office. Renowned artists like Tara Kelton, Kiran Subbaiah, Navin Thomas, Abhishek Hazra and Sharath Chandra Ram exhibited their work. The four day event attracted press coverage: Bangalore Mirror (May 18, 2013), DNA (May 19, 2013), Hindu (May 22, 2013), Prajavani (May 23, 2013), Udayavani (May 25, 2013) and Bangalore Mirror (May 31, 2013). Download all posters that were part of the exhibition here.

Google Policy Fellowship
CIS is inviting applications for the Google Policy Fellowship programme. Google is providing a USD 7,500 stipend to the India fellow who will be selected by July 1, 2013. The Fellowship focus areas include Access to Knowledge, Openness in India, Freedom of Expression, Privacy, and Telecom. Send in your applications for the position by June 15, 2013.

Jobs
CIS invites applications for the posts of Developer (NVDA Screen Reader Project), and Programme Officer (Internet Governance). To apply send your resume to sunil@cis-india.org and pranesh@cis-india.org.

Accessibility

CIS is doing two projects in partnership with the Hans Foundation. One is to create a national resource kit of state-wise laws, policies and programmes on issues relating to persons with disabilities in India and another for developing a screen reader and text-to- speech synthesizer for Indian languages. CIS is also working with the World Blind Union and other similar organisations to develop a Treaty for the Visually Impaired helped by the WIPO:

National Resource Kit for Persons with Disabilities
Anandhi Viswanathan from CIS and Manojna Yeluri from the Centre for Law and Policy Research are working in this project. Draft chapters have been published. Feedback and comments are invited from readers for the chapters on Sikkim and Odisha:

The Sikkim Chapter (by Manojna Yeluri, May 30, 2013).
The Odisha Chapter (by Anandhi Viswanathan, May 31, 2013).

Note: All of these are early drafts and will be reviewed and updated.

Banking Accessibility

Survey on Banking Accessibility (by Vrinda Maheshwari, May 30, 2013). G3ict is a survey on accessibility of financial services in banks for persons with disabilities around the world. The survey is available here.

Event Organised

Global Accessibility Awareness Day (May 9, 2013, TERI, Southern Regional Centre, Domlur, Bangalore).

Access to Knowledge and Openness

The Wikimedia Foundation awarded CIS a two year grant of INR 26,000,000 to support and develop the growth of Indic language communities and projects by community collaborations and partnerships. This is being carried out by the Access to Knowledge team based in Delhi. CIS is also doing a project (Pervasive Technologies) on examining the relationship between production of pervasive technologies and intellectual property. CIS also promotes openness including open government data, open standards, open access, and free/libre/open source software through its Openness programme.

Access to Knowledge (Wikipedia)
Beginning from September 1, 2012, Wikimedia Foundation awarded CIS a two-year grant of INR 26,000,000 to support and develop free knowledge in India. The A2K team consists of three members based in Bangalore: T. Vishnu Vardhan, Dr. U.B. Pavanaja and Subhashish Panigrahi and one team member Nitika Tandon who is working from Delhi office. Noopur Raval, Programme Officer has left the organisation. April 24, 2013 was her last working day.

Announcements

Access to Knowledge Work Plan (April 2013 - June 2014): CIS has announced its detailed plan detailed plan with projection of outcomes and expected impact of the A2K programme activities. The document has been made in consultation with various stakeholders and keeping in mind the objectives, opportunities and challenges faced by each of the Indian language Wikimedia projects. Feel free to share any feedback.
WMF-A2K Revised Budget (draft) and Utilization (Sept 2012 - Feb 2013): In our effort to increase transparency with the working of CIS-A2K programme, we are sharing with you the A2K Programme Budget along with the Utilization for the period Sept. 2012 to February 2013. The proposed revisions to the budget along with some notes are here.
WMF-A2K Grant Budget and Utilization (Sept 2012 – February 2013): CIS has given an open disclosure of the Access to Knowledge budget to Wikimedia India and the global community.
CIS Signs MOU with TISS, Mumbai: has signed a MoU with TISS as part of which we will collaboratively work towards building Digital Knowledge Partnerships with select higher education institutions.
India Access to Knowledge IRC can be accessed here: May 13, 2013 (All Language Discussion) and May 26, 2013 (Odia Language Discussion).

Blog Entries

Odia Wikipedia: Needs Assessment (by Subhashish Panigrahi, May 11, 2013).
Access to Knowledge Work Plan: Synopsis of Feedback by Wikipedians (by Nitika Tandon, May 20, 2013).
Wikipedia Introductory Session organized for Data and India portal consultants (by Subhashish Panigrahi, May 30, 2013).

Event Organised

Kannada Wikipedia Workshop (April 29, 2013, Govinda Pai Research Centre, MGM College Udupi). Dr. U.B. Pavanaja led the workshop and gave a talk on Kannada Wikipedia

Event Participated In

Kannada IRC Meet (organised by the Wikipedia Community, May 7, 2013). Dr. U.B. Pavanaja participated in this.

Upcoming Event

Digital Humanities for Indian Higher Education (co-organised in collaboration with HEIRA-CSCS, Tumkur University, CILHE-TISS and CCS (IISc), Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, July 13, 2013).

Press Coverage

CIS Celebrates 5 Years: A Report in Prajavani (Prajavani, May 23, 2013). Prajavani published a report of Dr. U.B. Pavanja’s talk “From Palm Leaf to Tablet – Journey of Kannada”.
CIS Celebrates 5 Years: A Report in Udayavani (Udayavani, May 25, 2013). Udayavani published a report of the evening programme hosted as part of the Centre for Internet and Society's 5 year celebrations in its Bangalore edition.

Access to Knowledge (Previously IP Reforms)
Blog Entry

On the Unfortunate Rise of the Indian SLAPP Suit (by Ujwala Uppaluri, May 27, 2013).

Openness
Research Papers

Use of Open Access Journals by Indian Researchers (by Subbiah Gunasekharan and Prof. Subbiah Arunachalam, May 27, 2013).
Use made of Open Access Journals by Indian Researchers to Publish their Findings (by Madhan Muthu and Prof. Subbiah Arunachalam, May 28, 2013).

Comments

Draft ICAR Open Access Policy (by Nehaa Chaudhari, May 28, 2013). The comments were submitted to the Indian Council for Agricultural Research.

Event Hosted

RHoK Global Event (Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, June 1 – 2, 2013). A report of the event would be published soon.

Internet Governance

The Internet Governance programme conducts research around the various social, technical, and political underpinnings of global and national Internet governance, and includes online privacy, freedom of speech, and Internet governance mechanisms and processes. We began two new projects earlier this year. The first one, with Privacy International, London to facilitate research and events around surveillance, and freedom of speech and expression and the second one with Citizen Lab, Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto on mapping of cyber security actors in South Asia and South East Asia:

Cyber Stewards Project
Laird Brown, a strategic planner and writer with core competencies on brand analysis, public relations and resource management and Purba Sarkar who in the past worked as a strategic advisor in the field of SAP Retail are working in this project.

Video Interview

An Interview with Christopher Soghoian (May 28, 2013).

Upcoming Event

The Geopolitics of Information Controls: A Presentation by Masashi Crete-Nishihata (TERI, Bangalore, June 19, 2013).

Privacy

Comparative Analysis of DNA Profiling Legislations from Across the World (by Srinivas Atreya, May 23, 2013).

Events Co-organised

3rd Privacy Round Table meeting (co-organised with the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry and the Data Security Council of India, Chennai, May 18, 2013). Maria Xynou participated in this event and gives an overview of the discussions and recommendations.
Consilience – 2013 (co-organised with the Law and Technology Committee of National Law School of India University, Bangalore, May 25, 2013).

Events Participated In

ICT, Law and Innovation: Recent Developments, Challenges and Lessons Learned (organised by Bilgi University, Istanbul, May 2013). Chinmayi Arun was a speaker on the Internet Governance panel at Towards a Global Network of Internet and Society Centres.
India’s Politics of Free Expression (co-sponsored by the Asian Studies Centre, Free Speech Debate, the Oxford India Society and Ideas for India Oxbridge Exchange, May 31, 2013 at Nissan Lecture Theatre, St. Antony’s College, Oxford). Chinmayi Arun was a speaker at the Bapsybanoo Marchioness of Winchester Lectures on 'India's Politics of Free Expression'.

Upcoming Event

Privacy Round Table, Mumbai (Mayfair Banquets, Mumbai, June 15, 2013).

Blog Entry

The Surveillance Industry in India: At Least 76 Companies Aiding Our Watchers! (by Maria Xynou, May 2, 2013).

Media Coverage

Sex on-the-go (by Anand Holla, Mumbai Mirror, May 4, 2013). Pranesh Prakash is quoted.
CIS anniversary (Hindu Business Line, May 5, 2013).
Central Monitoring System to make government privy to phone calls, text messages and social media conversations (by Indu Nandakumar, May 7, 2013). Pranesh Prakash is quoted.
Messaging apps find another foe in India’s market regulator (Quartz, May 8, 2013). Elonnai Hickok is quoted.
India's Rs 400-crore Central Monitoring System to snoop on all communication (Tech 2, May 9, 2013). Pranesh Prakash is quoted.
Is India's government becoming Big Brother? (by Talia Ralph and Jason Overdorf, May 9, 2013). Pranesh Prakash is quoted.
Worldwide Playground (Telegraph, May 15, 2013). Pranesh Prakash is quoted.
NGO invites public to peruse its accounts (by Vandana Kamath, May 18, 2013). Sunil Abraham is quoted.
Online privacy should not come at the cost of security: Sunil Abraham (by Anirban Sen, May 19, 2013). Sunil Abraham is quoted.
A lifetime of five years on the internet (by Subir Ghosh, DNA, May 19, 2013). Sunil Abraham is quoted.
CIS highlights changes ushered in by the Internet (Hindu, May 22, 2013).
Burma to host first Internet freedom forum (by Chan Myae Khine, Asian Correspondent, May 22, 2013).
INET Bangkok to Explore Internet’s Impact on Thailand’s Economy and Society (BusinessWire, May 30, 2013). Sunil Abraham is participating in this conference.
Shooting cyber cafes before they die (by Bangalore Mirror, May 31, 2013). CIS’s film on Cyber Cafes is mentioned in this article.

Knowledge Repository on Internet Access
CIS in partnership with the Ford Foundation is executing a project on Internet Access. It covers the history of the internet, technologies involved, principle and values of internet access, broadband market and universal access and will touch upon various polices and regulations which has an impact on internet access and bodies and mechanism which are responsible for formulation policies related to internet access. The blog posts and modules will be published in a new website: www.internet-institute.in.

Ongoing Event

Institute on Internet and Society (supported by Ford Foundation, Golden Palms Resort, Bangalore, June 8 – 14, 2013). The agenda for the event has been finalised.

The following unit was published recently:

Network Connections and Modes of Access (by Srividya Vaidyanathan, May 30, 2013).

Telecom

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

Newspaper Column

Configuring a 'Non-Toothless' Regulator (TRAI) (by Shyam Ponappa, Business Standard, May 9, 2013 and Organizing India Blogspot, May 10, 2013).

About CIS

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

Get short, timely messages from us on Twitter
Join the CIS group on Facebook
Visit us at http://cis-india.org

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

Request for Collaboration
We invite researchers, practitioners, and theoreticians, both organisationally and as individuals, to collaboratively engage with Internet and society and improve our understanding of this new field. To discuss the research collaborations, write to Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, at sunil@cis-india.org or Nishant Shah, Director – Research, at nishant@cis-india.org

CIS is grateful to its donors, Wikimedia Foundation, Ford Foundation, Privacy International, UK, Hans Foundation and the Kusuma Trust which was founded by Anurag Dikshit and Soma Pujari, philanthropists of Indian origin, for its core funding and support for most of its projects.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/newsletters/may-2013-bulletin

Online privacy should not come at the cost of security: Sunil Abraham

praskrishna — 2014-11-02T02:27:12Z

Sunil Abraham, Centre for Internet and Society’s executive director, on privacy laws and Internet penetration.

Anirban Sen's article was published in LiveMint on May 19, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), a research thinktank that primarily focuses on issues of Internet governance, is pushing to revise the provisions of the Information Technology (IT) Act and make a stronger case for privacy laws and free speech in India, an issue that has caused widespread concern after the government tried to restrict access to more than a 100 websites last year with little justification.

“We want to revise the IT Act...that’s the toughest one and that’s not going to happen very soon because the government is treating it like an ego battle now. They no longer listen to the others,” said Sunil Abraham, executive director of CIS.

The IT Act has been at the centre of debate, with some of its provisions such as Section 66A, which criminalizes “causing annoyance or inconvenience” online or electronically, coming under criticism from rights advocates for being too vague and subject to interpretation.

CIS, which will complete five years on Monday and is organizing a four-day event focusing on issues such as cyber security, surveillance in India and privacy, said it also was working towards creating a privacy law for India within the next 3-4 years. India, which is estimated to have Internet penetration of just 10%, is the third-largest Internet market in the world.

“We’re getting closer and closer to that (privacy law),” said Abraham, adding that privacy should not come at the cost of security.

Over the past five years, Bangalore-based CIS has also been part of some government committees such as the Justice AP Shah Committee, which focused on privacy laws in India, and is also currently working on the country’s telecom policy. The non-government organization, which receives grants from international bodies such as the Wikimedia Foundation, has also worked on policies for the government of Iraq and is currently also doing policy work for the government of Burma.

“Five years ago we were making noise from outside the room, we were not inside any policy making space. That has also changed. From an organization that was mostly outside the room, we’re increasingly being trusted by our own government,” said Abraham, who was one of the most vocal critics of the government’s unique identification (UID) project when it was first launched. Abraham had raised concerns over its overtly broad scope and issues over privacy in the project.

For CIS, one of the biggest achievements over the past five years was being part of the policy framework for the government of India’s draft national policy on open standards for e-governance, said Abraham, adding that the organization was working towards increasing Internet penetration in the country, especially in rural areas.

“We’re hoping that every single mobile phone user in the country will become an Internet user. We’re planning for that future,” he said.

The CIS event starting on Monday will include speakers such as legal researcher and advocate Lawrence Liang and Vibodh Parthasarathi, an associate professor at the Centre for Culture, Media and Governance at the Jamia Millia Islamia university. Both Liang and Parthasarathi are members of the board at CIS.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/livemint-anirban-sen-may-19-2013-online-privacy-should-not-come-at-the-cost-of-security

CIS Signs MOU with TISS, Mumbai

praskrishna — 2013-07-04T04:15:54Z

The Access to Knowledge (A2K) team from the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) has signed a MOU with the Tata Institute of Social Science (TISS), Mumbai.

Institutional partnerships (especially in the higher education context) is a cross-cutting activity across A2K's various language plans and also the pilot project. A2K Team is happy to share with you an important outcome on this front.

CIS-A2K has signed a MoU with TISS as part of which we will collaboratively work towards building Digital Knowledge Partnerships with select higher education institutions. The objective is to enhance digital literacy in the Indian languages and facilitate collaborative knowledge production and free dissemination. A2K along with TISS will co-design and jointly implement relevant training programmes to achieve this. Further, within TISS campuses we will endeavour to bring teaching-learning processes onto free and open digital platforms, including Indian language Wikipedias. The A2K team would like to acknowledge the pivotal role played by our Adviser Dr. Tejaswini Niranjana in buildig this collaboration.

We'll keep you posted as and when new developments shape up and would like to actively involve Mumbai Wikipedians in planning, designing and rolling out Wikipedia training programmes.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-tiss-mou