Centre for Internet and Society

Internet Freedom At Home: Governments, Companies Need Accountability, Speakers Say

praskrishna — 2012-06-28T05:27:43Z

The freedom to access the internet does not translate into freedom of expression in many countries of the world, including in western economies, according to speakers at a peer forum organised yesterday by the United States mission to the United Nations in Geneva.

Catherine Saez wrote this for Intellectual Property Watch on June 22, 2012

Both governments and companies, prime providers of internet surveillance technologies in particular in the developed countries, need to be held accountable for the destination and use of those technologies, some of which run counter to human rights.

The peer forum on internet freedom and human rights was held on 21 June and gathered technology experts, and human right activists, with the participation of the mission’s Internet Freedom Fellows programme, organised since 2011 in parallel with the UN Human Rights Council.

Freedom to connect exists in most countries where internet surveillance runs counter to human rights but not freedom from fear, Rebecca MacKinnon, former CNN journalist and co-founder of Global Voices Online said.

“Internet freedom does not mean just free networks, it means free people,” MacKinnon said. “Accomplishing that and constraining the abuse of power across digital networks is a tough problem.”

Strong Global Standard Needed, Democracies also Concerned

In the Internet Age, it is technically trivial both for corporations and governments to gain access to people’s private communications, she said. The issue is that without strong global standards the empowering potential of the internet is going to be diminished, she said. This is true not only for interconnection but also public transparency and accountability in how surveillance technologies are developed, deployed. And it applies to how information is shared between governments and between companies and governments.

Even in democracies, “we are really struggling” with the issue of how to make sure that in the legitimate fight against crime, terrorism, cyber attacks, which all are real problems, the mechanisms put in place are not abused, she said. How can it ensured that those who hold power through those mechanisms will be accountable when they use that power for purposes that were not intended, she asked. She cited a recent report from the American Civil Liberties Union http://www.aclu.org/spy-files on widespread surveillance by US law enforcement agencies across the US.

Surveillance technologies “are being sold very obviously to governments who clearly are going to abuse that technology,” she said. She mentioned what has been nicknamed the “Wiretappers’ Ball” to describe trade fairs run by a company which invites law enforcement and security agencies from around the world to meet with companies that built those technologies.

The last one of those fairs was held “not too far from Washington, DC” and 35 US federal agencies were present, along with representatives of 43 different countries, she said, with ” no questions asked.”

A lot of these technologies are being built or developed primarily by western companies with western governments as prime customers, but are being sold blatantly to countries like Azerbaijan (which has been reported recently for its crackdown on free expression) and others, she said.

As a major customer, the United States needs to demand transparency on the part of these companies about where those technologies are being sold and used, MacKinnon said, adding, “Internet freedom starts at home.”

There is a need to demand that governments be accountable and transparent on what surveillance technologies exist and how they are being deployed and used, and not only at the domestic level, but globally.

As an example of transparency, she cited the Google transparency report, which lists the number of requests from governments around the world both for user information and takedown requests. MacKinnon said the top requesters were democratic governments.

All companies should be requested to provide similar transparency reports, she said, and governments should also issue transparency reports about the number of requests they are making. “There should be ways to do this without compromising active investigation,” she said.

MacKinnon recently published a book entitled, “Consent of the Networked.”

Internet: Shopping Mall or Public Square
A panel discussion addressed the protection of human rights in a world of global networks in which two visions of the internet were described. One is§ the internet as a shopping mall, mainly owned by private interests, the other one as a public square.

Robert Whelan from the International Committee of the Red Cross raised the concept of informed consent in the context of victims of armed conflicts. The victims of violation of human rights law have the right to know what information is going to be used about their experience, or their story, he said. They should know where this information will go, who is going to see it, have access to it, where that information is going to be replicated or reproduced and when will that information will be deleted, he added.

The challenge is to put the civilian victims at the centre, and in control of the information about their experience. This is at odds with the concept of free exchange of information, he said, citing as examples the “re-tweeting” and reproducing of articles, photographs and names on the internet.

Nicolas Seidler from the Internet Society said the internet is not “the wild west” but just the digital version of the real world, and as such is subject to the same human rights instruments. The challenge is that no new rights are needed; rather the need is to implement and reinforce human rights standards on the internet, he said. Governments’ management of the internet is but a reflection of their overall management, he said.

For Brett Solomon, executive director of Accessnow.org, a US-based nongovernmental organisation pushing for digital freedom, several issues are laid out in the “Silicon Valley Standard” [pdf]. The standard was developed after the Silicon Valley human rights conference held in San Francisco in 2011.

The effort to protect rights holders and copyrights by the copyright industry, which he qualified as “voracious,” is putting internet intermediaries at risk of liability, he said.

Effective internet security is essential, he said, as “there is no freedom of speech unless people feel safe and secure.” He called for the right to encryption of web activity. “Technology companies must provide a basic level of security … to their users by default and resist bans and curtailments of the use of encryption,” the standard says.

David Sullivan, policy and communications director for the Global Network Initiative (GNI) presented the initiative, which gathers information and communication technology stakeholders and provides a framework for companies based on international standards. Companies that commit to GNI standards also commit to being assessed independently, he said, on how they implement principles, if they have policies and procedures in place to meet standards and accountability commitments.

Sullivan cited the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), the failed US legislation, as a policy effort aimed at solving one problem around copyright infringing material that is was “going to have deeply worrisome repercussions around the world as other countries look at that example in ways that could have deeply problematic consequences in terms of censorship.”

This year, the human right activists participating in the Internet Freedom Fellows programme are: Dishad Othman from Syria, Pranesh Prakash from India, Koundjoro Gabriel Kambou from Burkina Faso, Sopheap Chak from Cambodia, Andreas Azpurua from Venezuela and Emin Milli from Azerbaijan. Short biographies are here.

Emin Milli, a writer who was imprisoned for expressing his opinion in Azerbajian, said he looked at internet as a public square and not a shopping mall but the situations vastly differ from one country to the other, he added, as contexts are very different. The Eurovision song contest, which was held in the country this year, was a great opportunity for civil society, with the help of international media to draw attention to the situation of Azerbaijan.

Dishad Othman, a Syrian activist and IT engineer, characterised himself as a security activist as he is helping people to use tools to hide themselves on the internet. Sharing experiences from different countries is very important, he said, calling for a larger group of international activists who could help people but also technology companies to provide a safer environment and to promote freedom on the internet so that “all people can benefit from it.”

Pranesh Prakash, programme manager at the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore, said people have tools to protect themselves from surveillance that they do not use. In particular, he said, many journalists do not know how to use those tools, especially in the context of journalists’ computers and files that are seized, endangering their sources.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/internet-freedom-at-home

Securing e-Governance

natasha — 2012-06-26T06:45:26Z

On June 16, 2012, Privacy India in partnership with the Centre for Internet & Society, Bangalore, International Development Research Centre, Canada, Privacy International, UK and the Society in Action Group, Gurgaon organised a public discussion on “Securing e-Governance: Ensuring Data Protection and Privacy”, at the Ahmedabad Management Association.

The conversation brought together a cross section of citizens, lawyers, activists, researchers, academia and students.

	Prashant Iyengar, Assistant Professor, Jindal Global Law, opened the conference with an explanation of Privacy India’s mandate to raise awareness, spark civil action and promote democratic dialogue around privacy challenges and violations in India. He summarized the series of eight consultation previously organized across India in Kolkata on January 23, 2011, in Bangalore on February 5, 2011, in Ahmedabad on March 26, 2011, in Guwahati on June 23, 2011, in Chennai on August 6, 2011, in Mumbai on January 21, 2012, in New Delhi on February 3, 2012 and again in New Delhi on February 4, 2012. He described an egregious instance where the State Government of Karnataka, announced a plan to “post on its website all details of (1.51 crore) ration cardholders in the state”, to weed out duplicate ration cards and promote transparency. Details posted on the website would include the “ration card number, category of card (BPL/APL), names and photographs of the head and other members of a family, address, sources of income, LPG gas connection and number of cylinders in village/taluk/district wise.” An official said, “This would also work as a marriage bureau, for instance, a boy can see a photograph of a girl on the website and see whether she suits him”.[1] He described another embarrassing incident, which took place in 2008. Sixteen surveillance cameras were stolen from the Taj Mahal. After they had been replaced, in December 2010, it was reported that all of the CCTVs in the Taj Mahal had stopped working due to a “virus attack” on their computer systems. The district administration and the police department were apparently in disagreement as to who bore the burden of their maintenance.

Prashant Iyengar, Assistant Professor, Jindal Global Law, opened the conference with an explanation of Privacy India’s mandate to raise awareness, spark civil action and promote democratic dialogue around privacy challenges and violations in India. He summarized the series of eight consultation previously organized across India in Kolkata on January 23, 2011, in Bangalore on February 5, 2011, in Ahmedabad on March 26, 2011, in Guwahati on June 23, 2011, in Chennai on August 6, 2011, in Mumbai on January 21, 2012, in New Delhi on February 3, 2012 and again in New Delhi on February 4, 2012.

He described an egregious instance where the State Government of Karnataka, announced a plan to “post on its website all details of (1.51 crore) ration cardholders in the state”, to weed out duplicate ration cards and promote transparency. Details posted on the website would include the “ration card number, category of card (BPL/APL), names and photographs of the head and other members of a family, address, sources of income, LPG gas connection and number of cylinders in village/taluk/district wise.” An official said, “This would also work as a marriage bureau, for instance, a boy can see a photograph of a girl on the website and see whether she suits him”.[1]

He described another embarrassing incident, which took place in 2008. Sixteen surveillance cameras were stolen from the Taj Mahal. After they had been replaced, in December 2010, it was reported that all of the CCTVs in the Taj Mahal had stopped working due to a “virus attack” on their computer systems. The district administration and the police department were apparently in disagreement as to who bore the burden of their maintenance.

Prof. Subhash Bhatnagar, Advisor Center for e-Governance IIM, Ahmedabad, dismissed the notion that privacy is irrelevant in India. A survey on e-governance, of 50,000 people conducted in major cities of India shows that confidentiality and security of data were among the top 3 concerns among 20 choices. He discussed various mission mode projects in the National e-Governance Plan that holds and shares large amounts of data on individuals and business. He referred to his personal experience when enrolling for UID. He noticed that the box concerning consent for sharing of information with third parties was, by default, automatically ticked. When he asked the UID staff, they mentioned that the software does not allow for enrollment to continue if the box is not ticked. He called for increased vigilance among citizens, a phone helpline dedicated to resolution of privacy intrusions and sensitizing designers of e-Governance projects.

Prof. Subhash Bhatnagar, Advisor Center for e-Governance IIM, Ahmedabad, dismissed the notion that privacy is irrelevant in India. A survey on e-governance, of 50,000 people conducted in major cities of India shows that confidentiality and security of data were among the top 3 concerns among 20 choices. He discussed various mission mode projects in the National e-Governance Plan that holds and shares large amounts of data on individuals and business. He referred to his personal experience when enrolling for UID. He noticed that the box concerning consent for sharing of information with third parties was, by default, automatically ticked. When he asked the UID staff, they mentioned that the software does not allow for enrollment to continue if the box is not ticked. He called for increased vigilance among citizens, a phone helpline dedicated to resolution of privacy intrusions and sensitizing designers of e-Governance projects.

	Dr. Nityesh Bhatt, Sr. Associate Prof and Chairperson-Information Management Area, Institute of Management, Nirma University, Ahmedabad, stressed the importance of limiting access of information on a need-to-know basis, which is one of the most fundamental security principles. He described various characteristics of information security management including: planning, policy, programs, protection, people and project management. Lastly, he recommended ‘SETA’ as an essential program, designed to reduce the incidence of accidental security breaches by employees, contractors, consultants, vendors, and business partners. A SETA program consists of three elements: security education, security training, and security awareness. It can improve employee behavior and enables the organization to hold employees accountable for their actions.

Dr. Nityesh Bhatt, Sr. Associate Prof and Chairperson-Information Management Area, Institute of Management, Nirma University, Ahmedabad, stressed the importance of limiting access of information on a need-to-know basis, which is one of the most fundamental security principles. He described various characteristics of information security management including: planning, policy, programs, protection, people and project management. Lastly, he recommended ‘SETA’ as an essential program, designed to reduce the incidence of accidental security breaches by employees, contractors, consultants, vendors, and business partners. A SETA program consists of three elements: security education, security training, and security awareness. It can improve employee behavior and enables the organization to hold employees accountable for their actions.

Dr. Neeta Shah, Director (e-Governance) Gujarat Informatics Limited, described the extent of e-governance initiatives in Gujarat (there are more than 100 e-governance applications running) and its impact. She discussed successful e-governance initiatives that have helped solve critical problems such as the online teacher application process, which accelerates the recruitment process of primary teachers. E-governance applications of various departments ensure security of data and privacy protection through the following measures: Network security (NIPS, Firewalls, content filtering, HIPS, antivirus, etc.) Data security (robust SAN environment with high raid levels to prevent any data loss) Application security (audited by empanelled TPA) DR/BCP provisioning (real-time data is replicated to DR site in case of any physical calamity or damage to resources at primary site, backup exists at remote different seismological locations) When designing e-government projects, the government tends to think about security of the system, but not privacy of the data. Security in the minds of the government is achieved through strengthening infrastructure, but they often overlook the human dynamic.

Dr. Neeta Shah, Director (e-Governance) Gujarat Informatics Limited, described the extent of e-governance initiatives in Gujarat (there are more than 100 e-governance applications running) and its impact. She discussed successful e-governance initiatives that have helped solve critical problems such as the online teacher application process, which accelerates the recruitment process of primary teachers.

E-governance applications of various departments ensure security of data and privacy protection through the following measures:

Network security (NIPS, Firewalls, content filtering, HIPS, antivirus, etc.)
Data security (robust SAN environment with high raid levels to prevent any data loss)
Application security (audited by empanelled TPA)
DR/BCP provisioning (real-time data is replicated to DR site in case of any physical calamity or damage to resources at primary site, backup exists at remote different seismological locations)

When designing e-government projects, the government tends to think about security of the system, but not privacy of the data. Security in the minds of the government is achieved through strengthening infrastructure, but they often overlook the human dynamic.

Gopalkrishnan Devnathan (Kris dev), Co-founder, International Transparency and Accountability Network, described e-Governance as the application of Information and Communication Technology for delivering government services. It involves the integration of various systems and services between Government-to-Citizens, Government-to-Business, Government-to-Government as well as back office processes and interactions within the entire government framework. E-governance initiatives can ensure privacy and security through: Securing data/transaction using Smart Card with triple access control, Card, PIN and Biometrics (multimodal) Mirrored data storage with proper security Indelible audit trail using encrypted flat file Prevent server intrusion and data theft upfront rather than do post-mortem analysis Information on data accessed can be communicated on real time basis using ICT tools Lastly, he identified the usefulness, inhibitions and potential security solutions for the Unique Identification System.

Gopalkrishnan Devnathan (Kris dev), Co-founder, International Transparency and Accountability Network, described e-Governance as the application of Information and Communication Technology for delivering government services. It involves the integration of various systems and services between Government-to-Citizens, Government-to-Business, Government-to-Government as well as back office processes and interactions within the entire government framework. E-governance initiatives can ensure privacy and security through:

Securing data/transaction using Smart Card with triple access control, Card, PIN and Biometrics (multimodal)
Mirrored data storage with proper security
Indelible audit trail using encrypted flat file
Prevent server intrusion and data theft upfront rather than do post-mortem analysis
Information on data accessed can be communicated on real time basis using ICT tools

Lastly, he identified the usefulness, inhibitions and potential security solutions for the Unique Identification System.

	Anindya Kumar Banerjee, Regional Manager- East, CG & MP at Ncomputing Inc., discussed a comparative analysis of e-governance initiatives in India. He analyzed various factors such as ease of use, simplicity of procedures, time savings compared to manual, affordable cost of service and reduction in corruption. He described the difference infrastructural threats of security and privacy in e-Governance.

Anindya Kumar Banerjee, Regional Manager- East, CG & MP at Ncomputing Inc., discussed a comparative analysis of e-governance initiatives in India. He analyzed various factors such as ease of use, simplicity of procedures, time savings compared to manual, affordable cost of service and reduction in corruption. He described the difference infrastructural threats of security and privacy in e-Governance.

Dr. Mrinalini Shah, Professor of Operations Management at Institute of Management Technology, Ghaziabad identified the slow legal system and multiple jurisdiction system as a challenge for privacy and security of data and implementations of suitable access controls and authorization as a helping factor.

Utkarsh Jani, Advocate, Jani Advocates, described the relevant section of the Information Technology Act (ITA) relating to privacy and the political and social challenges surrounding the right to privacy. He discussed the right to privacy vis-à-vis data protection. Though the ITA does enforce a level of data protection, it is far from flawless.

The ITA lacks the following:

The definition and classification of data types.

The nature and protection of the categories of data.

Data controllers and data processors have distinct
Clear restrictions on the manner of data collection.
Clear guidelines on the purposes for which the data can be put and to whom it can be sent.

Standards and technical measures governing the collection, storage, access to, protection, retention and destruction of data.
It does not provide strong safeguard and penalties against the aforesaid breaches.

Sunny Vaghela, Founder and CTO, TechDefence Pvt. Ltd., provided a hacker’s perspective to security and privacy issues in e-governance. Cyber crimes such as privacy violations and data breaches are increasing because of the dependence on complex computer infrastructures. Complex computer infrastructures make systems vulnerable because if one application is hacked, the entire network can be accessed and compromised. He conducted a live demonstration, showing how simple it is to hack into a government website. From his personal experience as an ethical hacker, he stated that government agencies are extremely negligent about the privacy and the security of data. A major concern with e-governance websites is that they not designed with privacy in mind, leaving the personal and private details of citizens vulnerable. He called for full penetration testing and vulnerability assessment of e-governance portals in order to maintain the privacy of citizens and protect government data. Some government websites that were hacked include AMC e-governance (was awarded one best e-governance award in 2010), CBI server and the Income Tax of India server. Lastly, he described the frequent mistakes made by the government in e-Governance projects. The government started using the e-Governance systems in 2003. Typically, three things are a component of the application: the person, the source code and the database, but the security is on the network. Governments work on developing the network to be secure, but they often overlook the application. A solution to this could be the use of high interaction honey pots.

Sunny Vaghela, Founder and CTO, TechDefence Pvt. Ltd., provided a hacker’s perspective to security and privacy issues in e-governance. Cyber crimes such as privacy violations and data breaches are increasing because of the dependence on complex computer infrastructures. Complex computer infrastructures make systems vulnerable because if one application is hacked, the entire network can be accessed and compromised.

He conducted a live demonstration, showing how simple it is to hack into a government website. From his personal experience as an ethical hacker, he stated that government agencies are extremely negligent about the privacy and the security of data. A major concern with e-governance websites is that they not designed with privacy in mind, leaving the personal and private details of citizens vulnerable.

He called for full penetration testing and vulnerability assessment of e-governance portals in order to maintain the privacy of citizens and protect government data. Some government websites that were hacked include AMC e-governance (was awarded one best e-governance award in 2010), CBI server and the Income Tax of India server.

Lastly, he described the frequent mistakes made by the government in e-Governance projects. The government started using the e-Governance systems in 2003. Typically, three things are a component of the application: the person, the source code and the database, but the security is on the network. Governments work on developing the network to be secure, but they often overlook the application. A solution to this could be the use of high interaction honey pots.

	Nisha Thompson, Data Project Manager at Arghyam/ India Water Portal, discussed the increased amount of data generated through e-governance initiatives and its impact. When more data is generated and collected, politics and privacy become intertwined. There can be a conflict between opening up data and privacy thus; one needs to decide on parameters. For example, with regards to privacy and national security, parameters should be in place to determine where privacy ends and the public good starts. In India, this line does not begin with the individual as it does in many contexts. Collective privacy in India is important. She described various online tools that increase transparency and awareness such as: Transparency Chennai, India Governs and I Paid a Bribe. Over the course of the day, participants engaged in lively discussion on various issues such as the objectives and features of e-governance, examples of e-governance projects, and the parameters, problems, loopholes and tensions in e-governance projects. Participants response to privacy concerns have to a large extent focused on the fact that e-Governance is a double-edge sword. E-governance initiatives are an invariable tool for ensuring wider participation and deeper involvement of citizens, institutions, NGOs as well as private firms in the decision making process. However, the political and regulatory environment must be strengthened.

Nisha Thompson, Data Project Manager at Arghyam/ India Water Portal, discussed the increased amount of data generated through e-governance initiatives and its impact. When more data is generated and collected, politics and privacy become intertwined. There can be a conflict between opening up data and privacy thus; one needs to decide on parameters. For example, with regards to privacy and national security, parameters should be in place to determine where privacy ends and the public good starts. In India, this line does not begin with the individual as it does in many contexts. Collective privacy in India is important. She described various online tools that increase transparency and awareness such as: Transparency Chennai, India Governs and I Paid a Bribe.

Over the course of the day, participants engaged in lively discussion on various issues such as the objectives and features of e-governance, examples of e-governance projects, and the parameters, problems, loopholes and tensions in e-governance projects.

Participants response to privacy concerns have to a large extent focused on the fact that e-Governance is a double-edge sword. E-governance initiatives are an invariable tool for ensuring wider participation and deeper involvement of citizens, institutions, NGOs as well as private firms in the decision making process. However, the political and regulatory environment must be strengthened.

About Privacy India

Privacy India was established in 2010 with the objective of raising awareness, sparking civil action and promoting democratic dialogue around privacy challenges and violations in India. One of our goals is to build consensus towards the promulgation of comprehensive privacy legislation in India through consultations with the public, policymakers, legislators and the legal and academic community.

[1] Nagesh Prabhu, A way to check bogus ration cards, THE HINDU, September 18, 2010, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-karnataka/article696087.ece (last visited Oct 23, 2011).

Click below to download the following resources:

E-Governance, Identity and Privacy [PDF, 253 Kb]
Event Brochure [PDF, 1618 Kb]

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/securing-e-governance-event-report

CENSORSHIP 2020: The Future of Free Speech Online

praskrishna — 2012-06-28T10:01:00Z

The DC Chapter of the Internet Society, in conjunction with the U.S. Department of State, invite you to an informal discussion on CENSORSHIP 2020: The Future of Free Speech Online on Monday, June 25, 2012.

Published in Communication, Culture & Technology. For more info, visit here.

The Arab Spring demonstrated how Internet technologies such as Twitter, blogs, and Facebook could be used to mobilize protesters, publicize corruption and human rights violations, and connect activists and emigres. But in Iran , Syria , and elsewhere, we have seen repressive governments use the Internet to identify and track dissidents, to spread disinformation, and defame political opponents. Will the technologies of anonymization win out over new digital monitoring tools? Will new wireless data technologies foster democracy--or lead to more effective tracking and surveillance? Join us for an informal discussion with six people fighting for free speech on the Internet in their country--and around the world:

Dlshad Othman (Syria), an activist and IT engineer providing Syrians with digital security tools
Pranesh Prakash (India), a blogger and cyberlaw expert who is promoting a free Internet and online freedom of speech.
Koundjoro Gabriel Kambou (Burkina Faso), a journalist at Lefaso.net, is promoting human rights, democracy particularly among young people.
Sopheap Chak (Cambodia), the Deputy Director of the Cambodian Center for Human Rights (CCHR) and one of Cambodia ’s leading bloggers.
Andres Azpurua (Venezuela) has trained 300 youth on using Web 2.0 tools to publicize human rights violations.
Emin Milli (Azerbaijan), a writer who is using YouTube, Facebook and Twitter to spread information about human rights violations.

Moderator: Ambassador (ret.) Richard Kauzarlich, Deputy Director, Terrorism, Transnational Crime and Corruption Center (TraCCC), George Mason University, http://traccc.gmu.edu/

Hosted by the Communication, Culture and Technology Program of Georgetown University 2nd Floor, Car Barn, 3520 Prospect St., N.W. , Washington , DC (enter from Prospect St.)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/censorship-2020

Read Our Annual Reports and Audit Reports

Admin — 2025-12-29T14:02:33Z

Click on the links below to access our annual and audit reports.

Centre for Internet & Society Audit Reports 2024-2025 Quarterly receipt of Foreign contribution - Q1 (April - June 2024) Quarterly receipt of Foreign contribution - Q2 (July - September 2024) Quarterly receipt of Foreign contribution - Q3 (October - December 2024) Consolidated Audited Financials (FY 2024 - 2025) Centre for Internet & Society Audit Reports 2023-2024 Quarterly receipt of Foreign contribution - Q1 (April - June 2023) Quarterly receipt of Foreign contribution - Q2 (July - September 2023) Quarterly receipt of Foreign contribution - Q3 (October - December 2023) Quarterly receipt of Foreign contribution - Q4 (January - March 2024) Consolidated Audited Financials (FY 2023 - 2024) Centre for Internet & Society Audit Reports 2022-2023 Consolidated Financials (FY 2022 - 2023 + Audit Report) Quarterly receipt of Foreign contribution - Q1 (April - June 2022) Quarterly receipt of Foreign contribution - Q2 (July - September 2022) Quarterly receipt of Foreign contribution - Q3 (October - December 2022) Quarterly receipt of Foreign contribution - Q4 (January - March 2023) Centre for Internet & Society Audit Reports 2021-2022 Quarterly receipt of Foreign contribution - Q1 (April - June 2021) Quarterly receipt of Foreign contribution - Q2 (July - September 2021) Quarterly receipt of Foreign contribution - Q3 (October - December 2021) Quarterly receipt of Foreign contribution - Q4 (January - March 2022) CIS Signed Consolidated Audited Financials (FY 2021-22 + Audit Report) Centre for Internet & Society Audit Report 2020-2021 Download Audit Report (2020-21), (PDF, 926 KB) Quarterly receipt of Foreign contribution - Q1 (April - June 2020) Quarterly receipt of Foreign contribution - Q2 (July - September 2020) Quarterly receipt of Foreign contribution - Q3 (October - December 2020) Quarterly receipt of Foreign contribution - Q4 (January - March 2021) Centre for Internet & Society Annual Report 2020-21 Download Programmatic Annual Report (April 2020 - March 2021) Centre for Internet & Society Audit Reports 2019-2020 Download Audit Report (2019-20), (PDF, 1060 KB) Quarterly receipt of Foreign contribution - Q1 (April - June 2019) Quarterly receipt of Foreign Contributions - Q3 (October - December 2019) Quarterly receipt of Foreign Contributions - Q4 (January - March 2020)
Centre for Internet & Society Audit Report 2018-19 Download Annual Report Download Audit Report Quarterly receipt of Foreign contribution - Q3(Oct - Dec) 2018
Centre for Internet & Society Annual Report 2019-20 Download Annual Report (2019-20)
Centre for Internet & Society Annual Report 2017-18 Download Annual Report (2017-18), (PDF, 4809 Kb) Download Consolidated Financial Statements (2017-18)
Centre for Internet & Society Annual Report 2016-17 Download Annual Report (2016-17), (PDF, 1327 Kb) Download Consolidated Financial Statements (2016-17)
Centre for Internet & Society Annual Report 2015-16 Download Annual Report (2015-16) (PDF, 3559 Kb) Download Audit Report (2015-16), (PDF, 1907 Kb)
Centre for Internet & Society Annual Report 2014-15 CIS in partnership with the Office of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities and the Centre for Law and Policy Research compiled the National Compendium of Laws, Policies, Programmes for Persons with Disabilities. During the year CIS signed memorandum of understandings with Mysore University (for converting to Unicode and re-releasing their encyclopaedia under Creative Commons License); Shri Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara College (to introduce Indian Language Wikipedias in the Indian Under-Graduate and Post Graduate Classroom); Andhra Loyola College (for 5 years to enhance Telugu Wikipedia through increased contributions to Wikipedia and make it available under free license); and Nirmala Institute of Education, Goa (to enhance digital literacy in Konkani in the education sector across Goa). CIS also conducted an empirical study of five separate and diverse banks (State Bank of India, Central Bank of India, ICICI Bank, IndusInd Bank, and Standard Chartered Bank) to gain a practical perspective on the existing banking practices and policies in India, and published a Banking Policy Guide. Further CIS took part in the WIPO-SCCR meetings. India became the first country to ratify the Marrakesh Treaty and the Accessible Books Consortium was launched. Download Annual Report (2014-15) (PDF, 1 Mb) Download Audit Report (2014-15) (PDF, 527 Kb)
Centre for Internet & Society Annual Report 2013-14 CIS celebrated five years of existence with an exhibition showcasing its works and accomplishments since it was founded in 2008. Along with CLPR, CIS published a report on making the General Elections of 2014 participatory and accessible for voters with disablities. CIS signed a memorandum of understanding with Christ University, Bangalore, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai, KIIT University and Kalinga Institute of Social Sciences for furthering the growth of Indian languages on Wikipedia. CIS is working with Privacy International on the Surveillance and Freedom: Global Understandings and Rights Development (SAFEGUARD) project and as part of the work drafted the Privacy Protection Bill. CIS hosted the second Institute on Internet and Society at Pune from February 11 to 17, 2014. The Knowledge Repository was compiled and presented to the participants. Download Annual Report (2013-14) (PDF, 1.3 Mb) Download Audit Report (2013-14) (PDF, 7174 Kb)
Centre for Internet & Society Annual Report 2012-13 CIS is working on two projects: Creating a National Kit of Laws, Policies and Programmes for Persons with Disabilities and Developing an open source screen reading software solution “NVDA” to handle Indian languages and text-to-speech software in 15 Indian languages with the Hans Foundation. CIS published a report on Accessibility of Government Websites in India with the Hans Foundation and the Consumers International IP Watchlist 2012 — India Report with Consumers International. Wikimedia Foundation awarded a two-year grant to support and develop free knowledge in India and consequently, CIS got a new office in Delhi. Pranesh Prakash's preliminary analysis on blocked websites was featured in leading publications like Wall Street Journal, Hindu, Outlook, etc., and as part of the Google Policy Fellowship, brought out a report on Intermediary Liability in India, and initiated a project on The Internet Institute with the Ford Foundation. Download Annual Report (2012-13) (PDF, 2211 Kb) Download Audit Report (2012-13) (PDF, 2813 Kb)
Centre for Internet & Society Annual Report 2011-12 CIS published a new improved edition of the Web Accessibility Policy Making: An International Perspective with G3ict and Hans Foundation, prepared a report on Making Mobile Phones and Services Accessible for Persons with Disabilities with ITU and G3ict, negotiated meetings at WIPO and with the Third World Network conducted an Analysis of WIPO Treaty for the Print Disabled, published a report on the state of Open Government Data in India with the Transparency & Accountability Initiative, published outputs on IT Act, Limitations, Copyright, Internet Protocol, Media, Sexual Minorities, and UID with Privacy International, UK and Society in Action Group, Gurgaon, produced a report titled Intermediary Liability in India: Chilling Effects on Free Expression on the Internet 2011 with Google and released five monographs: Archives and Access, Porn: Law, Video & Technology, The Last Cultural Mile, Re:Wiring Bodies and Internet, Society and Space in Indian Cities. Download Annual Report (2011-12) (PDF, 1956 Kb) Download Audit Report (2011-12) (PDF, 21,313 Kb)
Centre for Internet & Society Annual Report 2010-11 CIS distributed for peer five monographs titled Re: Wiring Bodies, Pornography and the Law, Archive and Access, The Last Cultural Mile and Internet, Society and Space in Indian Cities for peer review, published a Position Paper in collaboration with Hivos and organised workshops on Digital Natives with a Cause in Taipei, Johannesburg, and Santiago, the e-Accessibility Policy Handbook for Persons with Disabilities with G3ict and ITU, a report on Open Government Data with Transparency & Accountability Initiative, a report on Online Video Environment in India with iCommons and Open Video Alliance and two workshops on Privacy Matters in Kolkata and Bangalore in partnership with Privacy India and Society in Action Group. Download Annual Report (2010-11) (PDF, 1872 Kb) Download Audit Report (2010-11) (PDF, 14823 Kb)
Centre for Internet & Society Annual Report 2009-10 CIS and the Institute of Network Cultures entered into a collaboration to produce a Reader on the Wikipedia, in partnership with Hivos published a report, Digital Natives with a Cause?, entered into research collaborations with the Centre for Study of Culture and Society for the Networked Higher Education Initiative, taught courses at Centre for Media and Cultural Studies, the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai, Women’s Studies Centre, Pune University, Christ University, Bangalore, Mudra Institute of Communications, Ahmedabad, Shanghai University and the New Media Lab, Jadavpur University, co-organised a nationwide Right to Read Campaign in Chennai, Kolkata, Delhi and Mumbai, prepared the India Country Report for Consumers International and organised the Maps for Making Change workshops in Delhi and Ahmedabad. Download Annual Report for 2009-10 (PDF, 1952 Kb) Download Audit Report for 2009-10 (PDF, 9.5 Mb)
Centre for Internet & Society Annual Report 2008-09 CIS drafted a policy on web accessibility for the National Informatics Centre, worked on a comparative study of major international web and ATM accessibility policies for the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, worked with the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research to formulate recommendations to make research publications open access.entered into partnership with LexUM for the Free Access to Law project and signed contracts with researchers for producing monographs on Re: Wiring Bodies, Archive and Access, Pornography and the Law, and The Last Cultural Mile. Download Annual Report (2008-09) (PDF, 561 Kb) Download Audit Report (2008-09) (PDF, 7.05 Mb)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/reports/annual-reports

Annual Report (2009-10)

praskrishna — 2012-06-20T11:54:08Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/accessibility/annual-report-2009.pdf

Global Networks, Individual Freedoms: A Peer Forum on Internet Freedom and Human Rights

praskrishna — 2012-06-28T09:12:28Z

In Connection with the 2012 Internet Freedom Fellows Program, the United States Mission to the United Nations in Geneva is pleased to invite Pranesh Prakash to a peer forum at the United States Mission to the United Nations on Thursday, June 21, 2012, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.

Join the Internet Freedom Fellows, diplomats, UN representatives, civil society, technologists and social media experts, Geneva media and other professionals engaged in the intersection of human rights, internet freedom and technology.

This peer forum is part of the Internet Freedom Fellows program, which brings human rights activists from across the globe to Geneva, Washington, and Silicon Valley to meet with fellow activists, U.S. and international government leaders, and members of civil society and the private sector engaged in technology and human rights.

This year’s Internet Freedom Fellows, all human rights activists and active practitioners of digital media, are from Syria, India, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Venezuela and Azerbaijan.

For additional information on the program, please visit Internet Freedom Fellows.

Program

9:00 a.m.	Welcome and introduction David Kennedy / John Horniblow
9:15 - 10:15	Freedom to Connect and Freedom from Fear: The problem of surveillance in a networked world. Rebecca MacKinnon – Co Founder Global Voices Online, Author “Consent of the Networked”, Boards of Directors of the Committee to Protect Journalists and the Global Network Initiative
10:15 - 10:45	Developing Networked Voices and Promoting the protection of Human Rights Andreas Harsono, blogger and human rights activist (Indonesia), and Rosebell Kagumire, multimedia journalist working on peace and conflict issues in the Eastern Africa region (Uganda) 2011 Internet Freedom Fellows and journalists (via Skype)
10:45 - 11:00	Coffee break
11:00 - 12:00	Moderated Panel Discussion – How Do we Protect Human Rights in a world of global networks? How do the needs of the grassroots, civil society and business inform the process of upholding the UDHR and IHL in networks and technologies? Dr. Robert Whelan (ICRC), Pranesh Prakash, Salil Trepathi (IHRB), Nicolas Seidler (ISOC), Emin Milli Moderated Panel Discussion followed by Q &A
12:00 - 13:00	Buffet Luncheon
13:00 - 13:30	The Open Internet - Empowering Digital Humanitarianism Paul Conneally - Head of Communications for ITU and a former Red Cross delegate (in various positions, locations and with IFRC plus ICRC and the Irish Red Cross).
13:40 - 14:10	Global Network Initiative and the multistakeholder approach ensuring an Open Internet David Sullivan -Policy and Communications Director Global Network Initiative
14.15 - 14.40	The Silicon Valley Standard and implications for technology companies in the protection of Human Rights and other freedoms Brett Solomon -Exec Director Access Now (via Skype)
15:00	Twiplomacy Matthias Luefkins Managing Director, Digital, EMEA– Burson Marstellar

Participation is limited. Please RSVP by noon on Friday, June 15 to iff@usmission.ch. When responding, please indicate whether you will also join us for the luncheon buffet.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/peer-forum-on-internet-freedom-and-human-rights

Cos spying on competitors, staff: Study

praskrishna — 2012-06-20T08:46:38Z

Most companies are spying on their competitors and their own employees, according to a recent survey conducted by the Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (Assocham).

The Statesman published this article on June 19, 2012. Sunil Abraham is quoted in it.

The survey's results raise questions about whether employees have enough privacy in the workplace. Rubbishing the survey's findings, head of the Indian Council of Corporate Investigators, Mr Kunwar Vikram Singh, said businesses are not spying but verifying facts.

The Assocham survey said almost 1,200 of 1,500 executives surveyed admitted to hiring people to spy on their employees and monitor their lifestyles. They said they watch former employees, too, especially those who had been laid off or kicked out for fraud.

In the survey, which was done between January and May this year in Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Chennai, the Delhi-National Capital Region and Mumbai, about 900 top industry officials said they carry out corporate espionage, bug the offices of their rivals and plant moles in other companies. About a quarter of respondents said they have hired computer experts to hack networks and track e-mails of their rivals.

Many more respondents — 1,110 of those questioned — said they use social media sites to track their rival companies and employees. “Most of the companies have mentioned their sensitive details including their data, plans, clients’ details, products and other confidential and trade-related secrets on their page and unknowingly share the same in the social media circuit,” said Mr DS Rawat, national secretary-general of Assocham, “which is why it is the most favoured spying activity being carried out by the companies.”

The practice of companies pilfering trade secrets and ideas may be bad for the country's business environment, said Mr Rawat. It “might dampen the spirit of innovation in the long-run,” he said.

The Indian Council of Corporate Investigators’ Mr Singh, however, disputed Assocham's picture of rampant corporate espionage. “I totally deny that corporates are spying on their employees,” he said. “It is not spying. It is verification of facts.”

Mr Singh said that when companies look into their employees or other companies, for example, before they enter into joint ventures, they are just carrying out “due diligence”. He said they legally gather information needed for companies to survive. He also denied there were any privacy issues.

Mr Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society, though, said there are growing concerns about privacy in the workplace, including about intense video surveillance. “Managers started to object to this,” he said. “What they started saying was it really undermines the morale of these locations ... friends and relatives would ask, 'In spite of you being so educated, it's funny your companies don't trust you at all.'”

Companies need to develop more nuanced ways to deal with these problems — perhaps something more similar to the military's multiple levels of clearance — and different ways for people to acquire and lose trust, Mr Abraham said.

Whether or not surveillance is legal, depends on the type, Mr Abraham said. There is some private information a person will expect to remain private, and some information that is expected to be public — like Twitter feeds.

There is no law against monitoring this second type, known as “clear view surveillance”, he said, and blanket legislation could clash with freedom of expression. He said an ideal law for this should include a “proportional relation to power” clause, which would limit the legal ability of the powerful to monitor, but allow individual citizens more leeway.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/co-spying-on-competitors-staff

India's struggle for online freedom

praskrishna — 2012-06-18T06:39:32Z

"65 years since your independence," a new battle for freedom is under way in India — according to a YouTube video uploaded by an Indian member of Anonymous, the global "hacktivist" movement.

Rebecca MacKinnon's article was published in the Sydney Morning Herald on June 9, 2012

With popular websites like Vimeo.com blocked across India by court order, the video calls for action: "Fight for your rights. Fight for India." Over the past several weeks, the group has launched distributed denial-of-service attacks against websites belonging to internet service providers, government departments, India's Supreme Court, and two political parties.

Street protests are being planned for today in as many as 18 cities to protest laws and other government actions that a growing number of Indian internet users believe have violated their right to free expression and privacy online.

A lively national internet freedom movement has grown rapidly across India since the beginning of this year.

The most colourful highlight so far was a seven-day Gandhian hunger strike, otherwise known as a "freedom fast," held in early May on a New Delhi pavement by political cartoonist Aseem Trivedi and activist-journalist Alok Dixit. Trivedi's website was shut down this year in response to a police complaint by a Mumbai-based advocate who alleged that some of Trivedi's works "ridicule the Indian Parliament, the national emblem, and the national flag."

Escalating political and legal battles over internet regulation in India are the latest front in a global struggle for online freedom — not only in countries like China and Iran where the internet is heavily censored and monitored by autocratic regimes, but also in democracies where the political motivations for control are much more complicated.

Democratically elected governments all over the world are failing to find the right balance between demands from constituents to fight crime, control hate speech, keep children safe, and protect intellectual property, and their duty to ensure and respect all citizens' rights to free expression and privacy. Popular online movements — many of them globally interconnected — are arising in response to these failures.

Only about 10 per cent of India's population uses the web, making it unlikely that internet freedom will be a decisive ballot-box issue anytime soon. Yet activists are determined to punish New Delhi's "humourless babus," as one columnist recently called India's censorious politicians and bureaucrats, in the country's media. Grassroots organisers are bringing a new generation of white-collar protesters to the streets to defend the right to use a technology that remains alien to the majority of India's people.

The trouble started with the 2008 passage of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, whose Section 69 empowers the government to direct any internet service to block, intercept, monitor, or decrypt any information through any computer resource.

Company officials who fail to comply with government requests can face fines and up to seven years in jail. Then, in April 2011, the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology issued new rules under which internet companies are expected to remove within 36 hours any content that regulators designate as "grossly harmful," "harassing," or "ethnically objectionable" — designations that are open to a wide variety of interpretations and that free speech advocates argue have opened the door to abuse.

It is thanks to these rules that the website of the hunger-striking cartoonist, Trivedi, was taken offline. Also thanks to the 2011 rules, Facebook and Google are facing trial for having failed to remove objectionable content. If found guilty, the companies could face fines, and executives could be sentenced to jail time.

Saturday's protesters are calling for annulment of the 2011 rules and the repeal of part of the 2008 act. They are also calling for internet service companies to reverse the wholesale blocking of hundreds of websites, including the file-sharing services isoHunt and The Pirate Bay, as well as the video-sharing site Vimeo and Pastebin, which is primarily used for the sharing of text and links.

Internet service providers were responding to a court order from the Madras High Court demanding the blockage, which is aimed at preventing the online distribution of pirated versions of one particular film. The internet companies, fearing that they would not be able to catch every individual instance on every possible site they host, instead chose to block entire services along with all of their content — which had nothing to do with the film in question.

Such "John Doe" orders, named because they are directed against unknown potential offenders in the present and future, are characterised "by their overly broad and sweeping nature," argue lawyer Lawrence Liang and researcher Achal Prabhala, which extends "to a range of non-infringing activities as well, thus catching a whole range of legal acts in their net."

More broadly, as Delhi-based journalist Shivam Vij wrote in a recent essay: "The current mechanisms of internet censorship in India — blocking, direct removal requests to websites, intermediary rules — are draconian and unconstitutional. They need to be replaced with a new set of rules that are fair, transparent and accessible for public scrutiny. They should not be amenable to misuse by the powers-that-be for their own private interests."

The legal flaws in the notices were such that the companies could have rejected them without being in breach of the law. Yet "of the 7 intermediaries to which takedown notices were sent, 6 intermediaries over-complied with the notices, despite the apparent flaws in them," reads the Centre for Internet and Society report.

Many of the law's critics, however, are skeptical that this will eliminate the law's deep flaws and loopholes for abuse, especially given the government's failure to listen so far. Comments on the 2011 rules submitted last year by the Centre for Internet and Society were not even acknowledged as having been received by the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology. "Sibal uses the excuse of national security and hate speech," says the center's director, Sunil Abraham, "but that is not what is happening."

Soon enough, the monkeys will start policing themselves — attacking anybody who tries to reach the bananas, making it unnecessary for their masters to deploy the ice water. "This is why the government is being so aggressive so early on, with only 10 percent of India's population online," says Abraham. "If you start the drenching early on, by the time you get to 50 per cent [internet penetration], every one will be well-behaved monkeys."

Companies will act as private internet police for fear of legal punishment before the government is called upon to step in and enforce the law. If it works, Indian politicians could have fewer reasons to worry about online critiques or mockery, because companies fearing prosecution will proactively delete speech that could potentially be designated "harassing" or "grossly harmful."

India is not China or Iran, however. Its politicians may be corrupt, and most of its voters may not understand why Internet freedom matters because they've never used the Internet. But it still has an independent press and boisterous civil society that are not going to give up their critiques and protests anytime soon. India also has a strong, independent judiciary, with a record of ruling against censorship and surveillance measures when a strong case can be made that they conflict with constitutional protections of individual rights. "On free speech I have high faith in the Indian judiciary," says Abraham. "There is a good chance to launch a constitutional challenge."

If Google and Facebook lose at their impending trial — now scheduled for July — they will most certainly appeal, which activists hope could provide just such an opportunity to prevent the sort of "behaviour modification" process that Abraham warns against.

Now India's burgeoning internet freedom movement needs its own reverse "behaviour modification" strategy — imposing consistent and regular doses of political and legal ice water upon India's bureaucrats, politicians, and companies whenever they do things that threaten to corrode the rights of India's internet users. Saturday's protest is just the beginning.

Sunil Abraham is quoted in the article. The report on Intermediary Guidelines co-produced by CIS and Google is also mentioned.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/indias-struggle-for-online-freedom

'Attempts to censor the web ill-advised'

praskrishna — 2012-06-17T07:11:39Z

Amid concerted government attempts to censor the internet and the recent blocking of file-sharing websites due to a court order based on a petition by producers of a Tamil film, speakers at a discussion on Saturday felt that there was a fear of freedom of expression among those affected by it, primarily the powerful.

Article by Krish Fernandes published in the Times of India on June 3, 2012

At the discussion on 'freedom of expression and privacy: Proposition' held at Goa University, senior journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta felt the increasing attempts at online censorship were a consequence of the government being unable to formulate coherent responses to the widening of the limits to freedom of expression on the internet.

He was of the view that all stakeholders should be consulted before any legislation in this regard.

Vickram Crishna of Privacy International spoke about "the fear of freedom of expression". While stating that the internet access had jumped due to the increased usage of smartphones, he observed that "there were concerted moves to make these things (censorship) happen in India".

"What use is access, if we don't have freedom of expression?" Crishna questioned.

Geeta Seshu of The Hoot was of the opinion that the world was also seeing the rise of powerful web players such as search engines and social networks with no obligations to permit free speech.

Chinmayi Arun of the National University of Juridical Sciences echoed this view. She felt freedom of speech and expression were vulnerable because they receive very little protection from non-state factors. She felt surveillance may soon become as serious a threat to free speech as censorship.

Advocate Apar Gupta felt there are better safeguards against banning books, while web content bans see almost no safeguards.

Touching on the ban on file-sharing sites, Lawrence Liang of Alternative Law Forum felt private bodies such as ISPs were being given powers of the state.

Anja Kovacs of Internet Democracy Project was critical of the government instructing internet service providing companies to setup servers in the country. The internet as we know it will stop to exist if we have server requirements in all countries, she said.

Frederick Norohna of publishing house Goa 1556, Siddhart Narrain and Danish Sheikh of the Alternative Law Forum, Paromita Vohra of Devi Pictures and Werner Souza also spoke on the occasion.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/attempts-to-censor-the-web-ill-advised

Poor Guarantee of Online Freedom in India

praskrishna — 2012-06-17T04:18:26Z

The debate over the "Intermediaries Guidelines" as part of the Information Technology Act, 2000 in Parliament brought focus to the issue of censorship and lack of accountability of governing bodies vis-à-vis the internet in the country. This cannot be divorced from the larger questions related to the threats to freedom of expression from both the state and various societal actors today.

This article by Geeta Seshu was published in the Economic & Political Weekly, Vol XLVII No. 24, June 2012.

An annulment motion against the Information Technology (Inter-mediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 moved by Member of Parliament (MP) P Rajeev of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) in the Rajya Sabha, was the first serious attempt by internet freedom activists to get the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000 discussed and reviewed by the country’s lawmakers.

Not unexpectedly, the motion, specifically against the rules governing intermediaries – clause (zg) of subsection (2) of Section 87 read with subsection (2) of Section 79 of the >IT Act, 2000 – was not carried. However, the discussion that preceded it at least demonstrated the concerns of parliamentarians about what internet freedom activists have termed the “draconian” provisions of the IT Act.

It is about time, really, that parliamentarians sit down to review what they very quickly acquiesced to in December 2009. It is also about time that the debate over the provisions of the IT Act be conducted in the public domain, instead of in closed-door meetings with expert groups and committees comprising a narrow set of stakeholders favoured by the government or its various wings.

The discussion in the Rajya Sabha largely centred around the vague and sweeping terminology of the range of content that anyone could take objection to. P Rajeev said that while he supported the regulation of the internet, he was not in favour of its control. The rules were ultra vires the IT Act, he said. Echoing his concern, leader of the opposition Arun Jaitley of the Bharatiya Janata Party, D Raja of the Communist Party of India and N K Singh of the Janata Dal (United) – to name just a few – also said that the internet was different from other media and censoring it was untenable.

Finally, union minister for information technology, Kapil Sibal, was forced to give an assurance to the house that he would call a meeting of MPs, industry and all stakeholders and implement whatever consensus emerges after a discussion on the specific words members had objections to.

There was no mention from the minister on a host of other problem areas in the rules as they are currently framed, including the very sweeping definition of an “intermediary” itself (any entity which on behalf of another receives, stores or transmits any electronic record – which means internet service providers, web hosting providers, search engines, online payment sites, cybercafes and bloggers too). No mention either of the rules for intermediaries to takedown notices within 36 hours of receiving a complaint, irrespective of whether these are fair and reasonable. No mention of whether the rules need to provide procedures for hearing and adjudicating complaints before any content is taken down.

The IT Guidelines

In several ways, the rules have gone way beyond what was laid down in the IT Act, but they also add considerably to the original reasonable restrictions laid down under Article 19 (2) of the Constitution of India. Some of the terms that can invite objections under the guidelines are:

(a) Belongs to another person and to which the user does not have any right to; (b) grossly harmful, harassing, blasphemous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, paedophiliac, libellous, invasive of another’s privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically objectionable, disparaging, relating or encouraging money laundering or gambling, or otherwise unlawful in any manner whatever; (c) harm minors in any way; (d) infringes any patent, trademark, copyright or other proprietary rights; (e) violates any law for the time being in force; (f) deceives or misleads the addressee about the origin of such messages or communicates any information which is grossly offensive or menacing in nature; (g) impersonate another person; (h) contains software viruses or any other computer code, files or programmes designed to interrupt, destroy or limit the functionality of any computer resource; (i) threatens the unity, integrity, defence, security or sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign states, or public order or causes incitement to the commission of any cognisable offence or prevents investigation of any offence or is insulting any other nation.

With this wide-ranging and entirely arbitrary set of potential violations, the possibility of misuse is also immense. In its comments submitted in response to the draft rules, Privacy India and the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) pointed out that Sections 79(1) and (2) of the amended IT Act itself did provide for exemptions for third party liabilities of intermediaries, something that the rules have now virtually set aside.[1]

Other comments submitted by these organisations about security and privacy of cybercafe users deal with minors and with the general architecture of cybercafes. In the first instance, the organisations expressed concern that undue restrictions on the use of the internet by minors (photo identity cards, accompanied by adults, etc) would hamper their access to the internet and would actually discourage poorer children from using the internet.

In the second instance, the detailed restrictions on the layout of the cybercafés – the height of cabins and the directions of the screens, etc, would, they felt, be intrusive and violate the privacy of internet users in cybercafes. Besides, vulnerable sections like sexual minorities or HIV positive patients may even be open to identity theft, they feared.

The discussion on the rules unfortunately did not come close to addressing these fears. While the lawmakers generally accepted the importance of regulation of the internet and electronic communication, there is still very little clarity on exactly how this must be done, the extent to which regulation must take place and the agency that will be entrusted with this task.

The IT Act, 2000 was first passed in an era when the country was transitioning to an electronic age. E-commerce was uppermost in the minds of policymakers, their eyes firmly fixed on the new economy. But soon enough, it was clear that technology was developing rapidly and an expert committee was constituted to revise the act and suggest amendments that would incorporate technological changes.

Lack of Accountability

In the wake of the 26 November 2008 attack in Mumbai, national security and intelligence were powerful emotional catchwords and few questioned some of the sweeping provisions laid down by the rules under the IT Act. While the annulment motion focuses on the pernicious nature of the guidelines for intermediaries, this is only one amongst a series of rules that seek to change the very manner in which Indians can access and use the internet. Other rules relate to decrypting, monitoring and blocking of communication, data security and privacy (Section 69: interception, monitoring and decryption of information, Section 69 A: blocking, Section 69 B: monitoring of traffic data or information) and of course, the complete absence of checks and balances for the powers given to authorities like Computer Emergency Response Team India (CERT-In).

In fact, there has been little or no review of the responsibility vested in an agency like CERT-In, which describes itself as the nodal agency to oversee the security of the nation. Conflating security concerns with content that may be objectionable to some is one thing but also providing this agency with the powers to block sites without even the creators of these sites getting to know about it is another.

Most of our attention today is on the censorship rampant on the internet in India. Most recently, there have been several instances of internet sites being blocked and takedown notices sent to bloggers. In the last few months, we have had the arbitrary blocking of the website cartoonsagainstcorruption.com which was run by Kanpur-based cartoonist Aseem Trivedi, the arrest of Jadavpur University professor Ambikesh Mohapatra and the controversial move last year by the Indian government to get internet service providers to remove so-called objectionable content on Facebook, Orkut and Youtube, apart from other sites. A complaint against these sites by journalist Vinay Rai followed soon after, though it strangely did not invoke provisions of the IT Act, preferring to cite alleged violations under the Indian Penal Code.

Trivedi did not even know that his site was blocked till some friends called him to tell him that they could not access his site. After an exchange of emails with his webhost, the portal “Big Rock”, he was informed that the site was suspended because it contained cartoons that showed disrespect to national emblems. A complaint had been received by Mumbai’s cybercrime cell by a Mumbai-based advocate, R P Pandey. The Kanpur resident also learnt later from newspaper reports that another case, this time under charges of sedition, were lodged against him in Beed district of Maharashtra.

While this method of embroiling someone in cases in far-flung geographical areas is not new (the complaint by the Indian Institute of Planning and Management against New Delhi-based Caravan magazine in Silchar, Assam is a good case in point), Trivedi quickly moved the content on his site onto another blogging platform, also got together friends and supporters to launch “Saveyourvoice”, an online and offline campaign, with a cheeky celebration of All Fool’s Day on 1 April 2012 with a greeting to the minister Kapil Sibal “for his foolish attempts to try censoring internet” and another campaign – “Freedom in a cage” – at Jantar Mantar, Delhi, in April 2012.

Other internet freedom activists have got together to secure information on censorship. Last year, a right-to-information (RTI) application by the CIS revealed that 11 websites were blocked on orders from the department of information technology. A writ petition against the IT Act has been filed in the Kerala High Court and the Software Freedom Law Centre, which was instrumental in campaigning for the annulment motion in the Rajya Sabha, has launched an online petition against the IT Act rules that refers to government authority to censor facebook posts, monitor emails and skype conversations, access private information and mine sensitive personal data.[2]

Governments the world over are exercised about the need to impose restrictions on online freedom and a good indication is the bi-annual Google Transparency Report that monitors the number and categories of requests sent by different governments to take down content. In the last report for the period January to June 2011, the report recorded requests to remove 358 items and 68 content removal requests, 58% of which were fully or partially complied with. In addition, there were government requests to remove Youtube videos that were protests against local leaders or used offensive language against religious leaders, besides 236 communities and profiles from Orkut which were critical of a local politician.

Interestingly, while content removal requests for the Orkut profiles remained as Google maintained it did not fit its own community standards or local law, Google chose to “locally” restrict the videos that may incite enmity between communities. With minor variations, this is a stance adopted by other online companies, like Facebook and Twitter, with the latter coming out with a policy earlier this year that it would remove content that appeared to violate local laws.

In the struggle to keep the internet free and protect communication from surveillance and blocking by governments, it would be naive to expect commercially-driven internet companies to put up much of a stand. Most of these stakeholders have agreed with lawmakers that the internet does need regulation. On their part, the Indian government, which has flexed its desire to regulate the internet, has also been sensitive to criticism of its role in censoring online freedom. Other stakeholders – the vast community of users of the internet, bloggers, website hosts, creators and producers of online videos, file-sharers, software developers, etc, are only engaged in a race to protect their content and shift it to more amenable sites every time they run into trouble.

Threats to Freedom of Expression

However, it must be noted that the censorship of online media is but a reflection of the curbs on freedom of expression in general. The attacks on freedom of expression in “offline” media, the attacks on journalists and the deaths of eight journalists since 2010,[3] the alarming regularity with which we are witnessing a ban on books and cinema, art or theatre, the increasing intolerance of dissenting or differing opinions in society, the abject fear of free and independent debate and discussion and the role of the government in actively furthering this intolerance are suggestive of a dangerous trend.

Almost all these instances are marked by the clear absence of any due procedure in addressing the content that becomes objectionable to someone or some sections of society, instead arbitrarily and speedily removing this content from the public domain. Whether it is the withdrawal of Rohinton Mistry’s book Such a Long Journey, a prescribed textbook by Bombay University, midway through the academic year, or that of recent issue of the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) textbook on the Constitution of India, institutional redressal mechanisms were simply not given a chance.

The woeful absence of similar redressal mechanisms for so-called objectionable content under the rules of the amended IT Act only exacerbates this situation further.

Notes

[1].http://privacyindia.org/2011/03/10/comments-on-the-information-technology-guidelines-for-cyber-cafe-rules-2011/
[2].www.softwarefreedom.org
[3].The Free Speech Hub, which has been tracking violations of freedom of expression as part of a project from the media-watch site, The Hoot (www.thehoot.org), has this list: Hemchandra Pandey (July 2010), Bimala Prasad Talukdar (September 2010), Sushil Pathak (December 2010), Umesh Rajput (January 2011), J Dey (June 2011), Ramesh Singhla (October 2011), Chandrioka (February 2012) and Rajesh Mishra (March 2012).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/poor-guarantee-of-online-freedom-in-india

The War for India's Internet

praskrishna — 2012-06-14T09:12:34Z

Why is the world's biggest democracy cracking down on Facebook and Google? Rebecca Mackinnon's article was published in Foreign Policy on June 6, 2012.

"65 years since your independence," a new battle for freedom is under way in India -- according to a YouTube video uploaded by an Indian member of Anonymous, the global "hacktivist" movement. With popular websites like Vimeo.com blocked across India by court order, the video calls for action: "Fight for your rights. Fight for India." Over the past several weeks, the group has launched distributed denial-of-service attacks against websites belonging to Internet service providers, government departments, India's Supreme Court, and two political parties.

Street protests are being planned for this coming Saturday, June 9, in as many as 18 cities to protest laws and other government actions that a growing number of Indian Internet users believe have violated their right to free expression and privacy online. A lively national Internet freedom movement has grown rapidly across India since the beginning of this year. The most colorful highlight so far was a seven-day Gandhian hunger strike, otherwise known as a "freedom fast," held in early May on a New Delhi sidewalk by political cartoonist Aseem Trivedi and activist-journalist Alok Dixit. Trivedi's website was shut down this year in response to a police complaint by a Mumbai-based advocate who alleged that some of Trivedi's works "ridicule the Indian Parliament, the national emblem, and the national flag."

Escalating political and legal battles over Internet regulation in India are the latest front in a global struggle for online freedom -- not only in countries like China and Iran where the Internet is heavily censored and monitored by autocratic regimes, but also in democracies where the political motivations for control are much more complicated. Democratically elected governments all over the world are failing to find the right balance between demands from constituents to fight crime, control hate speech, keep children safe, and protect intellectual property, and their duty to ensure and respect all citizens' rights to free expression and privacy. Popular online movements -- many of them globally interconnected -- are arising in response to these failures.

Only about 10 percent of India's population uses the web, making it unlikely that Internet freedom will be a decisive ballot-box issue anytime soon. Yet activists are determined to punish New Delhi's "humorless babus," as one columnist recently called India's censorious politicians and bureaucrats, in the country's media. Grassroots organizers are bringing a new generation of white-collar protesters to the streets to defend the right to use a technology that remains alien to the majority of India's people.

The trouble started with the 2008 passage of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, whose Section 69 empowers the government to direct any Internet service to block, intercept, monitor, or decrypt any information through any computer resource. Company officials who fail to comply with government requests can face fines and up to seven years in jail. Then, in April 2011, the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology issued new rules under which Internet companies are expected to remove within 36 hours any content that regulators designate as "grossly harmful," "harassing," or "ethnically objectionable" -- designations that are open to a wide variety of interpretations and that free speech advocates argue have opened the door to abuse. It is thanks to these rules that the website of the hunger-striking cartoonist, Trivedi, was taken offline. Also thanks to the 2011 rules, Facebook and Google are facing trial for having failed to remove objectionable content. If found guilty, the companies could face fines, and executives could be sentenced to jail time.

Saturday's protesters are calling for annulment of the 2011 rules and the repeal of part of the 2008 act. They are also calling for Internet service companies to reverse the wholesale blocking of hundreds of websites, including the file-sharing services isoHunt and The Pirate Bay, as well as the video-sharing site Vimeo and Pastebin, which is primarily used for the sharing of text and links. Internet service providers were responding to a court order from the Madras High Court demanding the blockage, which is aimed at preventing the online distribution of pirated versions of one particular film. The Internet companies, fearing that they would not be able to catch every individual instance on every possible site they host, instead chose to block entire services along with all of their content -- which had nothing to do with the film in question.

Such "John Doe" orders, named because they are directed against unknown potential offenders in the present and future, are characterized "by their overly broad and sweeping nature," argue lawyer Lawrence Liang and researcher Achal Prabhala, which extends "to a range of non-infringing activities as well, thus catching a whole range of legal acts in their net." More broadly, as Delhi-based journalist Shivam Vij wrote in a recent essay: "The current mechanisms of internet censorship in India -- blocking, direct removal requests to websites, intermediary rules -- are draconian and unconstitutional. They need to be replaced with a new set of rules that are fair, transparent and accessible for public scrutiny. They should not be amenable to misuse by the powers-that-be for their own private interests."

Not only are the rules abused, but researchers find that they are causing extralegal censorship by companies that overcompensate in order to err on the side of caution. Last year, the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society performed an experiment in which it sent "legally flawed" takedown demands to seven companies that provide a range of online services, including search, online shopping, and news with user-generated comments. The legal flaws in the notices were such that the companies could have rejected them without being in breach of the law. Yet "of the 7 intermediaries to which takedown notices were sent, 6 intermediaries over-complied with the notices, despite the apparent flaws in them," reads the Centre for Internet and Society report.

Despite the growing public opposition, a motion to annul the 2011 rules was defeated by voice vote in the upper house of Parliament last month. Yet the criticism was sufficiently sharp that Communications Minister Kapil Sibal announced that he will hold consultations with all members of Parliament, representatives of industry, and other "stakeholders" to discuss the law's problems and how it might be revised. Many of the law's critics, however, are skeptical that this will eliminate the law's deep flaws and loopholes for abuse, especially given the government's failure to listen so far. Comments on the 2011 rules submitted last year by the Centre for Internet and Society were not even acknowledged as having been received by the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology. "Sibal uses the excuse of national security and hate speech," says the center's director, Sunil Abraham, "but that is not what is happening."

Abraham worries that what is really happening is a government effort at Internet "behavior modification" through a process akin to an experiment involving caged monkeys, bananas, and ice water. Put four monkeys in a cage and hang a bunch of bananas on the ceiling. Every time one of them climbs up to reach the bananas, you drench all of them with ice water. Soon enough, the monkeys will start policing themselves -- attacking anybody who tries to reach the bananas, making it unnecessary for their masters to deploy the ice water. "This is why the government is being so aggressive so early on, with only 10 percent of India's population online," says Abraham. "If you start the drenching early on, by the time you get to 50 percent [Internet penetration], every one will be well-behaved monkeys." Companies will act as private Internet police for fear of legal punishment before the government is called upon to step in and enforce the law. If it works, Indian politicians could have fewer reasons to worry about online critiques or mockery, because companies fearing prosecution will proactively delete speech that could potentially be designated "harassing" or "grossly harmful."

If Google and Facebook lose at their impending trial -- now scheduled for July -- they will most certainly appeal, which activists hope could provide just such an opportunity to prevent the sort of "behavior modification" process that Abraham warns against. Now India's burgeoning Internet freedom movement needs its own reverse "behavior modification" strategy -- imposing consistent and regular doses of political and legal ice water upon India's bureaucrats, politicians, and companies whenever they do things that threaten to corrode the rights of India's Internet users. Saturday's protest is just the beginning.

Sunil Abraham is quoted in this article. Read the original here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/war-of-india-internet

Internet opens doors to trillions more Net addresses with IPv6

praskrishna — 2012-06-14T05:12:25Z

The global Internet industry reached a key milestone on June 6 when a group of Web sites, Internet service providers (ISPs) and router manufacturers banded together to participate in the World IPv6 Launch.

This blog post by Aaron Tan was published in techgoondu. Nishant Shah is quoted in this.

Google, Facebook and Yahoo have flipped the switch to the new Internet addressing system, while ISPs such as Japan’s KDDI and India’s HNS will permanently enable IPv6 for a significant portion of their residential wireline subscribers. Home networking equipment manufacturers will also turn on IPv6 by default in home router products.

The World IPv6 Launch was organised by the Internet Society as part of its mission to ensure that the Internet remains open and accessible for everyone, including five billion people who have yet to connect to the Internet.

“The support of IPv6 from these thousands of organizations delivers a critical message to the world: IPv6 is not just a ‘nice to have’; it is ready for business today and will very soon be a ‘must have’,” said Leslie Daigle, chief Internet technology officer of Internet Society in a statement Wednesday.

Last April, Asia-Pacific became the first region in the world to run out of IPv4 addresses. Europe will deplete its allocation of IPv4 addresses later this year, followed by the U.S. in 2013, and Latin America and Africa in 2014. With IPv6, the Internet can now support over 340 trillion, trillion, trillion addresses compared with 4.3 billion addresses for IPv4.

“Understanding the importance of IPv6, some governments in Asia Pacific have committed to enable IPv6 in their internal networks with set deadlines and, given that they run such large networks, having them on IPv6 is a big step in itself,” said Rajnesh Singh, regional director of the Internet Society’s Asia-Pacific bureau.

The Singapore Government, for instance, has spearheaded an initiative to make e-government services accessible via IPv6. The Infocomm Development Authority (IDA) has also started an IPv6 transition programme that offers grants and information for companies that intend to implement IPv6 on their networks.

With the launch of IPv6, consumers can expect to see applications and services that take advantage of IPv6′s features. Microsoft’s upcoming Windows 8 operating system will also favour IPv6 connectivity over IPv4.

According to Nishant Shah, research director at the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society, IPv6 has an in-built security protocol called IPSec, which authenticates and secures all IP data. The data carrying capacity of IPv6 networks is also going to be higher.

“This means that more devices with more features will be able to work seamlessly through these networks. Despite the larger load of information, IPv6 packets are easier to handle and route, just like postcards with pincodes in their addresses are easier to deliver than those without”, Shah said in a joint statement with Tata Communications.

As an example, every aspect of the Beijing Olympics – from security surveillance to managing vehicles and media coverage – was done over IPv6. “The Chinese government, in fact, has already launched a ‘China Next Generation Internet’ project to build IPv6 networks which are going to radically change the face of high-speed internet in the country,” Shah revealed.

With all these benefits, why does IPv6 only command two percent of the world’s Internet traffic? Shah offers two clear reasons:

The first one is that of costs and infrastructure. The IPv6 platforms do not communicate easily with the IPv4 networks. We have the choice of a mammoth transition of all IPv4 websites and networks to new IPv6 protocols. This idea of abandoning IPv4 and moving to a new protocol is not only redundant; it is also futile, because IPv4 is already running the largest network in human history quite efficiently.

What we need are translators which will be able to speak to both the different versions and help our devices work through them seamlessly. Older, more successful technologies have been able to do this. So, television, for instance, whether it receives terrestrial data, satellite images or data transferred via cable, is able to translate and render them into images and sounds which we can consume with ease. However, the translators for the IPv4 – IPv6 are still expensive and we need more resources diverted towards making them affordable.

The second reason is linked to the first. In order for IPv6 to become popular, it needs a minimum threshold of service providers and users riding that network. As long as the deployment remains nascent, there will be no concentrated energy to actually try and make the bridges between versions 4 and 6. While global technology organisations like Tata Communications are ready for the transition, we are going to need a systemic change among all stakeholders to make IPv6 a reality, towards a faster, safer and more robust Internet.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/internet-opens-doors-to-trillions-more-net-addresses

Anonymous India’s Takedowns Could Be Counterproductive

praskrishna — 2012-06-18T06:05:13Z

Nikhil Pahwa's blog post was published in Medianama on June 6, 2012.

As I write this, Anonymous India has apparently taken down MTNL’s website, citing the ISPs decision to block sites, without apparently being quite aware why it is doing that. Last night, the collective claimed to have taken down the website of the ISPAI, India’s ISP Association. Last Saturday, there were discussions on the groups IRC to take down the website for the Ministry of Company Affairs. So far, it has taken down websites for the Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited, All Indian Trinamool Congress (AITMC), as well as several websites related to the Mizoram government, apart from accessing and publishing server logs from Reliance Communications.

Anonymous India’s activities do help: they increase awareness of India’s war on the Internet, both by the government through legislation and censorship, and by movie producers and copyright owners through takedown notices and John Doe orders. There still remain citizens online who aren’t aware of why they aren’t able to access legitimate content – last night, someone from the books publishing industry asked me why she wasn’t able to access the video in this post on ‘Designing for the Future Book‘ on her Airtel connection. The video is hosted on Vimeo, which remains blocked in India. Now she knows why.

Anonymous India has also shed light on what all is being blocked by sharing what are allegedly Reliance Communications’ logs on blocks. These logs suggest that ISPs were going beyond the mandate given to them by the courts and the government. It’s also clear that ISPs aren’t protecting the rights of their customers, and are implementing blocks either in a ham-handed manner, or in a manner that suits them or their related companies. They are as much to blame as those getting the orders issued, and so there is undoubtedly some schadenfreude in seeing both government and ISP websites taken down by Anonymous India.

Still, you have to wonder about how the powers that be will react to this situation: no government will show that it is bucking under what it perceives to be cyber terrorism: it’s not just an ego thing; there is also a legitimate fear that if the government is seen as buckling under such attacks, it would lead to cyber attacks whenever there is something that warrants a protest. The attacks by Anonymous could be counterproductive for two other reasons: firstly, because the natural reaction to any kind of attack is to increase spending and changes in laws. While India is already spending on surveillance and identification, cyberattacks will justify these spends, make the case for more, and lead to more changes in government policy.

The second reason is that these attacks could lead to the undoing of a lot of work done by activists for Internet freedom. The Software Freedom Law Center, Centre For Internet and Society, Avaaz, Change.org, The Internet Democracy Project, and many many others have spent many months reaching out to and educating parliamentarians and the lawmakers of the country on issues related to the draconian IT Rules. The IT Rules have resulted in websites and ISPs censoring content online when they have been send unfair and flawed takedown notices, and they need to be changed. The cyberattacks could once again be used by the Home Ministry and those at CERT-IN to justify continuing with such draconian rules, and especially since many MP’s are not aware of the nuances of the potential for misuse; some MPs (I’ve observed) appear to be choosing to be on the fence on this, either on account of lack of interest or lack of depth of understanding.

Activities that bring more information on the blocks to light help strengthen the case for more specificity in court orders by highlighting misuse by copyright owners and ISPs, and also for modification in the IT Rules. Taking down sites weakens it.

Click to read the original here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/anonymous-indias-takedowns-could-be-counterproductive

IPv6: The Transition Challenge

nishant — 2012-06-13T09:59:27Z

The future of our connected networks is Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6). Not only is it more efficient and faster than IPv4 which we are currently working with, it is also more reliable and secure.

The IPv6, for instance, has an in-built security protocol called IPSec, which authenticates and secures all IP data. The data carrying capacity of IPv6 networks is also going to be higher. This means that more devices with more features will be able to work seamlessly through these networks. Despite the larger load of information, IPv6 packets are easier to handle and route, just like postcards with pincodes in their addresses are easier to deliver than those without.

We have already seen great examples of successful implementation during the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Every aspect from the security surveillance to managing vehicles and the coverage of the Olympic events was done over IPv6, including live streaming of the events over the Internet. The Chinese government, in fact, has already launched a ‘China Next Generation Internet’ (CNGI) project to build IPv6 networks which are going to radically change the face of high-speed internet in the country. With all these benefits available to us in this next generation protocol, the question that remains is why only a meagre 2% of the world’s internet traffic is conducted through it? Why haven’t more ISPs shifted to IPv6?

There are two very clear reasons. The first one is that of costs and infrastructure. The IPv6 platforms do not communicate easily with the IPv4 networks. We have the choice of a mammoth transition of all IPv4 websites and networks to new IPv6 protocols. This idea of abandoning IPv4 and moving to a new protocol is not only redundant; it is also futile, because IPv4 is already running the largest network in human history quite efficiently. What we need is translators which will be able to speak to both the different versions and help our devices work through them seamlessly. Older, more successful technologies have been able to do this. So, television, for instance, whether it receives terrestrial data, satellite images or data transferred via cable, is able to translate and render them into images and sounds which we can consume with ease. However, the translators for the IPv4 – IPv6 still expensive and we need more resources diverted towards making them affordable.

The second reason is linked to the first. In order for IPv6 to become popular, it needs a minimum threshold of service providers and users riding that network. As long as the deployment remains nascent, there will be no concentrated energy to actually try and make the bridges between versions 4 and 6. While global technology organisations like Tata Communications are ready for the transition, we are going to need a systemic change among all stakeholders to make IPv6 a reality, towards a faster, safer and more robust Internet.

This communique is brought to you by Tata Communications and the Centre for Internet and Society.

Nishant Shah is Director-Research at the Bangalore based Centre for Internet and Society.

If you would like any further information on IPv6 at Tata Communications, please reach out to: divya.anand@tatacommunications.com

The above blog post was reproduced in MIS Asia, CIO Asia, Computer World Singapore, and Computer World Malaysia.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/ip-v-6-the-transition-challenge

All India Privacy Symposium (File)

praskrishna — 2012-04-30T05:13:14Z

This is the file of the event organised in Delhi in February 2012.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/all-privacy-symposium.pdf

Centre for Internet and Society

Internet Freedom At Home: Governments, Companies Need Accountability, Speakers Say

Securing e-Governance

About Privacy India

CENSORSHIP 2020: The Future of Free Speech Online

Read Our Annual Reports and Audit Reports

Centre for Internet & Society Audit Reports 2024-2025

Centre for Internet & Society Audit Reports 2023-2024

Centre for Internet & Society Audit Reports 2022-2023

Centre for Internet & Society Audit Reports 2021-2022

Centre for Internet & Society Audit Report 2020-2021

Centre for Internet & Society Annual Report 2020-21

Centre for Internet & Society Audit Reports 2019-2020

Centre for Internet & Society Audit Report 2018-19

Centre for Internet & Society Annual Report 2019-20

Centre for Internet & Society Annual Report 2017-18

Centre for Internet & Society Annual Report 2016-17

Centre for Internet & Society Annual Report 2015-16

Centre for Internet & Society Annual Report 2014-15

Centre for Internet & Society Annual Report 2013-14

Centre for Internet & Society Annual Report 2012-13

Centre for Internet & Society Annual Report 2011-12

Centre for Internet & Society Annual Report 2010-11

Centre for Internet & Society Annual Report 2009-10

Centre for Internet & Society Annual Report 2008-09