Centre for Internet and Society

Interviews with App Developers: [dis]regard towards IPR vs. Patent Hype – Part II

samantha — 2014-08-19T03:51:39Z

The following is a second post within a series reporting on interviews conducted with 10 of Bangalore's mobile app developers and other industry stakeholders. Within this research, CIS attempts to understand how they engage with the law within their practice, particularly with respect to IP. Here we examine how these developers responded to a question on legal protection for their works.

Before one can identify the solution, one must first identify the problem. Yet, in order to understand the problem, we must first understand the individuals involved and the how the problem affects these individuals. We hope that the findings of this preliminary research initiative will provide sufficient groundwork to understand the problems that exist and the different ways of approaching them before determining the most suitable prospective option in changes at the policy level. In this case, the individuals under study are the key contributors to the mobile app space within India; and the problem, being those faced by them as they attempt to navigate an emerging and ambiguous ecosystem.

Previously, we looked at responses that were given across these mobile app developers interviewed which revealed how they orient notions of intellectual property within their practice and own products, specifically. Findings that were made included deductions that the majority of those interviewed developed mobile app products for clients, and in turn assigned ownership of their products to their clients. Just as well, they commonly shared an interest in leaving the services sector to create products of their own, with some of them already having made the transition within their business model.

Question 2: “How is your IP protected?”

Next, we asked how they go about protecting their intellectual property to get a feel of who is protecting their apps and who is not. In asking this question, we hoped to learn how they go about protecting their work via legal means. Across their various responses, we observed many patterns and contradictions which are conveyed here with reference to comments made across interviews. It is important to note, however, that no causal relations intend for be argued for, only suggested correlations.

How they responded

When asked, those interviewed responded with a variance in answers. Some simply stated that their work is not protected, while a few mentioned that they acquired trademark or intend to apply for trademark protection. One interviewee had a patent pending in India and the US, as well. In many of our conversations, developers mentioned that their code for their apps is under open source licenses, and a couple others entailed sharing that the content is under creative commons licenses, “individual licenses,” or joint copyright. Additionally, within one interview, one mentioned the use of encryption tools as a technical means of protection for their work.

“The concept of securing IP is relatively new within the Indian context... it becomes a question of priority between innovation and protection" — Aravind Krishnaswamy, Levitum

Of the developers interviewed, many exhibited some sort of confusion or misunderstanding related to the protection of their works by means of intellectual property rights (IPR). Those interviewed seemed to either express an interest to acquire IPR in the future for their products in the forms of patent or trademark protection, or expressed their appreciation for openness source licensing—or both! Beneath these immediate responses, however, many repeated patterns, as well as contradictions, are revealed. Conversations that followed within these interviewed entailed the opportunity to hear from personal experiences and opinions on different areas within their practice intersecting IPR.

Reasons for IPR protection

If a startup or SME is bootstrapped with very little cash flow to begin with, what would provoke or inspire one to pursue the process of acquiring patent protection then? Aravind Krishnaswamy of startup, Levitum, considers “the concept of securing IP is relatively new within the Indian context.” So if this is the case, why did so many developers interviewed express an interest in IPR?

For those who did express interest in acquiring IPR as protection for their mobile app products, most seemed to express an interest in proving ownership over their work, or preventing problems in the future. One developer's commented on how the mobile app market is a “new and potentially volatile area for software development.” For this reason, it was imperative that he and his team attempted to avoid trouble in the future, and ensure that they going about mobile app development the right and moral way.

Within another interview, developer, John Paul of mobile app SME, Plackal, explains his motives for seeking to acquire patent protection, the application for which is currently pending in India and the US: "For us, applying for a patent is primarily defensive. And if it does get infringed upon, it would give us a good opportunity to generate revenue from it." For the company's trademark, they sought to be able to enforce their ownership over their product's brand: “As a precautionary, we've trademarked the app so that should there be a situation where the app is pirated, we can claim ownership for that app.”

Security not so easily attainable

“To some extent, IPR law is only accessible after moving away from the startup phase."—John Paul, Plackal

However, for the startup especially, such protection does not come without a cost. For this reason, IPR is generally perceived as a gamble or tradeoff. It becomes a “question of priority between innovation and protection,” says Krishnaswamy. He continues in saying that, "I feel like even if it’s a great idea if someone else copies it, that’s some level of validation, but as a small company I’d rather be nimble in terms of how we build it up and get it to a certain point. We're trying to move fast and get something going, and then figure it out.” For Krishnaswamy and his team, securing a patent on an area where they feel they feel they have unique work is on their list of things to do, “It's something for us to revisit in the future.”

Paul explains that he and his team didn't always have IPR within reach: “To some extent, IPR law is only accessible after moving away from the startup phase.” So what discourages startups from acquiring IPR, or simply seeking it out?

Patent attorney and IP consultant, Arjun Bala explains that “there is a lot to figure out. One aspect is filling it out, the other is how you write it so that it is easily granted and gives you the right sort of patent protection you are looking for. It is a very complex process that requires a lot of technical and legal expertise.” But even if one successfully manoeuvres the IPR system, is protection guaranteed?

Business Financial Strategist of Out Sourced CFO & Business Advisory Services, Jayant Tewari, illustrates the lack of security for the SME in the patent system, specifically, in saying, “Since a patent becomes public domain on filing, it can be effectively infringed based on the filing, even before it is granted.” Tewari continues in stressing the irrelevance of patents for SMEs due to the difficulty of enforcement: “the infringement will be adjudicated after 2 years at an immense cost to the SME patent-holder, who will go commercially belly-up due to the infringement. The regime does not protect the SME at all.”

“It is easy to say 'this is the method and no once can copy', but unless the look and feel is the same, it is very hard to demonstrate that you have been infringed on.”
—Samuel Mani, Mani Chengappa & Mathur

Nevermind enforcement...

Not only did our interviews shed light on the difficulty for a startup developer to apply for and be granted protection for their intellectual property, but also for the enforcement of such. Partnering Lawyer, Samuel Mani, of technology-focused law firm, Mani Chengappa & Mathur, speaks to us about the extensive procedure required to prove one's ownership over their IP: “To demonstrate copyright infringement, it requires going into millions of lines of code—unless it is the interface that is copied, which is easily visible.” Mani continues on the enforcement of patent protection by saying, “For a patent, the scope is even wider. It is easy to say 'this is the method and no once can copy', but unless the look and feel is the same, it is very hard to demonstrate that you have been infringed on.”

Planting the initial seed

If there is arguably so much risk associated with applying for IPR protection, as well with enforcement, what specifically gets startups thinking about IPR initially within their practice? What experiences help them formulate their opinions on the matter, and which forms of IPR do they seek out?

Across interviews conducted, one particular observation entailed the tendency for developers to have worked in the past for corporate employers that have dealt with cases of infringement or have acquired IP protection. Almost half of those interviewed shared the fact that they worked for a corporate employer and became better familiar with different notions of intellectual property through that experience. It may not be too farfetched to suggest, then, that for the developer the idea of acquiring IPR protection is one that may be reinforced from previous employers or other successful development companies with IPR of their own.

Cofounder and developer for a medium-sized software development enterprise, Anoop[1] explained that it wasn't until after the success of his enterprise's first application with $1 million in sales, that they started thinking about intellectual property and began to understand the value of it. This newly attained understanding, however, had not been enough to sufficiently equip his team with the knowledge to properly secure protection. For them, going after patent protection turned out to be a pursuit in vain.

Loss of faith in patents for SMEs

Anoop shares his disappointing experience after attempting to secure a patent for one of their mobile apps:

“We burned our fingers with patents. We spent a lot of money for a game we invented about 3 years ago. We had a law firm in the US to help us. We applied for it, and it went through 3-4 revisions, costing us $25-30,000. We finally closed the file when we could not get it due to an existing patent. We were really surprised."

After much disappointment from not being successful in their attempts to acquire patent protection, however, Anoop came out of the experience with a new outlook on patents and their role for SMEs:

“They're meant for large companies as means to bully your competitor. Only big players with the capacity to file for a patent as soon as it takes off benefit. The existing system doesn’t really work for startup companies. In India and anywhere. It’s an expensive process. If you’re a startup who’s just bootstrapping, there’s no guarantee that you will get it. It’s going to take you years.”

Patent hype
Anoop is a prime example of developers in the startup space that fall victim to the promises of the patent system—only to be spat back out having exhausted their time and earnings. Already being aware of the probability for failure, Mani strongly discourages going after patent protection as a means of staying in the race. “With people spending millions on litigation, it is a recipe for disaster, especially considering the inherent delay of the Indian system.” For this reason, Mani stresses the importance of applying for the right protection.

Mani also suggests that the patent debate is driven by self-interest—people who simply make money off of application filing, regardless of whether or not the case succeeds. As a lawyer in the IT space, Mani claims to have turned away several prospective clients looking to patent their products when he insisted that such means of protection was not suitable for their product and interests...which brings us to an additional area of heated debate: the patentability of mobile apps.

Can mobile apps be patented?[2]

One concept that seemed to receive contested responses across interviews is that of the patentability of mobile apps in the first place. When asked if mobile apps could be patented, former lawyer and startup founder, Vivek Durai, of HumblePaper, put it blatantly in responding, “absolutely not.” Others offered explanations of the Indian Patent Law nuances regarding when a mobile app is patentable and when one is not.

While consulting a SME with their own patent application, Bala explains their approach to ensure the mobile app's eligibility for patent protection, while providing some insight into the Indian patent system:

“One approach that we've taken to getting a patent in India is it's not just a pure software, but a software plus a hardware—as in it requires a specific hardware to function. If [the software] makes the hardware perform better, then it has a technical effect... In which case, we have a better chance of getting a patent in India. If your software is agnostic to hardware, however, it is much more difficult to receive a patent in India.”

To patent or not to patent? (or any IPR for that matter)
To Tewari, on the other hand, the question of whether a mobile app can be patented is one entirely irrelevant. The question Tewari introduces into the developer's market strategy is not 'can I patent my app?' but instead, 'should I do so?' In response to which; he would predominantly reply: No.

“How [startup] mobile app developers regard IP laws—or better yet, disregard—is fine for their sake,” argues Tewari. Alternatively, he suggests developers learn how to maneuver the laws, to prevent themselves from arriving at any sticky situations after unknowingly using another's code. To his clients who have mobile apps of their own, he advises to use an open source equivalent of a piece of code if they do not have the rights to it. Doing so will help keep infringement upon others at a minimal and prevent litigation against oneself.

“How [startup] mobile app developers regard IP laws—or better yet, disregard—is fine for their sake."—Jayant Tewari, Out Sourced CFO & Business Advisory Services

Not all developers interviewed, however, aspired to acquiring patent protection. In fact, some strongly opposed software patents, while expressing their appreciation for openness across the developer community. The other side to the IPR-Open Source dichotomy will be examined in the blog post to follow, after which, we will then look at accounts of infringement and threats of litigation across mobile app developers interviewed.

To recap

By looking closely at the individual experiences across mobile app developers interviewed, we hope to begin to map out the mobile app ecosystem and the ways in which industry players engage with each other regarding their IPR. We also hope to begin to shed light on the different attitudes towards the law within one's practice, and how they shape their decisions related to their work. Only after doing so, may we be able to sufficiently assess how India's current IP laws govern this landscape.

Stay tuned for the next in this blog series! We hope that you may benefit from our findings in your own practice as a mobile app industry player or enthusiast, as well.

Notes:
[1] Name changed to protect the interviewee's identity

[2] In conducting interviews, our goal was not to test the legitimacy of responses, but instead, to map them out across various industry stakeholders. For this reason, this blog series will not be able to sufficiently respond to legal question, such as whether or not mobile apps are patentable to begin with. We intend to, however, undergo legal analysis of the Indian IPR system at its intersection with the mobile app space in India at a later stage in this project.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/interviews-with-app-developers-dis-regard-towards-ipr-vs-patent-hype-2013-part-ii

Interview with Caspar Bowden - Privacy Advocate and former Chief Privacy Adviser at Microsoft

maria — 2013-11-06T08:16:05Z

Maria Xynou recently interviewed Caspar Bowden, an internationally renowned privacy advocate and former Chief Privacy Adviser at Microsoft. Read this exciting interview and gain an insight on India's UID and CMS schemes, on the export of surveillance technologies, on how we can protect our data in light of mass surveillance and much much more!

Caspar Bowden is an independent advocate for better Internet privacy technology and regulation. He is a specialist in data protection policy, privacy enhancing technology research, identity management and authentication. Until recently he was Chief Privacy Adviser for Microsoft, with particular focus on Europe and regions with horizontal privacy law.

From 1998-2002, he was the director of the Foundation for Information Policy Research (www.fipr.org) and was also an expert adviser to the UK Parliament for the passage of three bills concerning privacy, and was co-organizer of the influential Scrambling for Safety public conferences on UK encryption and surveillance policy. His previous career over two decades ranged from investment banking (proprietary trading risk-management for option arbitrage), to software engineering (graphics engines and cryptography), including work for Goldman Sachs, Microsoft Consulting Services, Acorn, Research Machines, and IBM.

The Centre for Internet and Society interviewed Caspar Bowden on the following questions:

1. Do you think India needs privacy legislation? Why / Why not?

Well I think it's essential for any modern democracy based on a constitution to now recognise a universal human right to privacy. This isn't something that would necessarily have occurred to the draft of constitutions before the era of mass electronic communications, but this is now how everyone manages their lives and maintains social relationships at a distance, and therefore there needs to be an entrenched right to privacy – including communications privacy – as part of the core of any modern state.

2. The majority of India's population lives below the line of poverty and barely has any Internet access. Is surveillance an elitist issue or should it concern the entire population in the country? Why / Why not?

Although the majority of people in India are still living in conditions of poverty and don't have access to the Internet or, in some cases, to any electronic communications, that's changing very rapidly. India has some of the highest growth rates in take up with both mobile phones and mobile Internet and so this is spreading very rapidly through all strata of society. It's becoming an essential tool for transacting with business and government, so it's going to be increasingly important to have a privacy law which guarantees rights equally, no matter what anyone's social station or situation. There's also, I think, a sense in which having a right to privacy based on individual rights is much preferable to some sort of communitarian approach to privacy, which has a certain philosophical following; but that model of privacy - that somehow, because of a community benefit, there should also be a sort of community sacrifice in individual rights to privacy - has a number of serious philosophical flaws which we can talk about.

3. "I'm not a terrorist and I have nothing to hide...and thus surveillance can't affect me personally." Please comment.

Well, it's hard to know where to begin. Almost everybody in fact has “something to hide”, if you consider all of the social relationships and the way in which you are living your life. It's just not true that there's anybody who literally has nothing to hide and in fact I think that it's rather a dangerous idea, in political culture, to think about imposing that on leaders and politicians. There's an increasing growth of the idea – now, probably coming from America- that political leaders (and even their staff - to get hired in the current White House) should open up their lives, even to the extent of requiring officials to give up their passwords to their social network accounts (presumably so that they can be vetted for sources of potential political embarrassment in their private life). This is a very bad idea because if we only elect leaders, and if we only employ bureaucrats, who do not accord any subjective value to privacy, then it means we will almost literally be electing (philosophical) zombies. And we can't expect our political leaders to respect our privacy rights, if we don't recognise that they have a right to privacy in their own lives also. The main problem with the “nothing to hide, so nothing to fear” mantra is that this is used as a rhetorical tool by authoritarian forces in government and society, who simply wish to take a more paternalistic and protective attitude. This reflects a disillusionment within the “deep state” about how democratic states should function.

Essentially, those who govern us are given a license through elections to exercise power with consent, but this entails no abrogation of a citizen's duty to question authority. Instead, that should be seen as a civic duty - providing the objections are reasonable. People actually know that there are certain things in their lives that they don't wish other people to know, but by indoctrinating the “nothing to hide” ideology, it inculcates a general tendency towards more conformism in society, by inhibiting critical voices.

4. Should people have the right to give up their right to privacy? Why / Why not?

In European data protection law there is an obscure provision which is particularly relevant to medical privacy, but almost never used in the area of so-called sensitive personal data, like political views or philosophical views. It is possible currently for European governments to legislate to override the ability of the individual to consent. So this might arise, for example, if a foreign company sets up a service to get people to consent to have their DNA analysed and taken into foreign databases, or generally where people might consent to a big foreign company analysing and capturing their medical records. I think there is a legitimate view that, as a matter of national policy, a government could decide that these activities were threatening to data sovereignty, or that was just bad public policy. For example, if a country has a deeply-rooted social contract that guarantees the ability to access medical care through a national health service, private sector actors could try to undermine that social-solidarity basis for universal provision of health care. So for those sorts of reasons I do think it's defensible for governments to have the ability in those sectors to say: “Yes, there are areas where people should not be able to consent to give up their privacy!”

But then going back to the previous answer, more generally, commercial privacy policies are now so complicated – well, they've always been complicated, but now are mind-blowingly devious as well - people have no real possibility of knowing what they're consenting to. For example, the secondary uses of data flows in social networks are almost incomprehensible, even for technologists at the forefront of research. The French Data Protection authorities are trying to penalize Google for replacing several very complicated privacy policies by one so-called unified policy, which says almost nothing at all. There's no possible way for people to give informed consent to this over-simplified policy, because it doesn't even tell anything useful to an expert. So again in these circumstances, it's right for a regulator to intercede to prevent unfair exploitation of the deceptive kind of “tick-box” consent. Lastly, it is not possible for EU citizens to waive or trade away their basic right to access (or delete) their own data in future, because this seems a reckless act and it cannot be foreseen when this right might become essential in some future circumstances. So in these three senses, I believe it is proper for legislation to be able to prevent the abuse of the concept of consent.

5. Do you agree with India's UID scheme? Why / Why not?

There is a valid debate about whether it's useful for a country to have a national identity system of some kind - and there's about three different ways that can be engineered technically. The first way is to centralise all data storage in a massive repository, accessed through remote terminal devices. The second way is a more decentralised approach with a number of different identity databases or systems which can interoperate (or “federate” with eachother), with technical and procedural rules to enforce privacy and security safeguards. In general it's probably a better idea to decentralise identity information, because then if there is a big disaster (or cyber-attack) or data loss, you haven't lost everything. The third way is what's called “user-centric identity management”, where the devices (smartphones or computers) citizens use to interact with the system keep the identity information in a totally decentralised way.

Now the obvious objection to that is: “Well, if the data is decentralised and it's an official system, how can we trust that the information in people's possession is authentic?”. Well, you can solve that with cryptography. You can put digital signatures on the data, to show that the data hasn't been altered since it was originally verified. And that's a totally solved problem. However, unfortunately, not very many policy makers understand that and so are easily persuaded that centralization is the most efficient and secure design – but that hasn't been true technically for twenty years. Over that time, cryptographers have refined the techniques (the alogithms can now run comfortably on smartphones) so that user-centric identity management is totally achievable, but policy makers have not generally understood that. But there is no technical reason a totally user-centric vision of identity architecture should not be realized. But still the UID appears to be one of the most centralised large systems ever conceived.

There are still questions I don't understand about its technical architecture. For example, just creating an identity number by itself doesn't guarantee security and it's a classic mistake to treat an identifier as an authenticator. In other words, to use an identifier or knowledge of an identifier - which could become public information, like the American social security number – to treat knowledge of that number as if it were a key to open up a system to give people access to their own private information is very dangerous. So it's not clear to me how the UID system is designed in that way. It seems that by just quoting back a number, in some circumstances this will be the key to open up the system, to reveal private information, and that is an innately insecure approach. There may be details of the system I don't understand, but I think it's open to criticism on those systemic grounds.

And then more fundamentally, you have to ask what's the purpose of that system in society. You can define a system with a limited number of purposes – which is the better thing to do – and then quite closely specify the legal conditions under which that identity information can be used. It's much more problematic, I think, to try and just say that “we'll be the universal identity system”, and then you just try and find applications for it later. A number of countries tried this approach, for example Belgium around 2000, and they expected that having created a platform for identity, that many applications would follow and tie into the system. This really didn't happen, for a number of social and technical reasons which critics of the design had predicted. I suppose I would have to say that the UID system is almost the anithesis of the way I think identity systems should be designed, which should be based on quite strong technical privacy protection mechanisms - using cryptography - and where, as far as possible, you actually leave the custody of the data with the individual.

Another objection to this user-centric approach is “back-up”: what happens when you lose the primary information and/or your device? Well, you can anticipate that. You can arrange for this information to be backed-up and recovered, but in such a way that the back-up is encrypted, and the recovered copy can easily be checked for authenticity using cryptography.

6. Should Indian citizens be concerned about the Central Monitoring System (CMS)? Why / Why not?

Well, the Central Monitoring System does seem to be an example of very large scale “strategic surveillance”, as it is normally called. Many western countries have had these for a long time, but normally only for international communications. Normally surveillance of domestic communications is done under a particular warrant, which can only be applied one investigation at a time. And it's not clear to me that that is the case with the Central Monitoring System. It seems that this may also be applicable to mass surveillance of communications inside India. Now we're seeing a big controversy in the U.S - particularly at the moment - about the extent to which their international strategic surveillance systems are also able to be used internally. What has happened in the U.S. seems rather deceptive; although the “shell” of the framework of individual protection of rights was left in place, there are actually now so many exemptions when you look in the detail, that an awful lot of Americans' domestic communications are being subjected to this strategic mass surveillance. That is unacceptable in a democracy.

There are reasons why, arguably, it's necessary to have some sort of strategic surveillance in international communications, but what Edward Snowden revealed to us is that in the past few years many countries – the UK, the U.S, and probably also Germany, France and Sweden – have constructed mass surveillance systems which knowingly intrude on domestic communications also. We are living through a transformation in surveillance power, in which the State is becoming more able to monitor and control the population secretively than ever before in history. And it's very worrying that all of these systems appear to have been constructed without the knowledge of Parliaments and without precise legislation. Very few people in government even seem to have understood the true mind-boggling breadth of this new generation of strategic surveillance. And no elections were fought on a manifesto asking “Do people want this or not?”. It's being justified under a counter-terrorism mantra, without very much democratic scrutiny at all. The long term effects of these systems on democracies are really uncharted territory.

We know that we're not in an Orwellian state, but the model is becoming more Kafkaesque. If one knows that this level of intensive and automated surveillance exists, then it has a chilling effect on society. Even if not very much is publicly known about these systems, there is still a background effect that makes people more conformist and less politically active, less prepared to challenge authority. And that's going to be bad for democracy in the medium term – not just the long term.

7. Should surveillance technologies be treated as traditional arms / weapons? If so, should export controls be applied to surveillance technologies? Why / Why not?

Surveillance technologies probably do need to be treated as weapons, but not necessarily as traditional weapons. One probably is going to have to devise new forms of export control, because tangible bombs and guns are physical goods – well, they're not “goods”, they're “bads” - that you can trace by tagging and labelling them, but many of the “new generation” of surveillance weapons are software. It's very difficult to control the proliferation of bits – just as it is with copyrighted material. And I remember when I was working on some of these issues thirteen years ago in the UK – during the so-called crypto wars – that the export of cryptographic software from many countries was prohibited. And there were big test cases about whether the source code of these programs was protected under the US First Amendment, which would prohibit such controls on software code. It was intensely ironic that in order to control the proliferation of cryptography in software, governments seemed to be contemplating the introduction of strategic surveillance systems to detect (among other things) when cryptographic software was being exported. In other words, the kind of surveillance systems which motivated the “cypherpunks” to proselytise cryptography, were being introduced (partly) with the perverse justification of preventing such proliferation of such cryptography!

In the case of the new, very sophisticated software monitoring devices (“Trojans”) which are being implanted into people's computers – yes, this has to be subject to the same sort of human rights controls that we would have applied to the exports of weapon systems to oppressive regimes. But it's quite difficult to know how to do that. You have to tie responsibility to the companies that are producing them, but a simple system of end-user licensing might not work. So we might actually need governments to be much more proactive than they have been in the past with traditional arms export regimes and actually do much more actively to try and follow control after export – whether these systems are only being used by the intended countries. As for the law enforcement agencies of democratic countries which are buying these technologies: the big question is whether law enforcement agencies are actually applying effective legal and operational supervision over the use of those systems. So, it's a bit of a mess! And the attempts that have been made so far to legislate this area I don't think are sufficient.

8. How can individuals protect their data (and themselves) from spyware, such as FinFisher?

In democratic countries, with good system of the rule of law and supervision of law enforcement authorities, there have been cases – notably in Germany – where it's turned out that the police using techniques, like FinFisher, have actually disregarded legal requirements from court cases laying down the proper procedures. So I don't think it's good enough to assume that if one was doing ordinary lawful political campaigning, that one would not be targeted by these weapons. So it's wise for activists and advocates to think about protecting themselves – of course, other professions as well who look after confidential information – because these techniques may also get into the hands of industrial spies, private detectives and generally by people who are not subject to even the theoretical constraints of law enforcement agencies.

After Edward Snowden's revelations, we understand that all our computer infrastructure is much more vulnerable – particularly to foreign and domestic intelligence agencies – than we ever imagined. So for example, I don't use Microsoft software anymore – I think that there are techniques which are now being sold to governments and available to governments for penetrating Microsoft platforms and probably other major commercial platforms as well. So, I've made the choice, personally, to use free software – GNU/Linux, in particular – and it still requires more skill for most people to use, but it is much much easier than even a few years ago. So I think it's probably wise for most people to try and invest a little time getting rid of proprietary software if they care at all about societal freedom and privacy. I understand that using the latest, greatest smartphone is cool, and the entertainment and convenience of Cloud and tablets – but people should not imagine that they can keep those platforms secure.

It might sound a bit primitive, but I think people should have to go back to the idea that if they really want confidential communications with their friends, or if they are involved with political work, they have to think about setting aside one machine - which they keep offline and just use essentially for editing and encrypting/decrypting material. Once they've encrypted their work on their “air gap” machine, as it's called, then they can put their encrypted emails on a USB stick and transfer them to their second machine which they use to connect online (I notice Bruce Schneier is just now recommending the same approach). Once the “air gap” machine has been set up and configured, you should not connect that to the network – and preferably, don't connect it to the network, ever! So if you follow those sorts of protocols, that's probably the best that is achievable today.

9. How would you advise young people working in the surveillance industry?

Young people should try and read a little bit into the ethics of surveillance and to understand their own ethical limits in what they want to do, working in that industry. And in some sense, I think it's a bit like contemplating a career in the arms industry. There are defensible uses of military weapons, but the companies that build these weapons are, at the end of the day, just corporations maximizing value for shareholders. And so, you need to take a really hard look at the company that you're working for or the area you want to work in and satisfy your own standard of ethics, and that what you're doing is not violating other people's human rights. I think that in the fantastically explosive growth of surveillance industries that we've seen over the past few years – and it's accelerating – the sort of technologies particularly being developed for electronic mass surveillance are fundamentally and ethically problematic. And I think that for a talented engineer, there are probably better things that he/she can do with his/her career.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/interview-with-caspar-bowden-privacy-advocate

Interview with Bruce Schneier - Internationally Renowned Security Technologist

maria — 2013-10-17T08:54:32Z

Maria Xynou recently interviewed Bruce Schneier on privacy and surveillance. View this interview and gain an insight on why we should all "have something to hide"!

Bruce Schneier is an internationally renowned security technologist, called a "security guru" by The Economist.

He is the author of 12 books -- including Liars and Outliers: Enabling the Trust Society Needs to Survive -- as well as hundreds of articles, essays, and academic papers. His influential newsletter "Crypto-Gram" and his blog "Schneier on Security" are read by over 250,000 people. He has testified before Congress, is a frequent guest on television and radio, has served on several government committees, and is regularly quoted in the press.

Schneier is a fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School, a program fellow at the New America Foundation's Open Technology Institute, a board member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an Advisory Board Member of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, and the Security Futurologist for BT -- formerly British Telecom.

The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) interviewed Bruce Schneier on the following questions:

Do you think India needs privacy legislation? Why/ Why not?
The majoity of India's population lives below the line of poverty and barely has any Internet access. Is surveillance an elitist issue or should it concern the entire population in the country? Why/ Why not?
“I'm not a terrorist and I have nothing to hide...and thus surveillance can't affect me personally.” Please comment.
Can free speech and privacy co-exist? What is the balance between privacy and freedom of expression?
Should people have the right to give up their right to privacy? Why/ Why not?
Should surveillance technologies be treated as traditional arms/weapons? Why/ Why not?
How can individuals protect their data (and themselves) from spyware, such as FinFisher?
How would you advise young people working in the surveillance industry?

VIDEO

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/interview-with-bruce-schneier

Internet-driven Developments — Structural Changes and Tipping Points

elonnai — 2012-12-28T15:34:51Z

A symposium on Internet Driven Developments: Structural Changes and Tipping Points was held in Cambridge, Massachusetts at Harvard University from December 6 to 8, 2012. The symposium was sponsored by the Ford Foundation and the MacArthur Foundation and was hosted by the Berkman Center for Internet & Society. In this blog post, I summarize the discussions that took place over the two days and add my own personal reflections on the issues.

The symposium served as an inaugural event for the Global Network of Interdisciplinary Centers, which currently includes as its members:

The Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University
The Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet & Society
The Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore
The Center for Technology & Society at the Fundacao Getulio Vargas Law School, Keio University
The MIT Media Lab and its Center for Civic Media
The NEXA Center for Internet & Society at Politicnico di Torino.

Individuals and researchers from the Centers focused on understanding the effects of internet and society. The participants were brought together to explore the past, present, and future tipping points of the internet, to identify knowledge gaps, and to find areas of collaboration and future action between institutes and individuals. Specifically, the symposium set out to examine fundamental questions about the internet, identify structural changes that are occurring because of the internet, and the forces that are catalyzing these changes. Questions asked and discussed included:

What forces are changing production and service models?
What forces are influencing entrepreneurship and innovation? and
What forces are changing political participation?

Production and Service Models

Discussion

When participants discussed the changes that are happening to production and service models, concepts such as big data, algorithms, peer based models of production, and intermediaries were identified as actors and tools that are driving change in production and service models in the context of the internet. For example, big data and algorithms are being used to alter the nature, scope, and reach of business by allowing for the personalization and customization of services. To this end, many organizations have incorporated customer participation into business models, and provide platforms for feedback and input. The personalization of services has placed greater emphasis on the voice of the customer, allowing customers to guide and influence business by voicing preferences, satisfaction levels, etc. In this way, consumers can determine what type of service they want, and can also make political statements through their choices and feedback. In the process, however, such platforms generate and depend on large amounts of data and thus raise concerns about privacy.

Knowledge gaps that were identified during the conversation included how to predict what would make a participatory platform and peer based model successful, and how these platforms can be effectively researched. When looking at big data, a knowledge gap that was identified included how to ensure that data are collected ethically and accurately, as well as the related question: once large data sets are collected, how can the data be analyzed and used in a meaningful way?

There was also discussion about the increasingly critical and powerful role that intermediaries serve within the scope of the internet as they act as the platform provider and regulator for internet content. Intermediaries both allow for content to be posted on the internet, and determine what information is accessed through the filtering of web searches. Increasingly, governments are seeking to regulate intermediaries and create strict rules of compliance with governmental mandates. At the same time governments are placing the responsibility and liability of regulating what content is posted on internet on intermediaries, essentially placing them in the role of an adjudicator. This is one example of how the relationship between the private sector, the government, and the individual is changing, because it is only recently that private intermediaries have been held responsible first to governments, and only secondarily to customers.

Knowledge gaps identified in the discussion on intermediaries included understanding and researching how intermediaries decide to filter content found through searches. On what basis is each filter done? Are there actors influencing this process? And what are the economics behind the process?

Personal Thoughts

When reflecting on how the internet is changing and influencing the production of goods and services, I personally would add to the points discussed in the meeting the fact that the internet has also impacted the job economy. Reports show that jobs in the extraction and manufacturing sector are decreasing, as the internet has created a mandatory new tech oriented skill set that often outweighs the need for other skill sets. This change is far reaching as the job economy influences what skills students choose to learn, why and for what purposes individuals migrate across borders for employment, and in what industries governments invest money towards domestic development. In addition to changing the nature of skills in demand, the nature of the services themselves is changing. Though services are becoming more personalized and tailored to the individual, this personalization is automated, and replacing the ‘human touch’ that was once prized in business. Whether customers care if the service they are given is generated by an algorithm or delivered by an individual may depend on a person’s preference, but the European Union has seen this shift as being significant enough to address automated decision making in Article 15 of the EU directive, which provides individuals the right to not be subject to a decision which legally impacts him/her which is based only on automated processing of data. This directive encompasses decisions such as evaluation of a person’s performance at work, creditworthiness, reliability, conduct, etc.

The internet has also increased the cost of small mistakes made by businesses, as any mistake will now potentially impact millions of customers. The impact of any mistake makes risk management much more important and difficult, as businesses must seek to anticipate and mitigate any and all mistakes. The internet has also created a new level of dependency on the network, as businesses shift all of their services and functions over to the internet. Thus, if the network goes down, businesses will lose revenue and customers. This level of dependency on the network that exists today is different from past reliance’s on technology — in the sense that in the past there was not one single type of technology that would be essential for many businesses to run. The closest analogue was transportation: if trucks, trains, or ships were unavailable, multiple industries would be impacted. The difference is that those who relied on rail could shift temporarily to ships or trucks. Those relying on the network have no alternatives. Furthermore, past technologies were constantly evolving in the resources they depended on — from coal to gas, etc, but for the internet, it seems that the resource is not evolving, so much as expanding as increased bandwidth and connectivity are the solution to allowing technological evolution and innovation through the internet.

As discussed above, intermediaries are becoming key and powerful players, but they also seem to be increasingly placed between a rock and a hard place, as governments around the world are asking national and multinational intermediaries to filter content that violates national laws in one context, but not another context. Furthermore, intermediaries are increasingly being asked to comply with law enforcement requests for access to data that is often not within the jurisdiction of the requesting country. The difficult position intermediaries are placed in demonstrates how the architecture of the internet is borderless but the regulation and use of the internet is still tied to borders and jurisdiction.

Entrepreneurship and Innovation

Discussion

When discussing entrepreneurship and innovation it was pointed out by participants that grey markets and market failures are important indicators for possibilities of new business models and forms of innovation. Because of that, it is important to study what has failed and why when identifying new possibilities and trends. The importance of policies and laws that allow for innovation and entrepreneurship was also highlighted.

Personal Thoughts

When thinking about entrepreneurship and innovation on the internet and forces driving them, it seems clear that tethering, conglomerating, and organizing information from multiple sources is one direction that innovation is headed. Services are coming out that have the ability to search the internet based on individual preferences and provide more accurate data quickly. This removes the need for individuals to search the internet at length to find the information or products they want. Along the same lines, it seems that there is a greater trend towards personalization. Services are finding new and innovative ways to bring individuals customized products. Another trend is the digitization of all services — from moving libraries online, to bookstores online, to grocery stores online. Lastly, there is a constant demand for new applications to be developed. These can range from applications enabling communication through social networking, to applications that act as personal financial consultants, to applications that act as personal trainers. The ability for concepts, trends, etc to go viral on the internet has also added another dimension to entrepreneurship and innovation as any individual can potentially become successful by something going viral. The ability for something to go viral on the internet does not just impact entrepreneurship and innovation, but also impacts political participation and production and service models.

Political Participation

Discussions also centered on how political participation is changing as the internet is being used as a new platform for participation. For example, it is now possible for individuals to leverage their voice and message to local and global communities. Furthermore, this message can be communicated on a seemingly personal scale. Individuals from one community are able to connect to communities from another location — both local and abroad, and to work together to catalyze change. Messages and communications can be spread easily to millions of people and can go viral. This ability has changed and created new public spheres, where anyone can contribute to a dialogue from anywhere. Empowerment is shifting as well, because the internet allows for new power structures to be created by any actor who knows how to leverage the network. These factors allow for more voices to be heard and for greater citizen participation. The role of the youth in political movements was also emphasized in the discussions. On the other hand governments have responded by more heavily regulating speech and content on the internet when dissenting voices and campaigns are seen as a threat. It was also brought out that though emerging forms of online political participation have been heralded by many for achievements such as facilitating democracy, transparency, and bringing a voice to the silenced — many have warned that analysis of these political forms of participation overlook individual contributions and time. Other critiques that were discussed included the fact that digital revolutions also exclude individuals who do not have access to the internet or to platforms/applications and overlook actions and movements that take place offline.

Knowledge gaps that were identified included understanding the basics of the change that is happening in political participation through the internet. For example, it is unclear who the actors are that determine the conditions and scope for these changes, and like participatory forms of business, what enables and mobilizes change. Furthermore, it is unclear who specifically benefits from these changes and how, and who participates in the changes — and in what capacity. Additionally, much of the change has been quantified in the dialogue of the ‘global’ — global voices, global movements — but that dialogue ignores the local.

Personal Thoughts

In addition to the discussions on political participation, I believe the internet has created the possibility for ‘social governance’. To address situations in which there is no particular law against an action, but individuals come together and speak out against actions that they see on the internet that they believe should be stopped or changed. Depending on the extent individuals choose to enforce these decisions, this can be potentially dangerous as individuals are essentially rewriting laws and social norms without subjecting them to the crucible of consensus decision-making or review. In addition, forms of political participation are not changing just in terms of how the individual engages politically with states and governments, but also in the ways that politicians are engaging with citizens. For example, politicians are using Facebook and Twitter as means to communicate and gather feedback from supporters. Politicians are also using technology to reach more individuals with their messages — from experimenting with 3D holograms, to web casting, to using technology like CCTV cameras to prove transparency. The impact of this could be interesting, as technology is becoming a mediating tool that works in both directions between citizens and governments. Is this changing the traditional understandings of the State and the relationship between the State and the citizen?

Conclusion and ways forward

The discussions also pulled out dichotomies that apply to the internet and illustrate tensions arising from different forces. These dichotomies can be shaped by individuals and actors attempting to regulate the internet, as for example with new models of regulation vs. old models of regulation, private vs. public, local vs. global, owned vs. unowned, and zoned vs. unzoned. These dichotomies can be shaped by how the internet is used. For example, fair vs. unfair, just vs. unjust, represented vs. silenced, and uniform vs. diverse.

Common questions being asked and areas for potential research that came out of these discussions included information communication and media, how to address different and at times contradictory policies and levels of development in different countries, and what is the impact of big data on different sectors and industries like e-health and journalism? What is the importance of ICT in creating economic progress? How is the Internet changing the nature of democracy?

When discussing ways forward and areas for future collaboration it was brought out that exploring ways to leverage open data, ways to effectively use and build off of perspectives and experiences from other contexts and cultures, and ways to share resources across borders including funding, human presence, and expertise were important questions to answer. Common challenges that were identified by participants ranged from cyber security and the rise of state and non-state actors in cyber warfare, finding adequate funding to support research, sustaining international collaborations, ensuring that research is meaningful and can translate into useful resources for policy and law makers, and ensuring that projects are designed with a long-term objective and vision in mind.

The discussions, presentations, and contributions by participants during the two day symposium were interesting and important as they demonstrated just how multi-faced the internet is, and how it is never one dimensional. How the internet is researched, how it is used, and how it is regulated will be constantly changing. Whether this change is a step forward, or a re-invention of what has already been done, is up to all who use the internet including the individual, the corporation, the researcher, the policy maker, and the government.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/internet-driven-developments

Internet, Society & Space in Indian Cities

praskrishna — 2011-10-16T08:17:13Z

The monograph on Internet, Society and Space in Indian Cities, by Pratyush Shankar, is an entry into debates around making of IT Cities and public planning policies that regulate and restructure the city spaces in India with the emergence of Internet technologies. Going beyond the regular debates on the modern urban, the monograph deploys a team of students from the field of architecture and urban design to investigate how city spaces – the material as well as the experiential – are changing under the rubric of digital globalisation.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/internet-society.pdf

Internet, Society & Space in Indian Cities

praskrishna — 2011-09-27T10:07:24Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/internet-society-space.pdf

Internet users fume as govt blocks 32 sites

praskrishna — 2015-01-02T13:46:25Z

The Department of Telecommunications (DoT) has ordered Internet service providers to block 32 websites, in cluding popular video-sharing plat forms such as Dailymotion and Vimeo, reportedly over concerns that they are being misused by Islamic State jihadists.

The article by Jaison Lewis was published in Mumbai Mirror on January 1, 2015. Pranesh Prakash gave his inputs.

The ban has angered free-speech proponents who allege that the Narendra Modi government is using national security as a pretext to censor online content. On Wednesday, tweets criticising the restrictions were trending on #GOIBlocks. Senior lawyer Karuna Nandy said that she would challenge the DoT order in the Supreme Court.

Apart from Dailymotion and Vimeo, Internet service providers have also been ordered to block Github and Pastebin, which are popular among programmers; Weebly, a free website creator; and Archive.org, a non-profit digital library.

Some Internet users, however, were able to access some of the sites. This could be because their Internet service providers have not yet implemented the DoT order or because the government has lifted restrictions on some web addresses, according to activists monitoring the blockage of the websites.

The order was issued under Section 69A (procedure for blocking public access) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The section allows authorities to block websites without giving any formal reason or making any public announcement.

However, Arvind Gupta, BJP's national head for information and technology, tweeted that the sites had been blocked over security concerns. "The Web sites have been blocked based on an advisory by Anti-Terrorism Squad, and were carrying Anti India content from ISIS.The sites that have removed objectionable content andor cooperated with the ongoing investigations, are being unblocked," he wrote.

Gupta, however, did not explain how the sites were being misused by terrorists. Some of the sites are mostly frequented by programmers looking for open-source software and codes.

Nandy, a Supreme Court lawyer who specialises in human rights litigations, criticised the ban. "I will challenge the order in the Su preme Court this week. I will seek directions to lift the secrecy surrounding such bans and also request for a right to appeal," she said.

She added that censoring the Internet was against the idea of free expression guaranteed under the Constitution. "Such steps are not good for a healthy society," she said.

Pranesh Prakash, a policy director with the Centre for Internet and Society and one of the most vocal opponents of the blockage, said that the people had the right to know why the websites had been blocked.

"We still don't know why these blocks were issued: was it an overzealous copyright lawyer who found an indulgent judge to issue an overbroad and baseless order? Or was it a public servant who wrongly directed the Department of Electronics and IT to block the sites under the IT Act? We have no idea," said Prakash, who tweeted a picture of the DoT order on Wednesday.

He added that websites were frequently blocked without clear evidence of wrongdoing. "These laws must be changed," Prakash said.

Internet users also voiced their anger over the DoT order. "This only proves ATS is an idiot. If terrorists use buses, phones & Whatspp, you'll block whole system? #GOIBlocks," Poonam Sharma tweeted.

Some users retweeted a Modi post from August 2012: "As a common man, I join the protest against crackdown on freedom of speech!"

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/mumbai-mirror-jaison-lewis-jan-1-2015-internet-users-fume-as-govt-blocks-32-sites

Internet Shutdown Stories

Ambika Tandon — 2018-05-17T10:45:20Z

A collection of stories of the impact of internet shutdowns on the lives of Indian citizens.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-shutdown-stories

Internet Researchers' Conference 2019 (IRC19): List - Call for Sessions

sneha-pp — 2018-11-05T09:15:35Z

Who makes lists? How are lists made? Who can be on a list, and who is missing? What new subjectivities - indicative of different asymmetries of power/knowledge - do list-making, and being listed, engender? What makes lists legitimate information artifacts, and what makes their knowledge contentious? Much debate has emerged about specificities and implications of the list as an information artifact, especially in the case of #LoSHA and NRC - its role in creation and curation of information, in building solidarities and communities of practice, its dependencies on networked media infrastructures, its deployment by hegemonic entities and in turn for countering dominant discourses. For the fourth edition of the Internet Researchers’ Conference (IRC19), we invite sessions that engage critically with the form, imagination, and politics of the *list*.

IRC19: List

For the last several years, #MeToo and #LoSHA have set the course for rousing debates within feminist praxis and contemporary global politics. It also foregrounded the ubiquitous presence of the list in its various forms, not only on the internet but across diverse aspects of media culture. Much debate has emerged about specificities and implications of the list as an information artifact, especially in the case of #LoSHA and NRC - its role in creation and curation of information, in building solidarities and communities of practice, its dependencies on networked media infrastructures, its deployment by hegemonic entities and in turn for countering dominant discourses. Directed by the Supreme Court, the Government of India has initiated the National Register of Citizens process of creating an updated list of all Indian citizens in the state of Assam since 2015. This is a list that sets apart legal citizens from illegal immigrants, based on an extended and multi-phase process of announcement of draft lists and their revisions. NRC is producing a list with a specific question: who is a citizen and who is not? UIDAI has produced a list of unique identification number assigned to individuals: a list to connect/aggregate other lists, a meta-list.

From Mailing Lists to WhatsApp Broadcast Lists, lists have been the very basis of multi-casting capabilities of the early and the recent internets. The list - in terms of list of people receiving a message, list of machines connecting to a router or a tower, list of ‘friends’ and ‘followers’ ‘added’ to your social media persona - structures the open-ended multi-directional information flow possibilities of the internet. It simultaneously engenders networks of connected machines and bodies, topographies of media circulation, and social graphs of affective connections and consumptions. The epistemological, constitutive, and inscriptive functions of the list, as Liam Young documents, have been crucial to the creation of new infrastructures of knowledge, and to understand where the internet emerges as a challenge to these.

As a media format that is easy to create, circulate, and access (as seen in the number of rescue and relief lists that flood the web during national disasters) or one that is essential in classification and cross-referencing (such as public records and memory institutions), the list becomes an essential trope to understand new media forms today, as the skeletal frame on which much digital content and design is structured and consumed through.

Who makes lists?
How are lists made?
Who can be on a list, and who is missing?
Who gets counted on lists, and who is counting?
What new subjectivities - indicative of different asymmetries of power/knowledge - do list-making, and being listed, engender?
What modalities of creation and circulation of lists affords its authority, its simultaneous revelations and obfuscations?
What makes lists legitimate information artifacts, and what makes their knowledge contentious?
What makes lists ephemeral, and what makes their content robust?
What makes lists hegemonic, and what makes them intersectional?
What makes lists ordered, and what makes them unordered?
What do listicles do to habits of reading and creation of knowledge?
What new modes of questioning and meaning-making have manifested today in various practices of list-making?
How and when do lists became digital, and whatever happened to lists on paper?
Are there cultural economies of lists, list-making, and getting listed?
Are lists content or carriage, are they medium or message?

For the fourth edition of the Internet Researchers’ Conference (IRC19), we invite sessions that engage critically with the form, imagination, and politics of the list - to present or propose academic, applied, or creative works that explore its social, economic, cultural, material, political, affective, or aesthetic dimensions.

Call for Sessions

We invite teams of two or more members to propose sessions for IRC19. All sessions will be one and half hours long, and will be fully designed and facilitated by the team concerned, including moderation (if any). Please remember this when planning the session. Everything happening during the session, except for logistical support, will be led and managed by the session team.

The sessions are expected to drive conversations on the topic concerned. They may include presentation of research papers but this is not mandatory.

We look forward to sessions that involve collaborative work (either in groups or otherwise) - discussions, interactions, documentation, learning, and (list-)making are most welcome.

We also look forward to sessions conducted in Indian languages apart from English. The proposing team, in such a case, should consider how participants who do not understand the language concerned may engage with the session. IRC organisers and other participants shall help facilitate these sessions, say by offering translation support.

The only eligibility criteria for proposing sessions are that they must be proposed by a team of at least two members, and that they must engage with the *list*.

The deadline for submission of sessions proposals for IRC19 is Sunday, November 18 (extended).

To propose a session, please send the following documents (as attached text files) to raw@cis-india.org:

Session Title: The session should be named in the form of a hashtag (check the sessions proposed for IRC18 for example).
Session Plan: This should describe the objectives of the session (the motivations and expectations driving it), what will be done and discussed during the session, and who among the people organising the session will be responsible for what. This note need not be more than 500 words long. If your session involves inviting others to present their work (say papers), then please provide a description and timeline of the process through which these people will be identified.
Session Team Details: Please share brief biographical notes of each member of the session team, and their email addresses.

IRC19 will be organised in Hyderabad during January 31 - February 2, 2019. We will announce the venue of the conference in December 2018.

There is no registration fee for the conference, but participants are expected to pay for their own travel and accommodation (to be organised by CIS) expenses. Limited funding will be available to support travel and accommodation expenses of few participants who are unemployed or underemployed.

Session selection process:

November 18, 2018 (extended): Deadline of submission of session proposals. All submitted sessions will be posted on the CIS website, along with the names of the session team members.
November 23 - December 07: Session selection process. All session teams will select 10 sessions to be included in the IRC19 programme. The votes will be anonymous, that is no session team will know which other session teams have voted for their session. The sessions with most votes will be selected for the final programme of IRC19.
December 14: Announcement of selected sessions, and of travel grants available for members of selected session teams.
January 31 - February 2, 2019: IRC19 in Hyderabad!

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

Internet Researchers' Conference 2019 (IRC19): #List, Jan 30 - Feb 1, Lamakaan

sneha-pp — 2019-01-31T06:41:38Z

Who makes lists? How are lists made? Who can be on a list, and who is missing? What new subjectivities - indicative of different asymmetries of power/knowledge - do list-making, and being listed, engender? What makes lists legitimate information artifacts, and what makes their knowledge contentious? Much debate has emerged about specificities and implications of the list as an information artifact, especially in the case of #LoSHA and NRC - its role in creation and curation of information, in building solidarities and communities of practice, its dependencies on networked media infrastructures, its deployment by hegemonic entities and in turn for countering dominant discourses. For the fourth edition of the Internet Researchers’ Conference (IRC19), we invited sessions and papers that engage critically with the form, imagination, and politics of the *list* - to present or propose academic, applied, or creative works that explore its social, economic, cultural, material, political, affective, or aesthetic dimensions. IRC19 will be organised in Lamakaan, Hyderabad, during January 30 - February 1, 2019.

Venue: Lamakaan, Off Road 1, Near GVK Mall, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 500034

Location: Google Maps

Conference Programme: Read (SlideShare) and Download (PDF)

Code of Conduct and Friendly Space Policy: Download (PDF)

Poster: Download (JPG)

Registration: Directly at the venue, it is a free and open conference

IRC19: #List

Who makes lists?
How are lists made?
Who can be on a list, and who is missing?
Who gets counted on lists, and who is counting?
What new subjectivities - indicative of different asymmetries of power/knowledge - do list-making, and being listed, engender?
What modalities of creation and circulation of lists affords its authority, its simultaneous revelations and obfuscations?
What makes lists legitimate information artifacts, and what makes their knowledge contentious?
What makes lists ephemeral, and what makes their content robust?
What makes lists hegemonic, and what makes them intersectional?
What makes lists ordered, and what makes them unordered?
What do listicles do to habits of reading and creation of knowledge?
What new modes of questioning and meaning-making have manifested today in various practices of list-making?
How and when do lists became digital, and whatever happened to lists on paper?
Are there cultural economies of lists, list-making, and getting listed?
Are lists content or carriage, are they medium or message?

For the fourth edition of the Internet Researchers’ Conference (IRC19), we invited sessions and papers that engage critically with the form, imagination, and politics of the *list* - to present or propose academic, applied, or creative works that explore its social, economic, cultural, material, political, affective, or aesthetic dimensions.

Sessions

#AyushmanBhavah - Arya Lakshmi and Adrij Chakraborty

#ButItIsNotFunny - Madhavi Shivaprasad and Sonali Sahoo

#CallingOutAndIn - Usha Raman, Radhika Gajjala, Riddhima Sharma, Tarishi Varma, Pallavi Guha, Sai Amulya Komarraju, and Sugandha Sehgal

#EnlistingPrivacy - Pawan Singh and Pranjal Jain

#FOMO - Pritha Chakrabarti and Dr. Baidurya Chakrabarti

#LegitLists - Form follows function: List by design - Akriti Rastogi, Ishani Dey, and Sagorika Singha

#ListInterface - Bharath Sivakumar, Rakshita Siva, and Deepak Prince

#LoSHAandWhatFollowed - Anannya Chatterjee, Arunima Singh, Bhanu Priya Gupta, Renu Singh, and Rhea Bose

#PowerListing - Dr. Shubhda Arora, Dr. Smitana Saikia, Prof. Nidhi Kalra, and Prof. Ravikant Kisana

#StoriesRecordsLegendsRituals - Priyanka, Aditya, Bhanu Prakash GS, Aishwarya, and Dinesh

Papers

Orinam: An online list archiving queer history, activism, support, experiences and literature - Brindaalakshmi.K

De-duplicating amidst disaster: how rescue databases were made during 2018 Kerala floods - Gayas Eapen

Making the ‘Other’ Count: Categorizing ‘Self’ using the NRC - Khetrimayum Monish Singh and Ranjit Singh

About the IRC Series

Researchers and practitioners across the domains of arts, humanities, and social sciences have attempted to understand life on the internet, or life after the internet, and the way digital technologies mediate various aspects of our being today. These attempts have in turn raised new questions around understanding of digital objects, online lives, and virtual networks, and have contributed to complicating disciplinary assumptions, methods, conceptualisations, and boundaries.

The researchers@work programme at the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) initiated the Internet Researchers' Conference (IRC) series to address these concerns, and to create an annual temporary space in India, for internet researchers to gather and share experiences.

The IRC series is driven by the following interests:

creating discussion spaces for researchers and practitioners studying internet in India and in other comparable regions,
foregrounding the multiplicity, hierarchies, tensions, and urgencies of the digital sites and users in India,
accounting for the various layers, conceptual and material, of experiences and usages of internet and networked digital media in India, and
exploring and practicing new modes of research and documentation necessitated by new (digital) objects of power/knowledge.

The first edition of the Internet Researchers' Conference series was held in February 2016. It was hosted by the Centre for Political Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University, and was supported by the CSCS Digital Innovation Fund. The second Internet Researchers' Conference was organised in partnership with the Centre for Information Technology and Public Policy (CITAPP) at the International Institute of Information Technology Bangalore (IIIT-B) campus on March 03-05, 2017. The third Internet Researchers' Conference was organised at the Sambhaavnaa Institute, Kandbari (Himachal Pradesh) during February 22-24, 2018, and the theme of the conference was *offline*.

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

Internet Researchers' Conference 2019 (IRC19): #List - Call for Papers

sneha-pp — 2018-12-06T07:00:30Z

Who makes lists? How are lists made? Who can be on a list, and who is missing? What new subjectivities - indicative of different asymmetries of power/knowledge - do list-making, and being listed, engender? What makes lists legitimate information artifacts, and what makes their knowledge contentious? Much debate has emerged about specificities and implications of the list as an information artifact, especially in the case of #LoSHA and NRC - its role in creation and curation of information, in building solidarities and communities of practice, its dependencies on networked media infrastructures, its deployment by hegemonic entities and in turn for countering dominant discourses. For the fourth edition of the Internet Researchers’ Conference (IRC19), we invite papers that engage critically with the form, imagination, and politics of the *list*.

Call for Papers

For the fourth edition of the Internet Researchers’ Conference (IRC19), we invite papers that engage critically with the form, imagination, and politics of the list - to present or propose academic, applied, or creative works that explore its social, economic, cultural, material, political, affective, or aesthetic dimensions.

Paper abstracts (of not more than 500 words) are to be submitted by Sunday, December 23 via email sent to raw@cis-india.org.

Authors of selected paper abstracts will be informed by Monday, December 31, and will be expected to present the full paper (either in person, or remotely) at the IRC19 - #List, to be held in Hyderabad during Jan 31 - Feb 2, 2019.

Selected paper authors, who are unemployed or underemployed, will be offered support to cover travel expenses fully/partially.

The only eligibility criteria for submitting papers is that they must engage with the thematic of the conference - *list*.

IRC19: List

For the last several years, #MeToo and #LoSHA have set the course for rousing debates within feminist praxis and contemporary global politics. It also foregrounded the ubiquitous presence of the list in its various forms, not only on the internet but across diverse aspects of media culture. Much debate has emerged about specificities and implications of the list as an information artifact, especially in the case of #LoSHA and NRC - its role in creation and curation of information, in building solidarities and communities of practice, its dependencies on networked media infrastructures, its deployment by hegemonic entities and in turn for countering dominant discourses. Directed by the Supreme Court, the Government of India has initiated the National Register of Citizens process of creating an updated list of all Indian citizens in the state of Assam since 2015. This is a list that sets apart legal citizens from illegal immigrants, based on an extended and multi-phase process of announcement of draft lists and their revisions. NRC is producing a list with a specific question: who is a citizen and who is not? UIDAI has produced a list of unique identification number assigned to individuals: a list to connect/aggregate other lists, a meta-list.

From Mailing Lists to WhatsApp Broadcast Lists, lists have been the very basis of multi-casting capabilities of the early and the recent internets. The list - in terms of list of people receiving a message, list of machines connecting to a router or a tower, list of ‘friends’ and ‘followers’ ‘added’ to your social media persona - structures the open-ended multi-directional information flow possibilities of the internet. It simultaneously engenders networks of connected machines and bodies, topographies of media circulation, and social graphs of affective connections and consumptions. The epistemological, constitutive, and inscriptive functions of the list, as Liam Young documents, have been crucial to the creation of new infrastructures of knowledge, and to understand where the internet emerges as a challenge to these.

As a media format that is easy to create, circulate, and access (as seen in the number of rescue and relief lists that flood the web during national disasters) or one that is essential in classification and cross-referencing (such as public records and memory institutions), the list becomes an essential trope to understand new media forms today, as the skeletal frame on which much digital content and design is structured and consumed through.

Who makes lists?
How are lists made?
Who can be on a list, and who is missing?
Who gets counted on lists, and who is counting?
What new subjectivities - indicative of different asymmetries of power/knowledge - do list-making, and being listed, engender?
What modalities of creation and circulation of lists affords its authority, its simultaneous revelations and obfuscations?
What makes lists legitimate information artifacts, and what makes their knowledge contentious?
What makes lists ephemeral, and what makes their content robust?
What makes lists hegemonic, and what makes them intersectional?
What makes lists ordered, and what makes them unordered?
What do listicles do to habits of reading and creation of knowledge?
What new modes of questioning and meaning-making have manifested today in various practices of list-making?
How and when do lists became digital, and whatever happened to lists on paper?
Are there cultural economies of lists, list-making, and getting listed?
Are lists content or carriage, are they medium or message?

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/irc19-list-call-papers

Internet Researchers' Conference 2018 (IRC18): Offline, February 22-24, Sambhaavnaa Institute

sumandro — 2018-07-02T18:30:52Z

We are proud to announce that the third edition of the Internet Researchers' Conference series will be held at the Sambhaavnaa Institute, Kandbari (Himachal Pradesh) during February 22-24, 2018. This annual conference series was initiated by the Researchers@Work (RAW) programme at CIS in 2016 to gather researchers, academic or otherwise, studying internet in/from India to congregate, share insights and tensions, and chart the ways forward. The *offline* is the theme of the 2018 edition of the conference (IRC18), and the conference agenda will be shaped by nine sessions selected by all the teams that submitted session proposals, and an independent paper track consisting of six presentations.

Venue: Sambhaavnaa Institute, Kandbari, Palampur, Himachal Pradesh, 176061

Travel Information: Getting to Sambhaavnaa (Sambhaavnaa Institute)

Weather in Kandbari: 10°-20°c with possibility of light shower (AccuWeather)

Registration: RSVP (Google Drive)

Agenda: Conference Programme (Google Drive)

Poster: Download (JPG)

IRC18: Offline

State and commercial providers of internet and telecommunication services work in tandem to produce both the “online” and the “offline” - through content censorship, internet regulation, generalised service provision failures, and so on. Further, efforts to prioritise the use of digital technologies for financial transactions, especially since demonetisation, has led to a not-so-subtle equalisation of the ‘online economy’ with the ‘formal economy’; thus recognising the offline as the zones of informality, corruption, and piracy. This contributes to the offline becoming invisible, and in many cases, illegal, rather than being recognised as a condition that necessarily informs what it means to be digital.

Who is offline, and is it a choice? The global project of bringing people online has spurred several commendable initiatives in expanding access to digital devices, networks, and content, and often contentious ones such as Free Basics / internet.org, which illustrate the intersectionalities of scale, privilege, and rights that we need to be mindful of when we imagine the offline. Further, the experience of the internet, for a large section of people is often mediated through prior and ongoing experiences of traditional media, and through cultural metaphors and cognitive frames that transcend more practical registers such as consumption and facilitation. How do we approach, study, and represent this disembodied internet – devoid of its hypertext, platforms, devices, it's nuts and bolts, but still tangible through engagement in myriad, personal and often indiscernible ways.

For the third edition of the Internet Researchers’ Conference (IRC18), we invite participants to critically discuss the *offline*. We invite sessions that present or propose academic, applied, creative, or technical works that explore social, economic, cultural, political, infrastructural, or aesthetic dimensions of the *offline*.

Sessions

#OnlineGovernanceOfflineGovernment - Mohammad Javed Alam and Suman Mandal - Session Details

#WomenInTech - Priyanka Chaudhuri and Tripti Jain - Session Details

#Cyberflesh - Akriti Rastogi, Ishani Dey, and Sagorika Singha - Session Details

#RethinkingTheVirtualPublic - Daisy Barman and Aamir Qayoom - Session Details

#FeminismIRL - Mamatha Karollil, the SIVE Collective, and Tara Atluri - Session Details

#ILoveYou - Dhiren Borisa and Dhrubo Jyoti - Session Details

#CollectionAndIdentity - Ravi Shukla, Rajiv Mishra, and Mrutyunjay Mishra - Session Details

#FollowUsOffline - Dinesh, Farah Yameen, Afrah Shafiq, and Bhanu Prakash GS - Session Details

#OfSiegesAndShutdowns - Chinmayi S. K. and Rohini Lakshané - Session Details

Papers

Slow journalism and the temporalities of the offline - Akshata Pai - Paper Abstract

Campus campaigns: User perceptions in pre-digital and digital eras - Arjun Ghosh - Paper Abstract

The many lives of food: Blogs to books and back - Dhrupadi Chattopadhyay - Paper Abstract

Feminism in digital age - Putul Sathe - Paper Abstract

Marathi literary criticism in the era of social media - Rajashree Patil - Paper Abstract

Taking open science offline - Shreyashi Ray - Paper Abstract

About the IRC Series

The Researchers at Work (RAW) programme at the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) initiated the Internet Researchers' Conference (IRC) series to address these concerns, and to create an annual temporary space in India, for internet researchers to gather and share experiences.

The IRC series is driven by the following interests:

creating discussion spaces for researchers and practitioners studying internet in India and in other comparable regions,
foregrounding the multiplicity, hierarchies, tensions, and urgencies of the digital sites and users in India, accounting for the various layers, conceptual and material, of experiences and usages of internet and networked digital media in India, and
exploring and practicing new modes of research and documentation necessitated by new (digital) objects of power/knowledge.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/irc18

Internet Researchers' Conference 2018 (IRC18): Offline - Call for Sessions

sneha-pp — 2017-11-29T12:30:13Z

Does being offline necessarily mean being disconnected? Beyond anxieties such as FOMO, being offline is also seen as disengagement from a certain milieu of the digital (read: capital), an impediment to the way life is organised by and around technologies in general. However, being offline is not the exception, as examples of internet shutdown and acts on online censorship illustrate the persistence and often alarming regularity of the offline even for the ‘connected’ sections of the population. The *offline* is the theme of the third Internet Researchers' Conference (IRC18). We invite teams of two or more members to submit sessions proposals by Sunday, November 19 (final deadline). The session selection process is described below. The Conference will be hosted by the Sambhaavnaa Institute of Public Policy and Politics (Kandbari, Palampur, Himachal Pradesh) on February 22-24, 2018.

IRC18: Offline

Call for Sessions

Proposed Sessions (Conference Website)

Sambhaavnaa Institute of Public Policy and Politics (External Link)

IRC18: Offline

For the third edition of the Internet Researchers’ Conference (IRC18), we invite participants to critically discuss the offline. We invite sessions that present or propose academic, applied, creative, or technical works that explore social, economic, cultural, political, infrastructural, or aesthetic dimensions of the offline.

For example, the sessions may explore one or more of the following themes:

Geographies of internet access: Infrastructural, socio-political, and discursive forces and contradictions
Terms, objects, metaphors, and events of the internet and their offline remediation and circulation
Minimal computing, maker cultures, and digital collaboration and creativity in the offline
Offline economic cultures and transition towards less-cash economy
Offline as democratic choice: the right to offline lives in the context of global debates on privacy, surveillance, and data justice
Methodologies of studying the *offline* at the intersections of offline and online lives

Please note that the above are not sub-themes or tracks under which a session should be proposed, but are illustrations of possible session themes and concerns.

Call for Sessions

We invite teams of two or more members to propose sessions for IRC18. All sessions will be one and half hours long, and will be fully designed and facilitated by the team concerned, including moderation (if any). Please remember this when planning the session. Everything happening during the session, except for logistical support, will be led and managed by the session team.

The sessions are expected to drive conversations on the topic concerned. They may include presentation of research papers but this is not mandatory.

We look forward to sessions that involve collaborative work (either in groups or otherwise), including discussions, interactions, documentation, learning, and making, are most welcome.

We also look forward to sessions conducted in Indic languages. The proposing team, in such a case, should consider how participants who do not understand the language concerned may engage with the session. IRC organisers and other participants shall help facilitate these sessions, say by offering translation support.

The only eligibility criteria for proposing sessions are that they must be proposed by a team of at least two members, and that they must engage with the *offline*.

The deadline for submission of sessions proposals for IRC18 is Sunday, November 19 (final deadline).

To propose a session, please send the following documents (as attached text files) to raw@cis-india.org:

Title of the Session: The session should be named in the form of a hashtag (check the IRC17 selected sessions for example).
Context of the Session: This should be a 300 words note discussing the context, the motivations, and the expectations behind the proposed session.
Session Plan: This should describe the objectives of the session, what will be done and discussed during the session, and who among the people organising the session will be responsible for what. This note need not be more than 300 words long. If your session involves inviting others to present their work (say papers), then please provide a description and timeline of the process through which these people will be identified.
Session Team Details: Please share brief biographic notes of each member of the session team, and contact details.

There is no registration fee for the Conference, but participants are expected to pay for their own travel and accommodation (to be organised by CIS) expenses. Limited funding will be available to support travel and accommodation expenses of few participants who are unemployed or under-employed.

Session selection process:

November 19: Deadline of submission of session proposals.All submitted sessions will be posted on the CIS website, along with the names and details of the session team members.
November 20 - December 17: Open review period. All session teams, as well as other interested contributors, are invited to review and comment upon each other's submitted proposals and revise their own. Read the proposed sessions here: Conference Website.
December 18-31: The selection process takes place. All session teams will select 10 sessions to be included in the IRC18 programme. The votes will be anonymous, that is no session team will know which other sessions have voted for their session.
January 08: Announcement of selected sessions.
February 22-24: IRC18 at Sambhaavnaa Institute!

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/irc18-offline-call

Internet Researchers' Conference 2016 (IRC16) - Selected Sessions

sumandro — 2016-01-18T09:23:06Z

We are proud to announce that the first Internet Researchers' Conference (IRC16), organised around the theme of 'studying internet in India,' will be held on February 26-28, 2016, at the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), Delhi. We are deeply grateful to the Centre for Political Studies (CPS) at JNU for hosting the Conference, and to the CSCS Digital Innovation Fund (CDIF) for generously supporting it. Here are the details about the session selection process, the selected sessions, the Conference programme (draft), the pre-Conference discussions, accommodation, and travel grants. The Conference will include a book sprint to produce an open handbook on 'methods and tools for internet research.'

Session Selection Process

We received 23 superb session proposals for the IRC16. All the teams that submitted sessions were invited to vote for their eight favourite session in a double-blind manner - the teams did not know the names of the people who proposed other sessions, and we at CIS did not know which team has voted for which particular set of sessions. After receiving all the votes, we could not help but change the format of the Conference (as planned earlier) to accommodate 15 sessions in total. All Discussion and Workshop sessions of the Conference are double track, except for the three Discussion sessions that received most number of votes.

Selected Sessions

#DigitalDesires: Received 8.15% votes. Proposed by Silpa Mukherjee, Ankita Deb, and Rahul Kumar.
#FollowTheMedium: Received 7.60% votes. Proposed by Zeenab Aneez and Neha Mujumdar.
#STSDebates: Received 7.60% votes. Proposed by Sumandro Chattapadhyay and Jahnavi Phalkey.
#DigitalLiteraciesAtTheMargins: Received 7.06% votes. Proposed by Aakash Solanki, Sandeep Mertia, and Rashmi M.
#InternetMovements: Received 7.06% votes. Proposed by Becca Savory, Sarah McKeever, and Shaunak Sen.
#FutureBazaars: Received 5.97% votes. Proposed by Maitrayee Deka, Adam Arvidsson, Rohini Lakshané, and Ravi Sundaram.
#MinimalComputing: Received 5.97% votes. Proposed by Padmini Ray Murray and Sebastian Lütgert.
#WebOfGenealogies: Received 5.97% votes. Proposed by Ishita Tiwary, Sandeep Mertia, and Siddharth Narrain.
#WikiShadows: Received 5.97% votes. Proposed by Tanveer Hasan and Rahmanuddin Shaik.
#LiterarySpaces: Received 5.43% votes. Proposed by P.P. Sneha and Arup Chatterjee.
#ArchiveAnarchy: Received 4.34% votes. Proposed by Ranjani M Prasad and Farah Yameen.
#AFCinema2.0: Received 3.80% votes. Proposed by Akriti Rastogi and Ishani Dey.
#ManyPublicsOfInternet: Received 3.80% votes. Proposed by Sailen Routray and Khetrimayum Monish.
#PoliticsOnSocialMedia: Received 3.80% votes. Proposed by Rinku Lamba and Rajarshi Dasgupta.
#SpottingData: Received 3.80% votes. Proposed by Dibyajyoti Ghosh and Purbasha Auddy.

Dates and Venue

The IRC16 will take place during February 26-28, 2016, at the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), Delhi. We are delighted to announce that the Conference will be hosted by the Centre for Political Studies (CPS) at JNU, and will be generously supported by the CSCS Digital Innovation Fund (CDIF).

Conference Programme

Access the draft programme (v.2.1): Download (PDF).

Pre-Conference Conversations

Please join the researchers@cis-india mailing list to take part in the pre-conference conversations: https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/researchers.

Accommodation

CPS and CIS will provide accommodation to all non-Delhi-based team members of the selected sessions, during the days of the Conference.

Travel Grants

We will offer 10 travel grants, up to Rs. 10,000 each, for within-India travel. The following non-Delhi-based team members of the selected sessions have been selected for travel grants: Aakash Solanki, Dibyajyoti Ghosh, Neha Mujumdar, Purbasha Auddy, Rahmanuddin Shaik, Rashmi M, Rohini Lakshané, Sailen Routray, P.P. Sneha, and Zeenab Aneez.

The travel grants are made possible by the CSCS Digital Innovation Fund (CDIF).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/irc16-selected-sessions

Internet Researchers' Conference (IRC) 2016 - Studying Internet in India: Call for Sessions (Extended to Nov 22)

sumandro — 2015-11-15T07:48:17Z

With great excitement, we are announcing the beginning of an annual conference series titled Internet Researchers' Conference (IRC), the first edition of which is to take place in Delhi during February 25-27, 2016 (yet to be confirmed). This first conference will focus on the theme of 'Studying Internet in India.' The word 'study' here is a shorthand for a range of tasks, from documentation and theory-building, to measurement and representation. We invite you to propose sessions for the conference by Sunday, November 22, 2015. Final sessions will be selected during December and announced by December 31, 2015. Below are the details about the conference series, as well instructions for proposing a session for the conference.

Call for Sessions document: Download (PDF)

Call for Sessions poster: Download (PNG)

Internet Researchers’ Conference

The last decades have seen a growing entanglement of our daily lives with the internet, not only as modes of communication but also as shared socio-politico-cultural spaces, and as objects of study. The emergence of new artifacts, conditions, and sites of power/knowledge with the prevalence of digital modes of communication, consumptions, production, distribution, and appropriation have expectedly attracted academic and non-academic explorers across disciplines, professions, and interests. Researchers across the domains of arts, humanities, and social sciences have attempted to understand life on the internet, or life after the internet, and the way digital technologies mediate various aspects of our being today. These attempts have in turn raised new questions around understanding of digital objects, online lives, and virtual networks, and have contributed to complicating disciplinary assumptions, methods, and boundaries.

The Researchers at Work (RAW) programme at the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) is very excited to invite you to take part in the first of a series of annual conferences for researchers (academic or otherwise) studying internet in India. These conferences will be called the Internet Researchers' Conference (IRC), with the abbreviation reminding us of an early protocol for text-based communication over internet. The first edition will be organised around the theme of ‘studying internet in India.’ The word study here is a shorthand for a range of tasks, from documentation and theory-building, to measurement and representation.

This conference series is founded on the following interests:

Creating discussion spaces for researchers studying internet in India and in other comparable regions.
Foregrounding the multiplicity, hierarchies, tensions, and urgencies of the digital sites and users in India.
Accounting for the various layers, conceptual and material, of experiences and usages of internet and networked digital media in India.
Exploring and practicing new modes of research and documentation necessitated by new (digital) forms of objects of power/knowledge.

Studying Internet in India

The inaugural conference will be held in Delhi (to be confirmed) on February 25-27, 2015. It will comprise of discussion and workshop sessions taking place during the first two days, and a writing sprint and a final round table taking place during the third day.

The conference will specifically focus on the following questions:

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?
What tools and methods are made available by arts, humanities, social science, and technical disciplines to study internet in India; how and where do they fail to meet the purpose; what revisions and fresh tool building are becoming necessary; and how should the usage of such tools and methods be taught?
Given the global techno-economic contours of the internet, and the starkly hierarchical and segmented experiences and usages of the same in India, how do we begin to use the internet as a space for academic and creative practice and intervention?

Sessions

The conference will not be organised around papers but sessions. Each session will be one and half hour long. Potential participants may propose sessions that largely engage with one of the questions listed above.

Each proposed session must have at least two, and preferably three, co-leaders, who will drive the session, and prepare a session document after the conference. The proposed session can either involve a discussion, or a workshop.

In a discussion session, the co-leaders may present their works (not necessarily of the academic kind), or invite others to present their works, on a specific theme, which will be followed by a discussion, as structured by the co-leaders.

In a workshop session, the co-leaders will engage the participants to undertake individual or collaborative work in response to a series of questions, challenges, or provocations offered by the co-leaders at the beginning of the session. The proposed work may involve writing, searching, copying, building, etc., but not speaking.

Both the kinds of sessions are open to presentations and collaborations in the textual format or in other formats, including but not limited to code-based works and multimedia installations.

Writing Sprint

At the writing sprint, on the third day morning, all the participants will collaboratively put together the first draft of a handbook on tools and methods of studying Internet in India. It will be created as an online, open access, multilingual, and editable (wiki-like) book, and will be meant for extensive usage and augmentation by students, researchers, and others.

Final Round Table

This will take place after the lunch on the third day to wrap-up the conversations (and propose new initiatives, hopefully) emerging during the previous days of the conference, to make plans for follow-up works (including the first IRC Reader), and to speculate about the shape of the next year’s conference.

IRC Reader

The IRC Reader will be produced as documentation of the conversations and activities at the conference. The Reader, obviously, will have the same theme as the conference, and will largely comprise of the session documentation (not necessarily textual) prepared by the co-leaders of the session concerned. Once all the session documentation is shared by the co-leaders and is temporarily published online, all the participants will be invited to share their comments, which will all be part of the final Reader of the conference.

Proposing a Session

To propose a session, each team of two/three co-leaders will have to submit the following documents:

The name of the session: It should be created as a hashtag, as in #BlackLivesMatter, or #RefugeesWelcome.
A plan of the proposed session that should clarify its context, the key questions/challenges/provocations for the session, and how they connect to any one of the four questions listed above. Write no more than one page.
If it is a discussion session: Mention what will be presented at the session, and who will present it. Share the abstracts of the papers to be presented (if any). Each abstract should not be longer than 300 words.
If it is a workshop session: Mention what you expect the participants to do during the session, and how the co-leaders will support them through the work. Write no more than one page.
Three readings, or objects, or software that you expect the participants to know about before taking part in the session.
CVs of all the co-leaders of the session.

We understand that finding co-leaders for a session you have in mind might be difficult in certain cases. One possible way for you to find co-leaders is by sharing your session idea on the researchers@cis-india.org mailing list. Alternatively, you may keep an eye on the list to see what potential topics are being discussed. If you are facing any difficulty subscribing to the mailing list, please write to raw@cis-india.org.

All session proposals must be submitted by Sunday, November 22 (extended), 2015, via email sent to raw@cis-india.org.

Selection of Sessions

All proposed sessions, along with related documents, will be published online by November 30. All co-leaders of proposed sessions will be invited to vote for 8 sessions before December 15. The sessions with maximum votes will be selected for the conference, and the list of such sessions will be published on December 31, 2015.

Venue, Accommodation, and Travel

The conference is most likely to take place in Delhi on February 25-27, 2016. The place, dates, and venue will be confirmed by December 31, 2015.

The conference organiser(s) will cover all costs related to accommodation and hospitality during the conference.

Unfortunately, we are not sure if we will be able to pay for travel expenses of the participants. We will confirm this by December 31, 2015.

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