Centre for Internet and Society

IGF 2009 - Main Session: Emerging Issues: Social Networks

praskrishna — 2011-04-02T13:46:50Z

Current laws don't seem to scale well to handle Web 2.0 issues

Session description: Discussion was centered on the development of social media (social networks, user-generated content sites, micro-blogging, collaboration tools, etc.) in order to explore whether these developments require to new or modified policy approaches. Key issues explored include privacy and data protection, rules applicable to user-generated content and copyrighted material, and freedom of expression and illegal content. The session also addressed the importance of the “terms of service” of large platforms, how they are developed and their relationship with emerging business models that are based on behavioral analysis.

Participants in the discussion included: Sunil Abraham, director of policy, Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore; Rebecca MacKinnon, co-founder of the Global Network Initiative; Grace Bomu, manager, Kenya-Heartstrings and Fanartics Theatre Company, Kenya; Sergio Suiama, prosecutor, State of São Paulo, Brazil; Rachel O'Connell, VP of people networks and chief safety officer, Bebo.

November 18, 2009 - Sunil Abraham, an Internet policy expert from Bangalore, was a key panelist in this session who introduced the primary concerns tied to social networks today.

"I'm going to raise nine emerging issues about social media," he began, "and I categorize them into four categories: Intellectual property rights, morality laundering, the hegemony of the connected and the hegemony of text."

He noted that intellectual property law is completely outdated and cannot be applied in today's communications environment, saying it is "irrelevant." He added, "To take some examples, the right of the consumer to review, the right of the consumer to privacy, the right of the entrepreneur or enthusiast to make interoperable, complementary or competing products. All these rights used to be protected under the right to reverse-engineer. Issue 2 under IPR: On some corporate-mediated social media platforms, copyright takedown notices from one political party are acted on much more swiftly when compared to similar takedown notices from an opposing party. Issue 3, under IPR: Some rights holders, and in particular news organizations, use copyright takedown notices selectively to purge social media Web sites of content that opposes their editorial viewpoint. Issue 4 under intellectual property rights: The increased use of automated enforcement of copyright by rights holders is seriously undermining freedom of expression on the Internet, as in the case of the baby dancing to Prince's 'Let's Go Crazy.'"

He explained "morality laundering" - saying that, like policy laundering, it is "trying to impose a globally homogenized morality regime." He cited the example of breast-feeding photos on a social network being deleted because they were considered obscene. "Breast-feeding, I may remind you, is still a public activity in many southern countries," he said. "Photographs of public life on a beach in a country where nudism is the norm becomes child pornography in another country."

He said that religious traditions can sometime be reduced to a monoculture on community-managed social media platforms that "depend on editors to determine the truth," adding "That is because upper-crust and upper-class populations have greater access to the Internet. Literate communities will try to maintain their hegemony on the Internet. Community-managed social media platforms that depend on textual citation often ignore the knowledge of the oral communities of the global south."

Session moderator Simon Davies, director of Privacy International, asked Abraham if automated enforcement of social network policies should be outlawed. "I don't think it is possible for us to completely take out machine involvement in moderating content online," Abraham said, "whether it is from a freedom-of-speech perspective or a hate-speech perspective or from an intellectual-property-rights perspective. But I think the process has to become more transparent, so that the public will know what happened and why it happened and that there is due process and the possibility of appeal."

Davies had kicked off the session with a plea that participants try to think ahead in this discussion of social networks. "Our role today in this panel is to look to the future, and our mentors at the UN and at IGF have urged me to motivate, as much as possible, an imagining of the future," he said. "Our role, as we can see on the program, is to look at social networks and social spaces such as micro-blogging and Web 2.0, as we move through to the next - what are the issues that we're likely to confront. So our two goals, if I can suggest a focus, is: What have we brought out of this last few days that tells us something about the way the future will go? Particularly in terms of social interaction. And second, imagine that future."

Sergio Siuama, prosecutor for the State of São Paulo, Brazil, was asked to describe the privacy problem that developed there on Google's social network Orkut. "Social networks are the fourth most popular online activity, ahead of personal e-mail," he said. "Eighty percent of Brazilian Intenet users interact through social network sites. In Brazil as well in India and Pakistan, the most popular social networking service is Google's Orkut. More than 30% of Brazilian users access regularly use Orkut and about 25% of them are children and teenagers." He said many social networks accessed by people globally are transnational. "The most-accessed services in Brazil are provided by companies physically located in the United States," he said.

In 2005 Google set up a branch in São Paulo, but it was not enough to handle the business of 30 million users. Since 2004 Brazilian authorities have been receiving reports of cyberbullying, drug dealing, child pornogrphy and other human rights violations in Orkut's space. In 2006 the federal attorney's office started a collective lawsuit against Google. Google responded with a proactive plan. After two years of litigation, in July 2008, the parties settled on a collective agreement in which Google agreed, among other obligations, to comply with Brazilian legislation, to store traffic data for at least six months, to take down child-abuse images, to develop a proactive system of child-abuse images detection, removal and report to law enforcement, and to establish a customer-service office able to quickly respond to all users' complaints. Some of these obligations were adopted as standards for the whole of Latin America in a document - the memorandum of Montevideo.

Siuama raised several governance issues that arise from this case: Which criteria should be used to define the ability of a country to legislate over and sanction conducts committed on the Internet? Is it legitimate to enforce rules at a local company's office regarding a service operated from another country? What are the basic standards we should expect from ISPs to help cope with human rights violations on the Internet? Is any national law enforcement agency equipped to cope with crimes committed on social networking sites? Will it be necessary to ensure minimum levels of transparency and social accountability of networking services?

Panel member Rachel O'Connell, vice president of people networks and chief safety officer for Bebo, chaired the European Union's Safer Social Networking Cross-Industry Task Force - an effort by 18 social networking companies, including Facebook and Google, working with the European Commission and civil liberties, child welfare, law enforcement and parenting groups.

"We came up with seven principles that relate to education and ensuring that we have prominent and easily accessible safety messages and also addressing reporting abuse and providing people with the technologies and capabilities so they can use the Internet safely," she said. "We are doing a lot of filtering on the back end. We have moderation teams in place. We have very strong links with law enforcement. We look at the legal issues in each of the countries and the markets in which we operate and see how that ties up with being a US-based company. We're also aware of treaties like the multinational legal assistance treaty, in terms of working with law enforcement and investigators."

O'Connell said the industry has probably not been clear enough about how these procedures are implemented. She expects that the principles set out by the task force will make things more clear. "The number of signatories was 18 and now it's up to 23, and part of my role is to encourage companies to become signatories," she said. "It means you need to self-declare how you have implemented the principles and each of the substantive recommendations. These self-declarations are being reviewed by independent researchers, and their report will be released to coincide with Safer Internet Day in February."

She added that U.S. attorneys general have asked social networking companies to begin being more transparent and accountable. "Facebook has an internal auditor to ensure that they are meeting the requirements outlined by the attorneys general, and similarly MySpace has an agreement, so there is an incredible amount of work going on," she said. "That said, there is still a log of work to do, as there always will be. For example, AOL has been working closely with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and are diligent about working with law enforcement in other countries to ensure we can facilitate the investigative process. We also have a filtering process we run on the back end."

Grace Bomu, manager for Kenya-Heartstrings and Fanartics Theatre Company, Kenya, was on hand to talk about the positive influence of social networks. Her creative troupe uses them to do marketing, research and concept development. "From our Facebook page," she explained, "we're able to tell which issues the youth in Kenya are facing, and from those issues, we are able to develop a concept and sell our plays. On our Facebook page, people propose lines, other people propose they be actors, and this has really changed the way we do business. It's the actors who write the script, and our friends help us in writing the script.

"Another way the Internet helps us is using the mobile money payment systems. Our management uses a mobile phone to update the page, to make comments and so on. Friends came up with the idea that they could pay to attend plays using mobile money payment systems."

She said there are some negatives. Anonymous respondents and competitors write negative comments on the troupe's page, politicians sometimes try to use the page to advance their goals, "and we have had problem of balancing what some people call abusive language with what others say is artistic expression."

"We'd say that these tools have really helped news opening up culture, in growth of urban language and also in the contribution of topical issues," she concluded. "Tools are helping us to expand freedom of expression rather than caging it. So what we have done as a company is that we are coming up with - slowly, we are coming up with a code within us that we shall follow in balancing the competing interests."

Rebecca MacKinnon, Open Society Institute fellow and co-founder of the Global Network Initiative, noted that throughout the sessions of IGF-2009 people have been speaking out about the power of social networks as spaces where individual citizens can speak truth to power. "Spaces that help to make governments and other institutions more accountable to individuals," she said. "This is happening all over the world, across a range of political systems. But there are trends that are counteracting the potential of social networks to be a force that can truly help citizens participate in public life. This may be contributing to social networks acting as more opaque extensions of incumbent power in some situations, rather than as transparent conduits between citizens and institutions."

MacKinnon raised four key points. The first is the level of liability governments place on social networking services in regard to user-generated content.

While it is part of the groundrules for IGF that participants are encouraged to avoid singling out people or nations when meting out criticism, it was clear that she was referring to China when she said, "In some jurisdictions, international social networking sites end up being blocked because the sovereign government is not happy with some of the content being posted on the sites. And in some of those jurisdictions, what then ends up happening is that a robust set of domestic social networking sites evolve. And the social networking sites that are hosted domestically are held liable for all the content that their users are posting on the site. And so in order to comply with government requirements and the particular government's definition of what constitutes legal speech, these social networking sites end up having to develop large departments of people whose job it is to police content. international social networking sites that want to act - want to operate in certain jurisdictions have to make a choice, either to be blocked to users in that country because users may post things that the local government objects to, or agree to develop a locally hosted site in the local language which would then be subject to greater local jurisdiction and agree to police it. And there have been some cases where certain - and I have again been asked not to name and shame - but where certain companies have chosen to host locally and comply with government requests for political censorship in that regard. And so this is one challenge that social networking companies around the world are facing, is how to deal with this."

Other points she outlined were:

- Social network users are often not allowed to be anonymous. "There's at least one country where now anybody who uses a social networking site or Web service over a certain size has to register with their national ID number," she explained, "and many human rights groups have expressed concerns about some users who have been traced for political speech. At least one international social networking service decided to disable the local uploading of videos and comments onto its service, so people in that country have to use the international version of the service rather than the local service - so that this particular social networking site would not be in the position of handing people over for speech that might arguably be political."

- Administrators of social networking sites will sometimes perceive that something is going against the terms of service when the content has a much different intent. "There are political activists from a range of countries who found their Facebook accounts frozen because their pattern of activity resembled spamming," she said, "and this had an impact on their ability to conduct political activities. And there have been situations where activists in various countries post images of abuse by authorities against citizens and these are quite graphic and are deemed to be against terms of service. And the people concerned feel that 'if these sites do not let me speak truth to power, then were can I go?' So that's another sort of human-rights issue."

- A new multistakeholder group, the Global Network Initiative, is being co-founded by MacKinnon and others to protect and advance freedom of expression and privacy in ICTs. "Our approach recognizes that a lot of these issues are difficult to legislate for because they involve very nuanced contextual situations that differ greatly," she said. "Companies do feel there is a need to have some kind of assistance in doing the right thing. How can social networks fulfill their potential and serve their users so they feel they can use these services without becoming victims of oppression in various ways? The Global Network Initiative combines companies who have signed on as well as human rights groups, socially responsible investment funds and some academics to help companies proactively figure out how to anticipate free-expression issues in order to avoid problems and assist in making choices about how to structure businesses."

Pavan Duggal spoke from the floor of the session about the formation of a dynamic coalition on social networks, which came together after a session on legal issues and social media earlier in the day. "These issues not only relate to data protection and privacy," he said. "They also relate to the issue of jurisdiction and ownership, storage, retention and transmission of user-generated content. Do we have the right to be anonymous? Do we have a right to oblivion? Can there be a right to delete in the context of social media? Is there a right of purging children-generated content? Can there be a right to forget and to forgive in the context of information? We also discussed how the deadly cocktail mix of social media and cloud computing is venturing us into a wild, wild west as far as jurisprudential rules and principles are concerned. Which country, what data, which server, which law would apply, which would be effective remedy, which would be the relevant court and how would the ultimate adjudication be done?"

He said it is expected that national governments will try to legislate in this area. "While the Internet has made geography history, the fact still remains that national governments will try to legislate," he said. "It is time that respective stakeholders must come together, not just the players, the users, but also the industry, the government, the lawmakers, law enforcement."

For the UN video, click here

For the UN transcript, click here

For the original article, click here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/emerging-issues-social-networks

Wiki's worth, on a different turf

sunil — 2012-10-23T08:33:56Z

An Indian duo–a programmer and a mathematician–have developed a tool to expose anonymous writers and cleanse Wikipedia of rogue editors

Bangalore-based Kiran Jonnalagadda, a Web programming guru, and Hans Varghese Mathews, a mathematician, are the new entrants to the emerging field of Wikipedia research. The duo is credited with building Wiki Analysis, a tool that helps researchers understand the growing phenomenon of astroturfing, the practice of faking grass-roots support on Wikipedia and other websites. Wikipedia is the first Google result for most searches and this has made it a popular destination for those trying to manipulate public opinion on the Internet. Corporations, governments and even pop artists have been caught astroturfing in the past.

Jonnalagadda and Mathews are among 34 researchers from 17 countries attending a two-day conference in Bangalore, WikiWars, which is concluding today. WikiWars is taking a fresh look at many different aspects of the world’s biggest encyclopaedia, the sixth most popular website on the Internet.

The first generation of astroturfing on Wikipedia has been, thus far, largely unsophisticated, with little attention paid to covering up digital evidence. Remember the campaign Avril Lavigne’s fans launched last year that turned her music video Girlfriend into the most viewed clip on YouTube? Wal-Mart Stores Inc. contracted its public relations firm Edelman to maintain a fake website called “Working Families for Wal-Mart”. They pretended to be ordinary citizens who opposed the views of the firm’s labour union.

It is well known that platforms such as Twitter and Facebook, with opaque management procedures, are susceptible to astroturf campaigns. Supporters of open licensing and peer production have always held that Wikipedia and other community-managed platforms are protected thanks to their transparency in policies and practices. But as far as Wikipedia researchers are concerned, the jury is still out.

Microsoft tried to pay technology blogger Rick Jelliffe to work on Wikipedia connected to OOXML (Office Open XML) during the ISO (International Organization for Standardization) approval process in an attempt to influence the global vote. OOXML was the new file format for MS Office documents that urgently needed approval to check the growing popularity of Open Office. A user called “Ril_editor”, active between September 2007 and May 2008, who claimed to be working out of Reliance Industries Ltd’s chief Mukesh Ambani’s offices, tried to expunge pages connected to negative publicity about Reliance. Scientologists were blocked by Wikipedia’s arbitration committee when they were found trying to systematically undermine Wikipedia’s NPOV (neutral point of view) policy. NPOV is Wikipedia’s particular spin on non-partisanship, providing equal space to all opinions. However, some Wikipedia researchers such as Geert Lovink, head of the Institute of Network Cultures, Amsterdam, and co-organizer of the WikiWars conference, believes that the dominance of English and textual citation requirements has meant that NPOV is never translated into practice.

An American team based out of the Santa Fe Institute, US, has developed WikiScanner, a public database of IP addresses that helps reveal the organizations behind anonymous edits on Wikipedia. WikiScanner has been used to expose the US Central Intelligence Agency’s manipulation of pages. WikiScanner doesn’t yet work for edits by authenticated users. The WikiScanner team has also developed another tool called Potential Sock Puppetry, which exposes those who use multiple user accounts from the same IP address. However, both tools could be circumvented by purchasing multiple data cards or getting people to work from public access points such as coffee shops and cyber cafés.

It is this gap the Indian duo’s tool tries to plug. The first version of their Wiki Analysis tool clusters users into potential lobbies based on the pages they edit within a date range. The tool’s next version will cluster users into lobbies based on the words they consistently add and delete across pages. Says Jonnalagadda, “Wikipedia is now close to a decade old and has many articles that have existed since its earliest days and have been edited by thousands of individuals.” It is now the primary encyclopaedic destination for Internet users, and that makes it a ripe target for astroturfing. At no point in the history of human civilization have so many collaborated over so long to produce one canonical document on any article of human knowledge.

“Wikipedia users rarely bother to check how a page was edited, but that information is all there, available to anyone who cares to look. We’re building the tools to help make sense of it,” Jonnalagadda says. Once Wiki Analysis is ready, you will be able to check if, for example, the editors of the climate change page on Wikipedia are more interested in ecology or energy.

Original article on Livemint

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/wiki-worth-different-turf

When Whistle Blowers Unite

sunil — 2012-03-21T10:17:48Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time Out Bengaluru - Software Patenting

pranesh — 2013-01-16T06:39:27Z

An article by Akhila Seetharaman published as a precursor to the national public meeting on software patents held on 4th in Bangalore.

Original article on Time Out Bengaluru website

In August this year, the US Patents and Trademarks Office granted Microsoft ownership of “page up” and “page down”. So in theory, no other company can scroll without permission and acknowledgement to Microsoft in monetary terms.

A number of seemingly ubiquitous software ideas have been patented: the use of tabs to shift from one hyperlink to another on a web page, the “Add to Shopping Cart” function that appears on every online store, automated online loan requests, and even reducing image size to make a webpage load faster.

“Most companies register defensive patents to protect themselves, not offensive ones,” said Sunil Abraham of Centre for Internet and Society. “Not many actively pursue patent infringement, but it is still very scary for a small-time entrepreneur.”

At a time when the Indian Patent Office is in the process of putting together a new Manual of Patent Practice and Procedure, the Centre for Internet and Society is holding a one-day consultation on the issue of software patenting in the city. Participants include the Delhi Science Forum, RedHat, IT for Change, Open Space, as well as the Alternative Law Forum.

From mobile phone technology to pacemakers in healthcare, everybody is dependent on software. “Each software patent is a 17-year monopoly on an idea,” said Anivar Aravind of the Free Software User Group Bangalore.

“If formulaic Hindi films were protected by patent laws, we would be able to make only one film,” joked Abraham. The system of software patenting wipes out smaller businesses and innovation, he said. “Software, like poetry and literary works, is already protected by copyright. After all, Bill Gates made his fortunes from copyright and not patents. But many software companies are trying to get additional protection.”

Copyright and patents are both part of intellectual property rights, but copyright restricts the expression of an idea while patents restrict the idea itself, according to Abraham. Under a patenting regime, even before a kid writes one line of code he has to read many patents.”

Kiran Patil of Turtle Linux Lab agreed. “If every little thing is patented, there’s nothing a developer can do.” He cited Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Movement and the GNU (a recursive acronym for GNU’s Not Unix) Project, who likened patents to explosive devices: “Software patents are the software project’s equivalent of land mines: each design-decision carries a risk of stepping on a patent, which can destroy your project.”

Worst of all, the world sees those with patents as the innovators, said Patil, which, according to him, is a big misconception.

While corporate giants like Microsoft and IBM fix exchange deals through cross-licensing, smaller companies get left out of the loop entirely. Despite not having many patents of their own, several Indian software companies support software patenting because they have huge contracts with the large software companies in the United States and Europe who do.

The Indian Patent Act of 1970 did not allow for software patents until 2002 when an amendment, which ironically excluded “computer programmes per se” from the scope of patenting, was introduced.

The amendment implied that while computer programmes themselves were not eligible for patents, programmes used in combination with hardware were. The Act was further amended through an ordinance in 2005 to narrow the scope of software excluded, but the ordinance was rejected by the Indian

Parliament and the Act effectively reverted to what it was after the 2002 amendment. “The law has left it somewhat ambiguous,” said Abraham. “Nobody is sure what can or cannot be patented. Many people are using the clause “computer programmes per se” to get pure software patents.”

This occurs either due to incompetence among patent officers or by accident, he said. “While many of the patent officers have expertise in the area of industrial inventions or medical inventions, very few know enough about software patents at the moment.”

-- Akhila Seetharaman

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/time-out-software-patenting

World Day Against Software Patents

pranesh — 2013-01-16T07:15:16Z

A global coalition of more than 80 software companies, associations and developers has declared the 24th of September to be the "World Day Against Software Patents". The Hindu, a national daily dedicated one page of its Bangalore edition to software patents and software freedom. Deepa Kurup contributed written two articles titled "Will patenting take the byte out of IT here?" and "How would it be if you read only one type of book?" which reflects some of the concerns of the Free/Libre/Open Source Software community.

Will patenting take the byte out of IT here? [link]

Deepa Kurup

There has been little debate on patent laws and the software industry. Today is World Day Against Software Patents.

IT software, services and outsourcing industry has been rooting for software patenting
Delhi Patent Office receives around 50 applications for software patents every month

BANGALORE: Picture this. Indian mathematicians came up with the concept of the “zero” — often touted as India’s greatest contribution to civilisation — and got a patent for it. By now they would have raked in inestimable amounts in royalty. Seems preposterous? Members of the Free Software community say that patenting every other algorithm would be somewhat in the same league.

While there has been substantial discussion on how patents will affect the pharmaceutical sector, there has been little debate about its implications on the software industry. To the layman, software patenting sounds like an abstract issue applicable to an even more abstract domain. However, with a growing software industry which is trying to spread its indigenous roots, the issue becomes an important one.

Traditionally, software comes under the Copyright Law (just like any literary work) and anyone who writes a program owns it. After Indian Parliament in 2005 scrapped an ordinance which declared “software in combination with hardware” patentable, the controversial and ambiguous clause — “software per se” — has now resurfaced in a recently formulated Patent Manual.

And how will the common man be affected by this proposed change in the patent manual? For example, when Global Patent Holdings patented usage of images on websites, a bunch of small and big companies had to cough up to $50 million each. And where does this cost reflect? “The consumer will find that products will get a lot more expensive. Take a DVD player which has about 2,000 patents (many of them software-related). Every time a local company makes a DVD player, they have to pay royalties and the costs will naturally be reflected on the sale price,” says Sunil Abraham of Centre for Internet and Society, a research and advocacy organisation.
Backdoor entry

The Free Software community feels that patents will make a backdoor entry, courtesy this manual and that ongoing public consultation (by the Patent Office) does not take their voices into account. Mr. Abraham says: “We feel that the powerful software lobbies around are pushing for this clause. If allowed, it will affect the basis of innovation, and will in turn affect the industry.” While the Bangalore consultation was “postponed indefinitely,” the Patent Office in its Delhi meeting said this issue called for an “exclusive meeting with the software industry.”

The powerful IT software, services and outsourcing industry has been rooting for software patenting. Under the guile of the seemingly innocuous clause in the Indian Patent Bill 2005, software companies and the MNC lobby is trying to carve out a slice for the specific “software embedded with hardware” industry saying that it will increase the value of indigenous home-grown software, pump up software exports and thereby rake in greater revenue.

However, the other side of the story is worth telling. Software, per se, is simply a set of instructions to carry out a certain process. Software experts put forth the argument that big corporations — with money, muscle and hired talent — will seek to impose patents along the software value chain, starting from source code to the recent demand for “embedded software.”

Sources in the Delhi Patent Office say that they receive around 50 applications for software patents every month. In the U.S. 25,000 patents are granted every year. In a software-driven world, blurring the lines between software and software “per se” could be risky. “Patenting is an expensive and tedious process. The challenge for every programmer would be to verify each time, to see if any two lines of his code would infringe upon a patent. In the U.S., a single verification can cost as much as $5,000. The fundamental issue is that if I arrive at anything independently, should I not use it only because someone had got it patented before me?” asks a senior official at Red Hat, an open source service provider.

A paper written by members of the Alternative Law Forum (ALF), the case against software patenting is presented as a very basic one. “Software evolves much faster than other industries, even with its own hardware industry. Microprocessors double in speed every two years. So, a patent that lasts up to 17 years (minimum period -15) is alarming. In this field, the idea underlying may remain the same but a product has to be replaced on an average of every two years,” it states. The paper also points out that in software “research costs are little because ideas are as abundant as air.”

Prashant Iyengar of ALF feels that patent laws will effectively curtail innovation, like it has done in the U.S. “Software, unlike other industries in India, is end-driven but is also on a “body shopping” model. Given that, a strong start-up company will be either be shut down or bought over if patent laws come in,” he explains.

How would it be if you read only one type of book? [link]

Deepa Kurup

Little or no attention is paid to what is being taught in schools and colleges

BANGALORE: A computer literacy programme in a public sector organisation teaches the following modules: MS Office, MS Power Point, MS Excelsheet and Internet Explorer. A glance through the “computer syllabus” in most schools, and the list is similar. All items on this checklist have one thing in common: proprietary software. So, if every computer user is being taught exclusively on proprietary platforms, would they ever be comfortable switching to the easier, cheaper and readily available alternatives?

Advocates of Free Software — software which can be used, studied and distributed without restriction — say that this is a ploy by proprietors to turn learners into potential customers. They allege that educational systems and the State are in cahoots with these large corporations which insist that children and learning adults be taught to only follow their system.

In a recent meeting with a State Government official about the use of Free Software on e-governance platforms, the official complained that none of his officials knew how to use it or repair it if things went wrong.

“This takes you to the root of the problem,” says Sunil Abraham of Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore. “Students are taught to use only proprietary software. The Government is subsidising training in proprietary technology and little or no attention is paid to what is being taught in schools and colleges,” he explains.

The “back-office” tag that our IT industry has learnt to live with is also a product of this malaise, experts point out. “When students learn only proprietary software, they will qualify only as computer operators and never learn about using the nuts and bolts of the profession. This is one of the reasons why there are no innovative products that come out of this country,” says Mr. Abraham.
Simple analogy

A simple analogy would be that of a child taking up reading as a habit. If a child reads a lot of books, they say, they learn to write and express better. Academics feel that in the absence of any familiarity with Free Software, where the source is easily available, engineering students and computer graduates never get to read any code and are thus hardly familiar with the languages.

FOSS supporters have written to the Ministry of Human Resource Development and several universities to point this out. Anivar Aravind, a member of Free Software Users Group, says that the progress so far has been staggered. Recently, CDAC and Anna Univeristy (KB Chandrashekar Research Centre) came up with a Free Software syllabus and offers trained to teachers in engineering colleges.
Cost factor

A study by International Open Source Network (an UNDP initiative) study on FOSS and education states that using open source software could reduce the costs involved in ICT education significantly. In a country like ours, this fact that Open Source Software usually involves low or no cost would be perceived as an important step towards reducing the digital divide. With no licensing fee, they can be made available on CD or downloaded.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/world-day-against-software-patents

Drawing maps for change

radha — 2011-04-04T06:49:53Z

Digital maps can hold immense academic value – an article by Deepa Kurup, The Hindu, 3rd Jan, 2010.

BANGALORE: The mash-up story is an old but compelling one, particularly when used for advocacy as in Tunisia where exile Sami Ben Gharbiais used a GoogleMaps mash-up to paint a different kind of landscape.
So random net surfers were startled to find the Tunisian map dotted with a string of prisoner’s names, their biographies, and videos of their family members telling the story of the human rights situation in the country.
Closer home, rights activist K. Ramnarayan is trying to do something similar. Using GPS and simple mapping technologies, Mr. Ramnarayan maps the location and extent of damage that will be created by proposed hydro-electric projects in Uttarakhand.

“We knew that many projects were announced. But it was only when we began mapping, we found that the 550-odd projects were concentrated in three valleys, and could potentially ruin all the State’s rivers,” he says.

Detailed perspectives

Mr. Ramnarayan believes that mapping technology can provide detailed perspectives, enable analysis — GPS devices are easy to use and collated data can be simply added as layers to existing maps — and create better awareness by sharing data online. Using the more accurate GIS mapping can also hold immense academic value.

It is this potential that “Maps for Change,” a collaborative project hosted by Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) and Tactical Tech, endeavours to tap into. Anja Kovacs, a CIS fellow, believes maps are powerful, as they provide the larger picture. For instance, she says, news reports lead one to believe that protests against SEZs are isolated today. Now, put all those protests on a map, and you get the real picture! “Maps for Change” participants are involved in a slew of fascinating projects such as mapping land acquisition patterns in Bangalore, tribal displacement issues and dissident sexualities in Delhi.

Layer of information

So mapping is not a complex cartographer’s job anymore. With cheaper and more efficient GPS devices, in the market and on your cellphones, anybody can map. Pradeep B.V. of MapUnity.org, a site that lets you create your own map, says that ‘neogeographers’ are redefining online maps.

Neogeographers use available online maps such as Google MyMaps or Open Street Maps to add layers of information to a typical mashup.

GIS adds that critical layer of accuracy, and is essential in remote areas which are not mapped by these services. So you collect data (typically latitude, longitude and altitude information), mark your points of interest and upload this on a map, Mr. Pradeep explains.

Using attributes these simple maps can be used, accurately, to tell a story and document several layers of information.

Tracking changes
Say you wish to record access to health facilities in a backward district. A GPS device helps you collate info and create a ‘schema’ of data that can be uploaded directly to any mashup. Open source tools such as JUMP or UDIG can help you work easily with GIS datasets. The map can be interactive, you can track changes and can be as dynamic as you want it to be — for instance, you upload videos of health care facilities or highlight patches of social exclusion.

Link to the original article

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/drawing-maps-for-change

Openness, Videos, Impressions

nishant — 2011-09-22T12:23:13Z

The one day Open Video Summit organised by the Centre for Internet & Society, iCommons, Open Video Alliance, and Magic Lantern, to bring together a range of stakeholders to discuss the possibilities, potentials, mechanics and politics of Open Video. Nishant Shah, who participated in the conversations, was invited to summarise the impressions and ideas that ensued in the day.

The notion of free and open is under great debate even under that, and I think even when you side with a camp, there are going to be further splinters. There are many ways of defining the free and open, and I think that the tension, rather than being resolved, needs to be sustained and creatively perpetrated to keep an internal checks and balances on not getting carried away with it. All the groups did indeed circle around this in different, often tangential ways – that there is need to define, variously and almost endlessly, in defining the context of the free that we are dealing with.

Open video, in that matter, has gone through different iterations, and I think it is nice that different stakeholders have defined it variously, and also looked at the problems that it might lead to. However, for the sake of synthesis, I am going to let you have your own idea of free and open but instead look at five key words which have emerged, in my selective hearing, through the day: Access, Archive, Share, Remix, Repurpose. And it is these five that we need to now imbricate these concepts across different thematic that emerged in the groups today.

Access has been one primary question that almost everybody dealt with; Access has its legacies in the Open and Free culture movements, where technological access, dealing with questions of open standards and content, of bandwidth and infrastructure. More interestingly, in an emerging information society like India, there are other concerns of language, access, privilege, bandwidth, education etc. To contextualise access and to put it into different perspectives is something that different participants have voiced the need for.

Archive is a preoccupation with most people because archiving has close relationships with knowledge and subsequently retrieval and usage. If knowledge is being digitised so that it is made accessible to different people, there are older questions of representation, voice, empowerment, participation, ethics, privacy, ownership etc. Crop up. In education archiving has to do with the curricula building and knowledge production. In networking, collaboration and film making, it is the kind of issues that pad.ma is trying to tackle with. It also leads to notions of access, distribution etc.

Sharing is what is almost defining the spirit of the Open and Free culture movements. There is a need to understand and explore what sharing means. When does it infringe laws and what kind of regulation needs to be advocated so that sharing becomes possible. How does one overcome questions of piracy, stealing, IPR etc? More interestingly, what do we share and who do we share it with? Tools by which sharing leads to innovation? How does it lead to new participation and learning practices and pedagogies? What kind of open distribution models and networks can be built up?

Remix has been of great value because it means that you are being converted into some sort of a stakeholder or a contributor to the process. Networking and nodes, network-actor, collaborator , peer 2 peer – the possibility of looking at questions of internet and digital traces is interesting. Or imagine that the act of sharing is also a remix. Sometimes just putting it into new contexts, making it available to newer constituencies, etc. can also be looked upon as remixing. Remix as a knowledge production aesthetic and mechanics seems to have emerged.

Repurpose is my additional reading of something that perhaps needs no mention to this group, but nonetheless needs flagging. The fact remains, that the technology is not a solution in itself. It is a tool that enables the solutions which one is seeking for. The processes, paradigms, protocols and practices are indeed shaped and mediated by technologies and there are new solution possibilities which are produced. However, there still seem to be anxieties, concerns, questions and problems which are cropping up and need to be addressed outside of technology but within technology ecologies.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/OVSreport

Open Content and Access in the Knowledge Society

radha — 2011-08-18T05:08:49Z

Open Content and Access: Democratising and Disruptive Impacts on the Knowledge Society - by Madanmohan Rao, Editor, The KM Chronicles - Bangalore; Dec 16, 09

If you are ever in Bangalore on the third Wednesday of any month, you must attend the Bangalore K-Community: the monthly gathering of knowledge management professionals! This time, I invited two speakers from the information industry and ICT4D sectors (see www.Kcommunity.org for speaker profiles). The theme was Internet content models and governance. The Internet is a key game-changer in the knowledge society, through its vast archival and real-time content, applications for social media, and governance models.

N. V. Sathyanarayana (“Sathya”), Chairman & Managing Director of Informatics (India), set the stage by charting changes in the online media landscape. In less than ten years, Google has become the dominant media player, overtaking 100-year old rivals like Thomson/Reuters/Reed/Elsevier. In fact, the top 10 players in the online content industry are all free-content (ad-supported aggregator) companies: GYM (Google, Yahoo, MSN). Free and open content have disrupted the traditional paid content model, but the paid model will work for those content providers who can find an assured base of institutional buyers. The free content model is based on ad revenues which in turn are based on the overall performance of the economy: the current downturn is shaking up the content industry.

The dominant rise of information related to human resource activities as part of the overall content pie is a notable trend in recent years, said Sathya, citing research from Outsell. Online access has completely transformed research and academic activities. Just a few decades ago, researchers had to first monitor and read all available published material before making connections and drawing analyses – now a number of automated tools can provide alerts, search resources, identify trends and help visualise domains of knowledge. The Internet has also greatly extended the shelflife of content; many journal publishers who used to make money only on sales of new copies to libraries now make even more money on digital access to back issues.

Sunil Abraham (http://twitter.com/Sunil_abraham), executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society, focused more on the democratic potential of the Internet for knowledge dissemination. He charted out the evolution of the open model for software, content, access and educational resources. He distinguished between “muft” and “mukti” interpretations of the often-misunderstood term “free” – it can mean free of cost or freedom/liberation (translations from Hindi). Sunil dwelt on the implications of copyright, copyleft and copycentre models of IP, as well as governance models such as WikiPedia in English and other languages. These open code and content models are in turn affecting business models of companies ranging from IBM to Apple, and will also impact online content access for marginalised and needy communities.

An interesting discussion followed, touching on “healthy useful piracy,” IP models of scholastic v/s entertainment content, ownership rights of translated materials, “responsible” authorship and metaknowledge in Wikis, outdated information policies and knowledge cultures at companies who block employee access to social media, the need for more knowledge sharing in the fragmented NGO sector, the need for organisations to incentivise not just innovation but also copying/sharing of knowledge, and even Christian v/s Hindu worldviews and binary v/s polytheist interpretations of fee/free/layered content models! Now that’s a profound note on which to end 2009; see you all in 2010!

This entry was posted on Wednesday, December 16th, 2009 at 6:44 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

Link to the original blog entry

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/open-content-and-access-in-the-knowledge-society

Privacy, pornography, sexuality (a video)

namita — 2011-08-02T08:37:19Z

The video is an attempt to use the material collected for purposes of provoking a discussion around privacy, pornography, sexuality and technology. It focuses largely on an Indian context, which most viewers would be familiar with. The video is pegged around the ban of Savita Bhabhi – a pornographic comic toon – but uses that to open up a discussion on various incidents and concepts in relation to pornography and privacy across Asia.

The project on pleasure and pornography will generate outputs in different formats, but especially since it is meant to be interdisciplinary (legal, critical, feminist, cybercultures, media and cinema studies) it would be interesting to use different ways of communicating the ideas that the project will develop. Several interviews have been conducted (ranging from length of 30 mins to 2 hours) with contemporaries in India whose work in different ways (quantitative research, historical research, filmmaking, academic writings) intersects and relates to pornography – this includes Bharat Murthy, Manjima Bhattacharjya, Nishant Shah, Ratheesh Radhakrishnan, Shohini Ghosh and others.

The video above is an attempt to use the material collected for purposes of provoking a discussion around privacy, pornography, sexuality and technology. It focuses largely on an Indian context, which most viewers would be familiar with. The video is pegged around the ban of Savita Bhabhi – a pornographic comic toon – but uses that to open up a discussion on various incidents and concepts in relation to pornography and privacy across Asia. For instance what is the role of technology and how has it altered or not altered relations between the citizen and the State, what are the stakes of the State in sexual subjectivity of the citizens and what are the relations of gender, pornography and debates around privacy in public discourse.

In this post I would gesture towards the last category that has not been touched upon earlier, in relation to countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia. It has become important during the course of this project to draw connections to work done in the global South. In legal studies, comparative work around legal concepts of obscenity, pornography, vulgarity are most often only in relation to America and United Kingdom, either for a strong tradition of free speech and expression in both countries and because of historical connections to common and legislative law in UK. However it is important to examine the trajectories of similar legal paradigms (Malaysia) and even different legal paradigms (Indonesia) across Asia to understand the mechanics of how pornography is constructed and understood in legal and possibly cultural terms as well.

Here we look at instances of material that are described as pornography in legal terms and how that legal category avoids taking onto itself what could be described as hard core pornography, and instead focuses on material that in the Indian context are described as obscene (see first blog post on Indian law). In other parts of Asia, very often laws that describe what is pornography play an important role in controlling women and reinforcing gendered modes of access to media, information or to public spaces.

The Indonesian Anti-pornography law instead of protecting the privacy of individuals, regulates and controls the ways in which women can participate in the public sphere. The law deals with appropriate garb, behaviour, forms of artistic and video practices under the broad umbrella of the term pornoaksi or pornographic action. In Indonesia as in other parts of Asia, there has been over the last 4-5 years a flood of mobile and webcam pornography uploaded by people themselves (couples and individuals), which forms a large part of the erotic consumption in the country. The sheer volume and circulation of these videos points to how technology is enmeshed in sexual practices in even in the global South, contrary to what is written about sexuality and technology that largely focuses on the phenomenon of technology-sexuality in the global North around platforms such as Second Life[i] or aspects of virtual reality. However the new law (passed in 2008) does not address this phenomenon directly even though that was the reason for promulgation of the law, but instead focuses of the dubious and vague category of pornoaksi.

The law also allows for ordinary citizens to complain about obscene behaviour. According to gender and human rights activists in Indonesia, this gives a lot of leeway to the more socially conservative elements to complain and even attack film festivals, gatherings etc. In an article (unpublished) about the anti pornography law, Julia Suryakusuma (a columnist and writer in Indonesia) says -

"But is the so-called ‘Anti-Pornography Law’ indeed aimed against ‘pornography’, or is really directed against women and the freedoms won through post-Soeharto democratization? The Law, I will argue, is, in fact, based on a social construction of ‘morality’ and womanhood that masks as religion but which is, in fact, a potent combination of social conservatism and political opportunism."

The video ends with a very moving press conference by the Malaysian State Assemblywoman offering her resignation because intimate (but not pornographic) pictures of her had been circulated without her consent by her ex-boyfriend. The incident was a transparent ploy by an opposing political party to denounce a formidable opponent and attempts to use public discourse around obscenity, vulgarity to limit the politician’s participation in the public sphere.

The video was also part of a discussion around privacy, agency and security organized at the recent Internet Governance Forum in Egypt in November, 2009[ii] and was screened at the beginning of the workshop to spear head a discussion between varied participants. The workshop was organized by Alternative Law Forum, Association for Progressive Communication - Women's Networking Support Programme and Center for Internet and Society. The IGF saw an intense focus on issues of privacy especially in relation to issues of data aggregation and control over private and public data of individuals by corporate entities. The video and the session was an attempt to bring into the focus of such discussions, issues more pertinent from a feminist, queer or theoretical perspective.

[i] Coming of age in Second Life, Tom Boellstorff : An ethnography of Second Life that looks at various aspects of practices online including friendship, sexuality, marriage, aspirations and desires.

[ii] More details of this workshop (concept note, speakers) are available on the IGF website at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposals2009View&wspid=275

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/blogs/law-video-technology/privacy-pornography-sexuality-a-video

Developments in spectrum sharing

radha — 2011-08-18T04:54:47Z

New ways to share spectrum can revolutionise broadband in India - An article in the Business Standard by Shyam Ponappa / New Delhi December 3, 2009, 1:35 IST

As the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) deliberates on spectrum and licensing after the hearings ending December 2, some important points are worth highlighting. Spectrum is public property and, therefore, need not add a layer of cost (through auctions and such other artifices), provided it is available to network builders, and these networks are available to operators for their customers on payment. The question is whether the government should give spectrum
free, or for an up-front price, i.e., a hefty spectrum fee, or through a progressive revenue-sharing arrangement as for telecommunications. This can be to network builders for their use, or to operators, to pool through either their own arrangements or through network builders-cum-operators.

One way to think about communications networks is to consider an analogy with road networks. The road network is accessed by paying road taxes and special tolls as required, e.g., when using a toll bridge or highway. The rest of the time, once a transport operator pays road taxes, the fleet’s vehicles have access to the entire public road network.

In the same way, it should be feasible for operators to access communications networks. These networks may be the operator’s own, or the public network, i.e., the Public Switched Telephone Network, paying as they go. In other words, whether operators use their own or others’ networks should be immaterial as long as they pay the tariffs, which result from a mesh of interconnection agreements. In this manner, network builders/service providers can use the spectrum as part of their “plant” for wireless transmission, just as they use optical fibre and copper wire for wire-line transmission.

Networks are already being built and operated by network builders-cum-operators. According to The Economist on developments in network operations, initially in New Zealand and then extended on a much larger and broader scale in India, “The vendors... gain economies of scale because they build, run and support networks for several Indian operators. Ericsson’s Mr Svanberg says his firm can run a network with 25% fewer staff than an operator would need. Bharti’s operating expenses are around 15% lower than they would be if it were to build and run its network itself, and its IT costs are around 30% lower, according to Capgemini.”*

Meanwhile, a momentous experiment in spectrum sharing is taking place in America. A company called Spectrum Bridge has developed a database-driven model for dynamic spectrum allocation in unused spectrum bands, the “white space” in the TV bands. This is in the 200 to 600 MHz band, with considerable advantages in propagation over distances, through foliage and walls, without attenuation as experienced at higher frequencies.

This system is being tried in Claudville, a rural community on the border of Virginia and North Carolina. As is likely to be true in rural India, using open spectrum that is unlicensed is impractical because of the distances, terrain and foliage. Fibre and copper lines are not only impractical, but also prohibitively expensive, a fact that people who suggest the use of existing wiring for broadband don’t seem to realise.

In this context, given the discussions on the possibility of spectrum trading as a solution going forward in the Trai hearings, it is instructive to note that despite the US Federal Communication Commission’s secondary market initiatives taken in 2003, not much spectrum trading had actually taken place until Spectrum Bridge’s introduction of their tracking and trading model, SpecEx (see www.specex.com). Subscribers view available spectrum at a chosen location and frequency band with pricing details when they want to buy, or list available spectrum to sell by location and frequency band. Therefore, any recommendations by Trai or decisions by the Empowered Group of Ministers (EGoM) or the government should take this into account in considering the path of market traded spectrum based on exclusively assigned bands. It would be unrealistic to expect such trading to take place simply because it is allowed, without other
facilitating developments as have been achieved by Spectrum Bridge in America.

A second problem is that trading in spectrum can result in effects equivalent to land-grabbing in real estate. This serves less for effective communications than as an asset play for profit.

Like SpecEx for priced spectrum, www.ShowMyWhiteSpace.com is a free website that the company supports to show free TV white space (the “digital dividend” that is talked about) that can be used on the basis of open access to unlicensed or open spectrum.

In the trial at Claudville, Spectrum Bridge deployed the network with Dell and Microsoft contributing computer equipment and software to the local school. Teachers can now incorporate distance learning resources into the school’s curriculum.

Our policy-makers need to move beyond debates over slicing and dicing the spectrum to determine the smallest efficient band — 2.5 MHz for CDMA and 4.4 for GSM? Is 6.2 MHz all that any operator needs?... and so on. A direct solution is to not assign spectrum for exclusive use, and instead enable its use as a common resource that must be accessed by everyone
who needs to communicate on the network, exactly as public roads are accessed by paying road taxes and tolls. If spectrum must be assigned nominally to operators for administrative reasons, they should be obligated to pool this spectrum for common access.

Once we are able to aggregate spectrum in the frequency range which allows propagation over distances and through natural and man-made obstacles — buildings, foliage, etc. — we will have the open “highways” for broadband for its widespread usage across the country. This can only be achieved at relatively low cost through a progressive revenue-sharing arrangement, which is what happened eventually for voice communications with the National Telecom Policy 1999.

These are complex technical and commercial issues, and require the concerted effort of stakeholders and experts to devise the most effective solution in the public interest. The Trai hearings are the first step in this process.

shyamponappa@gmail.com <mailto:shyamponappa@gmail.com>

* ‘The mother of invention’, The Economist, September 24, 2009

Link to the original article

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/telecom/blog/developments-in-spectrum-sharing

Free Culture Roadshow

radha — 2011-04-05T04:20:44Z

The Free Culture Roadshow from 07th December, 2009 to 22nd December, 2009: A presentation on The Right to Share and The Promise of Open Video.

CIS in association with different institutions across India invites you to join in the Free Culture Roadshow: A presentation on The Right to Share and The Promise of Open Video.

The Co-hosts, Dates and the Venues for the Talk are given below:

Co-Host: Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay
Date: 07th December, 2009 from 10am to 2pm
Venue – IIT-B, Mumbai
Co-Host: Centre for Media and Cultural Studies, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Bombay
Date: 07th December, 2009 from 4.30pm to 7pm
Venue – TISS, Mumbai
Co-Host: Department of Media Sciences, CEGC, Anna University, Chennai
Date: 08th December, 2009 from 9.30am
Venue – Seminar Hall, Dept. Of Media Sciences, Anna University, Chennai
Co-Host: Dept. Of Management Studies, IIT-M, and BodhBridge Espl.
Date: 09th December, 2009 from 9.30am to 01.30pm
Venue – Central Lecture Theatre, Indian Institute of Technology, Madras.
Co-Host: Dept. Of Journalism, Mount Carmel College, Bangalore
Date: 14th December, 2009 from 10am to 01pm
Venue – Golden Jubilee Hall, Bangalore
Co-Host: National Law School, Bangalore
Date: 17th December, 2009 from 2.30pm onwards
Venue – National Law School, Bangalore
Co-Host: Faculty of Architecture, Centre for Environmental Planning and Technology, Ahmedabad
Date: 18th December, 2009 from 4pm to 7pm
Venue – Auditorium, CEPT
Co- Host: Magic Lantern Foundation
Date: 20th December, 2009 from 9am to 1pm
Venue - Conference Room 2, India International Centre, Max Mueller Marg, New Delhi
Co-Host: The Media Lab, Jadavpur University, Kolkata
Date: 22nd December, 2009 from 11.30am to 3.30pm
Venue – Jadavpur University, Kolkata

A Brief Abstract of the two discussions and the profile of the speakers are given below:

The Right to Share: What Does Copying Have to Do with Freedom?

The Internet has unleashed the potential to communicate and collaborate like never before, and the result has been an unprecedented flow of culture and information. Millions of individuals are now sharing and creating culture: copying, cutting, remixing, and participating in new and different ways.
Sometimes this activity is transformative. Sometimes it's straight copying. In either case, there is a clear connection between this sharing of culture and personal freedom.
This talk will explore how various conceptions of "freedom" have shaped the social movements for free software, free culture, and free knowledge, and how this ideology has manifested itself in real action. It will connect theory with practice, exploring the cultural innovations and political changes that have spawned forth from these movements. Lastly, it will make the case that the broad-based availability, accessibility, and abundance of culture is a good thing for our global society.

Speaker Profile:

Elizabeth Stark is a leader in the global free culture movement. She is a Fellow at the Yale Information Society Project and a Lecturer in Computer Science at Yale University. A graduate of Harvard Law School, Stark founded the Harvard Free Culture Group and served on the board of directors of Students for Free Culture. While at Harvard, she was Editor-at-Large of the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, and worked on using new media to promote human rights with the Harvard Advocates for Human Rights. Elizabeth has worked extensively with the Berkman Center for Internet & Society and has taught courses in Cyberlaw, Digital Copyright, Technology and Politics, and Electronic Music. She recently produced the inaugural Open Video Conference in NYC, garnering over 8000 viewers across the web. Elizabeth regularly gives talks around the world on free culture, and has collaborated with myriad organizations on promoting shared knowledge and the open web.

The Revolution Will Be Recorded, Remixed, and Redistributed: The Promise of Open Video

Between news, cinema, television, and documentary film, we find ourselves swimming in a sea of moving images. This has been the story of the 20th century. Yet in this age, the tools for creating and sharing video are becoming widely distributed in the hands of millions of individuals. Desktop video editing software is pervasive; webcams and video-equipped mobile phones abound. Video now belongs to everyone. It is becoming a powerful medium for self-expression, a kind of cultural currency.
How will this phenomenon change the Internet? How will it change society? What questions persist for the architecture of the Internet, and how will public policy address this ultimately political transformation? This talk sets forth a vision of networked video as a truly participatory medium, one that will power the next 10 years of innovation on the web. Dean Jansen and Ben Moskowitz introduce some core technologies for open video, and the obstacles they face on the road to mass adoption.

Speaker Profiles:

Dean Jansen is a Free Culture activist and guerrilla artist based in New York. He attended Harvard University and was a leader in the Harvard Free Culture Group. Dean assisted in teaching media studies and law courses at MIT and Harvard, and has organized numerous academic conferences.
He currently serves as outreach director at the non-profit Participatory Culture Foundation, makers of the Miro internet TV player. His art projects can be viewed at www.notthemessiah.net.

Ben Moskowitz is general coordinator at the Open Video Alliance, a coalition to democratize the moving image. Ben co-founded the UC Berkeley chapter of Students for Free Culture and taught a seminar on the politics of piracy at Berkeley's School of Information.
He currently serves on the board of directors of the international organization Students for Free Culture, dedicated to promoting access to knowledge, technological freedom, and participatory culture.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/events/free-culture-roadshow

Open Standards Workshop at IGF '09

pranesh — 2011-08-23T02:54:03Z

The Centre for Internet and Society co-organized a workshop on 'Open Standards: A Rights-Based Framework' at the fourth Internet Governance Forum, at Sharm el-Sheikh. The panel was chaired by Aslam Raffee of Sun Microsystems and the panellists were Sir Tim Berners-Lee of W3C, Renu Budhiraja of India's DIT, Sunil Abraham of CIS, Steve Mutkoski of Microsoft, and Rishab Ghosh of UNU-MERIT.

Sir Tim Berners-Lee started the session with an address on various rights. Rights, he noted can range from being things like the rights to air and water to the right not to have the data carrier you use determine which movie you watch. Then, there are tensions between rights: the right to anonymity can clash with the right to know who posted information on making a bomb. Berners-Lee stated that for 2009, he has chosen to pursue one particular right: the right to government-held data. This data can include everything from where schools are to emergency services such as locations of hospitals. Today, we are talking about standards.

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is a fifteen-year old body in which all kinds of people come together for purposes of setting standards around the World Wide Web. Thus, everything from HTML, which is used to write Web pages to WCAG, which are guidelines to enable people with disabilities access websites through assistive technologies. W3C conducts its discussions openly: anybody who has a good idea has a right to participate in its discussions -- it does not matter who one works for, who one represents -- what does matter are the ideas one brings to the table. The kinds of standards that W3C deals with are of interest to an immensely wide-ranging group of people. Even ten-year olds have actually expressed their opinions about standards like HTML. All this openness of participation must be guaranteed while ensuring that the processes move forward.

Next spoke Renu Budhiraja of the Department of Information and Technology, which is a part of the Indian government. She started off by hoping that this workshop would be not only a platform to share knowledge, but also to reach consensus on a few matters. Next, she laid out why open standards are extremely important for the Indian government. What citizens want in their interactions with the government are ease of interaction and efficiency. For them it is immaterial whether a certain service is provided by Department A or Department B. Thus we need to move towards a single-window government service for citizens, enabling them to interact easily with the government's various departments. While such an initiative must be centralized for it to be effective, it is crucial that its implementation be decentralized and suited to each district or localities' needs.

There is, understandably, a huge institutional mechanism behind ensuring that these systems are based on open standards. We have expert committees, consisting of academics and knowledgeable bureaucrats, and working groups, which include industry groups. Through these, we have evolved a National Policy on Open Standards, which is currently in a draft stage, but shall be notified soon. This policy outlines the principles based on which particular standards required for governmental functioning are to be chosen or evolved. This document will ensure long-term accessibility to public documents and information, and seamless interoperability of various governmental services and departments. It will also reduce the risk of vendor lock-in and reduce costs, and thus ensure long-term, sustainable, scalable and cost-effective solutions.

Ms. Budhiraja noted that there are a few aspects of the policy that bear discussion in a forum such as the IGF. First is the issue of whether royalty-free is the only choice for innovation. All other things equal, between royalty-free and reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) standards, of course royalty-free is to be preferred. But what if a superior technology (JPEG200 vs. JPEG) is RAND? What should the government's position be in such a case? Further, what should the government's position be when in a particular domain a RAND standard is the only option?

Next is the issue of single vs. multiple open standards. When interoperability is what we are aiming at, can multiple standards be recommended as some in the industry are asking us to do? And then is the issue of market maturity. The government sometimes finds itself in a situation where a standard is available, but well-developed products around that standard aren't and there aren't sufficient vendors using that standard. All these issues are of great practical importance when a government works on a policy document on standards.

Next up was Sunil Abraham, Executive Director of the Centre for Internet and Society. His presentation was on open standards as citizens' and consumers' rights. He started off by citing the example of the Smart Card Operating System for Transport Application (SCOSTA) standard, and the implications that the SCOSTA story has on large-scale projects such as the National Unique ID project currently under way in India. SCOSTA, an open standard, was being written off as unimplementable by all the MNC smart card vendors who wished to push RAND standards. IIT Kanpur helped the government develop a working implementation. Within twenty days, the card manufacturers submitted modified cards for compliance testing by NIC. Because of SCOSTA being an open standard, local companies also joined the tender. The cost went down from Rs. 600 per card to Rs. 30 per card. This shows the benefits of open standards as a means of curbing oligopolistic pricing, and working for the benefit of consumers.

From a rights-based perspective, access to the state machinery is a primary right. Citizens should not be required to pirate or purchase software to interact with the state. If e-governance solutions are based on proprietary standards, not all citizens would be equal. The South African example or requiring a particular browser to access the election commission's website shows that in a rather drastic fashion. When intellectual property interferes with governmental needs, governments have not been shy of issuing compulsory licences. This was seen when during the Great War the United States government pooled various flight-related patents and compulsorily licensed them, as well as what we are currently seeing with many Aids-related drugs being compulsorily licensed in developing countries. Thus, there are precedents for such licensing, and governments should explore them in the realm of e-governance. Many countries now have statutes that guarantee the right to government-held information. Government Interoperability Frameworks should take these into account, and mandate all government-to-citizen (G2C) information be transacted via open standards. This must be backed up by a strong accessibility policy to ensure that the governments don't discriminate between their citizens.

Proprietary standards act like pseudo-intellectual property rights, just as DRMs do. They add a layer on top of rights such as copyright, and can prevent the exercise of fair use and fair dealing rights because of an inability to legally negotiate the standards in which the content is encoded in a cost-free manner. In guaranteeing this balance between copyrights and fair dealing rights, free software and alternative IP models play a crucial role. Because of software patents being recognized in a few countries, development of free software which allows citizens to exercise their fair use rights is harmed in all countries.

Steve Mutkoski of Microsoft spoke next and placed the standards debate in a large context. He noted that standards are a technicality that are only a small part of the large issue which is interoperability in e-governance and delivery to citizens. The real challenges are organizational and semantic interoperability. Frequently interoperability is not harmed by technical issues, but by legal and organizational issues. Governments used to work on paper; during the shift to electronic data, they didn't engage in any organizational changes. Thus they continue to function with electronic data the same way that they did with paper-based data. Governments often lack strong privacy policies regarding the data that each of their departments holds. This harms governmental functioning. Additionally, legacy hardware and software have to be catered to by the standards we are talking about: sometimes an open standard just will not work.

Standards don't guarantee interoperability, and there is significant work done on this by noted academics ("Why Standards Are Not Enough To Guarantee End-to-End Interoperability" Lewis et al.; "Difficulties Implementing Standards" Egyedi & Dahanayake; "Standards Compliant, But Incompatible?" Egyedi et al.). Mandated standards lists will not help address interoperability issues between different implementations of the same standard. What would help? Transparency of implementations; collaboration with community; active participation in maintenance of standards, etc., would help. There is a need for continued public sector reform, with a focus on citizen-centric e-governance, and a need to engage with the question of whether government-mandated standards lists lead the market or follow the market.

Rishab Aiyer Ghosh, a senior researcher at UN University, Maastricht, spoke next. He started by noting that technical standards are left to technical experts. That needs to change, which is why discussing open standards at the IGF is important. He next set off a hypothetical: imagine you go to the city council office in Sharm el Sheik, and at the parking lot there it says that your car has to be a Ford if you are to park there; or if the Dutch government insists that you have a Philips TV if you are to receive the national broadcaster's signal. While these might seem absurd, situations like this arise all the time when it comes to the realm of software. Thus, the social effects of open standards are of utmost importance, and not just their technical qualities. Analysing the social effects of open standards takes us back to the economics of technology and technological standards. Technological standards exhibit network externalities: their inherent value is less than the value of others using them. Being the only person in the world with a telephone won't be very useful. Technological standards also exhibit path dependence: once you go with one technological format, it is difficult to change over to another even if that other format is superior to the first. Thus, clearly, standards benefit when there is a 'natural monopoly'. The challenge really arises when faced with the question of how to ensure a monopoly in a technology without the supplier of that technology exhibiting monopolistic tendencies. This can only be done when the technology is open and developed openly, of which the web standards and the W3C are excellent examples. If the technology or the process are semi-open, then because of the few intellectual property rights attached to the technology, some would be better off than others. Just as governments cannot insist on driving a particular make of cars as a prerequisite for access to them, they cannot insist on using a particular proprietary standard as a means of accessing them.

Many interesting questions arose when the floor was thrown open to the audience. "Should governments only mandate a particular standard when it is certain that market maturity exists?" Not really, since governmental decisions also give signals to the market and help direct attention to those standards. It would be best if roadmaps were provided, with particular under-mature standards being designated as "preferred standards", thus helping push industry in a particular direction. Examples where this strategy has borne fruit abound. This is also the strategy found in the Australian GIF. On the issue of multiplicity of standards, Sir Tim was very clear that they have to be avoided at all costs. He gave the example of XSLT and CSS, which are both stylesheet formats. He noted that their domain of operation was very different (with one being for servers and the other for clients), so having two standards with similar functions but different domains of operation does not make them multiple standards. Multiple standards defeat the purpose of the standardization process.

It was noted that governmental choices are of practical importance to citizens. During the Hurricane Katrina emergency, the federal emergency website only worked properly if Internet Explorer was used. How do we move forward? We must move forward by having policies that strike a balance between allowing for the natural evolution of standards and stability. The Government Interoperability Frameworks must be dynamic documents, allowing for categorization between standards and having clear roadmaps to enable industry to provide solutions to the government in a timely fashion. Governments must be strong in order to push industry towards openness, for the sake of its citizens, and not let industry dictate proprietary standards as the solution. Some opined that since there are dozens of domains that governments function in, maintaining lists of standards is a time-consuming process that is not justified, but others rebutted that by noting that for enterprise architectures to work, governments have to maintain such lists internally. Opening up that list to citizens and service providers would not entail greater overheads.

Sunil Abraham talking Open Standards at IGF09

(Video added on December 30, 2009)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/dcos-workshop-09

DFI and Cambridge University Press join hands for getting print access to the "print impaired"

radha — 2011-08-17T08:45:27Z

Cambridge University Press has given permission for books published in India by them to be converted into other accessible formats such as in DAISY, says Dr. Sam Taraporevala, Director, Xavier’s Resource Centre for the Visually Challenged in this blog.

Print access is a major area that the DAISY Forum of India (DFI) is working towards. Two of the many member organizations of DFI, The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) and the Xavier’s Resource Centre for the Visually Challenged (XRCVC) approached the India office of Cambridge University Press, one of the major publishers in India. The rationale behind contacting publishers is to explain to them the need to have accessible copies of the printed word for the print disabled and obtain their permission for converting their books into such accessible formats such as in DAISY.

XRCVC interacted with Mr. Anil Kumar Pandey, General Manager for Western India of Cambridge University Press, Nirmita Narasimhan of CIS contacted Mr. Manas Saikia, Managing Director of Cambridge University Press, India. Both of them were very open to this idea of accessibility and thereby began a collaborative effort from both the Cambridge University Press in India and the DFI.

Mr. Saikia strengthened his support to the cause by not only giving permission for books published in India by Cambridge University Press but also offering to obtain for DFI the global permission of Cambridge University Press books. Ms. Anita Parkash, Legal and IP Manager, Asia of the Singapore office of Cambridge University Press also endorsed this stand. She reinforced the positive response given by Mr. Saikia and agreed for collaboration with the XRCVC to work out a system which would be in the best interests of the stakeholders. Having worked out the final draft of this agreement, she offered to get it duly endorsed from the United Kingdom office of the Cambridge University Press.

This brought together Mr. Gordon Johnson, the Deputy Vice Chancellor of Cambridge University Press, Mr. Manas Saikia and Mr. Anil Kumar Pandey to the XRCVC on 23rd November, 2009 to sign the agreement with DFI. Dr. Sam Taraporevala, Director of XRCVC on behalf of DFI signed this agreement in the presence of Mr. Ketan Kothari who represented Sightsavers International, one of XRCVC’s partners in its “print access” quest. This we are sure has marked the beginning of a long and continuing association between DFI and Cambridge University Press for championing the cause of making the printed word accessible to the print disabled across India.

Coverage in The Bookseller

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/dfi-and-cambridge-university-press

Copyright Access for the Disabled and Collaborative IP Policy

radha — 2011-04-02T14:27:01Z

A blog post on SPICY IP by Shamnad Basheer, November 18, 2009

In previous p osts, we covered the Right to Read Campaign, a campaign aimed at increasing access to copyrighted works for the print impaired. As many of you know, most works of literature, science and the arts are practically out of bounds for the disabled, unless converted to readable formats such as Braille or digitized and accessed via expensive screen reader software such as JAWS.

Recently, this campaign, the brainchild of CIS and Inclusive Planet, came home to us at NUJS, Kolkata and I was amazed to see the bonding between these children of a lesser god and their struggle to transform society into a more inclusive one. NUJS was particularly fortunate to host this campaign that day, as we have a student (Moiz Tundawalla, who ranks in the top 5 of his class) as well as a faculty member, Dr TV Sudhakar, who are visually impaired.

As part of the campaign, a group of us including Rahul Cherian of Inclusive Planet (and the brain behind Bookbole, one of the most innovative solutions yet catering to the needs of the visually impaired), Sunil Abraham and Nirmita Narasimhan of CIS and Lawrence Liang of ALF began working on a copyright defence that would enable the conversion of copyrighted works to more accessible formats for the disabled..formats that would enable them to enjoy such works as comfortably as the others.

Such a provision is critical, given that hardly 0.5% of all published books are accessible by the print impaired. Further, given the constitutional mandate that each one of us shall have the right to life under Article 21 (which includes the right to education and the right to read) and the right not to be discriminated against (under Article 14), the State is under a positive obligation to provide accessible works to the disabled and thereby help them lead better lives.

The Government Copyright Proposal

This is not to suggest that the Indian government lacks sensitivity on this count. Indeed, it is commendable that as far as back as 2006, the government proposed the introduction of Section 52 (1) (za) to the Copyright Act, 1957 to resolve the issue.

The proposed Section 52 (1) (za) states that the following act shall not constitute an infringement of copyright: “reproduction, issue of copies or communication to the public of any work in a format, including sign language, specially designed (emphasis added) only for the use of persons suffering from a visual, aural or other disability that prevents their enjoyment of such works in their normal format.”

While this is a great start, this draft suffers from some serious limitations:

Firstly, it restricts permissible formats to those “specially designed” for persons with disabilities. In practical terms, this means that only Braille and sign language is permitted. As many of you may know, Braille is extremely expensive to print and distribute and is not portable. Moreover persons with low vision, dyslexics, people with paralysis, cerebral palsy etc. cannot use Braille and require alternate formats.
Given recent technological developments and the burgeoning of audio formats and electronic formats that are now used by a large number of visually impaired persons, the exception ought to cover such formats as well... formats that do not strictly constitute "formats specially designed for the disabled". Indeed, any creation of a digitized version of a copyrighted work would enable access by the visually impaired (provided they have tools such as screen reading software on their respective computers).
We understand that the Indian government wishes to ensure that the defence is availed of only by the disabled and not by others, who may free ride on such an exception. While limiting the exception to “formats specially designed for the disabled” may help achieve this objective, it seriously limits the scope of access by the disabled in this technological day and age, as explained above. Rather than limit the kinds of formats that could be created, we propose that the government restrict access of works created under the aegis of this exception to only people with disabilities. One way to do this is by insisting on reliable certificates that confirm one's status as "differently-abled".
Secondly, the proposed amendment fails to ensure that software and other intellectual property protected tools required to create accessible formats and enable persons with disabilities to access such formats are available at a reasonable cost. Illustratively, the most widely used screen reading software, JAWS, is licensed at a whooping Rs 50,000!
Thirdly, the proposed amendment must provide wording to the effect that if content owners apply any technology circumvention measures or DRM locks to digital content, they must make available such content to persons with disabilities. Without such provision, the production of talking books or the use of screen reading software for the benefit of the visually impaired will be restricted if the owner of a digital work has prohibited such use of his work.

Thankfully India does not have any specific protection for anti-circumvention measures and DRM as yet. However, we're not sure if the government plans to introduce such a protection via the recent copyright amendment bill that is likely to be introduced in Parliament in December. Unfortunately, the bill is still secret and will be made available for public viewing only after it is introduced in Parliament.

Our Copyright Proposal
We've therefore proposed a more liberal and meaningful exception as below:

Section 52 (1) (za) (i): The doing of any act, the primary objective of which is to enable persons with disabilities to access copyrighted works as comfortably and flexibly as a person without a disability.
Such acts shall include, without limitation, the making of any accessible format of a work, reproducing such work/format, adapting such work/format, making available such work/format, lending such works/formats etc. and the provision of any facility that is primarily designed to enable any of the acts contemplated above.
Provided that if any entity wishes to undertake any of the above activities on a for profit basis, it shall pay such remuneration to copyright owners as may be prescribed by the Copyright Board from time to time. For the purpose of determining remuneration, the Copyright Board shall take into consideration the need to ensure that works are accessible and available at prices that are affordable, taking into account disparities of incomes for persons who are disabled.
Provided that if any software or other tool that is covered by any intellectual property right is necessary to create accessible formats or to enable access to such formats, or to enable disabled persons to access any work in any manner as contemplated above, such intellectual property protected software or tool shall be licensed at an affordable price, to be determined by the Copyright Board.
Provided that if any works are protected by technology circumvention measures or subject to DRM limitations that restrict access to the work in any way, the owner of copyright shall grant access to any person who wishes to secure such access for the primary purpose of doing any act contemplated within any of the provisions above.
Provided that the exemption or other benefits envisaged under this section can be availed of only when reasonable measures have been taken to ensure that the end beneficiary is a person with a disability.
Provided that if any act done in good faith in pursuance of any of the above provisions falls outside the ambit of such provision, such act shall not be enjoined by an injunction, whether temporary or permanent, but shall be made compensable by payment of a reasonable royalty to be determined by the Copyright Board.
This provision shall override any conflicting provision in any other legislation, regulation or rule in force in India, only to the extent of such conflict.
Section 52 (1) (za) (ii): For the purpose of Section 52 (1) (za) (i) "accessible format" means any format or form which gives a disabled person access to the work as flexibly and comfortably as a person without a disability, and shall include, but not be limited to, large print, with different typefaces and sizes all being permitted according to need, Braille, audio recordings, digital copies compatible with screen readers or refreshable Braille and audiovisual works with audio and or text description.

The above section draws from a provision recommended by the World Blind Union and supported by countries such as Brazil and NGO's such as KEI.

Readers will note that the above exception not only caters to the visually impaired, but any differently-abled person who is unable to access copyrighted works as comfortably as others. Illustratively, without the subtitling of audio-visual material, a hearing-impaired persons is unable to enjoy movies, TV programs and other audio-visual material.

CLIPP and Collaborative IP Policy Making

Readers may recollect an initiative called CLIPP (Collaborative Innovation in IP Policy), that we touched upon sometime back, but never really got around to implementing. We are still in the process of designing an appropriate IT architecture to support this endeavour, which will greatly aid transparency and public participation around IP law making in this country.

Till such time as we unleash this specialised architecture, we're trying to see if we can make do with the blogger format. Indeed, if our experiment around the parallel imports provision is anything to go by, where our posts elicited around 50 odd comments that helped suggest ways in which to interpret (and perhaps reword section 107A), there is no reason why the blogger format itself should not suffice.

Leaving comments on posts is fairly easy. You scroll down to the bottom of the post, hit the "post a comment" button and either sign in with your gmail account or click on the "anonymous" tab to post a comment anonymously. You could also chose any other online identity. For those that are averse to using the comments section at the end of this blog post, please free to email me at shamnad[at]gmail.com.

I hope all of you can take some time out to help this worthy cause by inspecting the suggested provision with a fine tooth comb and recommending ways to improve it. I understand that we have many sophisticated copyright experts on our subscriber list ..and I do hope that you will lend your minds and hearts to this cause. Needless to state, a mere copyright provision by itself is not enough--but it will certainly go some way in ensuring that we provide a better and more "inclusive" tomorrow for these children of a lesser god.

ps: Venky Hariharan, a leading open source advocate has referred me to Orca, an open source screen reader software, freely downloadable.

Link to the original blogspot

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/copyright-access-for-the-disabled-and-collaborative-ip-policy

Address delivered during the IGF Closing Ceremony

radha — 2011-08-02T07:18:36Z

This address was delivered by Dr. Anja Kovacs, as a representative of civil society, to the IGF during its closing ceremony.

Good evening, Mr Chairperson and all the distinguished participants, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for this opportunity to address this assembly on behalf of civil society, it is a real honour. And thank you also to the organisers and to the government of Egypt, for the wonderful arrangements and for creating such a excellent environment for us to work in.

I would like to use this opportunity to celebrate, together with you, two very important achievements in particular that we have made collectively during the four days of our intensive deliberations together.

The first one is the progress we are making in terms of recognising the importance of attention for human rights in ensuring a people-centred, development-oriented, non-discriminatory information society. Thus, for example, in the main session on security, openness and privacy, speakers across stakeholder groups couched the debate not any more in terms of security vs. privacy, but in terms of security and privacy. Security or other concerns, it was consistently argued, while obviously deserving our attention, should not be used to justify curtailing longstanding gains made in terms of human rights; rather, it is an improved implementation of already agreed on human rights instruments that we need to reach our goal of an inclusive, people-centred information society. The growing recognition of this fact is an evolution that civil society welcomes with open arms.

Another very hopeful evolution during this IGF was the central attention devoted to the question of where we stand in terms of promoting a people-centred, development-oriented information society more generally. The message that came out of the main session on “Internet governance in the light of the WSIS principles” clearly confirmed the urgent need to pay greater attention to this important issue, and several suggestions were made to address this concern. These include devoting devoting a main session solely to the topic of Internet governance for development in next next year's IGF, and I sincerely hope that these suggestions will be taken up.

While we thus have important reason to celebrate, challenges of course remain. Throughout the existence of the IGF, and perhaps increasingly so, the value of the multistakeholder model has been recognised and stressed by all stakeholder groups. However, at the same time, it has also been acknowledged that we need to continue to work to further strengthen participation from currently underrepresented countries and groups. I would like to note, however, that it is important that we do not restrict our efforts in this regard to capacity building, significant as that may be. Perhaps even more crucial is that the agenda of the IGF consistently talks to the concerns of actors in the developing parts of the world as well.

The reconfirmation of the importance of a development agenda that we have seen in this IGF is thus a very important step forward indeed. At the same time, within this larger development agenda, it is crucial that we also as soon as possible start to discuss some of the specific issues that require our attention on an urgent basis. For example, within the IGF as elsewhere, it is generally acknowledged that access to knowledge is central to development processes; yet the IGF so far has not paid systematic attention to the ways in which the amazing possibilities that the Internet offers in this regard are increasingly threatened by new policies that seem to make intellectual property regimes more stringent day by day. From a developing country perspective, finding a balanced solution that can address these concerns is an urgent priority. Starting the debate on how this can be achieved here, in the IGF, is certain to attract a larger number of developing country participants, including from governments.

Going by the experience of the past years as well as this particular meeting, I have no doubt that if given the opportunity, we will measure up to the challenges before us. Without wanting to preclude the Under-Secretary General's report, the proceedings during this IGF have made clear time and again its crucial significance in Internet governance processes. I hope with all my heart that we will continue to get the opportunity to work together on addressing these important issues and on resolving tensions and contradictions as they emerge, with the support of an independent secretariat that can ensure an environment genuinely inclusive of all stakeholders. Only when such open, inclusive conditions govern our own processes, may we in turn, together be able to create a genuinely inclusive information society which will indeed create opportunities for all.

Thank you.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/address-igf-closing-ceremony