Centre for Internet and Society

Security, Governments, and Data: Technology and Policy

elonnai — 2014-12-24T08:06:59Z

The Centre for Internet & Society and the Observer Research Foundation invite you to a one day conference on January 8, 2015 in New Delhi.

About the Conference

The conference will focus on the technologies, policies, and practices around cyber security and surveillance. The conference will reach out to a number of key stakeholders including civil society, industry, government, and academia and explore the present scenario in India to reflect on ways forward.

Conference Context

Ensuring the security of the India’s cyber space is a complex, challenging, and ever changing responsibility that the government is tasked with. Doing so effectively requires a number of factors to come together in a harmonized strategy including: laws & policies, technical capabilities, markets, and a skilled workforce. It also requires collaboration on multiple levels including with foreign governments, domestic and foreign industry, and law enforcement. The first of these is particularly important given the ability of attackers to penetrate across borders and the global nature of data. Any strategy developed by India must be proactive and reactive – evolving defences to prevent a potential threat and applying tactics to respond to a real time threat. To do so, the government of India must legally have the powers to take action and must have the technical capability to do so. Yet, many of these powers and technical capabilities require a degree of intrusion into the lives of citizens and residents of India through means such as surveillance. Thus, such measures must be considered in light of principles of proportionality and necessity, and legal safeguards are needed to protect against the violation of privacy. Furthermore, a principle of optimization must be considered i.e, how much surveillance achieves the most amount of security and how can this security be achieved with the optimal mix of technology, policy and enforcement.

Panel Descriptions

Challenges & Present Scenario

Protecting and enhancing the cyber security of India is a complex and dynamic responsibility. The challenge of securing cyber space is magnified by the demarcated nature of the internet, the multiplicity of vulnerabilities that can be exploited at the national level, the magnitude of infrastructure damage possible from a cyber attack, and the complexity of application of a jurisdiction’s law to a space that is technologically borderless. A comprehensive ‘cyber security’ ecosystem is required to address such challenges – one that involves technology, skills, and capabilities – including surveillance capabilities. The Government of India has taken numerous steps to address and resolve such challenges. In July 2013, the National Cyber Security Policy was published for the purpose of creating an enabling framework for the protection of India’s cyber security. In February 2014, the 52^nd Standing Committee on Information Technology issued a report assessing the implementation of this policy – in which they found that a number of areas needed strengthening. The Government of India has also proposed the establishment of a number of centres focused on cyber security – such as the National Cyber Coordination Center and the National Critical Information Infrastructure Protection Centre. CERT-IN, under the Department of Electronics and Information Technology is presently the body responsible for overseeing and enforcing cyber security in India, while other bodies such as the Resource Centre for Cyber Forensic and TERM cells under the Department of Telecommunications play critical roles in overseeing and undertaking capabilities related to cyber security.

Law & Policy

India has five statutes regulating the collection and use of data for surveillance purposes. These laws define circumstances on which the government is justified in accessing and collecting real time and stored data as well as procedural safeguards they must adhere to when doing so. The Department of Telecommunications has also issued the Unified Access License which, among other things, mandates service providers to provide technical support to enable such collection. The Indian judicial system has also provided a number of Rulings that set standards for the access, collection, and use of data as well as defining limitations and safeguards that must be respected in doing so. The draft Privacy Bill 2011, released by the Department of Personnel and Training, also contained provisions addressing surveillance in the context of interception and the use of electronic video recording devices. In the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy, the AP Shah Committee found that the legal regime for surveillance in India was not harmonized and lacked safeguards. Furthermore, in the era where the direct collection of large volumes of data is easily possible, there is a growing need to re-visit questions about the legitimate and proportionate collection and use (particularly as evidence) of such data. Questions are also arising about the applicability of standards and safeguards to the state. At a global level, catalyzed by the leaks by Edward Snowden, there has been a strong push for governments to review and structure their surveillance regimes to ensure that they are in line with international human rights standards.

Architecture & Technology

India is in the process of architecting a number of initiatives that seek to enable the collection and sharing of intelligence such as the CMS, NATGRID, and NETRA. At a regional level, the Ministry of Home Affairs is in the process of implementing ‘Mega Policing Cities’ which include the instalment of CCTV’s and centralized access to crime related information. Globally, law enforcement and governments are beginning to take advantage of the possibilities created by ‘Big Data’ and ‘open source’ policing. The architecture and technology behind any surveillance and cyber security initiative are key to its success. Intelligently and appropriately designed projects and technology can also minimize the possibility of intrusions into the private lives of citizens. Strong access controls, decentralized architecture, and targeted access are all principles that can be incorporated into the architecture and technology behind a project or initiative. At the same time, the technology or process around a project can serve as the ‘weakest link’ – as it is vulnerable to attacks and tampering. Such possibilities raise concerns about the use of foreign technology and dependencies on foreign governments and companies.

International and Domestic Markets

Globally, the security market is growing – with companies offering a range of services and products that facilitate surveillance and can be used towards enhancing cyber security. In India, the security market is also growing with studies predicting that it will reach $1.06 billion by 2015. Recognizing the potential threat posed by imported security and telecom equipment, India also develops its own technologies through the Centre for Development of Telematics –attached to the Department of Telecommunications, and the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing – attached to the Department of Electronics and Information Technology. At times India has also imposed bans on the import of technologies believed to be compromised. Towards this end, the Government of India has a number of bodies responsible for licensing, auditing, and certifying the use of security and telecommunication equipment. Though India has recognized the security vulnerabilities posed by these technologies, as of yet it has not formally recognized the human rights violations that are made possible. Indeed, though India has submitted a request to be a signing member of the Wassenaar agreement, they have yet to be accepted.

Agenda

11.00	Registration & Tea
11.30	Key Note Speech
12.00	Challenges & Present Scenario
13.00	Law & Policy
14.00	Lunch
15.00	Architecture & Technology
16.00	International & Domestic Markets
17.00	Tea
17.30	Conclusion & Closing Remarks

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/security-governments-data-technology-policy

Security Standards for the Financial Technology Sector in India

karan — 2019-11-15T12:56:04Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/security-standards-for-the-financial-technology-sector-in-india

Security experts say need to secure Aadhaar ecosystem, warn about third party leaks

Admin — 2018-03-26T22:37:30Z

The public reckoning of data leaks in India’s national ID database, Aadhaar is still on hold while reports of data leakage through third-parties keep coming.

The article by Nilesh Christopher was published in Economic Times on March 26, 2018. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

While the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) has maintained that its database is secure and there are no breaches of Aadhaar data from its system, security researchers warn that leaks are happening in third-party sites and it is important for the agency to ensure that its ecosystem adopts measures to keep data safe.

“Securing an entire ecosystem is more important than secure individual databases,” said security researcher Srinivas Kodali. Over the weekend, technology publication ZDnet citing an Indian security researcher said that it identified Aadhaar data leaks on a system run by a state-owned utility company Indane that allowed anyone to access sensitive information like a name, Aadhar number, bank details. The leak was plugged soon after the report appeared.

UIDAI came out with a strong statement denying the breach. “There is no truth in the story as there has been absolutely no breach of UIDAI’s Aadhaar database. Aadhaar remains safe and secure,” the government agency said.

There have been no reports of any breach in the core database so far. However, it is the third-parties that have acted as weak links.

“The simple parallel that can be drawn is, though Facebook’s core database of users information was secure, the data leak happened through third-party developers and organisation like Cambridge Analytica that have allegedly misused it,” Kodali said.

In case of Aadhar too, the allegations of breaches have not been on ‘Aadhaar database’ but rather at insecure government websites and third-parties with API access to the database. “In this aspect, the issue in Facebook and Aadhaar is similar. In both the cases there was no breach of database, but it was third parties that acted as the weakest link. In both cases, it was a legitimate means of access through API that was open for abuse,” said Sunil Abraham, executive director, Center for Internet and Society.

UIDAI could take a leaf from Indian Space Research Organisation while handling data breach reports. The state-run space agency put out a note appreciating security researches for their efforts. An email ID to report flaws is more important than summoning people regarding data breaches.

“The fear of criminal prosecution hanging over the heads of ethical hackers would not help us develop a robust and strong security architecture,” said Karan Saini, a Delhi-based security researcher who first highlighted the Aadhaar leak at Indane.

“UIDAI is working on a policy to enable security experts to report issues in a legal and safe manner,” tweeted Ajay Bhushan Pandey, chief executive of India's Unique Identification Authority (UIDAI), the government department that administers the Aadhaar database. Seven months after the tweet, Pandey’s promise of a bug-reporting mechanism has still has not fructified.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/economic-times-march-26-2018-nilesh-christopher-security-experts-say-need-to-secure-aadhaar-ecosystem-warn-about-third-party-leaks

Sectoral Privacy Research

vanya — 2016-01-03T09:46:20Z

The Centre for Internet and Society, India has been researching privacy in India since the year 2010, with special focus on the following issues.

Research on the issue of privacy in different sectors in India.
Monitoring projects, practices, and policies around those sectors.
Raising public awareness around the issue of privacy, in light of varied projects, industries, sectors and instances.

The Right to Privacy has evolved in India since many decades, where the question of it being a Fundamental Right has been debated many times in courts of Law. With the advent of information technology and digitisation of the services, the issue of Privacy holds more relevance in sectors like Banking, Healthcare, Telecommunications, ITC, etc., The Right to Privacy is also addressed in light of the Sexual minorities, Whistle-blowers, Government services, etc.

Sectors -

1. Consumer Privacy and other sectors -

Consumer privacy laws and regulations seek to protect any individual from loss of privacy due to failures or limitations of corporate customer privacy measures. The following articles deal with the current consumer privacy laws in place in India and around the world. Also, privacy concerns have been considered along with other sectors like Copyright law, data protection, etc.

§ Consumer Privacy - How to Enforce an Effective Protective Regime? http://bit.ly/1a99P2z

§ Privacy and Information Technology Act: Do we have the Safeguards for Electronic Privacy? http://bit.ly/10VJp1P

Limits to Privacy http://bit.ly/19mPG6I

§ Copyright Enforcement and Privacy in India http://bit.ly/18fi9fM

Privacy in India: Country Report http://bit.ly/14pnNwl

§ Transparency and Privacy http://bit.ly/1a9dMnC

§ The Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy (Contributed by CIS) http://bit.ly/VqzKtr

§ The (In) Visible Subject: Power, Privacy and Social Networking http://bit.ly/15koqol

§ Privacy and the Indian Copyright Act, 1857 as Amended in 2010 http://bit.ly/1euwX0r

§ Should Ratan Tata be afforded the Right to Privacy? http://bit.ly/LRlXin

§ Comments on Information Technology (Guidelines for Cyber Café) Rules, 2011 http://bit.ly/15kojJn

§ Broadcasting Standards Authority Censures TV9 over Privacy Violations! http://bit.ly/16L4izl

§ Is Data Protection Enough? http://bit.ly/1bvaWx2

§ Privacy, speech at stake in cyberspace http://cis-india.org/news/privacy-speech-at-stake-in-cyberspace-1

§ Q&A to the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy http://bit.ly/TPhzQQ

§ Privacy worries cloud Facebook's WhatsApp Deal http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/economic-times-march-14-2014-sunil-abraham-privacy-worries-cloud-facebook-whatsapp-deal

§ GNI Assessment Finds ICT Companies Protect User Privacy and Freedom of Expression http://bit.ly/1mjbpmL

§ A Stolen Perspective http://bit.ly/1bWHyzv

§ Is Data Protection enough? http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/privacy/is-data-protection-enough

§ I don't want my fingerprints taken http://bit.ly/aYdMia

§ Keeping it Private http://bit.ly/15wjTVc

§ Personal Data, Public Profile http://bit.ly/15vlFk4

§ Why your Facebook Stalker is Not the Real Problem http://bit.ly/1bI2MSc

§ The Private Eye http://bit.ly/173ypSI

§ How Facebook is Blatantly Abusing our Trust http://bit.ly/OBXGXk

§ Open Secrets http://bit.ly/1b5uvK0

§ Big Brother is Watching You http://bit.ly/1cGpg0K

2. Banking/Finance -

Privacy in the banking and finance industry is crucial as the records and funds of one person must not be accessible by another without the due authorisation. The following articles deal with the current system in place that governs privacy in the financial and banking industry.

§ Privacy and Banking: Do Indian Banking Standards Provide Enough Privacy Protection? http://bit.ly/18fhsTM

§ Finance and Privacy http://bit.ly/15aUPh6

§ Making the Powerful Accountable http://bit.ly/1nvzSpC

3. Telecommunications -

The telecommunications industry is the backbone of current technology with respect to ICTs. The telecommunications industry has its own rules and regulations. These rules are the focal point of the following articles including criticism and acclaim.

§ Privacy and Telecommunications: Do We Have the Safeguards? http://bit.ly/10VJp1P

§ Privacy and Media Law http://bit.ly/18fgDfF

§ IP Addresses and Expeditious Disclosure of Identity in India http://bit.ly/16dBy4N

§ Telecommunications and Internet Privacy Read more: http://bit.ly/16dEcaF

§ Encryption Standards and Practices http://bit.ly/KT9BTy

§ Encryption Standards and Practices http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/privacy/privacy_encryption

§ Security: Privacy, Transparency and Technology http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/security-privacy-transparency-and-technolog y

4. Sexual Minorities -

While the internet is a global forum of self-expression and acceptance for most of us, it does not hold true for sexual minorities. The internet is a place of secrecy for those that do not conform to the typical identities set by society and therefore their privacy is more important to them than most. When they reveal themselves or are revealed by others, they typically face a lot of group hatred from the rest of the people and therefore value their privacy. The following article looks into their situation.

· Privacy and Sexual Minorities http://bit.ly/19mQUyZ

5. Health -

The privacy between a doctor and a patient is seen as incredibly important and so should the privacy of a person in any situation where they reveal more than they would to others in the sense of CT scans and other diagnoses. The following articles look into the present scenario of privacy in places like a hospital or diagnosis center.

§ Health and Privacy http://bit.ly/16L1AJX

§ Privacy Concerns in Whole Body Imaging: A Few Questions http://bit.ly/1jmvH1z

6. e-Governance -

The main focus of governments in ICTs is their gain for governance. There have many a multiplicity of laws and legislation passed by various countries including India in an effort to govern the universal space that is the internet. Surveillance is a major part of that governance and control. The articles listed below deal with the issues of ethics and drawbacks in the current legal scenario involving ICTs.

§ E-Governance and Privacy http://bit.ly/18fiReX

§ Privacy and Governmental Databases http://bit.ly/18fmSy8

§ Killing Internet Softly with its Rules http://bit.ly/1b5I7Z2

§ Cyber Crime & Privacy http://bit.ly/17VTluv

§ Understanding the Right to Information http://bit.ly/1hojKr7

§ Privacy Perspectives on the 2012-2013 Goa Beach Shack Policy http://bit.ly/ThAovQ

§ Identifying Aspects of Privacy in Islamic Law http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/identifying-aspects-of-privacy-in-islamic-law

§ What Does Facebook's Transparency Report Tell Us About the Indian Government's Record on Free Expression & Privacy? http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/what-does-facebook-transparency-report-tell -us-about-indian-government-record-on-free-expression-and-privacy

§ Search and Seizure and the Right to Privacy in the Digital Age: A Comparison of US and India http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/search-and-seizure-and-right-to-privacy-in-digital-age

§ Internet Privacy in India http://cis-india.org/telecom/knowledge-repository-on-internet-access/internet-privacy-in-i ndia

§ Internet-driven Developments - Structural Changes and Tipping Points http://bit.ly/10s8HVH

§ Data Retention in India http://bit.ly/XR791u

§ 2012: Privacy Highlights in India http://bit.ly/1kWe3n7

§ Big Dog is Watching You! The Sci-fi Future of Animal and Insect Drones http://bit.ly/1kWee1W

Privacy Law in India: A Muddled Field - I http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-hoot-bhairav-acharya-april-15-2014-priv acy-law-in-india-a-muddled-field-1
The Four Parts of Privacy in India http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/economic-and-political-weekly-bhairav-acharya-may-30-2015-four-parts-of-privacy-in-india
Right to Privacy in Peril http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/right-to-privacy-in-peril
Microsoft Releases its First Report on Data Requests by Law Enforcement Agencies around the World http://bit.ly/1kWjylM
The Criminal Law Amendment Bill 2013 - Penalising 'Peeping Toms' and Other Privacy Issues http://bit.ly/1dO46o5
Privacy vs. Transparency: An Attempt at Resolving the Dichotomy http://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/privacy-v-transparency
Open Letter to "Not" Recognize India as Data Secure Nation till Enactment of Privacy Legislation http://bit.ly/1sJME9j
Open Letter to Prevent the Installation of RFID tags in Vehicles http://bit.ly/1hxidzU
The National Privacy Roundtable Meetings http://bit.ly/158ayNW
Transparency Reports - A Glance on What Google and Facebook Tell about Government Data Requests http://bit.ly/19NYTal
CIS and International Coalition Calls upon Governments to Protect Privacy http://bit.ly/18oOTDk
An Analysis of the Cases Filed under Section 46 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 for Adjudication in the State of Maharashtra http://bit.ly/16dKyoo
Open Letter to Members of the European Parliament of the Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee http://bit.ly/17eZntz
CIS Supports the UN Resolution on "The Right to Privacy in the Digital age" http://bit.ly/1c2A89q
Brochures from Expos on Smart Cards, e-Security, RFID & Biometrics in India http://bit.ly/1f714fN
Electoral Databases - Privacy and Security Concerns http://bit.ly/Mb4ktM
Net Neutrality and Privacy http://bit.ly/1khi1GQ
Intermediary Liability Resources http://bit.ly/1hRT8OD
Feedback to the NIA Bill http://bit.ly/1ePhUeg
India's Identity Crisis http://bit.ly/1lTRuuz
Facebook, Privacy, and India http://bit.ly/a2HzhT
Private censorship and the Right to Hear http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-hoot-july-17-2014-chinmayi-arun-private-censorship-and-the-right-to-hear
Your Privacy is Public Property (Rules issued by a control-obsessed government have armed officials with widespread powers to pry into your private life. http://cis-india.org/news/privacy-public-property
The India Privacy Monitor Map http://bit.ly/19A5mCZ
Privacy and Security can Co-Exist http://bit.ly/193fPXi
A Street View of the Private and The Public (http://bit.ly/15VKmdf
Sense and Censorship http://bit.ly/14KFwyo
Government access to private sector data http://bit.ly/18rjd1X
India: Privacy in Peril http://bit.ly/1g5QbZj
Big Democracy, Big Surveillance: India's Surveillance State http://bit.ly/1nkg8Ho
Who Governs the Internet? Implications for Freedom and National Security http://bit.ly/1hnnJ2a

7. Whistle-blowers -

Whistle-blowers are always in a difficult situation when they must reveal the misdeeds of their corporations and governments due to the blowback that is possible if their identity is revealed to the public. As in the case of Edward Snowden and many others, a whistle-blowers identity is to be kept the most private to avoid the consequences of revealing the information that they did. This is the main focus of the article below.

§ The Privacy Rights of Whistle-blowers http://bit.ly/18GWmM3

8. Cloud and Open Source -

Cloud computing and open source software have grown rapidly over the past few decades. Cloud computing is when an individual or company uses offsite hardware on a pay by usage basis provided and owned by someone else. The advantages are low costs and easy access along with decreased initial costs. Open source software on the other hand is software where despite the existence of proprietary elements and innovation, the software is available to the public at no charge. These software are based of open standards and have the obvious advantage of being compatible with many different set ups and are free. The following article highlights these computing solutions.

§ Privacy, Free/Open Source, and the Cloud http://bit.ly/1cTmGoI

9. e-Commerce -

One of the fastest growing applications of the internet is e-Commerce. This includes many facets of commerce such as online trading, the stock exchange etc. in these cases, just as in the financial and banking industries, privacy is very important to protect ones investments and capital. The following article's main focal point is the world of e-Commerce and its current privacy scenario.

§ Consumer Privacy in e-Commerce http://bit.ly/1dCtgTs

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/sectoral-privacy-research

Second Response to Draft National Policy on Open Standards for e-Governance

pranesh — 2009-07-07T16:49:37Z

Another draft (labelled "version 2", dated May 26, 2009) of the draft national policy on open standards for e-governance was made available to Fosscomm, while many software companies were speaking out against NASSCOM's position on the policy. CIS drafted a second response addressing both the allegations against NASSCOM as well as the few shortcomings we perceive in the draft policy.

To
Shri Shankar Aggrawal
Joint Secretary (e-Governance)
Department of Information Technology
Ministry of Communications and Information Technology

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

Dear Sir,

Sub: Comments on Draft National Policy on Open Standards for e-Governance (version 2)

I am writing on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society, which is a Bangalore-based civil society organization involved both in research and policy advocacy. Public accountability and digital pluralism are two of our core concerns, and it is for this that we are writing to you today. As a natural corollary of our mission, we aim at representing the concerns of citizens and consumers. You would recall that we had submitted comments to the call for comments you had put out for the draft National Policy on Open Standards for e-Governance last year (archived at <http://cis-india.org/advocacy/os/iosp/the-response/>).

We have recently received what appears to be a newer draft (version 2) of the National Policy on Open Standards for e-Governance, dated May 26, 2009. We are yet again very pleased to note the progressive nature of this document and wish to congratulate the government on its decision to promote the interests of the citizens of India over the narrow partisan interests of a few companies which wish to promote proprietary standards.

It has brought to our notice by some in the software industry that the National Association of Software and Services Companies (NASSCOM) has argued for the dilution of the definition of open standards by including standards licensed under “reasonable and non-discriminatory” terms to be considered “open”, and has also called for multiple standards in the same domain to be considered valid as a rule under the policy. We believe both these demands go against the interest of consumers of standards — which in this case is the Indian government — and are thus against the interest of citizens as well, since the Indian government handles data on behalf of its citizens.

Even “reasonable and non-discriminatory” terms of licensing of standards are in fact discriminatory as they prevent the development of free/libre/open source software based on those standards. And while having multiple implementations of a standard is beneficial as it increases consumer (i.e., governmental) choice, having multiple incompatible standards is detrimental to the government's interest as the policy itself recognizes in paragraph 4.2, and the very purpose (as enumerated in paragraphs 1, 3, and 4) of having standards is defeated. Even if the multiple standards are bi-directionally interoperable, additional costs are incurred in having concurrent multiple standards.

Thus, one hopes that the the threshold of “national interest” mentioned in paragraph 6.4.1 is set to a high level. Lastly, the views put forth by NASSCOM seem not to be truly legitimate as it has been the complaint of some that NASSCOM did not hold an open consultation with its own members before formulating its views. There are software giants, including IBM, Sun, and Red Hat, that have openly criticized the NASSCOMM position on open standards. More importantly, NASSCOM's position does not concur with what we believe is in the best interest of small and medium software enterprises, which constitute the bulk of the Indian software industry. We pray that you shall keep this in mind while considering NASSCOM's views.

We believe that apart from the technical reasons to favour open standards, there are many public interest reasons as well. We believe that the adoption of open standards is a step towards the promotion of equitable access to knowledge to all the people of our country. We further believe that public accountability will be served greatly by adoption of an open standards policy by the Central and State governments. While even developed countries (such as those of the EU) are mandating open standards in all governmental departments, processes, and interactions, it is developing countries that stand to gain most from open standards. Proprietary standards place a larger burden on developing economies than developed as developing economies have a greater need to participate in the global network by using standards, but do have lesser capabilities than developed economies in terms of paying for royalties.

On the document itself, while there are many reasons to hail it, we believe there are still a few shortcomings which we wish to bring to your notice.

Issue 1: Possibility of following letter of policy while violating its spirit

Explanation
Sometimes private companies can interfere with the standardisation process by exerting undue influence on the members of the standard setting body. That such undue influence have been sought to be applied even in India recently shows that this is not mere conjecture or idle speculation. Given this background, the document should note this as a problem and note that remedial measures could be undertaken in the event such undue influence comes to light.

Resolution
Introduce language, such as that used in the EU EIF, stating:
“Practices distorting the definition and evolution of open standards must be addressed immediately to protect the integrity of the standardisation process.”

Issue 2: Patenting and licensing of government-developed standards

Explanation
Paragraph 6.3 of the draft policy allows the government to opt for the development of a new standard by a Government of India-identified agency in case no standard is found to meet the government's functional requirements. However, it is not clear under what terms this standard will be available.

Resolution
Introduce a paragraph 6.3.1 stating:
“Any standard developed by or on behalf of the government shall be patent-free and the specifications of such a standard will be published online and will be available to all for no cost. Along with the standard, the government shall also provide, or shall cause to be provided, a free/libre/open source reference implementation of that standard.”

Issue 3: No framework provided for review or phasing out interim standards

Explanation
Paragraph 6.2 permits the government to adopt a non-open “interim” standard (one which does not fulfil all the mandatory requirements of open standards as laid out in 5.1) if no open standard exists in the specific domain for which the standard is required. This however does not have a clause necessitating the phasing out of such an interim standard.

Resolution
A review mechanism should be provided for periodic evaluation of all standards selected by the government, especially those designated as interim standards. A new paragraph 7.1.1 could be added:
“All standards selected through the processes outlined in this policy shall undergo an annual review by the Apex Body on e-Governance Standards, and all those designated as interim standards shall be reviewed biannually.”

Issue 4: Problematic definition in the glossary

Explanation
In Appendix A, the definition of “patents” (A.12) states: “The additional qualification 'utility patents' is used in countries such as the United States to distinguish them from other types of patents but should not be confused with utility models granted by other countries. Examples of particular species of patents for inventions include biological patents, business method patents, chemical patents and software patents.” Many of these references are U.S.-specific and are not valid forms of patents in India (e.g. biological patents, business method patents, and software patents).

Resolution
Delete the last two sentences in A.12

We once again wish to compliment the government on developing such a strong policy on open standards, and hope that our suggestions are incorporated into the text of the final version. We further hope that the policy will be notified at the earliest, as there has already been considerable opportunity for the public and industry to comment on the draft versions of the policy.

Yours sincerely,

Pranesh Prakash
Programme Manager
Centre for Internet and Society

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/standards/second-response

Second International e-Governance Conference

praskrishna — 2012-12-11T10:50:29Z

The second international conference on governance and electronics which is held under the motto "Together Toward Digital Inclusion" is organized by the National Committee for Corporate Governance Electronic Iraq and the United Nations Development Programme at Rashid Hotel in Baghdad from December 2-3, 2012. The event aims to review the achievements of the program e-governance Iraqi national, and discuss the challenges of applying e-governance as a tool to achieve public sector reform and digital inclusion.

Sunil Abraham is a speaker at this event and is presenting on "Review of the Legal Environment in Iraq for Effective e-Governance", and "Government Interoperability Frameworks: Global Overview and implications for Iraq".

Conference Agenda

Sunday, December 2, 2012

09:00 – 10:00	Conference Registration
10:00 – 11:00	Opening Ceremony H.E. Nuri Al-Maliki, Prime Minister of Iraq Ms. Helen Clark, UNDP Administrator H.E. Dr. Abdul Kareem Al-Samaraii, Minister of Science and Technology
11:00 – 11:30	Break
11:30 – 12:30	Plenary session 1: e-Governance and Public Sector Reform Chairman: Dr. Adil Matloob, Minister IT Advisor – Ministry of Science and Technology Mr. Thamir Al Ghadban, Head of the Prime Minister’s Advisory Commission (PMAC) Prof. Subhash Bhatnagar, UNDP Expert Q & A
12:30 – 13:30	Plenary session 2: Citizen Inclusion into the Digital Society Chairman: Mr. Imad Naji, Director General - Ministry of Planning Dr. Laurence Millar, UNDP Expert Dr. Kathim Ibrisim, Director General - Ministry of Planning Q & A
13:30 – 13:40	Plenary Session 3: Challenges of e-Governance Implementation Chairman: Dr. Mahmood Kassim Sharief, Director General – Ministry of Science and Technology
13:40 – 14:00	Break
14:00 – 15:30	Workshop 1: Challenges of implementing an adequate telecommunications infrastructure and Highlighting the role of the private sector and the establishment of the concept of true public-private sector partnership in the field of e-governance Chairman: Mr. Jaber Zwayed Atiyah, Director General – National Security Commission Dr. Rohan Samarajiva Lirne, UNDP Expert Dr. Shahani Markus Weerawarana, UNDP Expert Ms. Raghad Abdulrasoul National Centre for Consultation and Management Development/Ministry of Planning Q&A
13:30 – 14:30	Lunch @ AL-Rashid

Monday, December 3, 2012

09:00 – 09:15	Closure of the Plenary Session 3 Presentation of workshop results
09:15 – 10:45	Plenary Session 4: Effective Role of Local Governments in Framework of e-Governance Program Chairman: Dr. Kathim Ibrisim, Director General - Ministry of Planning Mr. Manu Srivastava, UNDP Expert Dr. Adil Abdullah Shuhaieb, member of e-Governance Committee in Missan Governorate Mr. Anmar Natik Mohammed, Manager of e-Governance Programme in Ninawa Governorate Eng Haider Shaker Yaji , Muthana Governorate Q&A
10:45 – 11:00	Break
11:00 – 12:00	Plenary Session 5: Challenges of Government Interoperability Framework Implementation, Standards and Information Chairman: Mr. Mohammed Raji Mousa, Council of Ministers Secretariat (COMSEC) Mr. Sunil Abraham, UNDP Expert Mr. Ammar Salih and Dr. Firas Hamadani/ Minister of Foreign Affairs Q&A
12:00 – 13:00	Plenary Session 6: Building e-Services Chairman: Dr. Saad Najem / University of Mustanserieh Mr. Emilio Bugli Innocenti, UNDP Expert Dr. Adil Matloob, Minister IT Advisor – Ministry of Science and Technology Mr. Ahmed Saad, Director General – Ministry of Municipality and Public Work Q&A
13:00 – 14:30	Conference Closing Session Chairman: Dr. Samir Attar, Deputy Minister – Ministry of Science and Technology Looking forward Adopt conference recommendation UNDP Closing Speech Government of Iraq Speech
14:30 – 15:30	Lunch @ AL-Rashid

Papers/Speakers Bio Summary

Plenary Session 1: e-Governance and Public Sector Reform

Chairman: Dr. Adil Matloob, Minister IT Advisor – Ministry of Science and Technology

e-Governance and public sector reform/ Subhash Bhatnagar The paper shares experiences from different countries of implementing e-Governance projects that have significantly contributed to governance reform by enhancing transparency and reducing corruption in delivery of public services. Some lessons are drawn for Iraq. E-Governance should be used as a means of implementing public sector reform agenda. The implementation of projects should be accelerated. *Subhash Bhatnagar* is an alumnus of Indian Institute of Technology, Madras and Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad (IIMA). Currently he is an honorary adjunct professor at the IIMA. He was a Chair Professor, member of Board of Governors and the Dean of IIMA in his 30 year tenure at IIMA. He has been a visiting Professor in universities in the US and Africa. He worked with the World Bank in Washington DC for six years serving as an advisor to to mainstream e-Governance in the operations of the Bank. He has been a lead speaker in training workshops for ministers and legislators for 16 states in India. His research and consulting work has covered E-Governance, ICT for development, National IT Policy, and Corporate IT Strategy. He has hundred research papers and seven books to his credit which include two books on eGovernance. He is on the editorial boards of seven international journals and has served as Chairman of International Committees in the ICT field. He serves on a number of central and state Government committees in Inda including the steering committee for ICT sector for formulating India’s 12^th Five Year Plan. He was made a Fellow of the Computer Society of India in 1994. He has served on the boards of a number of educational institutions and private enterprises in India. He has travelled to nearly 60 countries, delivering public lectures and conference key notes

Plenary Session 2: Citizen Inclusion into the Digital Society

Chairman: Mr. Imad Naji, Director General - Ministry of Planning

Citizen Inclusion into the Digital Society/ Laurence Millar This paper describes the importance of digital inclusion to achieve the e-governance Vision for Iraq. The paper reports on international experience in digital inclusion and e-governance, using examples from New Zealand, United Kingdom, Bahrain and Taiwan. These experiences illustrate how to develop a plan for increasing digital inclusion in Iraq which is aligned to the wider priorities for social and economic outcomes. Laurence Millar is an independent advisor in the use of ICT by governments, and Editor at Large for FutureGov magazine. He is the lead advisor for the e-government strategy and second action plan for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and has also worked with other GCC countries on their e-government strategies. He provides expert advice to the government on the adoption of digital technology and broadband in schools; he is also Chair of 2020 Communications Trust, which is the leading provider of digital literacy programmes in New Zealand. During his career of more than 35 years, he has worked in the public and private sector, in the UK, USA, Asia and New Zealand. From 2004, he led the New Zealand e-government programme providing leadership in strategy and policy, establishing a foundation of shared infrastructure, and maintaining oversight of government ICT investment; he finished in the role of NZ Government CIO on 1 May 2009. He is married with four adult children and lives in Wellington, New Zealand; he has a MA from Cambridge University and an MSc with distinction from London University.
The role of ICTs in promoting public participation/ Dr. Kathim Ibrisim Participation is a basic feature of good governance, which suggests providing a democratic environment in the community that allows the integration of citizens, institutions of civil society, stakeholders and the poor and marginalized groups into policy-making and follow-up implementation. As much a democratic atmosphere allows for participation good governance can achieve the hopes of community regardless of its different components. This paper provides an assessment of the reality of public participation in Iraq which is based on a survey of public participation in four sectors concerned with providing services (Health/Education/Higher Education/Water and Sanitation). It was carried out by the National Centre and the support of the ESCWA in 2011 - in the light of identification the main challenges facing the participation. It will focus on how to use ICT in promoting public participation in setting priorities and policy-making and follow-up implementation.
Dr. Kathim Mohammed Breisem Okabi, Director General of the National Center for Administrative Development and Information Technology since 2008, holds Ph.D. in object-oriented software engineering, M.A. in empirical computer science – 1989, Higher Diploma in systems analysis – 1982, and B.A. of Statistics – 1980. Dr. Kazem served as a professor at the universities of Jordan (Al al-Bayt University/Philadelphia University) for the period 1996-2008, a professor at the Al-Tahadi University/Libya for the period 1983 – 1992, and a statistician for the period 1980 -1983.

Plenary Session 3: Workshop 1 (Challenges of implementing an adequate telecommunications infrastructure and Highlighting the role of the private sector and the establishment of the concept of true public-private sector partnership in the field of e-governance)

Chairman: Dr. Mahmood Kassim Sharief, Director General – Ministry of Science and Technology

ICT Infrastructure for e-Government and e-Governance in Iraq / Rohan Samarajiva Lirne Governments provisioning e government services have to address two specific policy principles with regard to infrastructure: ensure universal access to their services and assure a higher level of reliability than with comparable private services. Unlike a decade or so ago, governments today do not have to rely solely on common-access centers (telecenters) to provide universal access. In most countries, mobile signals cover almost the entirety of the population; most households have at least one electronic access device; the few that do not, can gain such access. Today’s smartphones have capabilities little different from the early telecenters, except for functionalities such as printing, scanning, etc. and the support of intermediaries. Therefore, delivering voice-based e government services in the short term and mobile-optimized web-based services in the medium term, with common-access centers performing specialized backup functions, is a viable strategy. Conventional web interfaces that adhere to common standards must be maintained but articulated with mobile applications and voice-based services provided through a government call center. In light of difficulties in supplying continuous electricity and security at the present time, special attention has to be paid to reliability. Reliability can be achieved, beginning with a proper understanding of requirements such as the importance of ensuring redundancy of suppliers, paths and media. Samarajiva is founder Chair and CEO of LIRNEasia, a regional think tank focusing on ICT policy and regulation in the emerging Asia Pacific. He most recently completed a diagnostic report on the potential of the ICT Sector for inclusive growth in Bhutan for the Asian Development Bank. He is a member of the team supporting the World Bank to establish the Pacific ICT Regulatory Resource Center, based at the University of the South Pacific in Suva, Fiji. He served as policy advisor to the Ministry of Post and Telecom in Bangladesh in 2006-07 and 2009. In 2002-2004, Samarajiva served as Team Leader of the Public Interest Program Unit of the Ministry for Economic Reform, Science & Technology of Sri Lanka. He was one of the designers of the USD 53 million plus e Sri Lanka Initiative (that had a major e gov focus) that led the way to rapid growth of fixed and mobile broadband in Sri Lanka. He was one of the founder directors of the ICT Agency. Samarajiva has been active in ICT (including telecom) policy and regulation for over 20 years. From 1998-1999, he served as Director General of Telecommunications in Sri Lanka at the invitation of the Government of Sri Lanka. He taught at the Ohio State University in the US (1987-2000) and at the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands (2000-2003).
The role of private sector software development services companies in e-Government solution implementation/ Shahani Markus Weerawarana Iraq is a country in transformation and has embarked on a compelling vision for e-Government based on a National e-Governance Strategy and Action Plan. Since the private sector plays an important and pivotal role in any national e-Government program, it is important to develop a comprehensive roadmap towards establishing a true public-private sector partnership in Iraq. As a prerequisite for such an endeavor, we review the current status of the e-Government program implementation in Iraq, the critical challenges that need to be addressed in achieving a robust public-private sector partnership in Iraq and the best practices prevalent globally and regionally with respect to addressing such issues along with the resultant policy and program implications. Based on this critical analysis, we formulate many recommendations that could be included in a public-private sector partnership development roadmap that would create momentum in establishing a competitive and vibrant private-sector role in a knowledge-based economic environment geared towards enabling the vision of e-Iraq. Shahani Markus Weerawarana has global experience in the IT industry, government and academia, in a professional career has spanned many different roles, including being an educator, engineer, entrepreneur, manager and researcher. Currently, she is a Visiting Scientist at Indiana University, USA and a Visiting Lecturer at the University of Moratuwa, Sri Lanka. Previously, she was the CTO at the ICT Agency (ICTA) of Sri Lanka, which is the country's apex IT policy & planning agency for implementing the e-Sri Lanka program. At ICTA, she played a key role in providing technical guidance for many eGovernment projects, including spearheading the design and implementation of LankaGate, a 'FutureGov' Award winning project. Prior to joining ICTA, Shahani was the Head of Engineering at Virtusa (Sri Lanka), where she directly and indirectly led more than 600 IT professionals. Before joining Virtusa Shahani worked in the USA, at Prescient Markets Inc and at the IBM TJ Watson Research Center in New York. Her professional activities have included being a member in the Sri Lankan Presidential Task Force in English and IT, an adviser to the Royal Government of Bhutan in their Interoperability Framework and Enterprise Architecture initiative, and a member of the Open eGovernance Forum Advisory Board in the Pan Asia Network for Democratic eGovernance. She is a free & open source software advocate and is a Committer and PMC member in the Apache Software Foundation. Shahani has more than 50 academic publications and her academic activities include the formulation of Asia's first MBA in eGovernance program for the University of Moratuwa, and the supervision of more than 30 MBA and MSc research projects. Her research interests include e-governance, software engineering, parallel & distributed systems, e-science, and TLA practices in higher education. Shahani has a Ph.D. in Computer Science from Purdue University, USA.
Assess the reality of the public-private partnership (PPP) and its role in promoting ICT for development/ Raghad Abdulrasoul This paper, a field survey in four service sectors (health, education, higher education, water and sanitation), aims at identifying the reality and types of PPPs and how could such partnerships contribute in the provision of or complement services within the target sectors in addition to understand and recognize the quality of the services provided by the private sector than in the public sector with a focus on the role of PPP in the promotion of ICT to support national development efforts and improve the quality of public services. Raghad Abdulrasoul, an expert at the National Center for Administrative Development and Information Technology, Higher Diploma in Development Planning/specialty in feasibility studies and B.A. of Statistics. She has functional experience and participated in implementing projects with international organizations (UNICEF/UNDP/ESCWA) in different subjects dealing with the reform and modernization of the Iraqi public sector. She performed many advisory tasks for various institutions in the state in subjects (performance evaluation, organizational structures, job descriptions , mainstreaming of procedures). She provided a variety of lectures at the National Centre and state institutions in the areas of administration, planning and feasibility studies.

Workshop 2 Challenges for creating an enabling legal environment
Chairman: Mrs Afaf Khairallah Hussein, Prime Minister Office

Review of the legal environment in Iraq for effective e-Governance/ Sunil Abraham This paper examines the legal environment and compares it to international best practices for information society aspects that have direct implication for e-governance. It begins with transparency and openness law where there is an examination of right to information/access to information law and subsidiary policies such as free/open source software policy, open content or access policy, open standards policy, electronic accessibility policy, open government data policy. Then it examines privacy law looking at various options for the horizontal statute and also the vertical statutes necessary to comprehensive protect citizen/consumer rights and also public interest simultaneously. This is followed by an examination of intellectual property rights law overall before a more focussed examination patent law and copyright law. The paper ends with examination of some miscellaneous statutes such as the Cyber Crime Law and Electronic Signature and Electronic Transactions Act. Sunil Abraham is the executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), Bangalore. CIS is a 4 year old policy and academic research organisation that focuses on accessibility by the disabled, intellectual property rights policy reform, openness [Free/Open Source Software, Open Standards, Open Content, Open Access and Open Educational Resources], internet governance, telecom, digital natives and digital humanities. He is also the founder of Mahiti, a social enterprise aiming to reduce the cost and complexity of information and communication technology for the voluntary sector by using free software. Sunil continues to serve on the board of Mahiti. He is an Ashoka fellow and was elected for a Sarai FLOSS fellowship. For three years, Sunil also managed the International Open Source Network, a project of United Nations Development Programme's Asia-Pacific Development Information Programme, serving 42 countries in the Asia-Pacific region. In 2007 - 2008, he managed ENRAP an electronic network of International Fund for Agricultural Development projects in the Asia-Pacific, facilitated and co-funded by International Development Research Centre, Canada. Sunil currently serves on the advisory boards of Open Society Foundations - Information Programme, Mahiti, Tactical Technology Collective, Samvada and International Centre for Free/Open Source Software.
Implementation of the e-system in the Iraqi elections/Dr. Tariq Kazim Ajil, University of Thi Qar

Plenary Session 4: Effective Role of Local Governments in framework of e-Governance Program

Chairman: Dr. Kathim Ibrisim, Director General - Ministry of Planning

Municipal e-Governance Platform / Manu Srivastava The paper discusses the Municipal eGovernance Platform developed by eGovernments Foundation (eGov). The paper sees this in the back ground of the policies and frameworks that the shaped the Municipal eGovernance sector in India. The paper discusses the basic design approach for developing the platform, the platform itself and then discusses the future direction for the platform. *Manu Srivastava* Bio: Manu Srivastava managed and a founding member of the eGovernments Foundation since 2003, that aims at creating an eGovernance Platform (Municipal ERP) to improve the efficiencies of City Municipalities leading to better delivery of services. Between 2000 and 2003, Manu was the project leader of GlobeTrades (Silicon Valley), for creation an Internet platform for medium and large companies to set up industry specific Internet-based solutions to streamline global Procurement and Distribution. He Architected and delivered award winning Citizen Services Solutions in area of eGovernance such as Nirmala Nagara.
Ninawa e-Governance Roadmap/ Anmar Natik Mohammed, Manager of e-Governance Programme in Ninawa Governorate

Plenary Session 5: Challenges of Government Interoperability Framework Implementation, Standards and Information

Chairman: Mr. Mohammed Raji Mousa, Council of Ministers Secretariat (COMSEC)

Government Interoperability Frameworks: Global Overview and implications for Iraq/ Sunil Abraham This paper attempts to identify some next steps for the implementation of the Iraqi Government Interoperability Framework and National Enterprise Architecture[GIF/NEA]. The paper begins with an introduction which provides an historical overview of the GIF/NEA formulation process an the policy document itself. This is followed by a discussion of Open Standards to understand why the GIF/NEA and other open standards policies in the Iraqi government remain critical from a variety of perspectives. The paper then proceeds to look at GIFs across the world and attempts to characterize some of the strategies employed by governments to reach their policy objectives. The paper also features a examination of emerging semantic standards that are most useful from the perspective of storing government data. The paper ends with certain concrete recommendations for taking the open standards agenda forward with Iraqi e-governance. Sunil Abraham is the executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), Bangalore. CIS is a 4 year old policy and academic research organisation that focuses on accessibility by the disabled, intellectual property rights policy reform, openness [Free/Open Source Software, Open Standards, Open Content, Open Access and Open Educational Resources], internet governance, telecom, digital natives and digital humanities. He is also the founder of Mahiti, a social enterprise aiming to reduce the cost and complexity of information and communication technology for the voluntary sector by using free software. Sunil continues to serve on the board of Mahiti. He is an Ashoka fellow and was elected for a Sarai FLOSS fellowship. For three years, Sunil also managed the International Open Source Network, a project of United Nations Development Programme's Asia-Pacific Development Information Programme, serving 42 countries in the Asia-Pacific region. In 2007 - 2008, he managed ENRAP an electronic network of International Fund for Agricultural Development projects in the Asia-Pacific, facilitated and co-funded by International Development Research Centre, Canada. Sunil currently serves on the advisory boards of Open Society Foundations - Information Programme, Mahiti, Tactical Technology Collective, Samvada and International Centre for Free/Open Source Software.

Plenary Session 6: Building e-services

Chairman: Dr. Saad Najem / University of Mustanserieh

Breaking information silos: towards an Iraqi e-Service ecosystem supporting the life-event approach/ Emilio Bugli Innocenti This paper analyses the current status of the e-Service implementation within the e-Governance programmes in developing countries with a specific focus on the Life Event approach delivery of-e-Services along with the related Service Oriented Architecture. Then, it discusses the most suited SOA engineering methodology in order to boost e-Service re-use and integration. Finally, a combined SOA and Cloud Computing approach is proposed in order to provide an effective/efficient implementation of Iraqi e-Governance Action Plan along with a possible fast take-up of e-Services. Emilio Bugli Innocenti has 27 year experience in the ICT domain and over 20 in the e-Governance domain. As Senior e-Governance Consultant he has been working with assignments in transition and developing countries in the Balkans, Caucasus, Middle East, South America and South East Asia. He has been Project Manager of large International ICT projects targeting different sectors and e-Governance, in particular dealing with the implementation of e-Services. He is member of the Italian Industry Executive Association, IEEE Computer Society and Association for Computing Machinery. He holds a MSc in Physics and speaks English, Italian and French.
E-governance and cloud computing services This lecture addresses the historical perspective of cloud computing from a virtual concept to provide computing as a public facility launched in the mid-sixties of the last century as well as the phases of computing services offered by individual computers and then the network to the services provided on line. It also addresses the benefits and types of cloud computing comparing between the benefits and weaknesses of each type. Furthermore, it particularly tackles the economic benefits of balancing security with information, through the architecture and various levels of cloud computing and its impacts on architectures that must be taken into consideration. Furthermore, the ten risks will be put in cloud computing in particular. Adil Matloob is one of the advisors to the Ministry of Science & Technology Baghdad, Iraq. He works in the field of knowledge based systems and artificial intelligence for the last 30 plus years. He was the managing director of the SoftDev limited; a British based company, and a technical director for the Washington based multinational company; the United Press International. He is one of the pioneers’ researchers on machine translation software in the beginning of the nineties with the product known as ArabTrans software. He works on Arabic data mining as well as Arabic abstraction and Arabic knowledge based system. Adil has M.Sc and PhD from Manchester University, Manchester, United Kingdom in 1977 & 1980 respectively.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/second-international-e-governance-conference-at-baghdad

Second Freedom Online Conference in Nairobi

praskrishna — 2012-10-04T06:23:26Z

The second freedom online conference organized by the Ministry of Information and Communications, Republic of Kenya in partnership with the government of Netherlands was held at the UN complex in Gigiri, Nairobi on September 6 and 7, 2012. Pranesh Prakash was a panelist in the session on Access to Internet: Challenges and Opportunities.

The following themes were discussed at the event:

ICT, entrepreneurship and corporate social responsibility
The use of mobile entrepreneurship for economic and social development in East Africa is a good example of the need for accessible, fast and open Internet. Discussing the potential for best practices in Kenya and other countries, regulatory issues they face, adherence to codes of conduct for corporate social responsibility and related themes would be part of this topic discussion.

Censorship vs freedom of expression, assembly and association
There are numerous examples of countries censoring the Internet by blocking websites, demanding that Internet Service Providers remove certain content, forcing users to practice self-censorship by exerting pressure, fining, arresting, convicting, or otherwise obstructing bloggers, netizens, journalists and other users, thus breaching their legitimate right to the freedom of expression on the Internet.

Access to the Internet: challenges and opportunities
Providing access to the Internet in the first place is a key issue not only for Africa, but also for countries in other continents where access and usage of the Internet varies sharply between urban and rural areas. The developments in this field, including regulation facing providers of the Internet (ISP's, ICT companies, and other intermediaries), infrastructure, innovation, regional and international structures, and how governments could facilitate better access will be part of the discussion.

The two-day conference brought together over 400 stakeholders from the global ICT industry to discuss issues affecting freedom of internet users in Kenya and across the world and come up with policy recommendations for possible enactment by respective governments.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, Communications Commission of Kenya, Google, et.al. were the sponsors for this event.

Click to read the Conference Program

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/second-freedom-online-conference-in-nairobi

Second Expert Meeting on Human Rights and the Internet

praskrishna — 2011-06-08T10:01:55Z

The second expert meeting on human rights and the Internet is being organised by the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs and the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression on 30 and 31 March 2011 in Stockholm (Sweden). Anja Kovacs will participate in this meeting.

List of Participants (draft)

Alison LeClaire Christie alison.leclairechristie@international.gc.ca	Minister-Counsellor and Deputy Permanent Representative, Canadian mission to UN in Geneva
Anabella Rivera libert.expresion@gmail.com	Executive Director, DEMOS, Guatemala
Anja Kovacs anja@cis-india.org	Fellow, The Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore
Anna Nawrot anna.nawrot@rwi.lu.se	Researcher, Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights, Lund, Sweden
Annie Game agame@cjfe.org	Executive Director, CJFE-IFEX
Anriette Esterhuysen anriette@apc.org	Executive Director, Association for Progressive Communications, South Africa
Arthit Suriyawongkul arthit@gmail.com	Thai Neitzen Network, Centre for Popular Media Reform
Brett Solomon brett@accessnow.org	Executive Director, Access Now
Charlotta Bredberg charlotta.bredberg@sida.se	Thematic Coordinator for Democracy, Human Rights, Peace and Security, Global Programme Unit, Department for Global Cooperation, Sida
Cynthia Wong cynthia@cdt.org	Director, Project on Global Internet Freedom, Center for Democracy and Technology, Washington DC
Daniel Westman Daniel.Westman@juridicum.su.se	Researcher and Teacher, Faculty of Law, Stockholm University
Danny Aerts danny.aerts@iis.se	CEO, The Internet Infrastructure Foundation (.SE)
David Mothander davidmothander@google.com	Nordic Policy Counsel, Google, Stockholm
Dunja Mijatovic pm-fom@osce.org	OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media
Eduardo Bertoni eberto2@palermo.edu	Director, Center for Studies on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information, Palermo University School of Law, Argentina
Eric King eric@privacy.org	Human Rights and Technology Advisor, Privacy International
Grace Githaiga ggithaiga@hotmail.com	Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANET)
Guy Berger G.Berger@ru.ac.za	Professor, School of Journalism & Media Studies, Rhodes University, South Africa
Helena Bjuremalm helena.bjuremalm@sida.se	Senior Policy Specialist, Democracy Assistance, Sida
Hossam Bahgat Hossam@eipr.org	Executive Director, Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, Cairo
Jan Kleijssen jan.kleijssen@coe.int	Director, Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs, Council of Europe
Jean-Luc Delvert Jean-luc.DELVERT@diplomatie.gouv.fr	Counsellor, Human Rights Division, Ministry for Foreign Affairs, France
Jean-Pierre Kempeneers, jem.kempeneers@minbuza.nl	Head of the Human Rights Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Netherlands
Jermyn P Brooks jermynbrooks@aol.com	Chair, Global Network Initiative
Joana Varon joana@varonferraz.com	Researcher, Centre for Technology and Society, Rio De Janeiro
Joe McNamee joe@mcnamee.eu	EU Advocacy Coordinator, European Digital Rights Initiative
Joy Liddicoat joy@liddicoatlaw.co.nz	Project Coordinator, Internet Rights are Human Rights, APC, South Africa
Kurt Erik Lindqvist kurtis@netnod.se	CEO, NETNOD, Stockholm
Lee Hibbard Lee.HIBBARD@coe.int	Coordinator for Internet Governance and Information Society, Council of Europe
Lisa Horner LisaH@global-partners.co.uk	Head of Research & Policy, Global Dialogue, London
Lise Bergh lise.bergh@amnesty.se	Director, Amnesty International, Swedish Section
Louise Bermsjö louise.bermsjo@sida.se	Programme Manager for Democracy and Human Rights, Global Programme Unit, Department for Global Cooperation, Sida
Lucille Morillon internet@rsf.org	Head, Bureau of New Media, Reporters sans frontières
Maciej TOMASZEWSKI maciej.tomaszewski@ec.europa.eu	European Commission DG INFSO, Unit A3 Internet; Network & Information Security
Maria Häll maria.hall@enterprise.ministry.se	Deputy Director, Division for Information Technology Policy, Ministry of Enterprise, Energy and Communications, Sweden
Mats Ringborg mats.ringborg@foreign.ministry.se	Ambassador of Sweden to OECD and UNESCO
Matthew Barzun BarzunMW@state.gov	US Ambassador to Sweden
Michael Camilleri MCamilleri@oas.org	Attorney, office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, OAS
Nicklas Lundblad nlundblad@google.com	Senior Policy Counsel, Public Policy and Government Affairs, Google
Nicole Gregory nicole.gregory@fco.gov.uk	Head of Human Rights Section, Human Rights and Democracy Department, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, UK
Orest Nowosad onowosad@ohchr.org	Director, Special Procedures of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
Patrik Fältström patrik@frobbit.se	Distinguished Consulting Engineer, Cisco
Patrik Hiselius Patrik.Hiselius@teliasonera.com	Senior Advisor, Public Affairs, Group Communications, Telia Sonera
Paula Uimonen paula@spidercenter.org	Director, The Swedish Program for ICT in Developing Regions, Stockholm
Richard Allan, ric@fb.com	Director of Policy in Europe, Facebook
Richard Esguerra gwen@eff.org	Senior Activist, Global Internet Freedom Policy, Electronic Frontier Foundation
Robert Guerra guerra@freedomhouse.org	Project Director, Internet Freedom, Freedom House
Robert Hårdh Robert.Hardh@civilrightsdefenders.org	Executive Director, Civil Rights Defenders, Stockholm
Sally Elkhodary sally.khodary@anhri.net	Programs Director, The Arabic Network for Human Rights Information, Cairo
Sarah Labowitz LabowitzSB@state.gov	Office of the Coordinator for Cyber Issues, US State Dept
Staffan Jonson staffan.jonson@iis.se	Policy Adviser, The Internet Infrastructure Foundation (.SE)
Sylvie Coudray s.coudray@unesco.org	Division for Freedom of Expression, Democracy and Peace, UNESCO
Thomas Hajnoczi, Thomas.HAJNOCZI@bmeia.gv.at	Ambassador, Permanent Representative of Austria to Council of Europe
Toby Mendel toby@law-democracy.org	Executive Director, Centre for Law and Democracy
Vilhelm Konnander vilhelm.konnander@gmail.com	Global Voices
Wolfgang Benedek wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at	Professor, Faculty of Law, Graz University, Austria
Yaman Akdeniz yaman.akdeniz@bilgi.edu.tr Ženet Mujić zenet.mujic@osce.org	Associate Professor of Law, Faculty of Law, Istanbul Bilgi University Senior Adviser, office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media

Organisers

Frank la Rue Co-Chair of the meeting libert.expresion@gmail.com	UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression
Olof Ehrenkrona Co-Chair of the meeting olof.ehrenkrona@foreign.ministry.se	Ambassador, Political Adviser to Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, MFA, Sweden
Per Sjögren per.sjogren@foreign.ministry.se	Head, Dept of International Law, Human Rights and Treaty Law, MFA, Sweden
Hans Dahlgren hans.dahlgren@foreign.ministry.se	Ambassador for Human Rights, MFA, Sweden
Måns Molander mans.molander@foreign.ministry.se	Head of Human Rights Section, MFA, Sweden
Johan Hallenborg johan.hallenborg@foreign.ministry.se	Special Adviser, HR Section, MFA, Sweden
Maria Koliopanou maria.koliopanou@foreign.ministry.se	Assistant, HR Section, MFA, Sweden
Karin Keil Pettersson karin.keil-pettersson@foreign.ministry.se	Assistant, HR Section, MFA, Sweden
Pauline Etemad pauline.etemad@foreign.ministry.se	Intern, HR Section, MFA Sweden
Rolf Ring rolf.ring@rwi.lu.se	Deputy Director, Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, Lund, Sweden
Gordana Jankovic Gordana.Jankovic@osf-eu.org	Director, Open Society Foundation Media Program
Vera Franz vfranz@osf-eu.org	Senior Program Manager, Information Program, Open Society Foundations
Stewart Chisholm Stewart.Chisholm@osf-eu.org	Senior Manager for Freedom of Expression, Open Society Media Program

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/notices/second-expert-meeting

Second Draft of Open Access Policy of the Department of Biotechnology and Department of Science released

sinha — 2014-10-30T00:33:49Z

The Department of Biotechnology and the Department of Science, Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India drafted an Open Access Policy (“Policy”) in consultation with several open access experts, government officials and CIS. The second draft of the Policy released last week and is open for comments till 17th November, 2014.

The Centre for Internet and Society (“CIS”) commends the efforts of the Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India to make scientific research publicly available by developing an open access policy. The first and second drafts of the Policy may be accessed here. The following part highlights the changes inserted in the second draft of the Policy.

Second draft of the Department of Biotechnology and the Department of Science Open Access Policy

The second draft has been titled “Policy on open access to DBT and DST funded research.” At the outset, the second draft reflects that the Policy is voluntary and not mandatory in nature. To reiterate this, the Department of Biotechnology and the Department of Science (“DBT-DST”) acknowledge and respect right of researchers to publish their work in a journal of their choice in the Policy. However, the DBT-DST maintains that it will not underwrite article processing charges. In addition, the Policy respects the limitations placed on research outputs under Indian law and intellectual property policies of the respective institutions.

The Policy lays out that the process for making a research output openly accessible will start at the institutional level, and it has been made mandatory for institutions which receive core funding from DBT-DST to set-up an Institutional Repository(“IR”). The DBT-DST will provide adequate assistance to set up institutional repositories. For other institutions, it is strongly suggested that they set up an IR. Meanwhile, institutions can submit their work in the central repository created by the DBT and DST (dbt.sciencecentral.in and dst.sciencecentral.in). The Ministry of Science and Technology will set up a central harvester (www.sciencecentral.in) that will harvest the full text and metadata of these publication.

The recommended deposit period of the works has been extended to two weeks after the acceptance by the journal, and the recommended embargo period is less than a year. Depositing in a suitable repository has been made mandatory for all research outputs. CIS strongly recommended an embargo period of one year, and making deposits in repositories mandatory, regardless of the open access routes ( Gold OA or Green OA) adopted by the scientist.

The draft makes it clear that the Policy does not intend to override the agreements between the researchers and publishers, however, it recommends the authors to bring to the notice of publishers their obligations under the Policy.

In furtherance of creating awareness of open access, the DBT-DST intend to celebrate “Open Access Day” during the International Open Access Week (http://www.openaccessweek.org/) by organizing sensitizing lectures, programmes, workshops and taking new OA initiatives.

The second draft successfully addresses concerns raised by scientists and publishers on the first draft. The comments on the first draft may be accessed here. In the comments, the scientific community requested clarification on the mandatory nature of the policy. It also raised the issue of impeding career advancement in view of limited number of open access journals and the dependence on publications in certain noteworthy journals while hiring. Therefore, the second draft of the Policy makes it voluntary to publish open access, however, depositing in repositories has been made mandatory.

Further, concerns about IRs and central repository have been addressed in the second draft with the DBT-DST committing to assist institutions in setting up IRs.

Some publishers raised concerns about the stipulated embargo period, and suggested it be extended to a variable of 12-24 months, instead of the 12 months period recommended in the Policy. However, the second draft retains the embargo period of one year because scientific research moves at a fast pace, and locking crucial research for more than one year runs the risk of rendering the research outdated.

FAQs on the Policy will be released soon, as requested by several commentators.

About the Policy

CIS has been assisting the DBT-DST on developing the Policy since June 2014. The Policy document was drafted by the Open Access Policy Committee. I blogged about the exercise undertaken to emerge with the first draft which was followed by a round of comments from the public. After releasing the first draft, the Open Access Policy Committee convened a meeting to review the Policy in light of the feedback received. CIS was invited to participate in the meeting and I attended it in furtherance of the submissions made by CIS previously. The second draft is the outcome of the Open Access Policy Committee meeting.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/second-draft-of-open-access-policy-of-the-department-of-biotechnology-and-department-of-science-released

Second Annual Roundtable on Innovation, Intellectual Property and Competition

praskrishna — 2017-08-08T00:33:51Z

Rohini Lakshane attended the round-table organized by CIIPC, National Law University, Delhi, in Bangalore on July 2, 2017.

The CIIPC conducts the Annual Roundtable on Innovation, Intellectual Property and Competition to offer a forum for members of the academia, policy makers, industry stakeholders and academically minded practitioners to engage on emerging issues at the interface of innovation, intellectual property & competition law and policy. The First Annual Roundtable on Innovation, Intellectual Property and Competition, held last year in New Delhi, was well attended. This time around, we look forward to continuing this dialogue through open and nuanced discussions on the most relevant and contentious issues concerning this area of law and economic policy, with special emphasis on recent developments in India.

Click to see the Agenda

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/second-annual-roundtable-on-innovation-intellectual-property-and-competition

Sean McDonald - Ebola: A Big Data Disaster

sumandro — 2016-04-21T09:57:26Z

We are proud to initiate the CIS Papers series with a fascinating exploration of humanitarian use of big data and its discontents by Sean McDonald, FrontlineSMS, in the context of utilisation of Call Detail Records for public health response during the Ebola crisis in Liberia. The paper highlights the absence of a dialogue around the significant legal risks posed by the collection, use, and international transfer of personally identifiable data and humanitarian information, and the grey areas around assumptions of public good. The paper calls for a critical discussion around the experimental nature of data modeling in emergency response due to mismanagement of information has been largely emphasized to protect the contours of human rights.

Read

Download the paper: PDF.

Preface

This study titled “Ebola: A Big Data Disaster” by Sean Martin McDonald, undertaken with support from the Open Society Foundation, Ford Foundation, and Media Democracy Fund, explores the use of Big Data in the form of Call Detail Record (CDR) data in humanitarian crisis.

It discusses the challenges of digital humanitarian coordination in health emergencies like the Ebola outbreak in West Africa, and the marked tension in the debate around experimentation with humanitarian technologies and the impact on privacy. McDonald’s research focuses on the two primary legal and human rights frameworks, privacy and property, to question the impact of unregulated use of CDR’s on human rights. It also highlights how the diffusion of data science to the realm of international development constitutes a genuine opportunity to bring powerful new tools to fight crisis and emergencies.

Analysing the risks of using CDRs to perform migration analysis and contact tracing without user consent, as well as the application of big data to disease surveillance is an important entry point into the debate around use of Big Data for development and humanitarian aid. The paper also raises crucial questions of legal significance about the access to information, the limitation of data sharing, and the concept of proportionality in privacy invasion in the public good. These issues hold great relevance in today's time where big data and its emerging role for development, involving its actual and potential uses as well as harms is under consideration across the world.

The paper highlights the absence of a dialogue around the significant legal risks posed by the collection, use, and international transfer of personally identifiable data and humanitarian information, and the grey areas around assumptions of public good. The paper calls for a critical discussion around the experimental nature of data modelling in emergency response due to mismanagement of information has been largely emphasized to protect the contours of human rights.

This study offers an important perspective for us at the Centre for Internet and Society, and our works on Privacy, Big Data, and Big Data for Development, and very productively articulates the risks of adopting solutions to issues important for development without taking into consideration legal implications and the larger impact on human rights. We look forward to continue to critically engage with issues raised by Big Data in the context of human rights and sustainable development, and bring together diverse perspectives on these issues.

- Elonnai Hickok, Policy Director, the Centre for Internet and Society

CIS Papers

The CIS Papers series publishes open access monographs and discussion pieces that critically contribute to the debates on digital technologies and society. It includes publication of new findings and observations, of work-in-progress, and of critical review of existing materials. These may be authored by researchers at or affiliated to CIS, by external researchers and practitioners, or by a group of discussants. CIS offers editorial support to the selected monographs and discussion pieces. The views expressed, however, are of the authors' alone.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/papers/ebola-a-big-data-disaster

SCOSTA and UID Comparison not Valid, says Finance Committee

elonnai — 2011-11-22T16:37:43Z

The Standing Committee on Finance Branch, Lok Sabha Secretariat has responded to the suggestions offered by CIS on the National Identification Authority of India, Bill 2010 and has requested it to mail its views by 14 October 2011.

On January 6, 2011, CIS had sent an open letter to the Parliamentary Finance Committee demonstrating how the Aadhaar biometric standard is weaker than the SCOSTA standard. The text of the reply is reproduced below.

Sir,

This is in response to one of the views/suggestions offered by CIS on the National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010.

CIS View /Suggestion:

"Though the Aadhaar biometrics are useful for the de-duplication and identification of individuals, the Smart Card Operating System for Transport Application [(SCOSTA), developed by the National Informatics Centre in India)] standard is a more secure, structurally sound, and cost-effective approach to authentication of identity for India. Therefore, the Aadhaar biometric based authentication process should be replaced with a SCOSTA standard based authentication process."

In this regard, do you agree with the following view? If not, please justify.

"Comparison between SCOSTA and the UID project are not valid since SCOSTA is fundamentally a standard for smart card based authentication and does not work for the objectives of the unique id project.

The UID project follows a different approach and has multiple objectives — providing identity to residents of India, ensuring inclusion of poor and marginalized residents in order to enable access to benefits and services, eliminating the fakes, duplicates and ghost identities prevalent in other databases and provide a platform for authentication in a cost effective and accessible manner.

UIDAI is not issuing cards or smart cards. Cards can be issued by agencies that are providing services. UID authentication does not exclude smart cards — service providers can still choose to issue smart cards to their beneficiaries or customers if they want to."

You are requested to email your view by 14 October, 2011 positively.

Standing Committee on Finance Branch
Lok Sabha Secretariat

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/scosta-uid-comparison-invalid

Scholarly Communication in the Age of the Commons

sachia — 2011-04-05T04:37:37Z

One-day conference on Open Access Organised by National Aerospace Laboratories (as a part of their Golden Jubilee celebrations), Indian Academy of Sciences and Centre for Internet and Society

Background

Open-access (OA) literature is digital, online, free of charge, and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions. OA removes price barriers (subscriptions, licensing fees, pay-per-view fees) and permission barriers (most copyright and licensing restrictions) and ensures free availability and unrestricted use.

In today’s knowledge-based society, the advent of the Internet and widespread and easy access to scientific information are facilitating research and innovation. Open Access is not only changing the nature of scholarly communication but even the way research is carried out. Indeed Open Access is the bedrock on which the emerging Global Research Library initiative is being built.

Scientists and scientific institutions in India - some of them, to be precise - have moved up in the value chain in that they access information and disseminate their findings often through barrier-free electronic channels. Out of about 3,900 open access journals, India accounts for 108 titles as seen from the Directory of Open Access Journals. The major Indian publishers of OA journals are Indian Academy of Sciences, Indian National Science Academy, MedKnow Publications and National Informatics Centre. According to the Registry of Open Access Repositories there are 40 open access repositories in India including those at Indian Institute of Science, National Aerospace Laboratories, National Institute of Oceanography, Raman Research Institute, National Institute of Technology - Rourkela, and Indian Institutes of Technology. Prof. Samir Brahmachari, Director General of CSIR, has initiated the Open Source Drug Discovery programme as an alternative to the traditional patent-driven model of drug research. Recently CSIR has adopted an open access policy. Indian National Science Academy is one of the early signatories to the Berlin Declaration.

Thus Open Access - both for accessing worldwide information and for making our own research more visible - is not new to India. But one must admit that considering the size of India's research and higher education enterprise what we have achieved so far is utterly inadequate and incommensurate with our ambition to become a knowledge power. We have a long way to go. And the first step is to adopt open access nationwide.

This one-day “Conference on Scholarly Communication in India in the Age of the Commons” is organized to take stock of the current developments in Open Access and to highlight the issues that would need to be addressed to enable a wider access to scientific knowledge and to enhance the visibility of research performed in India.

Date and Time

26 March 2009; 9.30 am - 5.00 pm

Venue

S R Valluri Auditorium, National Aerospace Laboratories, (Old) Airport Road, Bangalore

Speakers

Speakers at the event include:

Prof Leslie Chan, University of Toronto and Bioline International http://www.utsc.utoronto.ca/~chan/

Prof John Willinsky, Stanford University and Public Knowledge Project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Willinsky

Please see the programme below for names of the other speakers.

Contact

Dr I R N Goudar

Scientist ‘G’ and Head, ICAST

National Aerospace Laboratories

Airport Road, Bangalore-560017

Telephone: (+91) 80 2508 6080

Fax: (+91) 80 2526 0862

Email: goudar@nal.res.in

While you can register on the spot, we encourage you to kindly register through e-mail. Please provide name, designation, address, contact telephone number and e-mail address. Participants may make their own arrangements for travel and accommodation.

Programme

9.30 am-10.15 am -- Inaugural session

Welcome by Dr I R N Goudar

About the conference: Prof Subbiah Arunachalam

Talk by Prof D Balasubramanian

Remarks by Dr A R Upadhya

10.15 am-10.45 am -- Tea

10.45 am-11.35 am -- Prof Leslie Chan, University of Toronto and Bioline International

11.35 am-12.25 pm -- Prof John Willinsky, Stanford University and Public Knowledge Project

12.25 pm-1.15 pm -- Dr D K Sahu, MedKnow Publications

1.15 pm-2.15 pm -- Lunch

2.15 pm-2.45 pm -- Mr Sunil Abraham, Centre for Internet and Society

2.45 pm-4.15 pm -- Panel discussion

Moderator: Prof P Balaram

Panelists: Subbiah Arunachalam, Leslie Chan, N V Sathyanarayana, A R Upadhya, and John Willinsky

4.15 pm -- Tea

VIDEOS

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/events/scholarly-communication-in-the-age-of-the-commons

SCCR 29: Public Interest Organizations Statements regarding the Broadcasting Treaty

praskrishna — 2014-12-27T16:44:18Z

Also presented during the afternoon plenary, here are 3 statements by public interest organizations, the TACD, EFF and CIS:

The article was published in Knowledge Ecology International on December 9, 2014.

TACD: Thank you very much the transAtlantic consumer dialogue is concerned that the discussion on this treaty whereas in the past due to the lack of definitions we called it an unidentified flying object, now, as the definitions get a bit clearer, we feel it's becoming a more identified flying object in the air as a transmission and precisely because it's becoming identified some of these definitions we consider are concerning us and we are worried about these definitions because we think these definitions and these protections of rights could mean a threat to access to culture, a threat even to freedom of speech, and a threat to the public domain. And we are talking about a public domain, about public broadcasting signals.
And we think these threats are coming from a scope that is much broader than is recommendable. It is a scope that could take into account a lot of the digital rights that millions of young people around the world are fighting for and defending. And I think this sensitivity of digital rights of mixing, of the type of things that go on every day millions of times on the Internet should not be threatened by this treaty. So how can we avoid that? We could avoid that by avoiding any post fixation rights.

We could avoid it by a very narrow definition of simultaneous or near simultaneous traditional broadcasting signals to the public in the air. We could -- broadcasting should mean, similar to the Rome Convention, the transmission by wireless over the air means for public reception of sounds, of images and of words.
As well, what is a signal? What is a signal? A signal obviously could not just mean everything. A signal means an electronically generated carrier over the air with sounds and images, and what we really need, what we really need is to narrow down the scope to a point where we don't see this as something that can be a threat to the creativity, innovation, new business models at a time when we know that the new business models need that flexibility, what we don't need is yet another layer of bureaucratic costly rights that will be burdensome for the future of the Internet.

So for that reason, for consumers, for Internet users, for culture, for new innovation, we would like really to call for this very narrow definition of the scope. Thank you very much.

The call for a narrow based possible treaty was echoed by EFF https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/12/danger-post-fixation-rights-wipo-b...

>> Electronic frontier foundation: This year marks the tenth anniversary of EFF discussions over the WIPO treaty for broadcasting organisations. And during that time our position has been constant that any such treating should be limited to addressing the unauthorized simultaneous and near simultaneous retransmission of traditional broadcast untiles to the public without assigning new exclusive rights in the content of those signals. We also note it would be possible to include a right to prohibit the transmission of prebroadcast signals within a snail based approach and without assigning any new exclusive rights. Although this has been [decided?] in the past when WIPO dwed at the 2007 assembly to follow a signal based approach. Current discussions on post fixation rights have backtracked from this commitment and it's that more than anything else that has led these negotiations to become more protracted.
Creating new exclusive rights in post broadcast fixations would impede access to public domain material and material over which copyright limitations and exceptions may apply. This is because some material may not be readily available other than from broadcasts such as in the case of broadcast of sport or use events. It would impede the use of technological innovations that add val you to broadcast. Especially if it curtailed the use of circumvention devices this could affects digital media players and new innovations we can't even envision yet especially those running on free and open source marredware and software. So EFF urges WIPO members to be disciplined in their add harns to a narrow signal based approach as we see this as the only way that a treaty for broadcasting ors organisations can be conclude in 2015 or at all. Thank you.

The CIS made a technical analysis of the "charts" that cannot (yet) be provided to the public also here: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-29-cis-intervention-on-proposed...

> CIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair. This intervention will be based on your chart detailing the concepts corresponding to the various definitions we are discussing here today. We believe that there are certain elements to these concepts that are inconsistent with the broadcast treaty based on a signals based approach and over the course of the next few minutes, I would like to briefly discuss these.
First, Mr. Chair, in the first column, and broadcasting or cable casting organisation in the traditional sense where communication of the signal has been listed under the scope of responsibility. Mr. Chair, as we have submitted in other statements before this community, before this committee, communication itself we believe is a concept that is an element of copyright, and it's distinction broadcast rights char related rights. A signal, Mr. Chair, we, therefore, believe could be broadcast or transmitted and accordingly under the element that deals with the scope of responsibility, we are of the money opinion that it should read broadcast or transmission of the signal and not communication of the signal, and the focus should not be communication to the public.

A concept that's also been discussed in certain alternatives to the definitions under Article 5 which accordingly we would loss not favor. Second, Mr. Chair, in the second column in broadcasting and cable casting transmission, we have three observations. Fist, under the means of transmission, we believe the transmission over computer networks is wide enough to encompass IP based tran missions and, therefore, should be excluded in order for the treaty to be consistent with the signals based approach.

Second, on the reception of the broadcast or cable cast prance mission, we believe that it should be qualified using the phrase general public. We are of the opinion that there is a danger that a limited public, say, family members, could be covered under the term public but would be excluded from the term general puck public which in any case is the targeted audience of a broadcast. Third, Mr. Chair, on whether the transmission would be encrypted or not, which also flows into the thought column on the signal, and whether the signal itself is encrypted or not, encrypted or not.

And which would also then relate to whether broadcasting organisations will have the right to prevent unauthorized decription. Mr. Chair, we don't think there should be a separate right to prevent unauthorized decription. Given that signal theft is a crime, having a spect decription might result in an absurdity where it would cover decrypting and unauthorized retransmission without authorization from the retransmitter where the transmission by the retransmitter was illegal to begin with.

Finally, Mr. Chair, in the third column and on the meaning of the signal, we submit that our preferred definition would be one where the definition of a signal is confined, and is understood as an electronically generated carrier transmitting a broadcast or a cable cast and not one which has the capability of such transmission as has been stated in your third chart.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/knowledge-ecology-international-sccr-29-public-interest-organizations-statements-regarding-the-broadcasting-treaty

SCCR 29 Libraries, Archives and Public Interest NGOs in Q&A with Dr. Crews

praskrishna — 2014-12-27T16:54:58Z

While the many publishers representatives took the floor to explain that there are truly no problems with limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives (and anyway according to them if there are problems that can be solved with licenses), libraries & archives as well as public interest groups make their case: the committee must continue its work on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives and find solutions.

This blog entry was published on the website of Knowledge Ecology International on December 11, 2014.

Here are excerpts from some of the interventions:

Hasmik Galstyan, Yerevan, Armenia speaking for the Electronic Information for LIbraries (eIFL.net):

>> EIFL: I'm speaking on behalf of the electronic information for libraries and that works with libraries and library con sort Sha in more than 60 developing and transition economy countries. We thank the Secretariat for commissioning the updated study that provided a comprehensive overview in the IP law. We thank professor crews for his clear presentation.
The report contains positives and negatives from our Point of View. The positives include the fact that law makers are to some degree responding to the need for legal change and a small number of countries have over the last six years created new exceptions especially with regard to digital services. These changes are to be commended. On the other hand, it is discouraging that 18% of countries including five EIFL partner countries have new exceptions for libraries and over one-third located almost totally in the developing world still do not have an exception allowing libraries to make copies of their works for the users. The trend regarding digital library services doesn't look good. Even for states that introduce amendment 2008 digital is barred in 50% in some cases for preservation and it states with anti-circumvention protection while some have applied library exceptions as mentioned by professor crews half of the countries have provided no library exceptions. So while a small number of countries are moving ahead and reforming their copyright laws the digital divide is being perpetuated at a time when libraries everywhere are adopting new technologies and Developing Countries are rapidly moving to mobile. My question is how can the situation be addressed. How can WIPO as an UN agency with a commitment to work with Developing Countries to enhance their participation in the global innovation economy most effectively support countries to be at the forefront of digital developments. To ensure that our libraries that are working hard to support education and development are not operating with one hand tied behind our backs.

My second question is considering that between 2008 and 2014 only a handful of countries have been implemented made changes benefitting libraries and their users and imagining that the current rate of support for a change stays the same, how long do you think it will take before all WIPO Member States have exceptions good enough to support library activities in the Digital Age? And the last question, please. Libraries collections contain materials of unique cultural and historical significance to people in other countries to the national border changes shared languages and a host of other reasons. In addition collaboration among researchers today is international. Therefore libraries increasingly need to send and receive information across borders. In our examination of copyright laws how do they accommodate or not these activities? Thank you very much.

The libraries representatives were echoed by archives representatives. William Maher, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, representing the Society of America Archivists.

Thank you for producing a study that brings such clarity to the quite confusing maze of the laws that librarians and archivists must work with. Archives has been mentioned a lot over the past couple of days but I am only the second archivist to be addressing this issue at SCCR. Archivists know that the general populations does not understand what archives are and how and why we do what we do. However, it seems reasonable that those who draft copyright laws should understand that archives are fundamentally about the unpublished legacy of humankind. Yet, when looking at the 70 or so countries in the 2014 study, archives are seriously overlooked–Despite whatever minimal improvement for libraries, archives have been left out of 53% of the exceptions for preservation and 72 % of the exceptions for copying for research. Is this absence of provisions also reflected in the fact that the laws lack definitions of archives? Can this oversight be read as meaning that archives do not matter to the nations copyright system, or does it mean that copyright should not matter to archives?
>> KENNETH CREWS: Well, thank you very much. Yes, I think you have also heard me speak very strongly about the distinct interests of archives and maybe I should say even more important the distinct interests of our citizens in archives and in the works that they are -- the work that they are doing. And their ability to use these copyright provisions for the benefit of the country and of its citizens. I certainly can't emphasize that enough. So I -- I'm not going to read in to the lack of reference to archives. The kind of meaning that you are asking about. But instead I think we can certainly say that it makes you wonder if archives have been recognized by the drafters of many of these statutes and if in the case of following through on the example of the models influencing domestic law it really is have archives come to the attention of the individuals who have been responsible for developing some of the models. So I believe very strongly that the future statutes in individual countries and the drafting of different kinds of instruments or models that may come from WIPO or any other organization need to encompass archives. And the -- because the preservation and research access and other kinds of beneficial uses of archival material goes directly to the preservation of the culture and the history of our countries and our people. And it is vital that we be able to do that and keep archives at the table. And I thank you very much for being here.

Another stakeholder, Nehaa Chaudhari, Lawyer, Programme Officer at the Centre for Internet and Society questioned Dr. Crews on provisions regarding digital works:

CIS: Thank you Madame Chair. Thank you very much professor crews for your presentation yesterday and this comprehensive study on libraries and archives. Very timely and very important to us from the [...] access to knowledge and information most critically.
I have two questions. My first question: did you find in your examination that in terms of or on the question of limitations and exceptions did you find that there was an equal or equitable treatment of digital resources in comparison to resources available in more traditional formats? And if not, where do you think that are lever of change lies to ensure that fair use of fair dealing provisions are extended e equitably to the digital environment as well.

My second question is on the interoperability of limitations and exceptions. Given that copyright is a very national thing and as your study has also well established countries have a whole range of veridy veers approaches and practices on limitations and exceptions. But also given the fact that we live in an increasingly globalized world we need a system that is interoperable with respect to the transboundary movement of works with as little fiction as possible. Again both in the physical as well as in the digital environments. So what did your examination show of how interoperable or not the range of limitations and exceptions actually have. Those are my two questions. Thank you very much.

> KENNETH CREWS: Thank you very much. On the second question, I'm afraid I might mind myself only repeating some of the concepts that have already said about transborder and really about in the statutes anyway, a lack of recognition of transborder. And the transborder concept, so I will add this piece to the conversation, the transborder concept seldom if ever appears in these library exceptions to the extent that we are going to find it in copyright law or some other part of a national law it may very well be over in the import/export kind -- area of the law. But that also goes to the interoperability which think we have answered a few times just this sort -- the lack of exact harmonization and as others have reminded me I have said before that I may not be a fan of exact precise harmonization and indeed it may not be possible or even desirable. But some degree of harmonization can help with that interoperability. Interesting question, you do -- you did raise a new point about digital. We have talked several times in this conversation about use of digital technologies in the exercise of the rights of use under the exception. However what I think you were asking about is the ability to apply the exception to works that are digital in the first place that are what we call born digital and that's a very interesting question. The statutes do not address that. Sometimes you will see a statute that refers to -- that says it applies to all these different kinds of works but not computer software. That tells you somebody was thinking it shouldn't apply to software but somehow software is different and there are problems with that. We know that software has changed and been incorporated in to many different works. But we generally see a statute almost always see a statute that's about books or archival materials or some other kind of work without specifying the technology. So can it apply to an e-book in addition to the paper book? The statutes don't go there. They don't sort that out.

So in my common law tradition I look at that and see that as a question for interpretation. In
a civil code system I might look at it and see it a little bit more firmly for lack of a better word
about what the scope of that word book, for example, really means. Really good question. And it is one that the statutes have not picked up on. Thank you very much.

Finally, the TransAtlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD) representative David Hammerstein made the following political and philosophical intervention:

Thank you very much. Thank you Mr. Crews for your presentation. I would like to say a few general words. Internet and the digital obviously is global. Copyright laws are national. Economic power is global. Politics is national. This is very relevant to our discussion.
And other relevant factor is that copyright law and the idea of exceptions and limitations are very complicated. It is for small circles of specialists usually and when these things come out in to the open to the greater public opinion things change radically. I can only remind peep of this room for the debate on ACTA or the debate for SOPA and PIPA in the United States. When these issues come out of the closet things are seen in a very, very different light. The opinion of copyright specialist especially where I know in the European Union and totally different with the opinions of the general public. And the general public the vast majority are frustrated by copyright law because social reality that applies de facto and I am not talking about piracy, I am talking about de facto flexibilities and exceptions and limitations are very, very far from the legal reality of the copyright. The vast majority of Europeans would like to have a harmonized and mandatory exceptions and limitations that we are speaking about, whether it be more text and data mining, whether it be for libraries whether it be cross-border, whether it be preservation of cultural heritage, they would like that. Now the opinions of the often of political structures are captured by certain experts and very special groups that are interested in what they want. Especially the European Union is at a cross roads and we can see it politically because around a year ago the European Union launched a process called lnss for Europe where some of the ideas presented by some of the industry people were brought up memorandums of understanding and that the solution to exceptions and limitations for these issues could be found in voluntary measures between stakeholders. This was a failure. This was a terrible failure. We had letters many many many Nobel Prize winners who are asking tore a legal exceptions and limitations for text and data mining for other scientific research and we think that many orphan works legislation does not go far enough. Et cetera, et cetera, self generated user content. How can that Democratic debate take place and these cross roads can be made a positively by real decisions. And I think those real decisions have to be deal with the public dough minute yon, what is public knowledge and things about the commons, we are talking about the knowledge commons here need to have a democratic debate and need to have democratic management. Now this could be done by very delayed mediation to end up in the hands of a few copyright experts that are very close to very narrow industry that I think is defending outdated models or we could open a democratic debate where exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives for preservation for scientific limitation would be beyond borders. Even inside the European Union today it is almost hard to imagine there to be harmonization in the internal market. And the people making money prefer a fragmented market even though European site sents want a harmonized market for these things. My question is impossible question. I am sorry to put you on spot of how to open up the door, how to bring this issue out of the closet and how to involve millions of people who really want that change. Thank you very much

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/knowledge-ecology-international-sccr-29-december-11-2014-libraries-archives-public-interest-ngos-q-a-with-dr-crews