Centre for Internet and Society

Is the govt bid to regulate content on the Internet a good thing?

praskrishna — 2011-12-08T07:12:24Z

The recent move by Union Minister Kapil Sibal to engage leading Internet platform providers like Google, Facebook, etc in regulating content has seen netizens react in different manners. The question of freedom of expression vis-a-vis objectionable content has come to the fore. Pranesh Prakash who deals with such issues on a regular basis at the Centre for Internet and Society was answering questions (more like comments) live on CNN-IBN's chat feature on December 7, 2011.

Q: OK... then how about this... People report abuse against a page...and after some hits that report will go to the governmental organization, and they will decide on what action to take... this may include hiring of some IT services company to do that and gives more employment to people too. Anyways thanks for replying to my questions.

Asked by: Tilak Kamath

A: How about just approaching courts, who are in a far better position to judge what is legal and what is illegal under Indian law than any IT services company or government organization.

Q: Suppose a group of rabble rousers does indeed use a forum and become violent, (the group being identifiable) would the state have the right to ask the forum to be discontinued?

Asked by: Zeus

A: Of course (if what you meant is 'the right to ask the forum to remove the violence-inciting content'). Indeed, this is how ultra-left wing and ultra-right wing publications that advocate violence (which is an imminent threat) are proscribed in India. And the same laws already apply for online fora. But just as you wouldn't ban a newspaper like DNA for carrying an offensive article (such as the anti-Muslim screed written by Subramanian Swamy a few months back), and just as the postal service wouldn't be discontinued for carrying Maoist letters, a forum shouldn't be banned for offensive content. There is no need for a new 'self-regulation code', since the 'report abuse' links found on many of these sites are exactly that: self-regulation.

Q: Article 19(2) of our constitution places arbitrary and subjective restrictions on free speech - public order, decency, morality are all subjective, according to the whims and fancies of those who are in control. Aren't you concerned this is going down the exact path (ignoring that this is impractical to begin with)?

Asked by: Karunakaran

A: No, because there is a rich jurisprudence laid down by the Supreme Court of what is and what isn't a "reasonable restriction". While I do believe that our Constitution does go beyond what the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (to which India is a signatory) allows for, Article 19(2)'s interpretation by the Supreme Court and the High Courts have been very progressive for the most part.

Q: The government has a mandate to govern and keep the society in harmony and take care of law & order... If no check on the expressions of netizens the chances of a spark generating debate can escalate to violence given the extremism we see today. The media in print as well as electronic we know & see does it's CENSORING, calling it as editing and publishing only what it likes and wants.This style is for all including CNN-IBN.The difference is in media, the EDITOR gets responsible in case of offensive or blashphemous material gets published. Social network the responsibility seems missing. Freedom always needs to be enjoyed with discipline. How do you the minority indisciplined netizens, who are there and no denying on that ?

Asked by: sundar1950in

A: I believe that killing speech is not the right way to prevent violence. Indeed, a newspaper editor in the Maldives recently noted that they have had less violence committed against the newspaper office ever since they allowed for online comments. Speech often allows people to vent out violence instead of acting it out. Violence should be curbed by reining in those who're committing it, and those who're inciting it on the ground. At any rate, the laws that apply to inciting violence in print apply to the Web also, and no new rules need to be drafted.

Q: Thanks for the information on the report abuse button. but can't we have a Governmental agency regulating websites like FB or Google... they can't say no, cos India is a Huge market for such companies.. and why don't we find many ultra offensive posts about the U.S. or other countries, as we find for Indians..

Asked by: Tilak Kamath

A: That would be a very bad idea. Governments don't have a regulatory agency to dictate what letters post-offices shouldn't carry, nor what articles newspapers shouldn't publish. They should definitely not have a regulatory agency dictate what status updates Facebook or Google+ should and shouldn't carry. You don't find ultra-offensive posts about the U.S. because you aren't looking around. They're *everywhere*, even more so than those that bad-mouth India. Yet, such offensive speech is the price we have to pay (gladly, I should add) for democracy and the freedom of speech.

Q: The idea to ban any post on something that would lead to communal strike is fine however, I feel this is not the intention. The intention is clearly political and due to the Anna movement becoming popular thanks to the posts on the internet as also certain remarks on the Gandhi family in particular and Congress leaders specifically has led to this decision. Kapil Sibal is a smart alec and he knows that this can be used against any adverse comments against them.

Asked by: Arun

A: I am less suspicious of Mr. Sibal. I believe, especially after speaking with some senior lawyer friends of his, that he genuinely believes what he is doing to be required and legal and constitutional, and not for the appeasement of one or two Congress leaders. That, however, does not make his suggested solution correct. Multiple High Courts' decisions have held otherwise, and the Supreme Court's decision in Ajay Goswami v. Union of India also provides them support.

Q: One best possible thing is to advertise the Report Abuse button on the Internet, don't you think so? again there should be proper authentication to do so to avoid miscreants blocking some good pages unnecessarily.

Asked by: Tilak Kamath

A: I believe that the "Report Abuse" option available on most large social media and social network websites is useful, but it is also potentially dangerous since it allows a private party (such as Facebook or Google), rather than a court, to dictate what content is and isn't acceptable, to the possible detriment of larger society.

Q: Good evening sir, my question is that it is legal to pre-screen the private data of users by sites and to interfere between their privacy.

Asked by: Shrey Goswami

A: Whether this proposal by Shri Sibal necessarily involves an invasion of privacy is an open question, since the details of the proposal as as yet not fully sketched out. On Google Plus and Facebook, one can restrictedly share information. Will such restricted sharing also have to be pre-screened, or only information that is going to be available to all members of the public? The proposal still consists only of press articles and a press conference held by the Minister. Even assuming it only require pre-screening of information that is going to be publicly accessible, it imposes too high a burden on intermediaries, and is impractical. And, as you might be aware, only very limited pre-censorship is allowed in India, and such a general requirement of pre-censorship does not seem to be constitutional, in my opinion.

Q: Yes, we were browsing FB yesterday and some content in there, could not be opened in front of my children. So Content is not always good, and there must be some kind of screening. Again, the current trend in India, to think that whatever the government does is not at all a good one. Governing must be left to government and not to news channels/civil society, etc. This looks dangerous, and sad no one is realising this.

Asked by: Narayanan S

A: Perhaps I should allow former Supreme Court Justice Hidyatullah's words speak for themselves: "Our standards must be so framed that we are not reduced to a level where the protection of the least capable and the most depraved amongst us determines what the morally healthy cannot view or read." - Justice Hidyatullah in K.A. Abbas v. Union of India. In the Janhit Manch case, the Bombay High Court held: "By the present petition what the petition seeks is that this court which is a protector of free speech to the citizens of this country, should interfere and direct the respondents to make a coordinated and sustained effort to close down the websites as aforestated. Once Parliament in its wisdom has enacted a law and has provided for the punishment for breach of that law any citizen of this country including the Petitioner who is aggrieved against any action on the part of any other person which may amount to an offence has a right to approach the appropriate forum and lodge a complaint upon which the action can be taken if an offence is disclosed. Court in such matters, the guardians of the freedom of speech, and more so a constitutional court should not embark on an exercise to direct State Authorities to monitor websites. If such an exercise is done, then a party aggrieved, depending on the sensibilities of persons whose view may differ on what is morally degrading or prurient will be sitting in judgment, even before the aggrieved person can lead his evidence and a competent court decides the issue. The Legislature having enacted the law a person aggrieved may file a complaint."

Q: Kapil Sibal has not been able to give conviction to objectionable content as social unrest can't take place through web and it needs well oiled machinery and as far as using offensive language against politicians is concerned it won't be curtailed through web and it will require better self regulation among politicians rather than being irresponsible

Asked by: Rij

A: I agree completely.

Q: Do you feel that Government (Congress in particular ) is trying to impose restrictions on social media to stifle the peoples anger against the Government and its leaders due to various scams and corruption?

Asked by: Santosh

A: No. I am taking Mr. Sibal's words at face value, that what they are trying to prevent is hate speech, inciting speech. Still, the means of doing so are undemocratic, ignorant of how the Internet functions, and liable to have very harmful consequences on our polity.

Q: Are our laws going to be like those in gulf countries with respect to censorship? In the name of communal messages, is there a motive to censor something else?

Asked by: Gaurav

A: It doesn't matter what the 'ulterior motive' is, and I'm not sure there is one. The touchstone should should be that of our Constitution and Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees freedom of speech and expression with the Article 19(2) laying down the reasons for which reasonable restrictions can be laid down. And in many ways our laws are worse than those in Saudi Arabia. There at least when a website is blocked or content removed the public is notified when they try and access the content. In India, there is no such notification.

Q: Is this being done as the politicians on the whole and congressmen in particular are not upon notwithstanding how true the comment is. Is it particular so when they are charry if any adverse comment is made on the Gandhis. All these politicians who have opted for public life need to be open for adverse comments as they are in the public limelight and or it is their privilege.

Asked by: Arun

A: The examples being cited by Kapil Sibal are of harming religious sentiments and inciting hatred. Be that as it may, even if the content deserves to be removed—and I can't comment until I see the content he finds offensive—doing so by mandating pre-censorship by intermediaries with liability fixed on them otherwise is a wrong way of going about it.

* The chat is over. Read the original published in IBN Live Chat here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/ibn-live-chat-with-pranesh

Is India's Digital Health System Foolproof?

aayush — 2019-12-30T17:58:00Z

This contribution by Aayush Rathi builds on "Data Infrastructures and Inequities: Why Does Reproductive Health Surveillance in India Need Our Urgent Attention?" (by Aayush Rathi and Ambika Tandon, EPW Engage, Vol. 54, Issue No. 6, 09 Feb, 2019) and seeks to understand the role that state-run reproductive health portals such as the Mother and Child Tracking System (MCTS) and the Reproductive and Child Health will play going forward. The article critically outlines the overall digitised health information ecosystem being envisioned by the Indian state.

This article was first published in EPW Engage, Vol. 54, Issue No. 47, on November 30, 2019

Introduced in 2013 and subsequently updated in 2016, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MHFW) published a document laying out the standards for electronic health records (EHRs). While there exist varying interpretations of what constitutes as EHRs, some of its characteristics include electronic medical records (EMRs) of individual patients, arrangement of these records in a time series, and inter-operable linkages of the EMRs across various healthcare settings (Häyrinen et al 2008; OECD 2013).

To work effectively, EHRs are required to be highly interoperable so that they can facilitate exchange among health information systems (HIS) across participating hospitals. For this, the Integrated Health Information Platform (IHIP) is being developed so as to assimilate data from various registries across India and provide real-time information on health surveillance (Krishnamurthy 2018).

EHR Implementation: Unpacking the (Dis)incentive Structure

As the implementation of EHR standards is voluntary, anecdotal evidence indicates that their uptake in the Indian healthcare sector has been very slow. Here, the opposition of the Indian Medical Association to the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010, resulting in nationwide protests and subsequent legal challenges to the act, is instructive. To start with, the act prescribes the minimum standards that have to be maintained by clinical establishments which are registered or seeking registration (itself mandatory to run a clinic under the act) [1]. Further, Rule 9(ii) of the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Rules, 2012, drafted under the act, requires clinical establishments to maintain EMRs or EHRs for every patient. However, with health being a state subject in India, the act has only been enforced in 11 states and all union territories except the National Capital Territory of Delhi (Jyoti 2018). The resistance to the act is largely due to protests by stakeholders from within the medical fraternity regarding its adverse impact on small- and medium-sized hospitals (Jyoti 2018).

Contextualising Clinicians' Inertia

Another major impediment to the adoption of EHRs by health service providers is reluctance on the part of individual physicians to transition to an EHR system. This is because compliance with EHR standards requires physicians to input clinical notes themselves.

Comparing the greater patient load faced by doctors in India vis-à-vis the United States (US), the chief medical officer of an EHR vendor in India estimates that the average Indian doctor sees about 40–60 patients a day, whereas in the US it may be around 18–20 patients (Kandhari 2017). This is suggestive of the wide disparity in the number of physicians per 1,000 citizens in both countries (World Bank nd). Given this, doctors in India tend to be more problem-oriented, time-strapped, and pay less attention to clinical notes (Kandhari 2017). Thus, clinicians will consider a system to be efficient only if the system reduces their documentation time, even if the time savings do not translate into better patient care (Allan and Englebright 2000). The inability of EHRs to help reduce documentation time deters clinicians from supporting their implementation (Poon et al 2004). Additionally, research done in the United States indicates that there is no evidence to suggest that an information system helps save time expended by clinicians on documentation (Daly et al 2002). Moreover, the use of an information system is stated to have had no impact on patient care, but doctors have acknowledged its use for research purposes (Holzemer and Henry 1992).

Prohibitive Costs of Implementation

While national-level EHRs have been adopted globally, their distribution across countries is telling. In a survey published in 2016 by the World Health Organization, wealthier countries were over-represented, with two-thirds from the upper-middle-income group and roughly half from the high-income countries having introduced EHR systems. On the other hand, only a third of lower-middle-income countries and 15% of low-income countries reported having implemented EHRs (World Health Organization 2016). A major reason for the slow uptake of EHRs in poorer countries is likely to be funding as EHR implementation requires considerable investment, with most projects averaging several million dollars (US) (Kuperman and Gibson 2003). Although various funding models for EHR implementation are being utilised globally, it is unclear what model will be adopted in India to bring in private healthcare service providers within its ambit (Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society 2007). This absence of funding direction for private actors poses to be a significant impediment in the integration of private databases with other public ones.

In general, poorer countries are also more likely to have less developed infrastructure and health Information and Communication Technology (ICT) to support EHR systems. Besides this, they not only lack the capacity and human resources required to develop and maintain such complex systems (Tierney et al 2010; McGinn et al 2011), but training periods have also been found to be long and more costly than expected (Kovener et al 1997).

Socio-economic Exclusions and Cross-cultural Barriers

There exists scant research investigating the existing use of EHRs in India, though preliminary work is being undertaken to assess EHR implementation in other developing countries (Tierney et al 2010; Fraser et al 2005). Even in the context of developed countries, where widespread adoption of EHRs has been gaining traction for some time now, very little data exists around implementation and efficacy in underserved regions and communities. This is further problematised as clinical information systems and user populations also vary in their characteristics and, for this reason, individual studies are unable to identify common trends that would predict EHR implementation success.

Underserved settings may lack the infrastructure needed to support EHRs. The risk of exclusion already exists in parts such as difficulties inherent in delivering care to remote locations, barriers related to cross-cultural communication, and the pervasive problem of providing care in the setting of severe resource constraints. Equally important is the fact that health workers who already report significant existing impediments in their delivery of routine care in these settings do not necessarily see EHRs as being useful in catering to the specific needs of their patient population (Bach et al 2004). Moreover, experience with EHRs also reveals that there are cultural barriers to capturing accurate data (Miklin et al 2019). What this could mean is that stigma associated with the diagnosis of conditions such as HIV/AIDS or induced abortions will result in their under-reporting even within EHR systems.

Stick or Twist?

Other modalities have been devised to nudge healthcare providers into adopting EHR standards voluntarily. The National Accreditation Board for Hospitals and Healthcare Providers (NABH), India, a constituent board of the Quality Council of India (a public–private initiative), has been reported to have incorporated the EHR standards within its accreditation matrix. NABH accreditation, considered an indicator of high quality patient care, is highly sought–after by hospitals in India in order to attract medical tourists as well as insurance companies: two prominent sources of income for hospitals (Kandhari 2017). Additionally, NABH accreditation is valid for a term of three years, thus requiring hospitals seeking to renew their accreditation to adopt EHR standards as well.

Another commercial use of EHR has been in health insurance. The Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) and the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDAI) have both voiced their support for expediting the implementation of the EHR standards (EMR Standards Committee 2013). Both, the FICCI and IRDAI have placed emphasis on adopting EHRs, seeing it as a necessary move for formalising the health insurance industry (FICCI 2015). They have also had representation on the committee that sent recommendations to the MHFW on the first version of the EHR standards in 2013 (FICCI 2015). FICCI had additionally played a coordination role in having the recommendations framed for the 2013 EHR standards.

Fluid Data Objectives

The push for EHR implementation is emblematic of a larger shift in the healthcare approach of the Indian state, that of an indirect targeting of demand-side financing by plugging data inefficiencies in health insurance.

The draft National Health Policy (NHP), published in 2015, reflected the mandate of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to strengthen the public health system by creating a right to healthcare legislation and reaching a public spend of 2.5% of the gross domestic product by 2018. The final version of the NHP, published in 2017, however, codified a shift in healthcare policy by focusing on strategic purchasing of secondary and tertiary care services from the private sector and a publicly funded health insurance model.

In line with the vision of the NHP 2017, in February 2018, the Union Minister for Finance and Corporate Affairs, Arun Jaitley, announced two major initiatives as a part of the government’s Ayushman Bharat programme (Ministry of Finance 2018). Administered under the aegis of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, these initiatives are intended to improve access to primary healthcare through the creation of 150,000 health and wellness centres as envisioned under the NHP 2017, and improve access to secondary and tertiary healthcare for over 100 million vulnerable families by providing insurance cover of up to ₹ 500,000 per family per year under the Pradhan Mantri–Rashtriya Swasthya Suraksha Mission/National Health Protection Scheme (PM–RSSM/NHPS) (Ministry of Health and Family Welfare 2018). The NHPS, modelled along the lines of the Affordable Care Act in the US, was later rebranded as the Pradhan Mantri–Jan Arogya Yojana (PM-JAY) at the time of its launch in September 2018. It is claimed to be the world’s largest government-funded healthcare programme and is intentioned to provide health insurance coverage for vulnerable sections in lieu of the Sustainable Development Goal-3 (National Health Authority nd).

To enable the implementation of the Ayushman Bharat programme, the NITI Aayog then proposed the creation of a supply-side digital infrastructure called National Health Stack (NHS) (NITI Aayog 2018). As outlined in the consultation and strategy paper, the NHS is “built for NHPS, but beyond NHPS.” The NHS seeks to leverage the digitisation push through IndiaStack, which seeks to digitalise “any large-scale health insurance program, in particular, any government-funded health care programs.” The synergy is clear, with the NHPS scheme also aiming to be “cashless and paperless at public hospitals and empanelled private hospitals" (National Health Authority nd) [2].

The NHS is also closely aligned with the NHP 2017, which draws attention to leveraging technologies such as big data analytics on data stored in universal registries. The Vision document for the NHS emphasises the fragmented nature of health data as an impediment to reducing inequities in healthcare provision. The NHS, then, also seeks to be the master repository of health data akin to the IHIP. By creating a base layer of registries containing information about various actors involved in the healthcare supply chain (providers such as hospitals, beneficiaries, doctors, insurers and Accredited Social Health Activists), it potentially allows for recording of data from both public and private sector entities, plugging a significant gap in the coverage of the HIS currently implemented in India. With the provision of open, pullable APIs, the NHS also shares the motivations of the IndiaStack to monetise health data.

A key component of the proposed NHS is the Coverage and Claims platform, which the vision document describes as “provid[ing] the building blocks required to implement any large-scale health insurance program, in particular, any government-funded healthcare programs. This platform has the transformative vision of enabling both public and private actors to implement insurance schemes in an automated, data-driven manner through open APIs " (NITI Aayog2018). A post on the iSPIRT website further explains the centrality of this Coverage and Claims platform in enabling a highly personalised medical insurance market in India: “This component will not only bring down the cost of processing a claim but ... increased access to information about an individual’s health and claims history ... will also enable the creation of personalised, sachet-sized insurance policies." These data-driven customised insurance policies are expected to generate “care policies that are not only personalized in nature but that also incentivize good healthcare practices amongst consumers and providers … [and] use of techniques from microeconomics to manage incentives for care providers, and those from behavioural economics to incentivise consumers" (Productnation Network 2019). The Coverage and Claims platform, and especially the Policy (generation) Engine that it will contain, is aimed at intensive financialisation of personal healthcare expenses, and extensive experiments with designing personalised nudges to shape the demand behaviour of consumers.

The imagination of healthcare the NHS demonstrates is one where broadening health insurance coverage is equated to providing equitable healthcare and as a panacea for the public healthcare sector. The first phase of this push towards better healthcare provision is to focus on contextualising the historical socio-economic divide. The next phase is characterised by digitalisation: the introduction of ICT to bridge the socio-economic divide in healthcare provision. In this process, the resulting data divide has been invisibilised in reframing better healthcare as an insurance problem for which data needs to be generated. Each policy innovation is then characterised by further marginalisation of those that were originally identified as underserved. This is a result of increasing repercussions of the data-divide, with access to benefits increasingly being mediated by technology.

Concluding Remarks

The idea that any person in India can go to any health service provider/ practitioner, any diagnostic center or any pharmacy and yet be able to access and have fully integrated and always available health records in an electronic format is not only empowering but also the vision for efficient 21st century healthcare delivery.
— Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Electronic Health Record Standards For India (2013)

The objective of health data collection has evolved over the course of the institution of the HIS in 2011, to the development of the NHPS and National Health Policy in 2017. What began as a solution to measure and address gaps in access and quality in healthcare provisioning through data analysis has morphed into data centralisation and insurance coverage. Shifting goalposts can also be found in the objectives behind introducing digital systems to collect data.

In recent iterations of the healthcare imaginary, such as the IHIP and the NHS, data ownership by the beneficiaries is stressed upon. In the absence of a rights-based framework dictating the use of data, the role of ownership should be interrogated, especially in the context of a prevalent data divide (Tisne 2019). The legitimisation of data capture can be seen in the emergence of opt-in models of consent, data fiduciaries managing consent on the data subject’s behalf, etc. (Zuboff 2019).

This framing forecloses a discussion about the quality and kind of data being used. The push towards datafication needs to be questioned for its re-indexing of categorical meaning away from the complexities of narrative, context and history (Cheney-Lippold 2018). Instead, the proposed solution is one that stores datafied elements within a closed set (reproductive health= [abortion, aids, contraceptive,...vaccination, womb]). While this set may be editable, so new interpretations can be codified, it inherently remains stable, assuming a static relationship between words and meaning. Health is then treated as having an empirically definable meaning, thus losing the dynamism of what the health and wellness discourse could entail.

It has been historically demonstrated in the Indian context that multiple tools and databases for health data management are a barrier to an efficient HIS. However, generating centralised or federated databases without addressing concerns in data flows, quality, uses in existing data structures, and the digital divide across health workers and beneficiaries alike will lead to the amplification of existing exclusions in data and, consequently, service provisioning.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to express his gratitude to Sumandro Chattapadhyay and Ambika Tandon for their inputs and editorial work on this contribution. This work was supported by the Big Data for Development Network established by International Development Research Centre (Canada).

Notes

[1] Section 2 (a) of the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010: A hospital, maternity home, nursing home, dispensary, clinic, sanatorium or institution by whatever name called that offers services, facilities requiring diagnosis, treatment or care for illness, injury, deformity, abnormality or pregnancy in any recognised system of medicine established and administered or maintained by any person or body of persons, whether incorporated or not.

[2] The National Health Stack, then, is the latest manifestation of the Indian government’s push for a “Digital India.” A key component of Digital India has been e-governance, financial inclusion, and digitisation of transaction services. The nudge towards cashless modes of transaction and delivery, also accelerated by India’s demonetisation drive in November 2016, has led to rapid uptake of digital payment services in particular, and that of the IndiaStack initiative in general. Developed by iSPIRT, IndiaStack (https://indiastack.org/) aspires to transform service delivery by public and private actors alike through its “presence-less, paperless, and cashless” mandate.

References

Allan, J and Jane Englebright (2000): “Patient-Centered Documentation,” JONA: The Journal of Nursing Administration, Vol 30, No 2, pp 90–95.

Bach, Peter, Hoangmai Pham, Deborah Schrag, Ramsey Tate and J Lee Hargraves (2004): “Primary Care Physicians Who Treat Blacks and Whites,” New England Journal of Medicine, Vol 351, pp 575–84.

Cheney-Lippold, John (2018): We Are Data: Algorithms and the Making of Our Digital Selves, New Delhi: Sage.

Daly, Jeanette, Buckwalter Kathleen and Meridean Maas (2002): “Written and Computerized Care Plans,” Journal of Gerontological Nursing, Vol 28, No 9, pp 14–23.

EMR Standards Committee (2013): “Recommendations on Electronic Medical Records Standards in India,” Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi, https://mohfw.gov.in/sites/default/files/24539108839988920051EHR%20Standards-v5%20Apr%202013.pdf.

Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (2015): "A Guiding Framework for OPD and Preventive Health Insurance in India: Supply and Demand Side Analysis," http://ficci.in/spdocument/20678/P&P-helath-insurance.pdf.

Fraser, Hamish, Paul Biondich, Deshendran Moodley, Sharon Choi, Burke Mamlin and Peter Szolovits (2005): “Implementing Electronic Medical Record Systems in Developing Countries,” Journal of Innovation in Health Informatics, Vol 13 No 2, pp 83–95.

Häyrinen, Kristiina, Kaija Saranto and Pirkko Nykänen (2008): “Definition, Structure, Content, Use and Impacts of Electronic Health Records: A Review of the Research Literature,” International Journal of Medical Informatics, Vol 77, No 5, pp 291–304.

Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (2007): “Electronic Health Records: A Global Perspective,” http://www.providersedge.com/ehdocs/ehr_articles/Electronic_Health_Records-A_Global_Perspective-Exec_Summary.pdf.

Holzemer, William and S B Henry (1992): “Computer-supported Versus Manually-generated Nursing Care Plans: A Comparison of Patient Problems, Nursing Interventions, and AIDS Patient Outcomes,” Computers in Nursing, Vol 10 No 1, pp 19–24.

Jha, Ashish, Catherine DesRoches, Eric Campbell, Karen Donelan, Sowmya Rao, Timothy Ferris, Alexandra Shields, Sarah Rosenbaum and David Blumenthal (2009): "Use of Electronic Health Records in U.S. Hospitals," New England Journal of Medicine, Vol 360 No 16, pp 1628–1638.

Jyoti, Archana (2018): “States Give Clinical Establishment Act Cold Shoulder," Pioneer, https://www.dailypioneer.com/2018/india/states-give-clinical-establishment-act-cold-shoulder.html.

Kandhari, Ruhi (2017): “Why a Backdoor Push Towards eHealth,” Ken, https://the-ken.com/story/why-backdoor-push-towards-ehealth/.

Kovner, Christine, Lynda Schuchman and Catherin Mallard (1997): “The Application of Pen-Based Computer Technology to Home Health Care,” CIN: Computers, Informatics and Nursing, Vol 15, No 5, pp 237–44.

Krishnamurthy, R (2018): “Integrated Health Information Platform for Integrated Disease Surveillance Program,” Training of the Trainer Workshop, World Health Organisation, New Delhi, https://idsp.nic.in/WriteReadData/IHIP/IHIP%20ToT-Overview-Presentation.pdf.

Kuperman, Gilad and Richard Gibson (2003): “Computer Physician Order Entry: Benefits, Costs, and Issues,” Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol 139 No 1, pp 31–9.

Leung, Gabriel, Philip Yu, Irene Wong, Janice Johnston and Keith Tin (2003): “Incentives and Barriers That Influence Clinical Computerization in Hong Kong: A Population-based Physician Survey,” Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, Vol 10 No 2, pp 201–12.

McGinn Carrie Anna, Sonya Grenier, Julie Duplantie, Nicola Shaw, Claude Sicotte, Luc Mathieu, Yvan Leduc, France Légaré and Marie-Pierre Gagnon (2011): “Comparison of User Groups' Perspectives of Barriers and Facilitators to Implementing Electronic Health Records: A Systematic Review,” BMC Medicine, Vol 9 No 46.

Miklin, Daniel, Sameera Vangara, Alan Delamater and Kenneth Goodman (2019): “Understanding of and Barriers to Electronic Health Record Patient Portal Access in a Culturally Diverse Pediatric Population,” JMIR Medical Informatics, Vol 7, No 2.

Ministry of Finance (2018): “Budget 2018-19: Speech of Arun Jaitley,” New Delhi, https://www.indiabudget.gov.in/ub2018-19/bs/bs.pdf.

Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India (2008): "4 Years of Transforming India-Healthcare for All," New Delhi. https://mohfw.gov.in/ebook2018/gvtbook.html.

Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India (2013): “Electronic Health Record Standards For India,” Government of India, New Delhi, https://www.nhp.gov.in/NHPfiles/ehr_2013.pdf.

Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India (2017): Request for Proposal: Development and Implementation of Integrated Health Information Platform (IHIP), Centre for Health Informatics, National Institute of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi, https://nhp.gov.in/NHPfiles/IHIP_RFP%20.pdf.

Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India (2018): “IDSP Segment of Integrated Health Information Platform,” New Delhi, https://idsp.nic.in/index4.php?lang=1&level=0&linkid=454&lid=3977.

National Health Authority (nd): “About Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PM-JAY) | Ayushmaan Bharat,” https://www.pmjay.gov.in/about-pmjay.

NITI Aayog (2018): “National Health Stack- Strategy and Approach,” NITI Aayog, New Delhi, http://www.niti.gov.in/writereaddata/files/document_publication/NHS-Strategy-and-Approach-Document-for-consultation.pdf.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2013): “Strengthening Health Information Infrastructure for Health Care Quality Governance: Good Practices, New Opportunities and Data Privacy Protection Challenges,” OECD Health Policy Studies, Paris, OECD Publishing, https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/strengthening-health-information-infrastructure-for-health-care-quality-governance_9789264193505-en.

Poon, Eric, David Blumenthal, Tonushree Jaggi, Melissa Honour, David Bates and Rainu Kaushal (2004): “Overcoming Barriers to Adopting and Implementing Computerized Physician Order Entry Systems in U.S. Hospitals,” Health Affairs, Vol 23 No 4, pp 184–90.

Productnation Network (2019): “India’s Health Leapfrog–Towards A Holistic Healthcare Ecosystem,” iSpirt, https://pn.ispirt.in/towards-a-holistic-healthcare-ecosystem/.

Rathi, Aayush and Ambika Tandon (2019): “Data Infrastructures and Inequities: Why Does Reproductive Health Surveillance in India Need Our Urgent Attention?” EPW Engage, https://www.epw.in/engage/article/data-infrastructures-inequities-why-does-reproductive-health-surveillance-india-need-urgent-attention.

Sequist, Thomas, Theresa Cullen, Howard Hays, Maile Taualii, Steven Simon, and David Bates (2007): “Implementation and Use of an Electronic Health Record Within the Indian Health Service,” Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, Vol 14, No 2, pp 191–97.

World Bank (nd): Physicians (per 1,000 people) | Data, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.MED.PHYS.ZS.

Tierney, William et al. (2010): “Experience Implementing Electronic Health Records in Three East African Countries,” Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, Vol 160, No 1, pp 371–75.

Tisne, Martin (2018): “It’s Time for a Bill of Data Rights,” MIT Technology Review, https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612588/its-time-for-a-bill-of-data-rights/.

World Health Organization (2016): “Global Diffusion of eHealth: Making Universal Health Coverage Achievable,” https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/252529/9789241511780-eng.pdf;jsessionid=9DD5F8603C67EEF35549799B928F3541?sequence=1.

Zuboff, Soshana (2019): The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, New York: PublicAffairs.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/is-indias-digital-health-system-foolproof

Is India Prepared for a Cyber Attack? Suckfly And Other Past Responses Say No

praskrishna — 2016-09-22T00:57:02Z

From mandatory disclosures to improving CERT-IN’s functioning and transparency, there is much to be done in the event of future cyber attacks.

The article by Sushil Kambampati was published in the Wire on September 21, 2016. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

In early September, details about India’s top secret Scorpene submarine program were published online. This presumed data breach brought the issue of cyber security into the headlines.

However, earlier this year, news of potentially catastrophic breaches of Indian networks barely made a blip. On May 17, the cyber-security firm Symantec stated in a blog post that it had traced breaches of several Indian organisations to a cyber-espionage group called Suckfly. The targeted systems belonged to the central government, a large financial institution, a vendor to the largest stock exchange and an e-commerce company. The espionage activity began in April 2014 and continued through 2015, Symantec said. Based on the targets that were penetrated, Symantec speculated that the espionage was targeted at the economic infrastructure of India. Such allegations should be ringing alarm bells inside the government and amongst private businesses across the country. And yet, from the official public response, one would think nothing was amiss.

A week later, another cyber-security firm, Kaspersky Lab, announced that it too had tracked at least one cyberespionage group, called Danti, that had penetrated Indian government systems through India’s diplomatic entities.

Breaches of corporate and government networks are nothing new. Usually, these breaches come to light if the perpetrators reveal the attack, the target of the attack discloses the breach, or because the leaked data shows up on the Internet. The Suckfly and Danti breaches are unusual because they were reported by a third party while the targets (in this case, Indian organisations and the government) themselves have remained silent. The breaches reported by Symantec and Kaspersky of Indian organisations received tepid coverage in India. A few news organisations published the same wire story that basically rewrote information in the original posts, but there was very little follow-up as there was not much follow-up investigation to determine the targets or an analysis to gauge how much damage the leaks could cause.

Part of the reason there was no fallout may have to do with the reluctance of the parties involved to provide information. Symantec, in response to multiple requests for more details, kept referring to the original blog post. The government made no statement either confirming or denying the report. Several banks, e-commerce companies and government agencies were asked whether they were aware of Suckfly, whether they had been breached by the organisation and whether Symantec had contacted them. Only Yatra, Axis Bank and Flipkart responded, denying that they had been penetrated by Suckfly. The National Stock Exchange also said it had not been penetrated, although the questions asked were about whether any of the stock exchange’s vendors had been penetrated and if they had been, whether the NSE knew about such a breach.

This collective lack of response across the board indicates a mindset that shows unpreparedness for the cyber threats that are very real, existent and ongoing. Compare the Suckfly reaction to the threat of a terrorist infiltration. In that scenario, the government goes on high alert, resources are mobilised and the public is warned. The government then tries to identify the threat and stop it from doing any harm. Citizens demand that in the future the government take proactive steps to catch infiltrators and prevent any future threats.

Weak government response

One method that Suckfly uses to gain access, according to Symantec, is by signing its malware with stolen digital certificates. This is the same method that was used to infect and sabotage the Iranian nuclear centrifuges with the Stuxnet virus, so the potential for harm of these breaches cannot be understated. Several security experts confirmed the plausibility of such doomsday scenarios as two-factor authentication being turned off for credit card transactions, unauthorised money transfers, leakage of credit card details, stolen password hashes or personal information, massive numbers of fake e-commerce orders and the manipulation of the stock exchange.

All the targets taken together, the potential for economic damage that the Suckfly breach poses is immense. If another country or malevolent group wanted to wreak havoc in India, it could trigger banking panic by emptying accounts or a stock-market collapse by dumping stocks at fractional values.

Even more disturbing, though, is that if a foreign entity has access to government networks, it has the potential to collect passwords to critical systems using key-loggers and password scanners. From there the entity could steal national security data, disrupt control systems of electrical grids or nuclear facilities and gain access to everything the government knows about its citizens, including personal details, financial information and identity information. On an only slightly less dangerous level, the central bank’s funds could be stolen, like the recent attempt to heist $800 million from the central bank of Bangladesh.

A report on risks facing India, published in August by KPMG and the Confederation of Indian Industry said: “While traditionally cyber attacks were largely used for causing financial and reputational loss, today they have  a potential of posing a threat to human life. While the perpetrators behind these attacks traditionally were a few challenge loving ‘hackers’ with unbridled curiosity, we see an increasing number of state sponsored cyber terrorists and organised criminals behind the attacks today.”

In light of such serious threats, the government needs to take more action to mitigate the threat and reassure the public that it is on top of the situation. Reports of encounters between the armed forces and alleged terrorists are frequently relayed to the press. Similarly, the National Informatics Centre (NIC) or its parent organisation, the Department of Electronics and Information Technology, needs to make a public statement when breaches of government systems or of private organisations at this scale come to light. The investigative agencies need to open an enquiry into the matter.

In the Suckfly case, it took a right-to-information query from this author to get a response from the NIC. In the response, the NIC stated that it was unaware of any breach of its systems by Suckfly, that it did not use Symantec’s services and that Symantec had not notified NIC of any breach. Of course, the response also raises many more questions, which could be asked if the government took an attitude of openness and disclosure.

The government also needs to step up its efforts of identifying and neutralising the threat. The Indian government’s Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-IN) is responsible, according to its website, for “responding to computer security incidents as and when they occur” and also collecting information on and issuing “guidelines, advisories, vulnerability notes and whitepapers relating to information security practices, procedures, prevention, response and reporting of cyber incidents.” Yet, as of September 12, its website does not mention the Backdoor.Nidoran exploit which Suckfly allegedly used to gain access during at least one of its attacks. The CVE-2015-2545 vulnerability that Danti used, according to Kaspersky, is also unlisted. Any organisation or person relying on CERT-IN to get notifications of vulnerabilities would be in the dark and exposed to a breach.

CERT-IN is a perfect example of where the government could really do so much more, starting with some very basic things. For example, by design, contact e-mail addresses listed on the site cannot be clicked on or copied, and so have to be retyped. Such a measure would barely stop even a novice hacker. E-mail messages sent to one of the contact email address bounce back. While it laudably posts its e-mail encryption hash on its contact page, one of the identifiers does not match what is registered in the public KeyStores (usually that would be a sign of a hack). Most glaringly, anyone searching for information on a vulnerability on the site will have to click in and out of every document because the site does not have a search function. Collectively, these flaws give the impression that while the government has thought about cyber-security, it is not putting enough resources and effort into making that a credible initiative.

The government’s regulatory agencies also need to get into the fray. For example, one of the organisations that Suckfly allegedly breached is a large financial institution. It makes sense, therefore that the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), which oversees all financial institutions, should make it mandatory that a bank notify the RBI whenever there is a security breach. The RBI did just that in a notification issued on June 2, 2016, after the Suckfly breach. However, the notification does not address the need to inform the public. The RBI itself also needs to be more forthcoming. In the Suckfly instance the RBI has not made any statements about whether financial institutions under its supervision are secure. It took an RTI query to get a statement from the RBI, and there it responded that it had no information on the matter.

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), which oversees the country’s stock exchanges, initially did not respond directly as to whether it knew of the breach at any IT firm that supplies an Indian stock exchange. However, SEBI reacted to an RTI query by asking all the stock exchanges under its mantle to verify with each of their IT vendors whether there had been any breach. They all denied it. If any of them are being untruthful, they have made a false statement to SEBI. However, if taken at their word, the public can take comfort in the fact that the stock market was not compromised by this attack.

SEBI also issued a cyber-security policy framework for its stock exchanges in July 2015, around the time when Suckfly may have been actively attacking systems. Where the RBI asks financial institutions to report breaches within six hours of detection, SEBI requires the reports to be quarterly. Given how fast information travels and how many transactions can be done in mere minutes, that seems like too much time for SEBI to take any effective action. SEBI’s policy also does not address the need to inform the public.

What is needed is a coordinated, comprehensive and unified policy that applies to stock exchanges, financial institutions, government organisations and private companies. It doesn’t matter from where the data is being stolen, what matters is how quickly the organisation learns of it and lets people know so that they too can take any action they need to.

Right or wrong?

The across-the-board denials of any breach raise the question whether Symantec was mistaken. Skeptics could even wonder whether the company exaggerated the situation to increase sales of its products and services. For its part, Symantec refuses to provide any further information about the breach beyond what is in its initial post; crucial information in this regard would include more forensic details, which could identify whether the breach actually took place. Symantec also would not confirm whether it had notified the targets of the attacks, though the government says it has not been alerted by Symantec.

On the other hand, according to Sastry Tumuluri, a former Chief Information Security Officer for the state of Haryana, Symantec probably did correctly identify the breaches. Symantec collects vast amounts of information at every point where it has a presence, such as on individual computers, at internet interconnection points and web hosts globally. All that data can give a fairly accurate and reliable indication of systems being penetrated. Depending on their capabilities and level of sophistication, the target organisations could also truthfully say that they have not detected a breach.

If Symantec’s is correct in conjecturing that the Suckfly breach targeted India’s economic sector, its lack of further action is disturbing. India is one of the world’s ten largest economies and instability here would have ripple effects globally. Then there is the potential of catastrophic cyberterrorism. It is in everyone’s interest that Symantec reach out to the government and to let the public know which organisations may be compromised.

According to Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director at the Centre for Internet and Society and Bruce Schneier, a globally recognised security expert, the lack of knowledge regarding which organisations were targeted reduces people’s trust in the Internet across the board. In an email response, Schneier wrote, “Symantec has an obligation to disclose the identities of those attacked. By leaving this information out, Symantec is harming us all. We all have to make decisions on the Internet all the time about who to trust and who to rely on. The more information we have, the better we can make those decisions.”

Looking at it in the other direction, it is not apparent whether the government has asked Symantec and Kaspersky for more information and a disclosure of who the targets were. After all, if government systems were breached, it is a matter of national security. If the government has indeed reached out and received more information, it has an obligation to let the public know.

What other governments and private companies are belatedly learning is that it is better to proactively disclose the breaches before the information gets out through other parties. When US retailer Target came under attack, its data breach was first revealed by security reporter Michael Krebs. Target was criticised for not coming forth itself and faced several lawsuits. In the US, most states and jurisdictions have laws that require companies to disclose data breaches, although transparency advocates point out that there is great variation on how long companies can wait to disclose and what events trigger a mandatory disclosure. In Europe, telecoms and Internet Service Providers must report a breach within 24 hours and other organisations have 72 hours.

India has no mandatory disclosure law in the case of data breaches at government or private organisations, Prakash said. It is something that CIS supports and had proposed since 2011, he added.

According to Schneier, a mandatory disclosure law would also be valuable if confidentiality agreements would otherwise prevent a security firm such as Symantec from disclosing names of targets.

Finally, private companies need to understand that they are not doing themselves any favours by remaining silent on the matter. Even if Suckfly or its clients do not use the information they may have gained, the lack of disclosure by the targets will weaken trust in online commerce and financial transactions, says Prakash. For example, looking at e-commerce, while it is true that e-commerce has grown rapidly in India, a study in 2014 by YourStory and Kalaari Capital found that lack of trust and doubt about online security were hurdles for 80% of people who had never made an online purchase.

When an organisation lets the public know that it has been breached, users of the service or site can evaluate what action they need to take. For example if a person uses the same password across multiple sites, they would know they needed to change the password at the other sites. Depending on the breach they would also be able to alert credit card companies as well as friends and family.

As the KPMG report states, cyber attacks are only going to become more common. Despite multiple warnings, the response on the part of the Indian government and private organisations has been quite underwhelming. The government needs to proactively monitor and respond to attacks. Lawmakers need to pass laws establishing privacy policies and mandatory disclosures. Companies will also need to invest in better security practices as well as gain public trust by reacting to breaches promptly and letting the public know what they are doing to recover from them.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-week-sushil-kambampati-september-21-2016-india-is-unprepared-for-future-cyber-attacks

Is freedom of expression under threat in the digital age?

praskrishna — 2013-02-03T10:50:52Z

This week Index held a high level panel debate in partnership with the Editors Guild of India and the India International Centre to discuss the question “Is freedom of expression under threat in the digital age?” Mahima Kaul reports

This post by Mahima Kaul was published in Index on Censorship on January 18, 2013.

Index on Censorship, in partnership with The Editors Guild of India, hosted a debate in New Delhi on Tuesday (15 January) asking, “Is freedom of expression under threat in the digital age?” Discussing the topic were Ajit Balakrishnan (founder and Chief Executive of rediff.com), Index on Censorship CEO Kirsty Hughes, Sunil Abraham (Executive Director of the centre for Internet and Society), and Professor Timothy Garton Ash, Director of the Free Speech Debate project.

Sunil Abraham questioned the idea of technology specific “internet freedom” that has been advocated by many not least the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. He said there was for instance much greater freedom and diversity on Indian TV than in the US. He also argued that that this freedom does not seem to extend to a right of access to knowledge, as demonstrated by the charges brought against open access activist and developer Aaron Swartz, who committed suicide earlier this month. Swartz was facing charges for allegedly downloading 4.8 million academic articles from subscription-only digital library JSTOR.

Abraham said one unintentional effect of censorship by governments is that it teaches citizens how to protect themselves online. Finally, he questioned the Indian government’s draconian laws and arbitrary actions in the digital realm, wondering whether this is the authorities’ way of warning future netizens about “acceptable online behaviour”, to condition the public not to criticise the government and to create a chilling effect.

Digital

Is freedom of expression under threat in the digital age?

18 Jan 2013

This week Index held a high level panel debate in partnership with the Editors Guild of India and the India International Centre to discuss the question “Is freedom of expression under threat in the digital age?” Mahima Kaul reports

Freedom of expression is always under threat and in need of defending, argued Timothy Garton Ash. However, he didn’t think the threat was particularly high today in the digital realm — rather the threats to privacy were what were particularly concerning online. With 76.8 per cent of India’s 1.2 billion population connected by mobile phone, there is an extraordinary opportunity for the prevalence of freedom of expression brought about by new technologies. But he said there are also a lot of challenges to free expression in India — and that “swing states” such as Brazil and India will be very important in determining where the global conversation goes on freedom of expression

Ajit Balakrishnan, founder of web portal Rediff.com, explained that many of the problems that have occurred in the digital realm in India have to do with poor drafting of legislation. He was particularly concerned about intermediary liability and explained why and how intermediaries roles needed protecting. He also explained that government officials have genuine problems with phrasing, and that when it comes to the application of these laws, understanding them and when they should be applied will take another 25 years. He added that the country is challenged by a legal system ill-equipped for coping with new technologies.

Kirsty Hughes said that freedom of expression is a universal right, meant to be applied across borders not just within countries. She said that while the digital domain allowed a big expansion in freedom of expression there were risks we are heading towards a more controlled net, a partially censored net, and a fragmented net (for instance with Iran attempting to build its own internet disconnected from the rest of the world). She said that some of the negative reactions by government to social media in India were seen to in the UK where there had been a trend towards criminalising supposedly offensive comment — although the new interim guidelines on social media prosecutions were a step in the right direction. Hughes emphasised three main concerns — state censorship, privatisation of censorship and the role of big companies, and mass surveillance. She pointed out that the British government had pushed for extensive surveillance with the Communications Data Bill, but this has now been shelved after a critical report from MPs.

Ramanjit Singh Chima, policy adviser for Google, said that the question is not about absolute freedom, but about what is appropriate and lawful. He emphasised that in the US, judges had strongly defended free expression online as they saw the digital world as a powerful space for free exprssion. He pointed out how effective social media tools, including Google’s own products, have become in helping during emergency situations like natural disasters and terrorist attacks. He also pointed out that the internet is not only about free expression but business as well. The internet contributes to 1.6 per cent of India’s GDP. Singh Chima said positive judgements by US and EU courts protect the users, adding that regulation for the net should be appropriate for its engineering.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/index-on-censorship-mahima-kaul-january-18-2013-is-freedom-of-expression-under-threat-in-the-digital-age

IRC22 - Proposed Session - #WaitingForFood

Admin — 2022-04-25T13:11:04Z

Details of a session proposed for the Internet Researchers' Conference 2022 - #Home.

Internet Researchers' Conference 2022 - #Home - Call for Sessions

Session Type: Presentation and Discussion of Papers

Session Plan

“Don’t come to Burger King, let the King come to you! Order safe deliveries from our kitchen to your doorstep on Swiggy or Zomato. Stay home, stay safe”.

The above caption is from an advertisement by the popular fast food joint Burger King, during the peak of the Covid-19 pandemic. Indeed, one would have come across many such advertisements, centering the safety of the customer, from restaurants and food delivery platforms during the pandemic. Delivery platforms also reinforced this idea of ‘safe access to food from home’ through measures such as temperature checks and vaccination status of the delivery workers, option of no-contact delivery etc. Within such a context, the idea of ‘home’ acquired a certain valence, imbued with a sense of comfort that allowed for multiplicity of food options to be delivered within a short span of time, without compromising one’s safety. In this session, we propose to explore aspects of time, space, and home in the context of food delivery in the pandemic. While we explore time through the concept of ‘waiting’, we look at space through processes of simultaneous compression and rarefaction.

A cursory glance at any food delivery app provides the customer with a certain distribution of time- order placed, preparing order, order picked up, order delivered- all of which are significantly tied to how the process of waiting at home is approached and experienced by the customer. Additionally, the tracking option on the app with an icon of the driver mediates the waiting experience. Similarly, such processes of waiting are experienced by the delivery worker in different ways albeit through multiple delivery cycles outside of home. In any given delivery cycle, a delivery worker waits for the order to be assigned and waits for the restaurant to prepare the order. In addition to this, incentives and long distance delivery produce other forms of waiting for the delivery worker. This waiting operates simultaneously with rapid movement often required to ensure that the order is delivered to the customer who is waiting at home. These forms of waiting are integral to the order-delivery chain and they take place on multiple registers- shaped by the space of home and outside home.

Various food delivery apps also communicate to the customer the promise of delivering different cuisines from across restaurants at the tip of their fingers. Such technologies entail a collapse of space that the customer experiences which varies drastically from the spatial organization of these said options. Many aspects of the app interface are directed towards this compression- the manner in which multiple cuisines and restaurants are organized on the app, the tracking interface that signals an apparent proximity mediated by time frame. Real time experience of delivery often punctures this idea of a seemingly seamless process- glitches in the map showing faulty directions and specifically in the context of Mumbai, the space itself is characterized by traffic jams, climate events etc- reconfiguring space in specific ways.

Drawing on the above discussions, the proposed session will include two papers exploring dimensions of space, time and home. Both papers will be presented In the first paper, (presenter's name) will discuss time in the context of waiting by asking how different modalities of waiting, experienced in the food-delivery process, are linked to the space of home and outside home. In the second paper, (presenter's name) will focus on space as a concept to understand how the perception of the compression of space in the app itself is animated in the order delivery process. Through both these papers, we attempt to explore how the idea of home itself gets restructured through the discourse of ‘staying at home to be safe’. Both papers draw on an ethnographic study conducted by the discussants in Central Mumbai.

Outline of the Session

The discussants will share a recording of their respective presentations of 15 minutes each (as stated in the call for papers). The session will begin with a short discussion between presenters for 20 minutes. This will be followed by an open floor discussion on the papers with the audience present for the subsequent 30 minutes.

Session Team

Nisha Subramanian is pursuing a PhD in Anthropology at Ashoka University. Their work explores rights of forest dwelling communities and temporalities of justice and injustice within the space of the forest

Rhea Bose is pursuing her PhD in The School of Development Studies (SDS), TISS Mumbai. Her work looks at the intersections of cyberspace and queer theory.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/irc22-proposed-session-waitingforfood

IRC22 - Proposed Session - #IdentitiesVulnerabilitiesOpportunitiesDissent

Admin — 2022-05-24T14:42:54Z

Details of a session proposed for the Internet Researchers' Conference 2022 - #Home.

Internet Researchers' Conference 2022 - #Home - Call for Sessions

Session Type: Demonstration of Research Outputs and Methods

Session Plan

The penetration of the internet, mobile phones, social media and multimedia has ushered in the digital revolution. The Digital society promised to be open, fluid and accessible cutting across the barriers of class, caste, gender and rigidities of social structures. It has tremendous scope and potential to contribute effectively to economic growth, social mobility and political participation, creating the possibilities of a more inclusive society across the globe. However, despite its inclusive potential, the existing gender disparities, discrimination, patriarchial structures and inequalities, faced by women has had a considerable impact on the digital gender divide, leading to the digital exclusion of women. This exclusion had further implications during the lockdowns as families were confined to their homes with access to the internet as their only window outside the home.

Global statistics betray considerable discrimination in women’s access to internet. Internet penetration in the Americas is 77.6% for men and 76.8% for women, while in Africa it is 33.8% for men and 22.6% for women. The gender gap in developing countries is 22.8 % while it is 2.3 per cent in the developed world. For the world as a whole it is 17%, as per 2020 data. In India only 85% of women have access to the internet and 58% have access to mobile internet. Access however is not the only impediment in exploiting the internet’s equalizing potential. Low levels of literacy, lack of awareness and structures of patriarchy inhibits women’s participation and mobility on the digital platform as well. The internet operates largely within the parameters of a male-dominated society favouring male access and usage. The digital space at the same time has added to the existing challenges and vulnerabilities of women. In this context the present panel proposes to deliberate on four critical themes/questions.

The papers are based on survey findings, field notes, case studies and literature survey from an ongoing Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR), New Delhi, sponsored Major Research Project on “Women as ‘Digital Subjects; Participating, Vulnerabilities and Building Empowerment”. The study was conducted in two urban and peri-urban areas of Mumbai, Navi Mumbai and Kolkata and Howrah. The respondents included 540 women drawn from various socio-economic backgrounds, educational status, age and religious groups. The work status of the demographics in the sample includes- students 41 per cent, salaried workers (formal and informal/ full-time and part-time) 31 per cent, homemakers 20 per cent and businesswomen or entrepreneurs 8 per cent. 46 per cent of these women reported a total family or household income of two to five lakhs per annum. The survey was conducted in the lockdown months of January to May 2021, which gave a new meaning to home- as a workplace and as a social space - through a questionnaire, in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with targeted groups especially home-based women entrepreneurs in Kolkata and Mumbai.

The data analysis from the survey will be posted prior to the session for the audiences. The themes of the panel aim to answer the following questions:

Who are the women who inhabit the social media driven digital space? Is it possible to speak of ‘women’ on the Net or are there ‘many voices of many women’? How do women perceive the internet and how do they seek to employ it? This question becomes critical in view of the unequal access to internet and internet enabled devices, not only on account of lack of digital literacy but also on account of existing social structures that deny women the agency. Moreover, lockdowns restricted people to their homes, leaving the digital spaces as the only means for social as well as economic interactions. In this situation, how did the digital spaces play out for providing opportunities to women?
What is the process and modalities of identity construction? What are the frames of reference for women in the process of new identity construction? Are these identities different from that of the ones in the real world? Are women re imagining their identities on the internet or constructing new ones? How are women creating new opportunities for themselves through the use of social media and the internet, given the flexibility of ‘working from home’ or ‘home-based’ ventures? Are these opportunities or are they compromises? In the process how are they using the internet to negotiate with the existing social structures that restrict their mobility and confine them to their homes?
What is the nature of women’s identities and expression in the virtual world? Can marginalized women use digital spaces to voice dissent? The flexibility of the digital media helps the marginalized create a space and alternative languages of dissent. How does this medium help Dalit women’s voices be transmitted in various forms?
Are women’s vulnerabilities in the digital world different from that of the real world? How do women negotiate these vulnerabilities? What does women’s vulnerability mean in the context of the internet? Do these vulnerabilities limit women’s access and participation?

The panel includes four papers relating to the four themes:

I. Urban Woman and the Digital Media: Access, Preferences and Challenges

This paper will present the main findings about Indian urban women’s access, participation and the purpose of their usage of the digital media. It is based on a survey that was conducted under the ICSSR’s major research project “Women as ‘Digital Subjects; Participating, Vulnerabilities and Building Empowerment” at the Department of Political Science, SNDT Women’s University, Mumbai. The survey was conducted among 540 women respondents from Mumbai and Kolkata and their peri-urban areas.

The survey data will showcase their demographic profiling and socio-economic status in the form of age groups, education levels, social groupings such as caste and religion, occupations and household level incomes, asset ownership and living spaces.

The access to devices, internet costs and preferences in usage of social media platforms and apps will also be shown. Women’s perceived advantages and limitations to uses of digital media in their personal and/or professional lives will be revealed.

Further, the data will show their perceptions about their digital identities, realisation of gendered vulnerabilities in digital spaces and assessment of potential economic opportunities in world outside their physical world -the digital world.

The paper will conclude by pointing out the gendered nature of digital media-driven opportunities, with a focus on home-based entrepreneurship, and the need for intervention at the social level and policy frameworks to enhance the negotiating power of these aspiring women in three broad sections.

II. Women, Identity and the Digital Media: Re-imagination or Re- negotiation?

The impact of the internet has been exponential. On a very fundamental level, the internet has changed the way society interacts and connects with each other. This became more apparent and conspicuous during the pandemic as the social world moved to the internet and offline communities were formed by families, neighbourhoods, communities and societies. One of the particularly engaging aspects of this new modality of communication through the internet is its ability to support user-generated content in an interactive and ubiquitous manner. Within the digital world, this leads to the creation of new contacts which lead to assertion of 'new identities’.

Based on a survey of 540 women in Mumbai and Kolkata and in-depth interviews of the lived experiences of home-based entrepreneurs on the use of social media for Entrepreneurship, this sub-theme will throw light on the access to the internet and online platforms and the opportunities that it has created for entrepreneurship among homemakers during the pandemic.

In the light of these, the paper seeks to examine the women’s perception about the gendered nature of the internet, its potential in reconfiguring their identities, the possibilities of multiple identities on the internet and the intersectionality and divergence of such identities. The paper explores the dynamics of the process of identity creation by women in the digital space through the use of social media platforms namely Facebook and Whatsapp by examining and situating the life experiences of women. The paper argues that the digital spaces are geared towards reconfiguring existing identities vis-a-vis the digital platforms that women use or are part of.

III. Gendering the Digital Dalit Dissent: Reading Thenmozhi Soundararajan’s Transmedia Art

The digital medium with its unique forms of engagement and the possibility of inhabiting several mediational spaces allows the marginalized Dalit women to voice the dissent in multiple tongues. This paper argues that the language of dissent of Dalit women in the digital medium can be distinguished distinctly from their peers in the textual medium. These voices are marked by not only an insistence of dismantling the hierarchies of textual production and its complementary codes of participation but inventing multiplicities of form of expression that traverses various languages and forms. In doing so it invents a language of dissent that critically engages with but significantly departs from a range of Dalit feminist discourses that has essentially framed an alternative Dalit ‘canon’.The paper further argues that the digital Dalit feminist discourse changes the optics of engagement by re-inventing the understanding of ‘difference’ as an essentially polymorphous category. Thus is further accentuated in terms of how the Dalit Diaspora re-inscribes 'home' as a site of negotiations of caste invisibility.

The paper will particularly focus on the transmedia art of Thenmozhi Soundararajan as an incentive to place this understanding of dissent firmly within the overlapping categories of ‘engaged art’ and ‘engaged activism’.

IV. Gendered Vulnerabilities in the Digital Spaces: Some Insights

Vulnerability is a concept that is often used in the literature on victimization. Vulnerability can be seen as the intersection between two axes: risk and harm and any given individual may be plotted in respect of his or her level of risk of being victimized and the amount of harm the victimization experience may cause.

The dimensions of vulnerabilities that women are subject to in digital spaces include go beyond inequity of access to the internet or devices, lack of digital literacy, cyber bullying / harassment, cyber crime and financial frauds. Based on survey findings of 540 women respondents in Mumbai and Kolkata, and their peri-urban areas, this paper argues that the internet is innately male-oriented, elitist and to a large extent undemocratic. These create inbuilt obstacles for women digital users and therefore require their tremendous effort. The greater problem however lies in normalizing such vulnerabilities creating the possibilities of transforming the digital space into mirror images.

Keywords: Internet, Digital Media, Women on Digital Media, Women

Session Team

Manisha Madhava PhD (Jadavpur University) is an Associate Professor and Head of, Department of Political Science, SNDT Women’s University, Mumbai. Her areas of research interest include Parliamentary Democracy in India with special reference to Lok Sabha, state parties in India, and social media and politics. She is the author of State Parties in India: Parliamentary Presence & Performance (Gyan, 2020) and co-editor of Indian Democracy: Problems and Prospects (Anthem, 2009). She is currently working on an ICSSR Sponsored Major Research Project on Women as ‘Subjects’ in Digital Media; Participating, Vulnerabilities and Empowerment.

Dhrupadi Chattopadhyay is an Assistant Professor at the Department of English, SNDT Women’s University, Mumbai. She has been trained in literary studies at Lady Shri Ram College, New Delhi, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi and Ruprecht Karls Universitat, Heidelberg. Post-colonial studies, culture studies, Digital humanities and emerging literatures are her areas of interest.

Aparna Bose is an independent researcher and visiting faculty at the Department of Political Science, SNDT Women’s University with an interest in International Politics, Foreign Policy Analysis, Area studies (mainly Africa), and Human Rights. Based in Mumbai, India, she has taught Political Science and International Relations courses at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at different institutions in Mumbai. She holds a PhD in African Studies from Mumbai University.

Saumya Tewari (PhD in Development Studies, TISS, Mumbai) is an independent researcher with an interest in comparative politics, reforms, transparency & accountability and gender. Currently based in Lucknow, India, she has taught undergraduate and postgraduate courses in Public Policy and Political Science at different institutions in Mumbai and at Kumaun University in Nainital. She has worked as a policy writer with IndiaSpend, tracking public policy concerns in health, education, governance, election data and gender. She also holds a PG Diploma in Public Policy from ISS, The Hague and is an honorary fellow at the Centre for Multilevel Federalism, Institute of Social Sciences, New Delhi.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/irc22-proposed-session-identitiesvulnerabilitiesopportunitiesdissentir

IRC22 - Proposed Session - #DigitisingCrisesRemakingHome

Admin — 2022-04-25T12:23:42Z

Details of a session proposed for the Internet Researchers' Conference 2022- #Home.

Internet Researchers' Conference 2022 - # Home - Call for Sessions

Session Type: Panel Discussion

Session Plan

The session is planned as a panel discussion between three scholars on three distinct, interconnected notions of home – specifically the home as a dwelling unit, an administrative unit (such as a municipality, a city, or a state), and a country (or a nation state) in the context of India. We intend to parse these ideas within the context of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic to discuss notions of ‘safety’, ‘trust’, ‘support’, and ‘access’ by examining the digital turn in all three kinds of ‘home’. The session will open with the scholars speaking to each other, and laying out the central ideas. The conversation between the three scholars will act as provocations to enable a larger discussion with other attendees.

In 2020, when the first Covid-19 lockdowns began, the internet was discussed as a space of solidarity, of meeting, entertainment, work, and of support. But soon it became evident that access to such spaces of solidarity or support was not necessarily equal. While for some it was almost non-existent, for many others it was limited or regulated. In the Indian context these differences only stood out further due to unequal access to infrastructure, healthcare, and even basic necessities such as food that was starkly apparent in the long march of several thousand migrant workers from cities back to their ‘homes’ in rural areas at the height of the Indian summer.

At the national level, the digital response to the pandemic was most palpable. The use of contact tracing through apps such as Aarogya Setu, the CoWin portal for vaccinations, and the often arbitrary use of drones, facial recognition, and artificial intelligence have raised questions about surveillance, inclusion, and how useful technology can be in assisting a public health crisis. Often such responses reflected a law and order response to what has been a public health crisis. On the other hand, the establishment of Vande Bharat missions to bring stranded Indians from around the world ‘back home to India’ presented a very different idea of home.

Administrative units at the state and local levels had differing procedures and interventions. Many attempted to follow the guidelines and interventions laid out by the central government, others introduced their own digital solutions but soon found that these were not enough to actually deliver governance during the pandemic.

This session will explore the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of the digital becoming the default mode of managing the pandemic–or any sort of threat. We ask if the idea of ‘home’ as a ‘safe space’ had ever really been so and whether the pandemic exacerbated existing exploitative mechanisms within a ‘home’ – be it the dwelling, the city, or even one’s country. We also intend to discuss issues of access, surveillance, privacy, vulnerability, the burdens of care-work, the exploitative extraction of data, and divergent understandings of consent frameworks within these three axes of the idea of the ‘home’.

Session Team

Vidya Subramanian is Raghunathan Family Fellow, South Asia Institute, Harvard University. She is an interdisciplinary scholar whose research interests lie at the intersection of technologies and societies. Her current research investigates the changing nature of citizenship in the technological society we now inhabit. Focusing on India, her research is loosely framed by two large issues: the first is the colonisation of the everyday so-called real world by the digital; and the second is how power permeates and is implicated in such technologies.

Kalindi Kokal is Post Doctoral Fellow, Centre for Policy Studies, IIT Bombay. She has a doctorate in law from the Martin Luther University, Halle-Wittenberg, Germany. Her doctoral work centred on understanding how non-state actors in dispute processing engage with state law. Her dissertation is an ethnographic study of dispute-processing mechanisms in two rural communities in the states of Maharashtra and Uttarakhand in India. She works on understanding how the manner in which people actually experience state law coupled with their perceptions of dispute resolution and state courts underscore the need to explore broader understandings of law and dispute resolution.

Uttara Purandare is PhD Researcher, IITB-Monash Research Academy. She is pursuing her PhD in Public Policy under a joint programme offered by IIT Bombay and Monash University. Her area of research is smart cities. Looking specifically at the intersection of technology, gender, and governance, Uttara’s research focuses on how safety and surveillance are constructed by the smart city rhetoric and the role of private sector firms in governing the smart city. The COVID-19 pandemic and the technologies that have been introduced by national governments and smart cities purportedly to curb the spread of the virus have raised interesting questions about privacy and citizens’ rights during a crisis. Uttara is presently exploring some of these questions within the Indian context.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/irc22-proposed-session-digitisingcrisesremakinghome

IRC19: #List - Conference Programme

sumandro — 2019-01-31T06:33:28Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/irc19-list-conference-programme

IRC19 - Proposed Session - #SocialMediationAsGenderedJustice

sumandro — 2018-11-26T13:22:52Z

Details of a session proposed by Esther Anne Victoria Moraes and Manasa Priya Vasudevan for the Internet Researchers' Conference 2019 - #List.

Internet Researchers' Conference 2019 - #List - Call for Sessions

Session Plan

2017 saw the sudden emergence of the hashtag #metoo, both in India and across the world. This has impacted not just the general public of the internet, but also the global movement women's rights movement and feminist discourse around sexual assault, gender and consent. #MeToo allowed (female) survivors of harassment to resort to social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook as a tool to accuse powerful men of sexual harassment. In 2017, we saw this with Rose McGowan who tweeted about Harvey Weinstein or Raya Sarkar who released #LoSHA, which further erupted in late 2018 into a larger wave of ‘outing’ of Indian perpetrators in media, politics, and other areas of work.

With #LoSHA and the 2018 wave of #metoo in India, there have been a gamut of responses, even some amount of polarisation, especially among Indian civil society. During #LoSHA, we observed resistance from traditional legal and Human Rights activists and practitioners against acknowledging the unique impact of ‘survivors’ testimonies on social media’ for fear of validating a method that lies outside of ‘due process’ and ‘fair trial’. They reason that due to the ungoverned nature of social media, its platforms are without checks and balances and therefore cannot regulate arbitrary misuse. However, one can argue that social media platforms are indeed regulated by the service providers who have the ultimate power to censor complainants by simply suspending or expelling them from the platform altogether. This became evident when Twitter silenced Rose McGowan and Facebook, Raya Sarkar, promptly after their testimonies began to gather accelerated traction. Thus, the accused may always appeal to the ultimate gatekeepers, the platform providers themselves. It is precisely due to the above stated reasons, that the 2017-2018 wave of social media testimonies has garnered considerable support from a typically contemporary civil society, who recognise the disruption as powerful despite the gaps in the methodology.

Our Proposal

The tentative proposal is for our team of 2 researchers to carry out a 15-20 minute lightning talk (a conversation or debate) providing a landscape analysis of #metoo, raising specific points of discussion and interest. Following this, we will open up the discussion with the audience in the form of multiple roundtable conversations, which will seek to address the following 2 questions:

If survivors of sexual harassment are resorting to social media as a ‘means’, or their choice of instrument, what does this imply about the existing fora for due process?
New and emergent imaginaries/perspectives around the end of ‘justice’ that may lie outside the contours of conventional legal frameworks i.e. to what ‘end’ are these survivors disposed?

Our session aims at working towards the following outcomes:

A comprehensive analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of phenomenon of social media - mediation of justice
A current and expanded understanding of 'justice' that is not bound by legal recourse

Session Team

Esther Anne Victoria Moraes (Communications Manager, The YP Foundation) is a feminist activist and researcher who is passionate about expanding the discourse on the evolving forms of rights-based movements. At TYPF, Esther works on building feminist leadership through on-ground programming and on research on youth movements. Esther also works with on communication and public advocacy around issues of health, rights and youth leadership with a focus on young girls and adolescents. She coordinates online and on-ground public advocacy on sexual and reproductive health and rights and access to information through TYPF's national-level campaign, Know Your Body, Know Your Rights.

Manasa Priya Vasudevan (Programme Manager, The YP Foundation) is a feminist activist researcher who is passionate about the theory and praxis of social justice in an increasingly internet-mediated world, especially in the context of urbanization and datafication. She has undertaken research and advocacy on issues at the intersections of information communication technologies and social justice, primarily in the area of internet governance. She has actively engaged with international multi-sectoral movement building and strategy, both online and offline. At TYPF, she manages the Know your body know your rights programme. Prior to this, she worked at IT for Change in Bengaluru.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/irc19-proposed-session-socialmediationasgenderedjustice

IRC19 - Proposed Session - #ListsAsDatabase

sumandro — 2018-11-26T13:20:14Z

Details of a session proposed by Ria De and Samata Biswas for the Internet Researchers' Conference 2019 - #List.

Internet Researchers' Conference 2019 - #List - Call for Sessions

Session Plan

The internet-based List of Sexual Harassers in Academia (LoSHA), initiated by Dalit feminist and lawyer activist Raya Sarkar in 2017 anonymously crowd-sourced names of academics and activists who were accused of harassing women colleagues and students. While a large number of women in the academia rallied in support of the list and its motivations, it also unleashed anxieties about how the list was put together, and the kind of impact it was feared to have. Variously, it has been equated to Khap Panchayats, vigilantism, mob lynchings etc. Last month, the government of India launched an online National Database on Sexual Offenders (NDSO), which will contain the details—names, photographs, residential address, fingerprints, DNA samples, PAN and Aadhar numbers—of individuals convicted on charges of sexual offences against women and children. An associated portal, the Cyber Crime Prevention Against Women and Children (CCPWC) was also launched where citizens can enter complaints against child pornography and other sexually explicit material. Both are modes of digital enlisting through the use of new media technologies, one that is open access and therefore available for modification, co-option and critique, while the other is to be accessible only to law personnel. This two-member panel locates the list in the context of ongoing debates about the conversion of social justice and rights issues in to data repositories. We take in to account the debates on the Right to be Forgotten or the right to delist from the internet, as a specific concern raised in the Personal Data Protection Bill 2018 submitted by the Justice B.N. Krishna Committee. The Bill recognises data principals (or the individuals to whom personal data belongs) as a central component of the legal framework, and subjects data fiduciaries (or agencies seeking to collect, use and process personal data) to the free, informed and explicit consent of the data principals. Right to be Forgotten has clearly emerged as a logical extension of the demands for one’s Right to Privacy. Given that a number of logics, that of ‘naming and shaming’ of offenders, a digital list (database) as a means of communication, dissemination of information and surveillance etc. underscore both the #LoSHA and the NDSO, how do we navigate the messy terrain of human rights concerns about the freedom of speech and expression on the one hand, and the rights to privacy on the other hand? We also think about this vis-a-vis the larger issues related to the data economy and those of data ownership. We refer to studies on state-generated data on crime in India and elsewhere to understand how such data artefacts can be monopolised and processed by private and non-governmental agencies, and how they co-opt contemporary feminist politics and articulations?

We, Samata Biswas and Ria De, will present a collaborative study, organised across two 30 minute long papers, plus a 15 minute discussion time for each totalling to the mandated 90 minute session. The first paper will study the form and scope of the list as a digital artefact through a detailed analysis of the #LoSHA and the NDSO. The second paper will configure the two lists in terms of their status within the data economy.

Session Team

Ria De is pursuing her PhD in Film Studies at the English and Foreign Languages University, Hyderabad. Her doctoral research was about stardom and intermediality. She is interested in popular culture, network and media studies and gender. Currently, she is interested in the women’s movements in the Indian film industries.

Samata Biswas teaches English Literature at Bethune College, Kolkata, India. Her doctoral research was about body cultures in contemporary India, analysing fitness, weight loss, and diet discourses as present in popular media as well as through narratives of participants. She is interested in visual culture, gender studies, and literature and migration. At present, she is trying to map Kolkata as a sanitary city, focusing on access to clean sanitation or the lack thereof. She runs the blog ‘Refugee Watch Online’. Her latest publication is on “Haldia: Logistics and Its Other(s)” in Brett Neilson, Ned Rossiter, Ranabir Samaddar (Edited) Logistical Asia: The Labour of Making a World Region. (Palgrave Mcmillan, 2018)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/irc19-proposed-session-listsasdatabase

IRC16 - Proposed Session - #SpottingData

sumandro — 2016-01-03T07:11:12Z

This is a session proposed for the Internet Researchers' Conference (IRC) 2016 by Dibyajyoti Ghosh and Purbasha Auddy.

Session

The proposed workshop will focus on internet usage in India and the possibilities that the internet offers for representation of data. The workshop will be divided into two parts, the first, of a more general nature, and the second, will focus on one specific aspect of data—representation. While the first part will be more of a documentation exercise, the second part will be a hands-on exercise of some data representation tools that are available on the internet.

Plan

Part I: The Nature of Internet Usage in India

The workshop will engage the participants in trying to map the ways that they use the internet in their daily lives, such as circulating emails, using social networks, downloading software, online commerce, academic research, circulating audio and video, etc. This part of the workshop will try to study ‘the starkly hierarchical and segmented experiences and usages of the [internet] in India’. The study will try to distinguish between those who are consumers of data and systems and those who, in addition to consuming, also produce data and systems. Various types of production of data will also be looked at, such as crowdsourcing data (such as in Wikipedia, or restaurant review or hotel review websites).

The workshop will be conducted in an interactive manner, where the participants will enter their responses in an online collaborative platform (Google Sheets), which will be editable by all the participants. This brief documentation exercise will also be used to prepare a report at the end of the conference.

After completing this exercise of mapping the usage of the internet, the second segment of the workshop will try to explore various ways of representing data. This exercise will be done by using tools available online.

Part II: Representation of Data

This part of the workshop will deal with various kinds of data representation, of various kinds of data that users contribute to the internet through websites, such as social networks, blogs, etc. The workshop will try to look at the various existing ways in visualising and representing such data through the internet, such as chronology timelines, location mapping, network mapping, enhanced text representation such as through display of XML-Text Encoding Initiative (XML-TEI) files, etc. so as to enhance the data and open up other aspects of the data not usually evident in forms such as lists and spreadsheets.

The participants will be led through to the creation of small chronology timelines and location mapping in particular. Therefore participants will be requested to contribute data in the form of simple and small English texts which have either several markers of time, or several markers of location, so as to enable such visualisation. Examples of such texts include biographies, travel narratives, etc. The workshop will discuss how to filter ‘structured data’ from prose text to get desirable result from the softwares.

This part of the workshop will try to answer the question as to ‘how do we begin to use the internet as a space for academic and creative practice and intervention?’ The workshop will use open-access tools and software so as to highlight the low-investment infrastructure that is often sufficient enough to represent and enhance data.

Readings

Participants are requested to look at two visualisation tools in particular (both of which were developed by the Knight Lab in Northwestern University, USA), one for creating a chronology timeline (https://projects.knightlab.com/projects/timelinejs) and the other for creating a location map (https://projects.knightlab.com/projects/storymapjs).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-spottingdata

IRC16 - Proposed Session - #ManyPublicsOfInternet

sumandro — 2016-01-03T07:06:54Z

This is a session proposed for the Internet Researchers' Conference (IRC) 2016 by Sailen Routray and Khetrimayum Monish.

Session

The discussion in this session will focus on the cultures of practices around digital / information networks. The objective would be to open up the understanding around notions of identity and rights in the context of governance on one hand, and the proliferation of various subcultures on the other. The objective is to try and understand the political and cultural imaginations 'of and as the public' enabled by internet and digital technologies. In this, we are trying to connect the whole discussion to the first two questions the conference focuses on:

How do we conceptualise, as an intellectual and political task, the mediation and transformation of social, cultural, political, and economic processes, forces, and sites through internet and digital media technologies in contemporary India?
How do we frame and explore the experiences and usages of internet and digital media technologies in India within its specific historical-material contexts shaped by traditional hierarchies of knowledge, colonial systems of communication, post-independence initiatives in nation-wide technologies of governance, a rapidly growing telecommunication market, and informal circuits of media production and consumption, among others?

Plan

Each discussant will present for 20 minutes after which the session will be thrown open for discussion amongst all the participants of the session.

Abstract I

Internet in India has led to the proliferation of practices and notions of governance and citizenship simulated by information networks and data. On one hand, the internet has captured the imagination of citizens and the reassertion of user agency; on the other, the experiences with the internet reflects the new ways of how the state imagines itself and the citizens. Hence, not only a critical mass replete with the possibilities of user agency, but also one aggregated by the state as part of a political project. Initiatives such as Digital India, the Aadhar project, rural internet and increased emphasis on mobile internet services are some of ways through which the logic of access and participation now operates. The paper will draw perspectives from four case studies in Assam - the Mahanagar Project (internet and mobile services), the National Register of Citizens (NRC) update, the Aadhaar Project and rural internet kiosks (Common Service Centers). With these, it focuses on the larger context of the cultures of digital practices; and techno-politics through the various sites and projects through which the internet operates in India.

Abstract II

Those of us who have jumped or meandered across to the wrong (or perhaps the right) side of thirty by now, first came to consume internet in what were called, and are still called, cyber cafes or internet cafes. Their numbers in big Indian cities is dwindling because of the increasing ubiquity of smartphone, and netbooks and data cards. The cyber café seems to be inexorably headed the way of the STD booth in the geography of large Indian cities. The present paper is a preliminary step towards capturing some of the experience of running and using internet cafes. With ethnographic fieldwork with cyber café owners and internet users in these cafes in the Chandrasekharpur area of Bhubaneswar (where the largest section of the computer industry in the state of Odisha is located), this paper tries to capture experiences that lie at the interstices of ‘objects’ and spaces - experiences that are at the same time a history of the internet as well as a personal history of the city. By doing so it tries to ask and answer the question - what kinds of publics does the consumption of the internet in spaces such as cybercafes create?

Readings

Escobar, Arturo, et al. 1994. Welcome to Cyberia: Notes on the Anthropology of Cyberculture [and Comments and Reply]. Current Anthropology. 35(3): 211-231.

Nayar, Pramod K. 2008. New Media, Digitextuality and Public Space: Reading "Cybermohalla". Postcolonial Text. 4(1):1-12.

Kurian, Renee and Isha Ray. 2009. Outsourcing the State? Public–Private Partnerships and Information Technologies in India. World Development. 37(10): 1163-1173.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-manypublicsofinternet

IRC16 - Proposed Session - #LiterarySpaces (Online Literary Spaces in India)

sumandro — 2016-01-03T06:59:25Z

This is a session proposed for the Internet Researchers' Conference (IRC) 2016 by P.P. Sneha and Arup Chatterjee.

Session

The last decade has seen a slow but steady emergence of online literary spaces in India, marked by the ubiquitous nature of the internet and digital technologies, growing mobile phone penetration and increased access to devices such as tablets and e-readers. By literary spaces we refer to online journals, magazines and blogs, as well as reading groups and discussion spaces focused on writing in English and Indian languages. These range from those exclusively focusing on contemporary literature to others that feature writing on news, culture and arts. These spaces raise some intriguing questions about the growth a new online or digital literary culture, which may be mapped through the evolution of reading and writing practices as very explicitly technologized practices, and the changes in the notion of text and textuality, scholarship and pedagogy, among other things.

Some examples of such spaces that have come up in the recent years are The Little Magazine [1], Muse India [2], Kritya [3], Coldnoon: Travel Poetics [4], Kindle [5], Almost Island [6], The Indian Quarterly [7] and among several others. Many of these journals have both an online and print presence, while some are purely online and seek to reach a diverse audience featuring different genres of writing. While many carry an eclectic mix of creative and critical writing, perceptions about readership on the internet often dictate the form and manner of writing that is featured. The much anticipated and debated ‘disappearance’ of long form writing is one of the questions that may be asked of the emergence of these literary journals, which have in some way re-imagined this form in the digital sphere and have been instrumental in its growth. So even as there are books on twitterature [8], there are interesting ways in which online literary journals have tried to define the space of contemporary writing on the internet in India.

Plan

This panel discussion proposes to examine this phenomenon of the growth of online literary journals to understand the imagination of the ‘digital’ in their practices of writing and publication, whether as medium, content or context, as a way to explore how writing and reading practices today have been shaped by these changes. This also includes questions on methods of literary analysis that may have changed with the advent of the digital, and from a broader perspective, the production of literary scholarship and pedagogy in India. Some questions that could be points of discussion are as follows:

What is the pedagogical role, if any of digital/online journals? Are they simply cost-effective modes of production of knowledge or are they indicative of some other form discrimination? Perhaps a discrimination between what gets read and what does not? Is a voluminous archive of nineteenth century writings of the same pedagogical merit as a list of 100 Hollywood romantic comedies? If the former is arguably much more educational, why then is the latter the source of the greatest traffic? Is pedagogy then a misnomer, and a non-entity in the world of online magazines?
Can the rise of online magazines be related with the rise of print culture and the subsequent rise of the novel? The novel was educational and, while English was still a very evolving language in the 17th and 18th centuries, the form helped both shape the language and educate the masses, bourgeoisie, and the aristocracy about the nuances of the still-nascent English language. Can a similar function be said to have been fulfilled by online journals? Or have they failed in playing this radical role of disseminating new language and new vocabulary, which is required to articulate new modes and conflicts within modernity--sexualities, queerness, televised elections, middle-eastern (Syrian, Palestinian, Israeli, Iraqi) mayhem in times of democracy, globalization, urbanization, travel, genocide, partition, terrorism, and so on? Are there any exceptions among the journals in being able to somehow fulfil the criteria of engendering a new language? What are the examples, if any? How popular are they?
Is online literature less literary than print? Is it more amenable to news, while print continues to be literary? Or is this only a misconception? Is online literature prone to non-serious, or populist sources of pedagogy, which serve more to titillate through trolling, humour, half-baked information, gossip, or is it playing a serious role too in portions? Apart from those newspapers and journals/magazines which also have print components, which are possibly the portals that create viable, meritorious, and universal categories of knowledge? Or, invocation of 'merit' and 'universal' essentially a flawed mechanism to judge online literatures?

Addressing some of above questions through a study of two or more online journals, this session will attempt to open them up to a broader discussion on the nature and growth of an online literary culture in India, and the need for and significance of research in this area.

Readings

None.

Notes

[1] See: http://www.littlemag.com/.

[2] See: http://www.museindia.com/.

[3] See: http://www.kritya.in/.

[4] See: http://coldnoon.com/.

[5] See: http://kindlemag.in/.

[6] See: http://almostisland.com/.

[7] See: http://indianquarterly.com/.

[8] See: http://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/307055/twitterature-by-alexander-aciman/9780143117322/.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-literaryspaces

IRC16 - Proposed Session - #DisruptiveTransport (Aggregators, Ownership, Tracking, Space, Internet Models)

sumandro — 2016-01-03T07:00:57Z

This is a session proposed for the Internet Researchers' Conference (IRC) 2016 by Srinivas Kodali and William F. Stafford Jr.

Session

Transportation has been seeing disruptions through Internet aggregators using complex models which nobody understands in detail. This is primarily being seen in the space of urban transport, but is not limited to them alone. 1960`s saw disruptions in airline industry when each airline was fighting for it's own space in flight reservations and aggregations. This disruptive trend is now being observed globally in other transport modes. Aggregators are playing an important role in transporting people and disrupting markets globally. Internet Models are varying within aggregators who are not limiting themselves to ticket reservation, but are also providing information about the availability of transportation options. With increasing demand and surge pricing taking up the market, what is the role of the state. What are the ownership rights of an aggregator? What are licensing/lease models of a provider? What about un-fair practices and consumer rights? What forms of labour and regulation are imagined? What is the role of state run aggregators like IRCTC in this changing landscape?

Many of the platforms that have been created, primarily in the beginning concerning tracking or making complaints, were accessed through websites and have since been migrated either to a combined website/ app structure, or wholly to smartphone apps. This raises interesting and important questions concerning the imagination of an increased reliability and accesibility of services, as well as a power to hold public institutions accountable, as they relate to the question of access to these technologies and the habits of their use, especially demographically and linked to class.

Furthermore, both the near and far future promise an reworking of the internet as a system with which commuters and others interface to consume or deliver a service, to transport as one part of a mobility ecosystem, which is currently being tooled (both in regulatory frameworks and industrial planning) as a microcosm of the internet of things. With internet being connected to personal transport at every intersection of the road, what is the scope of privacy and accountability, the role of encryption layer and also the importance of governance in the fragile/disrupting space. How will the internet impact personal transport of citizens and the economy? Cashless payments, driver-less cars, surge-congestion pricing with disruptive internet models need regulation before they over-run and create chaos with the system.

Plan

The session will focus on Delhi as a case study.

Discussants will present their current work around these questions, and then open a discussion among those present on the issues raised therein.

The first discussant will present on the changing architecture of the auto-rickshaw meter as a regulatory platform, from the recent introduction of GPS to the creation of various surveillance and business models which either exploit its native GPS or duplicate and substitute it through the use of smartphones, and the folding of autos into the emerging e-hailing environment and the possible implications of changes being sought in the regulatory framework for connected vehicles. These include technological treatments of questions of class, trust and accountability, as well as significant policy and material changes in the classification of what is owned, by whom, and its conditions of transfer.

Srinivas will continue the presentation on transport data by showing use cases and potential harms about the data. How big data is changing the landscape of transportation systems and privacy concerns with the future of autonomous vehicles and intelligent traffic management systems. Data driven decisions are a big concern when data can also be used to lie at a scale. Data ownership and rights are a challenge the state and the citizen need to think about before forcibly submitting data.

The discussion will be primarily around:

Digital Ownership and Physical Ownership
Scope of Internet Governance on Aggregators
Pricing Models and Service Availability
Future of On-Demand Transportation Services vs Public Transportation

Readings

None.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-disruptivetransport

IRC16 - Proposed Session - #DisruptingRhetorics

sumandro — 2016-01-03T07:09:30Z

This is a session proposed for the Internet Researchers' Conference (IRC) 2016 by Marialaura Ghidini.

Session

In "The Braindead Megaphone" (2007) writer George Saunders discusses the power of 21st century voices of high-tech mass media; the voices with whom one converse mentally all the time and often unaware. Saunders uses the metaphor of "The Megaphone Guy at a party" to describe the effects that such voices have on other people's thoughts, even when they are just passive listeners of what is said. The Megaphone Guy "crowds other voices out" because of "the volume and omnipresence of his narrating voice", and his power does not reside in his intelligence or acuity, but in his "dominance". This guy's rhetoric — read also, the mass media’s rhetoric — becomes central because of its unavoidability", and the web, with its now easy-to-use tools and shiny platforms, along with the seeming global interconnectedness of the Internet have made his dominance more portable and accessible, less unavoidable.

Simultaneously, such easiness and interconnectedness have allowed the reversal to happen, that is the development of strategies aimed at obstructing or diverting the dominant rhetoric. Artistic practices from all over the world have shown us different modes of intervention that disrupt the hegemonic discourses facilitated by the adoption of 'global' platforms of communication, entertainment and commerce. From the duo ubermonger to artists Paolo Cirio and IOCOSE and the labs like F.A.T. Lab, artists have developed strategies to weaken the power and dominance of The Megaphone Guys; they have developed methods of research, analysis and action which effects go beyond the art circuit and being on the internet.

All that said, however, the question of accessibility remains pressing and open to discussion: the bandwidth of common internet access and the way in which the web is entangled with everyday life still differs according to geographical areas. And this factor has often been overlooked in the researches into artistic practices online and their potentials to generate discourses that offer an alternative to the dominant ones. This difference in infrastructure and cultural uses has determined a diversity in artistic interventions aimed at disrupting dominating narratives: India shows a different history and approaches that this session would like to bring to light with the help of the participants.

Both through looking within the art field and outside it, such as in the work of social and community enterprises like the collective BlankNoise, this session aims to look artistic practices as methods of research and intervention that can be used to understand the effects of the Internet and web tools on society and, in turn, to put forward new ways in which web technology can be critically used by many, and non-artists, in their everyday life.

Plan

Led by a curator/researcher, in collaboration with an artist and another curator/researcher, this discussion session will start with a general overview of artistic interventions, i.e. methods, aimed at disrupting the world's views created by mass media. This general overview will include examples of both national and international artists and community-based projects, from artists ubermonger, IOCOSE, Paolo Cirio and labs like F.A.T. Lab outside India, to the work of collectives such as Cybermohalla and BlankNoise, and artist like Archana Hande in India. It will be then followed by a discursive moment during which the participants will be divided in groups, according to specific key words collectively agreed upon, to discuss artists works and non-artistic activities pertaining the subject of the session. What will emerge from the group discussions will be presented to all participants in a short session, and will be followed by an attempt to create a mapping of current methods of intervening and acting online. Prior to the workshop participants will be given suggested readings and a series of questions that will help them for the breakout groups.

With this structure the session will not be based on one-way communication but it will allow to generate collective research into online behaviours—of platforms, corporations, people and communities of interest—through expanding on the views proposed by the proponents of #DisruptingRhetorics.

Readings

Tatiana Bazzichelli, Networked Disruption. Rethinking Oppositions in Art, Hacktivism and the Business of Social Networking. DARC PRESS (Aarhus University), Denmark, 2013 (Excerpts)

George Saunders, The Braindead Megaphone. Riverhead Books, US, 2007

F.A.T. Lab, We Lost, http://fffff.at/rip/

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-disruptingrhetorics