Centre for Internet and Society

Legal Issues pertaining to Cloud Computing

praskrishna — 2022-02-07T15:29:00Z

The Law and Technology Society of National Law School of India University, Bangalore is organizing the 6th edition of its flagship conference ‘Consilience’ on December 14 and 15, 2013 at NLSIU Campus, Bangalore. The Centre for Internet and Society is supporting this event.

The Conference will see some of the best lawyers, jurists and industry leaders in India speak on different issues surrounding the theme. The Conference is co- branded with ‘Salesforce.com’, ‘International Technology Law Association’ and the Centre for Internet and Society (http://www.cis-india.org/). Apart from making an effective contribution towards greater understanding of the subject, the Conference will lead to a recommendatory policy paper to the government of India.

Key speakers for the Conference include:

Senapathy (Kris) Gopalakrishnan (Co-Founder and Executive Vice Chairman, Infosys & President, CII )
Pavan Duggal (Advocate, Supreme Court)
Abhishek Malhotra (Founding Partner, TMT Law Practice)
Azmul Haque (Partner, Shook Lin & Bok, Singapore)
Chris Edwards (Senior Associate, DLA Piper, Singapore)
Prof. Rahul De (IIM Bangalore)
Pamela Kumar (Chair, Cloud Computing Innovation Council of India)
Suhaan Mukherji (Expert advisor, Office of Adviser to the Prime Minister of India on Public Information Infrastructure and Innovations)

Registrations for the Conference are open and fee for the same is as follows:

Students: Rs. 500/-
Professionals: Rs. 750/-

Please find attached the concept note, programme schedule and speakers’ profiles. To register, visit http://www.consilience.co.in/index.php/consilience-2013/register-for-the-conference. For any other queries, please write to ltech.nls@gmail.com .

or contact

Shivam Singla (Ph: +91-9916708701)
Ayushi Sutaria (Ph: +91-8123925725)

Conference Programme

Saturday, December 14th, 2013
Venue: Conference Hall, Academic Block, NLSIU

Lunch
08.30 09.30	Breakfast and Registration
09.45 10.00	Inauguration
10.00 10.30	Keynote Address
10.30 12.30	SESSION 1: INTRODUCTION TO CLOUD COMPUTING How does cloud computing work? - An overview of the basic technical features The current legal regime related to cloud computing in India- Main issues and challenges
13.15 15.15	SESSION 2: THE RELATION BETWEEN PARTIES TO CLOUD COMPUTING- USERS, INTERMEDIARIES AND GOVERNMENT BODIES Legal obligations of the intermediaries towards (i) the government and (ii) the users Cyber security concerns Standards of data protection Government's surveillance powers and privacy issues
Tea Break
15.30 17.30	SESSION 3: REGULATION AND MONITORING OF DATA CONTENT Current data control monitoring systems by intermediaries Data ownership and intellectual property issues- Possible threats and need for regulation Sensitive or critical data- Security concerns relating to their storage
High Tea/Networking Session

Sunday, December 15th, 2013
Venue: Conference Hall, Academic Block, NLSIU

Tea Break
09.00 10.00	Breakfast and Registration
10.00 12.00	SESSION 4: THE INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON CLOUD COMPUTING Jurisdiction and choice of law issues- how do we counter the confusion? International laws applicable to cloud computing Need for a comprehensive international framework to simplify the situation?
12.15 14.15	SESSION 5: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS WITH LEGAL FRAMEWORKS IN OTHER COUNTRIES Legal frameworks in UK and Singapore Beneficial features of these legal regimes and their suitability in the Indian context Lessons to be learnt for India
Lunch
15.00 17.00	SESSION 6: THE WAY FORWARD – SUGGESTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Overview of the important challenges and suggestions Possible Policy and Legislative steps to improve the Cloud Computing regime in India
High Tea/Networking Session

Click to read the sub tracks for discussion
Access the speakers' profiles here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/events/legal-issues-on-cloud-computing

Legal and Policy Implications of Autonomous Weapons Systems

aman — 2021-03-22T05:29:20Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/legal-and-policy-implications-of-autonomous-weapons-systems

Legal Advocacy Manual

Radhika, Shruti Trikanad and Torsha Sarkar — 2024-07-01T08:16:07Z

The Legal Advocacy Manual summarizes the key legal and constitutional questions and jurisprudence related to laws that affect the right to freedom of expression and privacy online, including internet shutdowns, content takedown, online surveillance and device seizure.

Click to download the manual.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/legal-advocacy-manual

Learning to Forget the ECJ's Decision on the Right to be Forgotten and its Implications

divij — 2014-08-19T05:24:00Z

“The internet never forgets” is a proposition which is equally threatening and promising.

The phrase reflects the dichotomy presented by the extension on the lease of public memory granted by the internet – as information is more accessible and more permanent, letting go of the past is becoming increasingly difficult. The question of how to govern information on the internet – a space which is growing increasingly important in society and also one that presents a unique social environment - is one that persistently challenges courts and policy makers. A recent decision by the European Court of Justice, the highest judicial authority of the European Union, perfectly encapsulates the way the evolution of the internet is constantly changing our conceptions of individual privacy and the realm of information. On the 13^th of May, 2014, the ECJ in its ruling in Google v Costeja,[1] effectively read a “right to be forgotten” into existing EU data protection law. The right, broadly, provides that an individual may be allowed to control the information available about them on the web by removing such information in certain situations - known as the right to erasure. In certain situations such a right is non-controversial, for example, the deletion of a social media profile by its user. However, the right to erasure has serious implications for the freedom of information on the internet when it extends to the removal of information not created by the person to whom it pertains.

Privacy and Perfect Memory

The internet has, in a short span, become the biggest and arguably the most important tool for communication on the planet. However, a peculiar and essential feature of the internet is that it acts as a repository and a reflection of public memory – usually, whatever is once made public and shared on the internet remains available for access across the world without an expiry date. From public information on social networks to comments on blog posts, home addresses, telephone numbers and candid photos, personal information is disseminated all across the internet, perpetually ready for access - and often without the possibility of correcting or deleting what was divulged. This aspect of the internet means that the internet is a now an ever-growing repository of personal data, indexed and permanently filed. This unlimited capacity for information has a profound impact on society and in shaping social relations.

The core of the internet lies in its openness and accessibility and the ability to share information with ease – most any information to any person is now a Google search away. The openness of information on the internet prevents history from being corrupted, facts from being manipulated and encourages unprecedented freedom of information. However, these virtues often become a peril when considering the vast amount of personal data that the internet now holds. This “perfect memory” of the internet means that people are perpetually under the risk of being constantly scrutinized and being tied to their pasts, specifically a generation of users that from their childhood have been active on the internet.[2] Consider the example of online criminal databases in the United States, which regularly and permanently upload criminal records of convicted offenders even after their release, which is accessible to all future employers;[3] or the example of the Canadian psychotherapist who was permanently banned from the United States after an internet search revealed that he had experimented with LSD in his past; [4] or the cases of “revenge porn” websites, which (in most cases legally) publically host deeply private photos or videos of persons, often with their personal information, for the specific purpose of causing them deep embarrassment. [5]

These examples show that, due to the radically unrestricted spread of personal data across the web, people are no longer able to control how and by whom and in what context their personal data is being viewed. This creates the vulnerability of the data collectively being “mined” for purposes of surveillance and also of individuals being unable to control the way personal data is revealed online and therefore lose autonomy over that information.

The Right to be Forgotten and the ECJ judgement in Costeja

The problems highlighted above were the considerations for the European Union data protection regulation, drafted in 2012, which specifically provides for a right to be forgotten, as well as the judgement of the European Court of Justice in Google Spain v Mario Costeja Gonzalves.

The petitioner in this case, sought for the removal of links related to attachment proceedings for his property, which showed up upon entering his name on Google’s search engine. After refusing to remove the links, he approached the Spanish Data Protection Agency (the AEPD) to order their removal. The AEPD accepted the complaints against Google Inc. and ordered the removal of the links. On appeal to the Spanish High Court, three questions were referred to the European Court of Justice. The first related to the applicability of the data protection directive (Directive 95/46/EC) to search engines, i.e. whether they could be said to be “processing personal data” under Article 2(a) and (b) of the directive,[6] and whether they can be considered data controllers as per Section 2(d) of the directive. The court found that, because the search engines retrieve, record and organize data, and make it available for viewing (as a list of results), they can be said to process data. Further, interpreting the definition of “data controller” broadly, the court found that ‘ It is the search engine operator which determines the purposes and means of that activity and thus of the processing of personal data that it itself carries out within the framework of that activity and which must, consequently, be regarded as the ‘controller’ ’[7] and that ‘ it is undisputed that that activity of search engines plays a decisive role in the overall dissemination of those data in that it renders the latter accessible to any internet user making a search on the basis of the data subject’s name, including to internet users who otherwise would not have found the web page on which those data are published.’[8] The latter reasoning highlights the particular role of search engines, as indexers of data, in increasing the accessibility and visibility of data from multiple sources, lending to the “database” effect, which could allow the structured profiling of an individual, and therefore justifies imposing the same (and even higher) obligations on search engines as on other data controllers, notwithstanding that the search engine operator has no knowledge of the personal data which it is processing.

The second question relates to the territorial scope of the directions, i.e. whether Google Inc., being the parent company based out of the US, came within the court’s jurisdiction – which only applies to member states of the EU. The court held that even though it did not carry on the specific activity of processing personal data, Google Spain, being a subsidiary of Google Inc. which promotes and sells advertisement for the parent company, was an “establishment” in the EU and Google Inc., and, because it processed data “in the context of the activities” of the establishment specifically directed towards the inhabitants of a member state (here Spain), came under the scope of the EU law. The court also reaffirmed a broad interpretation of the data protection law in the interests of the fundamental right to privacy and therefore imputed policy considerations in interpreting the directive. [9]

The third question was whether Google Spain was in breach of the data protection directive, specifically Articles 12(b) and 14(1)(a), which state that a data subject may object to the processing of data by a data controller, and may enforce such a right against the data controller, as long as the conditions for their removal are met. The reasoning for enforcing such a claim against search engines in particular can be found in paragraphs 80 and 84 of the judgement, where the court holds that “(a search engine) enables any internet user to obtain through the list of results a structured overview of the information relating to that individual that can be found on the internet — information which potentially concerns a vast number of aspects of his private life and which, without the search engine, could not have been interconnected or could have been only with great difficulty — and thereby to establish a more or less detailed profile of him.” and that “ Given the ease with which information published on a website can be replicated on other sites and the fact that the persons responsible for its publication are not always subject to European Union legislation, effective and complete protection of data users could not be achieved if the latter had to obtain first or in parallel the erasure of the information relating to them from the publishers of websites.” In fact, the court seems to apply a higher threshold for search engines due to their peculiar nature as indexes and databases. [10]

Under the court’s conception of the right of erasure, search engines are mandated to remove content upon request by individuals, when the information is deemed to be personal data that is “ inadequate, irrelevant or excessive in relation to the purposes of the processing, that they are not kept up to date, or that they are kept for longer than is necessary unless they are required to be kept for historical, statistical or scientific purposes,” [11] notwithstanding that the publication itself is lawful and causes no prejudice to the data subject. The court reasoned that when the data being projected qualified on any of the above grounds, it would violate Article 6 of the directive, on grounds of the data not being processed “ fairly and lawfully’, that they are ‘collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a way incompatible with those purposes’, that they are ‘adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes for which they are collected and/or further processed’, that they are ‘accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date’ and, finally, that they are ‘kept in a form which permits identification of data subjects for no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the data were collected or for which they are further processed’.” [12] Therefore, the court held that, due to the nature of the information, the data subject has a right to no longer have such information linked to his or her name on a list of results following a search made on their name. The grounds laid down by the court, i.e. relevancy, inadequacy, etc. are very broad, yet such a broad conception is necessary in order to effectively deal with the problems of the nature described above.

The judgement of the ECJ concludes by applying a balancing test between the rights of the data subject and both the economic rights of the data controller as well as the general right of the public to information. It states that generally, as long as the information meets the criteria laid down by the directive, the right of the data subject trumps both these rights. However, it adds an important caveat – such a right is inapplicable “ the in specific cases, on the nature of the information in question and its sensitivity for the data subject’s private life and on the interest of the public in having that information, an interest which may vary, in particular, according to the role played by the data subject in public life.” This crucial point on the balancing of two rights directly hit by the judgement was only summarily dealt with by the ECJ, without effectively giving any clarity as to what standards to apply or laying down any specific guidelines for the application of the new rule. [13] Doing so, it effectively left the decision to determine what was in the public interest and how the rights are to be balanced to the search engines themselves. Delegating such a task to a private party takes away from the idea of the internet as a common resource which should be developed for the benefit of the larger internet community as a whole, by allowing it to be governed and controlled by private stakeholders, and therefore paves an uncertain path for this crucial aspect of internet governance.

Implications of the ECJ ruling

The decision has far reaching consequences on both privacy and on freedom of information on the internet. Google began implementing the decision through a form submission process, which requires the individual to specify which links to remove and why, and verifies that the request comes from the individual themselves via photo identification, and has also constituted an expert panel to oversee its implementation (similar to the process for removing links which infringe copyright law).[14] Google has since received more than 91,000 requests for removal, pertaining to 328,000 links of which it has approved more than half.[15] In light of such large volumes of data to process, the practical implementation of the ruling has been necessarily problematic. The implementation has been criticized both for implicating free speech on the internet as well as disregarding the spirit of the right to be forgotten. On the first count, Google has been criticized for taking down several links which are clearly are in public interest to be public, including several opinion pieces on politicians and corporate leaders, which amounts to censorship of a free press.[16] On the second count, EU privacy watchdogs have been critical of Google’s decision to notify sources of the removed content, which prompts further speculation on the issue, and secondly, privacy regulators have challenged Google’s claim that the decision is restricted to the localised versions of the websites, since the same content can be accessed through any other version of the search engine, for example, by switching over to “Google.com”.[17]

This second question also raises complicated questions about the standards for free speech and privacy which should apply on the internet. If the EU wishes for Google Inc. to remove all links from all versions of its search engine, it is, in essence, applying the balancing test of privacy and free speech which are peculiar to the EU (which evolved from a specific historical and social context, and from laws emerging out of the EU) across the entire world, and is radically different from the standard applicable in the USA or India, for example. In spirit, therefore, although the judgement seeks to protect individual privacy, the vagueness of the ruling and the lack of guidelines has had enormous negative implications for the freedom of information. In light of these problems, the uproar that has been caused in the two months since the decision is expected, especially amongst news media sites which are most affected by this ruling. However, the faulty application of the ruling does not necessarily mean that a right to be forgotten is a concept which should be buried. Proposed solutions such as archiving of data or limited restrictions, instead of erasure may be of some help in maintaining a balance between the two rights.[18] EU regulators hope to end the confusion through drafting comprehensive guidelines for the search engines, pursuant to meetings with various stakeholders, which should come out by the end of the year. [19] Until then, the confusion will most likely continue.

Is there a Right to be Forgotten in India?

Indian law is notorious for its lackadaisical approach towards both freedom of information and privacy on the internet. The law, mostly governed by the Information Technology Act, is vague and broad, and the essence of most laws is controlled by the rules enacted by non-legislative bodies pursuant to various sections of the Act. The “right to be forgotten” in India can probably be found within this framework, specifically under Rule 3(2) of the Intermediary Guideline Rules, 2011, under Section 79 of the IT Act. Under this rule, intermediaries are liable for content which is “invasive of another’s privacy”. Read with the broad definition of intermediaries under the same rules (which includes search engines specifically) and of “affected person”, the applicable law for takedown of online content is much more broad and vague than the standard laid down in Costeja. It remains to be seen whether the EU’s interpretation of privacy and the “right to be forgotten” would further the chilling effect caused by these rules.

[1] Google Spain v Mario Costeja Gonzalves, C‑131/12, Available at http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=152065&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=264438.

[2] See Victor Mayer-Schonberger, Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age, (Princeton, 2009).

[3] For example, See http://mugshots.com/; and http://www.peoplesearchpro.com/resources/background-check/criminal-records/

[4] LSD as Therapy? Write about It, Get Barred from US, (April, 2007) available at

http://thetyee.ca/News/2007/04/23/Feldmar/

[5] It’s nearly impossible to get revenge porn of the internet, (June, 2014), available t http://www.vox.com/2014/6/25/5841510/its-nearly-impossible-to-get-revenge-porn-off-the-internet

[6] Article 2(a) - “personal data” shall mean any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (“data subject”); an identifiable person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identification number or to one or more factors specific to his physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity;

Article 2(b) - “ processing of personal data” (“processing”) shall mean any operation or set of operations which is performed upon personal data, whether or not by automatic means, such as collection, recording, organisation, storage, adaptation or alteration, retrieval, consultation, use, disclosure by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available, alignment or combination, blocking, erasure or destruction;

[7] ¶36, judgment.

[8] The court also recognizes the implications on data profiling through the actions of search engines organizing results in ¶37.

[9] ¶74 judgment.

[10] In ¶83, the court notes that the processing by a search engine affect the data subject additionally to publication on a webpage; ¶87 - Indeed, since the inclusion in the list of results, displayed following a search made on the basis of a person’s name, of a web page and of the information contained on it relating to that person makes access to that information appreciably easier for any internet user making a search in respect of the person concerned and may play a decisive role in the dissemination of that information, it is liable to constitute a more significant interference with the data subject’s fundamental right to privacy than the publication on the web page.

[11] ¶92, judgment.

[12] ¶72, judgment.

[13] ¶81, judgment.

[14] The form is available at https://support.google.com/legal/contact/lr_eudpa?product=websearch

[15] Is Google intentionally overreacting on the right to be forgotten? (June, 2014), available at http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/389602/is-google-intentionally-overreacting-on-right-to-be-forgotten.

[16] Will the right to be forgotten extend to Google.com?, (July, 2014), available at http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/389983/will-right-to-be-forgotten-extend-to-google-com.

[17] The right to be forgotten is a nightmare to enforce, (July, 2014), available at http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/07/24/the-right-to-be-forgotten-is-a-nightmare-to-enforce.

[18] Michael Hoven, Balancing privacy and speech in the right to be forgotten, available ati http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/privacy/balancing-privacy-and-speech-in-the-right-to-be-forgotten#_edn15

[19] EU poses 26 questions on the right to be forgotten, (July, 2014), available at http://www.cio-today.com/article/index.php?story_id=1310024135B0

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/learning-to-forget-ecj-decision-on-the-right-to-be-forgotten-and-its-implications

Learn to Protect your Online Activities!

bernadette — 2013-08-13T13:55:20Z

The Centre for Internet and Society cordially invites you to a CryptoParty!

"Governments around the world, are greatly increasing their surveillance of the Internet. Alongside a loss of the private sphere, this also represents a clear danger to basic civil liberties. The good news is that we already have the solution: encrypting communications makes it very hard, if not entirely impossible, for others to eavesdrop on our conversations. The bad news is that crypto is largely ignored by the general public, partly because they don't know about it, and partly because even if they do, it seems too much trouble to implement." (Source)

So lets go and have a party, and teach each other how to crypto!

Everyone is invited! Especially do not hesitate to join if you are not using any crypto at all (yet!)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/cryptoparty-bangalore

Leaked Privacy Bill: 2014 vs. 2011

elonnai — 2014-04-01T10:52:41Z

The Centre for Internet and Society has recently received a leaked version of the draft Privacy Bill 2014 that the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India has drafted.

Note: After obtaining a copy of the leaked Privacy Bill 2014, we have replaced the blog "An Analysis of the New Draft Privacy Bill" which was based off of a report from the Economic Times, with this blog post.

This represents the third leak of potential privacy legislation for India that we know of, with publicly available versions having leaked in April 2011 and September 2011.

When compared to the September 2011 Privacy Bill, the text of the 2014 Bill includes a number of changes, additions, and deletions. Below is an outline of significant changes from the September 2011 Privacy Bill to the 2014 Privacy Bill:

Scope: The 2014 Bill extends the right to Privacy to all residents of India. This is in contrast to the 2011 Bill, which extended the Right to Privacy to citizens of India. The 2014 Bill furthermore recognizes the Right to Privacy as a part of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and extends to the whole of India, whereas the 2011 Bill did not explicitly recognize the Right to Privacy as being a part of Article 21, and excluded Jammu and Kashmir from its purview.
Definitions: The 2014 Bill includes a number of new definitions, redefines existing terms, and deletes others.

Terms that have been added in the 2014 Bill and the definitions

Personal identifier: Any unique alphanumeric sequence of members, letters, and symbols that specifically identifies an individual with a database or a data set.
Legitimate purpose: A purpose covered under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, which is certain, unambiguous, and limited in scope for collection of any personal data from a data subject.
Competent authority : The authority which is authorized to sanction interception or surveillance, as the case may be, under this Act or rules made there under or any other law for the time being in force.
Notification: Notification issued under this Act and published in the Official Gazette
Control : And all other cognate forms of expressions thereof, means, in relation to personal data, the collection or processing of personal data and shall include the ability to determine the purposes for and the manner in which any personal data is to be collected or processed.
Telecommunications system: Any system used for transmission or reception of any communication by wire, radio, visual or other electromagnetic means but shall not include broadcasting services.
Privacy standards: The privacy standards or protocols or codes of practice. developed by industry associations.

Terms that have been re-defined in the 2014 Bill from the 2011 Bill and the 2014 Bill definitions

Communication data:The data held or obtained by a telecommunications service provider in relation to a data subject including the data usage of the telecommunications
Data subject : Any living individual, whose personal data is controlled by any person
Interception: In relation to any communication in the course of its transmission through a telecommunication system, any action that results in some or all of the contents of that communication being made available, while being transmitted, to a person other than the sender or the intended recipient of the communication.
Person: Any natural or legal person and shall include a body corporate, partnership, society, trust, association of persons, Government company, government department, urban local body, or any other officer, agency or instrumentality of the state.
Sensitive personal data: Personal data relating to: (a) physical and mental health including medical history, (b) biometric, bodily or genetic information, (c) criminal convictions (d) password, (e) banking credit and financial data (f) narco analysis or polygraph test data, (g) sexual orientation. Provided that any information that is freely available or accessible in public domain or to be furnished under the Right to Information Act 2005 or any other law for time being in force shall not be regarded as sensitive personal data for the purposes of this Act.
Individual: a resident of Indian
Covert surveillance: covert Surveillance" means obtaining private information about an individual and his private affairs without his knowledge and includes: (i) directed surveillance which is undertaken for the purposes of specific investigation or specific operation in such a manner as is likely to result in the obtaining of private information about a person whether or not that person was specifically identified in relation to the investigation or operation; (ii) intrusive surveillance which is carried out by an individual or a surveillance device in relation to anything taking place on a residential premise or in any private vehicle. It also covers use of any device outside the premises or a vehicle wherein it can give information of the same quality and detail as if the device were in the premises or vehicle; (iii) covert human intelligence service which is information obtained by a person who establishes or maintains a personal or other relationship with an individual for the covert purpose of using such a relationship to obtain or to provide access to any personal information about that individual
Re-identify: means the recovery of data from an anonymised data, capable of identifying a data subject whose personal data has been anonymised;
Process: “process" and all other cognate forms of expressions thereof, means any operation or set of operations, whether carried out through automatic means or not by any person or organization, that relates to:(a) collation, storage, disclosure, transfer, updating, modification, alteration or use of personal data; or (b) the merging, linking, blocking, degradation or anonymisation of personal data;
Direct marketing: Direct Marketing means sending of a commercial communication to any individual
Data controller: any person who controls, at any point in time, the personal data of a data subject but shall not include any person who merely provides infrastructure for the transfer or storage of personal data to it data controller;
Government: the Central Government or as the case may be, the State Government and includes the Union territory Administration, local authority or any agency and instrumentality of the Government;

Terms that have been removed from the 2014 Bill that were in the 2011 Bill and the 2011 definition:

Consent: Includes implied consent
Maintain: Includes maintain, collect, use, or disseminate.
Data processor: In relation to personal data means any person (other than the employee of the data controller), who processes the data on behalf of the data controller.
Local authority: A municipal committee, district board, body of port commissioners, council, board or other authority legally entitled to, or entrusted by the Government with, the control or management of a municipal or local fund.
Prescribed: Prescribed by rules made under this Act.
Surveillance: Surveillance undertaken through installation and use of CCTVs and other system which capture images to identify or monitor individuals (this was removed from the larger definition of surveillance.)
DNA: Cell in the body of an individual, whether collected from a cheek, cell, blood cell, skin cell or other tissue, which allows for identification of such individual when compared with other individual.

Terms that have remained broadly (with some modification) the same between the 2014 Bill and 2011 Bill (as per the 2014 Bill definition):

Authority: The Data Protection Authority of India
Appellate tribunal: the Cyber Appellate Tribunal established under Sub-Section (1) of section n48 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Personal data: Any data which relates to a data subject, if that data subject can be identified from that data, either directly or indirectly, in conjunction with other data that the data controller has or is likely to have and includes any expression of opinion about such data subject.
Member: Member of the Authority
Disclose: and all other cognate forms of expression thereof, means disclosure, dissemination, broadcast, communication, distribution, transmission, or make available in any manner whatsoever, of personal data.
Anonymised: The deletion of all data that identifies the data subject or can be used to identify the data subject by linking such data to any other data of the data subject, by the data controller.

Exceptions to the Right to Privacy: According to the 2011 Bill, the exceptions to the Right to Privacy included:

Sovereignty, integrity and security of India, strategic, scientific or economic interest of the state
Preventing incitement to the commission of any offence
Prevention of public disorder or the detection of crime
Protection of rights and freedoms of others
In the interest of friendly relations with foreign state
Any other purpose specifically mentioned in the Act.

The 2014 Bill reflects almost all of the exceptions defined in the 2011 Bill, but removes ‘detection of crime’ from the list of exceptions. The 2014 Bill also qualifies that the application of each exception must be adequate, relevant, and not excessive to the objective it aims to achieve and must be imposed on the manner prescribed – whereas the 2011 Bill stated only that the application of exceptions to the Right to Privacy cannot be disproportionate to the purpose sought to be achieved.

Acts not to be considered deprivations of privacy: The 2011 Bill lists five instances that will not be considered a deprivation of privacy - namely

For journalistic purposes unless it is proven that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy,
Processing data for personal or household purposes,
Installation of surveillance equipment for the security of private premises,
Disclosure of information via the Right to Information Act 2005,
And any other activity exempted under the Act.

The 2014 limits these instances to:

The processing of data purely for personal or household purposes,
Disclosure of information under the Right to Information Act 2005,
And any other action specifically exempted under the Act.

Privacy Principles: Unlike the 2011 Bill, the 2014 Bill defines nine specific privacy principles: notice, choice and consent, collection limitation, purposes limitation, access and correction, disclosure of information, security, openness, and accountability. The Privacy Principles will apply to all existing and evolving practices.

Provisions for Personal Data: Both the 2011 Bill and the 2014 Bill have provisions that apply to the processing of personal and sensitive personal data. The 2011 Bill includes provisions addressing the:

Collection of personal data,
Processing of personal data,
Data quality,
Provisions relating to sensitive personal data,
Retention of personal data,
Sharing (disclosure) of personal data,
Security of personal data,
Notification of breach of security,
Access to personal data by data subject,
Updation of personal data by data subject
Mandatory processing of data,
Trans border flows of personal data.

Of these, the 2014 Bill broadly (though not verbatim) reflects the 2011 Bill provisions relating to the:

Collection of personal data,
Processing of personal data,
Access to personal data,
Updating personal data
Retention of personal data
Data quality,

The 2014 Bill has further includes provisions addressing:

Openness and accountability,
Choice,
Consent,
Exceptions for personal identifiers.

The 2014 Bill has made changes to the provisions addressing:

Provisions relating to sensitive personal data,
Sharing (disclosure of personal data),
Notification of breach of security,
Mandatory processing of data
Security of personal data
Trans border flows of personal data.

The changes that have been made have been mapped out below:

Provisions Relating to Sensitive Personal Data: The 2011Bill and 2014 Bill both require authorization by the Authority for the collection and processing of sensitive personal data. At the same time, both Bills include a list of circumstances under which authorization for the collection and processing of sensitive personal data is not required. On the whole, this list is the same between the 2011 Bill and 2014 Bill, but the 2014 Bill adds the following circumstances on which authorization is not needed for the collection and processing of sensitive personal data:

For purposes related to the insurance policy of the individual if the data relates to the physical or mental health or medical history of the individual and is collected and processed by an insurance company.
Collected or processed by the Government Intelligence agencies in the interest of the sovereignty, integrity, security or the strategic, scientific or economic interest of India.

The 2014 Bill also allows the Authority to specify additional regulations for sensitive personal data, and requires that any additional transaction sought to be performed with the sensitive personal information requires fresh consent to first be obtained. The 2014 Bill carves out another exception for Government agencies, allowing disclosure of sensitive personal data without consent to Government agencies mandated under law for the purposes of verification of identity, or for prevention, detection, investigation including cyber incidents, prosecution, and punishment of offences.

Notification of Breach of Security: The provisions relating to the notification of breach of security in the 2014 Bill differ from the 2011 Bill. Specifically, the 2014 Bill removes the requirement that data controllers must publish information about a data breach in two national news papers. Thus, in the 2014 Bill, data controllers must only inform the data protection authority and affected individuals of the breach.

Notice: The 2014 Bill changes the structure of the notice mechanism – where in the 2011 Bill, prior to the processing of data, data controllers had to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the data subject was aware of the following:

The documented purposes for which such personal data is being collected
Whether providing of personal data by the data subject is voluntary or mandatory under law or in order to avail of any product or service
The consequences of the failure to provide the personal data
The recipient or category of recipients of the personal data
The name and address of the data controller and all persons who are or will be processing information on behalf of the data controller
If such personal data is intended to be transferred out of the country, details of such transfer.

In contrast the 2014 Bill provides that before personal data is collected, the data controller must give notice of:

What data is being collected and
The legitimate purpose for the collection.

If the purpose for which the data was collected has changed the data controller will then be obligated to provide the data subject with notice of:

The use to which the personal data will be put
Whether or not the personal data will be disclosed to a third party and if so the identity of such person
If the personal data being collected is intended to be transferred outside India and the reasons for doing so, how the transfer helps in achieving the legitimate purpose and whether the country to which such data is transferred has suitable legislation to provide for adequate protection and privacy of the data.
The security and safeguards established by the data controller in relation to the personal data
The processes available to a data subject to access and correct his personal data
The recourse open to a data subject, if he has any complaints in respect of collection or processing of the personal data and the procedure relating thereto
The name, address, and contact particulars of the data controller and all persons who will be processing the personal data on behalf of the data controller.

Disclosure of personal data: Though titled as ‘sharing of personal data’ both the 2011 Bill and 2014 Bill require consent for the disclosure of personal information, but list exceptional circumstances on which consent is not needed. In the 2011 bill, the relevant provision permits disclosure of personal data without consent only if (i) the sharing was a part of the documented purpose, (ii) the sharing is for any purpose relating to the exceptions to the right to privacy or (iii) the Data Protection Authority has authorized the sharing. In contrast, the 2014 Bill permits disclosure of personal data without consent if (i) such disclosure is part of the legitimate purpose (ii) such disclosure is for achieving any of the objectives of section 5 (iii) the Authority has by order authorized such disclosure (iv) the disclosure is required under any law for the time being in force (v) the disclosure is made to the Government Intelligence agencies in the interest of the sovereignty, integrity, security or the strategic, scientific or economic interest of India. As a safeguard, the 2014 Bill requires that any person to whom personal information is disclosed, whether a resident or not, must adhere to all provisions of the Act. Furthermore, the disclosure of personal data must be limited to the extent which is necessary to achieve the purpose for which the disclosure is sought and no person can make public any personal data that is in its control.

Transborder flow of information: Though both the 2011 Bill and the 2014 Bill require any country that data is transferred to must have equivalent or stronger data protection standards in place, the 2014 Bill carves out an exception for law enforcement and intelligence agencies and the transfer of any personal data outside the territory of India, in the interest of the sovereignty, integrity, security or the strategic, scientific or economic interest of India.

Mandatory Processing of Data: Both the 2011 Bill and 2014 Bill have provisions that address the mandatory processing of data. These provisions are similar, but the 2014 Bill includes a requirement that data controllers must anonymize personal data that is collected without prior consent from the data subject within a reasonable time frame after collection.

Security of Personal Data: The provision relating to the security of personal information in the 2014 Bill has been changed from the 2011 Bill by expanding the list and type of breaches that must be prevented, but removing requirements that data controllers must ensure all contractual arrangements with data processors specifically ensure that the data is maintained with the same level of security.

Conditions on which provisions do not apply: Both the 2011Bill and 2014 Bill define conditions on which the provisions of updating personal data, access, notification of breach of security, retention of personal data, data quality, consent, choice, notice, and right to privacy will not apply to personal data. Though the 2011 Bill and 2014 Bill reflect the same conditions, the 2014 Bill carves out an exception for Government Intelligence Agencies - stating that the provisions of updating personal data, access to data by the data subject, notification about breach of security, retention of personal data, data quality, processing of personal data, consent, choice, notice, collection from an individual will not apply to data collected or processed in the interest of the sovereignty, integrity, security or the strategic, scientific or economic interest of India.
Privacy Officers: Unlike the 2011 Bill, the 2014 Bill defines the role of the privacy officer that must be established by every data controller for the purpose of overseeing the security of personal data and implementation of the provisions of the Act.
Power of Authority to Exempt: Both the 2011 Bill and 2014 Bill contain provisions that enable the Authority to waive the applicability of specific provisions of the Act. The circumstances on which this can be done are based on the exceptions to the Right to Privacy in both the 2011 and 2014 Bill. To this extent, the 2014 Bill differs slightly from the 2011 Bill, by removing the power of the Authority to exempt for the ‘detection of crime’ and ‘any other legitimate purpose mentioned in this Act’ .

The Data Protection Authority: The 2011 Bill and 2014 Bill both establish Data Protection Authorities, but the 2014 Bill further clarifies certain aspects of the functioning of the Authority and expands the functions and the powers of the Authority. For example, new functions of the Authority include:

Auditing any or all personal data controlled by the data controller to assess whether it is being maintained in accordance with the Act,
Suggesting international instruments relevant to the administration of the Act,
Encouraging industry associations to evolve privacy standards for self regulations, adjudicating on disputes arising between data controllers or between individuals and data controllers.

The 2014 Bill also expands the powers of the Data Protection Authority – importantly giving him the power to receive, investigate complaints about alleged violations of privacy and issue appropriate orders or directions.

At the same time, the 2014 Bill carves out an exception for Government Intelligence Agencies and Law Enforcement agencies – preventing the Authority from conducting investigations, issuing appropriate orders or directions, and adjudicating complaints in respect to actions taken by the Government Intelligences Agencies and Law Enforcement, if for the objectives of (a) sovereignty, integrity or security of India; or(b) strategic, scientific or economic interest of India; or(c) preventing incitement to the commission of any offence, or (d) prevention of public disorder, or(e) the investigation of any crime; or (f) protection of rights and freedoms of others; or (g) friendly relations with foreign states; or (h) any other legitimate purpose mentioned in this Act.

This power is instead vested with a court of competent jurisdiction.

The National Data Controller Registry: The 2014 Bill removes the National Data Controller Registry and requirements for data controllers to register themselves and oversight of the Registry by the Data Protection Authority.
Direct Marketing: Both the 2011 and 2014 Bills contain provisions regulating the use of personal information for direct marketing purposes. Though the provisions are broadly the same, the 2011 Bill envisions that no person will undertake direct marketing unless he/she is registered in the ‘National Data Registry’ and one of the stated purposes is direct marketing. As the 2014 Bill removes the National Data Registry, the 2014 Bill now requires that any person undertaking direct marketing must have on record where he/she has obtained personal data from.
Interception of Communications: Though maintaining some of the safeguards defined in the 2011 Bill for interception, 2014 Bill changes the interception regime envisioned in the 2011 Bill by carving out a wide exception for organizations monitoring the electronic mail of employees, removing provisions requiring the interception take place only for the minimum period of time required for achieving the purposes, and removing provisions excluding the use of intercepted communications as evidence in a court of law. Similar to the 2011 Bill, the 2014 Bill specifies that the principles of notice, choice and consent, access and correction, and openness will not apply to the interception of communications.
Video Recording Equipment in public places: Unlike the 2011 Bill, which addressed only the use of CCTV’s, the 2014 Bill addresses the installation and use of video recording equipment in public places. Though both the 2011 Bill and 2014 Bill both prevent the use of recording equipment and CCTVs for the purpose of identifying an individual, monitoring his personal particulars, or revealing personal, or otherwise adversely affecting his right to privacy - the 2014 Bill requires that the use of recording equipment must be in accordance with procedures, for a legitimate purpose, and proportionate to the objective for which the equipment was installed.

The 2014 Bill makes a broad exception to these safeguards for law enforcement agencies and government intelligence agencies in the interest of the sovereignty, integrity, security or the strategic, scientific, or economic interest of India.

Privacy Standards and Self Regulation: The 2014 Bill establishes a specific mechanism of self regulation where industry associations will develop privacy standards and adhere to them. For this purpose, an industry ombudsman should be appointed. The standards must be in conformity with the National Privacy Principles and the provisions of the Privacy Bill. The developed standards will be submitted to the Authority and the Authority may frame regulations based on the standards. If an industry association has not developed privacy standards, the Authority may frame regulations for a specific sector.
Settlement of Disputes and Appellate Tribunal: The 2014 Bill makes significant change to the process for settling disputes from the 2011 Bill. In the 2014 Bill an Alternative Dispute Mechanism is established where disputes between individuals and data controllers are first addressed by the Privacy Officer of each Data Controller or the industry level Ombudsman. If individuals are not satisfied with the decision of the Ombudsman they may take the complaint to the Authority. Individuals can also take the complaint directly to the Authority if they wish. If an individual is aggrieved with the decision of the Authority, by a privacy officer or ombudsman through the Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanism, or by the adjudicating officer of the Authority, they may approach the Appellate Tribunal. Any order from the Appellate Tribunal can be appealed at a high court.

In the 2011 Bill disputes between the data controller and an individual can be taken directly to the Appellate Tribunal and orders from the Authority can be appealed at the Tribunal. There is not further path for appeal to an order of the tribunal.

Offences and Penalties: The 2014 Bill changes the structure of the offences and penalties section by breaking the two into separate sections - one addressing offences and one addressing penalties while the 2011 Bill addressed offences and penalties in the same section.

Offences: The 2014 Bill penalizes every offence with imprisonment and a fine and empowers a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police to investigate any offence, limits the courts ability to take cognizance of an offence to only those brought by the Authority, requires that the Court be no lower than a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or a Chief Judicial Magistrate, and permits courts to compound offences. The 2014 Bill further specifies that any offence that is punishable with three years in prison and above is cognizable, and offences punishable with three years in prison are bailable. . Under the 2014 Bill offences are defined as:

Unauthorized interception of communications
Disclosure of intercepted communications
Undertaking unauthorized Covert Surveillance
Unauthorized use of disclosure of communication data

The offences defined under the Act are reflected in the 2011 Bill, but the time in prison and fine is higher in the 2014 Bill.

Penalties: The 2014 Bill provides a list of penalties including:

Penalty for obtaining personal data on false pretext
Penalty for violation of conditions of license pertaining to maintenance of secrecy and confidentiality by telecommunications service providers
Penalty for disclosure of other personal information
Penalties for contravention of directions of the Authority
Penalties for data theft
Penalties for unauthorised collection, processing, and disclosure of personal data
Penalties for unauthorized use of personal data for direction marketing. These penalties reflect the penalties in the 2011 bill, but prescribe higher fines

Adjudicating Officer: Unlike the 2011 Bill that did not have in place an adjudicating officer, the 2014 Bill specifies that the Chairperson of the Authority will appoint a Member of the Authority not below the Rank of Director of the Government of India to be an adjudicating officer. The adjudicating officer will have the power to impose a penalty and will have the same powers as vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure. Every proceeding before the adjudicating officer will be considered a judicial processing. When adjudicating the officer must take into consideration the amount of disproportionate gain or unfair advantage, the amount of loss caused, the respective nature of the default

Civil Remedies and compensation: Both the 2011 and 2014 Bill contain provisions that permit an individual to pursue a civil remedy, but the 2014 Bill limits these instances to - if loss or damage has been suffered or an adverse determination is made about an individual due to negligence on complying with the Act, and provides for the possibility that the contravening parties will have to provide a public notice of the offense.

The 2014 Bill removes provisions specifying that individuals that have suffered loss due to a contravention by the data controller of the Act are entitled to compensation.

Exceptions for intelligence agencies: Unlike the 2011 Bill, the 2014 Bill includes an exception for Government Intelligence Agencies and Law Enforcement Agencies – stating that the Authority will not have the power to conduct investigations, issue appropriate orders and directions or otherwise adjudicate complaints in respect of action taken by the Government intelligence agencies and Law Enforcement agencies for achieving any of the objectives that reflect the defined exceptions to privacy.

The Centre for Internet and Society welcomes many of the changes that are reflected in the Privacy Bill 2014, but are cautious about the wide exceptions that have been carved out for law enforcement and intelligence agencies in the Bill.

In 2012, the Report of Group of Expert s on Privacy was developed for the purpose of informing a privacy framework for India. As such the Centre for Internet and Society will be analyzing in upcoming posts the draft Privacy Bill 2014 and the recommendations in the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/leaked-privacy-bill-2014-v-2011

Law & Order through Traffic Systems

Shyam Ponappa — 2013-07-03T05:29:14Z

A TV white space system for traffic management may induce us to observe discipline and law-abiding behaviour, writes Shyam Ponappa in an article published in the Business Standard on June 5, 2013.

Read the original column published in the Business Standard. This was cross-posted in Organizing India Blogspot.

India coasts on a post-feudal-colonial mélange of currents and tides, with the brigandage of opportunistic politics fed by our (the voters’) greed for short-term benefits. The result is grotesque populism and corruption in lieu of the deferred gratification of pleasing cities and countryside with the appurtenances of proper governance: sidewalks and drains, toilets, transport, administration and order. We must develop solutions with an integrated, problem-solving approach, not just wait.

In such chaotic times, should we even consider minor themes, like trying to bring order to our traffic, and our behaviour on our roads? Yes, if one accepts that turmoil and crises provide opportunities as much as threats, and because these areas are among the few in which there may be chances of success if there are well-directed efforts. Instead of passively being buffeted by fate, we can do something about it: analyse the causes of our horrific traffic, devise an approach to mitigate or contain some factors, and formulate and implement solutions. Also, the technology is readily available, and the solutions need not be all-encompassing efforts on a countrywide scale, or not at all. Hence this pitch for a technology- and institution-driven, systems approach to traffic management that could potentially change the way we are. The big assumptions are: (a) that systems can induce order and law-abiding behaviour on our roads, for a start, and (b) that this will reduce traffic accidents. Let's consider how.

Traffic Accidents & Deaths

Information on traffic accidents is available from the National Crime Records Bureau at the ministry of home affairs. The latest report available is for 2011. There were 473,084 reported traffic accidents in 2011, comprising 440,123 road accidents, 2,385 "rail-road accidents" and 30,576 "other railway accidents". The figure for accidental deaths from unnatural causes was 367,194, of which traffic accidents accounted for 165,072. The latter included road and rail accidents, but excluded deaths from drowning and accidents involving aircraft. Road traffic accidents and deaths countrywide and for the Union territory of Delhi for the last five years are shown in the graphs below.

While frightful enough, the graphs do not quite convey the horrid rough-and-tumble unpleasantness of our roads. Could there be some way to bring order to this aspect of our lives? Perhaps, if we can imagine better scenarios, and then apply ourselves to act collectively to achieve them. It may be possible to introduce systems that elicit better governance and behaviour, as in the following instances.

Wireless smart grids and TV white space

An early example of augmenting existing communications networks with TV "white space" (ie, the unused TV spectrum) devices was implemented in America, in the city of Wilmington in North Carolina and its environs of New Hanover County. The City of Wilmington has about 100,000 people in about 105 square kilometres, while the county has a population of nearly 200,000 in an area of about 515 square kilometres. [1]

Because of the distance between localities, the extent of wetlands and waterways, and the dense foliage, extending broadband coverage to all its residential areas was difficult and expensive. In January 2012, Spectrum Bridge helped with installing a wireless overlay in three locations using TV white spaces to provide broadband connectivity. Additional equipment enabled real-time traffic monitoring to improve efficiency, reducing congestion and travel time, as well as aiding in law enforcement, in disaster management such as hurricane evacuations, and in enabling broadband connectivity for public schools. The coverage extended to the parks and recreational areas, providing better facilities for citizens, as well as more efficient environmental monitoring. The point is that communications can be effected much more effectively and efficiently through using TV "white space" bands.

In April 2012, a different group including Google, Microsoft, the BBC, and so on set up a smart grid in the university town of Cambridge in England, using TV white space in six locations covering a radius of about 6 km, comparable to central New Delhi. This network covers a population of about 125,000 and enables the management not only of services like electricity meters, but also of air quality sensors, street lights, traffic management, and parking spaces.[2]

Traffic and law enforcement systems for India

Now consider New Delhi and the National Capital Region. While it has a huge population over an extensive area, central New Delhi covers a radius of some 6-7 km, as do other localities in the city and its environs. Apart from the scale of population and geography, there are also the differences in culture or ethos with the instances mentioned earlier.

Yet, if our authorities could pull together a coordinated effort to develop and implement a network that would support wireless webcams, it may well provide a basis for governance that could work. If initiated for traffic and area management, there could be major improvements in bringing order through non-discretionary traffic management, as also in upholding law enforcement for the safety of citizens.

There may be an outcry from civil liberties champions, but residents will likely welcome the benefits, although they might cavil at unpopular but essential disciplines like system extensions to electricity and water metering. It will also bring about the cutting of the knot of India's welter of unimplemented laws.

The elements of this system would have to consist of really good overall design for the wireless overlay using TV white space bands, initially for a system of web cameras. These spectrum bands are unused despite being very effective for long-range communications. There would need to be some form of automated action report generation systems - for example, penalties for traffic violations. Also needed would be appropriate institutional support so that violators cannot ignore penalties, like fast-track collection processes that do not require recourse to an overburdened and dilatory judicial system. In addition, some degree of surveillance for crisis detection and rapid response would be necessary to deal with law enforcement.

The actual implementation could be modular by location and purpose while maintaining an integrated systems approach, so that areas of action as well as locations could be phased and need not be done simultaneously on a massive scale. In other words, it need not have the ab initio monumental scale of the UID, and could perhaps avoid some of the controversial design issues confronting the latter. It needs the approach, coordination and effort that achieved the Metro.

[1].http://www.spectrumbridge.com/ProductsServices/WhiteSpacesSolutions/success-stories/wilmington.aspx

[2].http://gigaom.com/2012/04/25/brits-score-white-space-first-with-city-wide-network/

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/telecom/blog/business-standard-article-opinion-shyam-ponappa-june-5-2013-law-and-order-through-traffic-systems

Kiran A B, Elonnai Hickok, and Vanya Rakesh - Policies and Standards across Five International Smart Cities

sumandro — 2016-06-10T16:36:02Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/SmartCitiesPoliciesStandards-20160608

Jurisdiction: The Taboo Topic at ICANN

pranesh — 2016-06-29T07:51:05Z

The "IANA Transition" that is currently underway is a sham since it doesn't address the most important question: that of jurisdiction. This article explores why the issue of jurisdiction is the most important question, and why it remains unaddressed.

In March 2014, the US government announced that they were going to end the contract they have with ICANN to run the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), and hand over control to the “global multistakeholder community”. They insisted that the plan for transition had to come through a multistakeholder process and have stakeholders “across the global Internet community”.

Why is the U.S. government removing the NTIA contract?

The main reason for the U.S. government's action is that it will get rid of a political thorn in the U.S. government's side: keeping the contract allows them to be called out as having a special role in Internet governance (with the Affirmation of Commitments between the U.S. Department of Commerce and ICANN, the IANA contract, and the cooperative agreement with Verisign), and engaging in unilateralism with regard to the operation of the root servers of the Internet naming system, while repeatedly declaring that they support a multistakeholder model of Internet governance.

This contradiction is what they are hoping to address. Doing away with the NTIA contract will also increase — ever so marginally — ICANN’s global legitimacy: this is something that world governments, civil society organizations, and some American academics have been asking for nearly since ICANN’s inception in 1998. For instance, here are some demands made in a declaration by the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus at WSIS, in 2005:

“ICANN will negotiate an appropriate host country agreement to replace its California Incorporation, being careful to retain those aspects of its California Incorporation that enhance its accountability to the global Internet user community. "ICANN's decisions, and any host country agreement, must be required to comply with public policy requirements negotiated through international treaties in regard to, inter alia, human rights treaties, privacy rights, gender agreements and trade rules. … "It is also expected that the multi-stakeholder community will observe and comment on the progress made in this process through the proposed [Internet Governance] Forum."

In short: the objective of the transition is political, not technical. In an ideal world, we should aim at reducing U.S. state control over the core of the Internet's domain name system.¹

It is our contention that U.S. state control over the core of the Internet's domain name system is not being removed by the transition that is currently underway.

Why is the Transition Happening Now?

Despite the U.S. government having given commitments in the past that were going to finish the IANA transition by "September 30, 2000", (the White Paper on Management of Internet Names and Addresses states: "The U.S. Government would prefer that this transition be complete before the year 2000. To the extent that the new corporation is established and operationally stable, September 30, 2000 is intended to be, and remains, an 'outside' date.") and later by "fall of 2006",² those turned out to be empty promises. However, this time, the transition seems to be going through, unless the U.S. Congress manages to halt it.

However, in order to answer the question of "why now?" fully, one has to look a bit at the past.

In 1998, through the White Paper on Management of Internet Names and Addresses the U.S. government asserted it’s control over the root, and asserted — some would say arrogated to itself — the power to put out contracts for both the IANA functions as well as the 'A' Root (i.e., the Root Zone Maintainer function that Network Solutions Inc. then performed, and continues to perform to date in its current avatar as Verisign). The IANA functions contract — a periodically renewable contract — was awarded to ICANN, a California-based non-profit corporation that was set up exclusively for this purpose, but which evolved around the existing IANA (to placate the Internet Society).

Meanwhile, of course, there were criticisms of ICANN from multiple foreign governments and civil society organizations. Further, despite it being a California-based non-profit on contract with the government, domestically within the U.S., there was pushback from constituencies that felt that more direct U.S. control of the DNS was important.

As Goldsmith and Wu summarize:

"Milton Mueller and others have shown that ICANN’s spirit of “self-regulation” was an appealing label for a process that could be more accurately described as the U.S. government brokering a behind-the-scenes deal that best suited its policy preferences ... the United States wanted to ensure the stability of the Internet, to fend off the regulatory efforts of foreign governments and international organizations, and to maintain ultimate control. The easiest way to do that was to maintain formal control while turning over day-to-day control of the root to ICANN and the Internet Society, which had close ties to the regulation-shy American technology industry." [footnotes omitted]

And that brings us to the first reason that the NTIA announced the transition in 2014, rather than earlier.

ICANN Adjudged Mature Enough

The NTIA now sees ICANN as being mature enough: the final transition was announced 16 years after ICANN's creation, and complaints about ICANN and its legitimacy had largely died down in the international arena in that while. Nowadays, governments across the world send their representatives to ICANN, thus legitimizing ICANN. States have largely been satisfied by participating in the Government Advisory Council, which, as its name suggests, only has advisory powers. Further, unlike in the early days, there is no serious push for states assuming control of ICANN. Of course they grumble about the ICANN Board not following their advice, but no government, as far as I am aware, has walked out or refused to participate.

L'affaire Snowden

Many within the United States, and some without, believe that the United States not only plays an exceptional role to play in the running of the Internet — by dint of historical development and dominance of American companies — but that it ought to have an exceptional role because it is the best country to exercise 'oversight' over 'the Internet' (often coming from clueless commentators), and from dinosaurs of the Internet era, like American IP lawyers and American 'homeland' security hawks, Jones Day, who are ICANN's lawyers, and other jingoists and those policymakers who are controlled by these narrow-minded interests.

The Snowden revelations were, in that way, a godsend for the NTIA, as it allowed them a fig-leaf of international criticism with which to counter these domestic critics and carry on with a transition that they have been seeking to put into motion for a while. The Snowden revelations led Dilma Rousseff, President of Brazil, to state in September 2013, at the 68th U.N. General Assembly, that Brazil would "present proposals for the establishment of a civilian multilateral framework for the governance and use of the Internet", and as Diego Canabarro points out this catalysed the U.S. government and the technical community into taking action.

Given this context, a few months after the Snowden revelations, the so-called I* organizations met — seemingly with the blessing of the U.S. government³ — in Montevideo, and put out a 'Statement on the Future of Internet Governance' that sought to link the Snowden revelations on pervasive surveillance with the need to urgently transition the IANA stewardship role away from the U.S. government. Of course, the signatories to that statement knew fully well, as did most of the readers of that statement, that there is no linkage between the Snowden revelations about pervasive surveillance and the operations of the DNS root, but still they, and others, linked them together. Specifically, the I* organizations called for "accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all governments, participate on an equal footing."

One could posit the existence of two other contributing factors as well.

Given political realities in the United States, a transition of this sort is probably best done before an ultra-jingoistic President steps into office.

Lastly, the ten-yearly review of the World Summit on Information Society was currently underway. At the original WSIS (as seen from the civil society quoted above) the issue of US control over the root was a major issue of contention. At that point (and during where the 2006 date for globalization of ICANN was emphasized by the US government).

Why Jurisdiction is Important

Jurisdiction has a great many aspects. Inter alia, these are:

Legal sanctions applicable to changes in the root zone (for instance, what happens if a country under US sanctions requests a change to the root zone file?)
Law applicable to resolution of contractual disputes with registries, registrars, etc.
Law applicable to labour disputes.
Law applicable to competition / antitrust law that applies to ICANN policies and regulations.
Law applicable to disputes regarding ICANN decisions, such as allocation of gTLDs, or non-renewal of a contract.
Law applicable to consumer protection concerns.
Law applicable to financial transparency of the organization.
Law applicable to corporate condition of the organization, including membership rights.
Law applicable to data protection-related policies & regulations.
Law applicable to trademark and other speech-related policies & regulations.
Law applicable to legal sanctions imposed by a country against another.

Some of these, but not all, depend on where bodies like ICANN [the policy-making body], the IANA functions operator [the proposed "Post-Transition IANA"], and the root zone maintainer are incorporated or maintain their primary office, while others depend on the location of the office [for instance, Turkish labour law applies for the ICANN office in Istanbul], while yet others depend on what's decided by ICANN in contracts (for instance, the resolution of contractual disputes with ICANN, filing of suits with regard to disputes over new generic TLDs, etc.).

However, an issue like sanctions, for instance, depends on where ICANN/PTI/RMZ are incorporated and maintain their primary office.

As Milton Mueller notes, the current IANA contract "requires ICANN to be incorporated in, maintain a physical address in, and perform the IANA functions in the U.S. This makes IANA subject to U.S. law and provides America with greater political influence over ICANN."

He further notes that:

While it is common to assert that the U.S. has never abused its authority and has always taken the role of a neutral steward, this is not quite true. During the controversy over the .xxx domain, the Bush administration caved in to domestic political pressure and threatened to block entry of the domain into the root if ICANN approved it (Declaration of the Independent Review Panel, 2010). It took five years, an independent review challenge and the threat of litigation from a businessman willing to spend millions to get the .xxx domain into the root.

Thus it is clear that even if the NTIA's role in the IANA contract goes away, jurisdiction remains an important issue.

U.S. Doublespeak on Jurisdiction

In March 2014, when NTIA finally announced that they would hand over the reins to “the global multistakeholder community”. They’ve laid down two procedural condition: that it be developed by stakeholders across the global Internet community and have broad community consensus, and they have proposed 5 substantive conditions that any proposal must meet:

Support and enhance the multistakeholder model;
Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS;
Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services; and,
Maintain the openness of the Internet.
Must not replace the NTIA role with a solution that is government-led or an inter-governmental organization.

In that announcement there is no explicit restriction on the jurisdiction of ICANN (whether it relate to its incorporation, the resolution of contractual disputes, resolution of labour disputes, antitrust/competition law, tort law, consumer protection law, privacy law, or speech law, and more, all of which impact ICANN and many, but not all, of which are predicated on the jurisdiction of ICANN’s incorporation), the jurisdiction(s) of the IANA Functions Operator(s) (i.e., which executive, court, or legislature’s orders would it need to obey), and the jurisdiction of the Root Zone Maintainer (i.e., which executive, court, or legislature’s orders would it need to obey).

However, Mr. Larry Strickling, the head of the NTIA, in his testimony before the U.S. House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, made it clear that,

“Frankly, if [shifting ICANN or IANA jurisdiction] were being proposed, I don't think that such a proposal would satisfy our criteria, specifically the one that requires that security and stability be maintained.”

Possibly, that argument made sense in 1998, due to the significant concentration of DNS expertise in the United States. However, in 2015, that argument is hardly convincing, and is frankly laughable.⁴

Targetting that remark, in ICANN 54 at Dublin, we asked Mr. Strickling:

"So as we understand it, the technical stability of the DNS doesn't necessarily depend on ICANN's jurisdiction being in the United States. So I wanted to ask would the US Congress support a multistakeholder and continuing in the event that it's shifting jurisdiction."

Mr. Strickling's response was:

"No. I think Congress has made it very clear and at every hearing they have extracted from Fadi a commitment that ICANN will remain incorporated in the United States. Now the jurisdictional question though, as I understand it having been raised from some other countries, is not so much jurisdiction in terms of where ICANN is located. It's much more jurisdiction over the resolution of disputes.

"And that I think is an open issue, and that's an appropriate one to be discussed. And it's one I think where ICANN has made some movement over time anyway.

"So I think you have to ... when people use the word jurisdiction, we need to be very precise about over what issues because where disputes are resolved and under what law they're resolved, those are separate questions from where the corporation may have a physical headquarters."

As we have shown above, jurisdiction is not only about the jurisdiction of "resolution of disputes", but also, as Mueller reminds us, about the requirement that ICANN (and now, the PTI) be "incorporated in, maintain a physical address in, and perform the IANA functions in the U.S. This makes IANA subject to U.S. law and provides America with greater political influence over ICANN."

In essence, the U.S. government has essentially said that they would veto the transition if the jurisdiction of ICANN or PTI's incorporation were to move out of the U.S., and they can prevent that from happening after the transition, since as things stand ICANN and PTI will still come within the U.S. Congress's jurisdiction.

Why Has the ICG Failed to Consider Jurisdiction?

Will the ICG proposal or the proposed new ICANN by-laws reduce existing U.S. control? No, they won't. (In fact, as we will argue below, the proposed new ICANN by-laws make this problem even worse.) The proposal by the names community ("the CWG proposal") still has a requirement (in Annex S) that the Post-Transition IANA (PTI) be incorporated in the United States, and a similar suggestion hidden away as a footnote. Further, the proposed by-laws for ICANN include the requirement that PTI be a California corporation. There was no discussion specifically on this issue, nor any documented community agreement on the specific issue of jurisdiction of PTI's incorporation.

Why wasn't there greater discussion and consideration of this issue? Because of two reasons: First, there were many that argued that the transition would be vetoed by the U.S. government and the U.S. Congress if ICANN and PTI were not to remain in the U.S. Secondly, the ICANN-formed ICG saw the US government’s actions very narrowly, as though the government were acting in isolation, ignoring the rich dialogue and debate that’s gone on earlier about the transition since the incorporation of ICANN itself.

While it would be no one’s case that political considerations should be given greater weightage than technical considerations such as security, stability, and resilience of the domain name system, it is shocking that political considerations have been completely absent in the discussions in the number and protocol parameters communities, and have been extremely limited in the discussions in the names community. This is even more shocking considering that the main reason for this transition is, as has been argued above, political.

It can be also argued that the certain IANA functions such as Root Zone Management function have a considerable political implication. It is imperative that the political nature of the function is duly acknowledged and dealt with, in accordance with the wishes of the global community. In the current process the political aspects of the IANA function has been completely overlooked and sidelined. It is important to note that this transition has not been a necessitated by any technical considerations. It is primarily motivated by political and legal considerations. However, the questions that the ICG asked the customer communities to consider were solely technical. Indeed, the communities could have chosen to overlook that, but they did not choose to do so. For instance, while the IANA customer community proposals reflected on existing jurisdictional arrangements, they did not reflect on how the jurisdictional arrangements should be post-transition , while this is one of the questions at the heart of the entire transition. There were no discussions and decisions as to the jurisdiction of the Post-Transition IANA: the Accountability CCWG's lawyers, Sidley Austin, recommended that the PTI ought to be a California non-profit corporation, and this finds mention in a footnote without even having been debated by the "global multistakeholder community", and subsequently in the proposed new by-laws for ICANN.

Why the By-Laws Make Things Worse & Why "Work Stream 2" Can't Address Most Jurisdiction Issues

The by-laws could have chosen to simply stayed silent on the matter of what law PTI would be incorporated under, but instead the by-law make the requirement of PTI being a California non-profit public benefit corporation part of the fundamental by-laws, which are close to impossible to amend.

While "Work Stream 2" (the post-transition work related to improving ICANN's accountability) has jurisdiction as a topic of consideration, the scope of that must necessarily discount any consideration of shifting the jurisdiction of incorporation of ICANN, since all of the work done as part of CCWG Accountability's "Work Stream 1", which are now reflected in the proposed new by-laws, assume Californian jurisdiction (including the legal model of the "Empowered Community"). Is ICANN prepared to re-do all the work done in WS1 in WS2 as well? If the answer is yes, then the issue of jurisdiction can actually be addressed in WS2. If the answer is no — and realistically it is — then, the issue of jurisdiction can only be very partially addressed in WS2.

Keeping this in mind, we recommended specific changes in the by-laws, all of which were rejected by CCWG's lawyers.

The Transition Plan Fails the NETmundial Statement

The NETmundial Multistakeholder Document, which was an outcome of the NETmundial process, states:

In the follow up to the recent and welcomed announcement of US Government with regard to its intent to transition the stewardship of IANA functions, the discussion about mechanisms for guaranteeing the transparency and accountability of those functions after the US Government role ends, has to take place through an open process with the participation of all stakeholders extending beyond the ICANN community

[...]

It is expected that the process of globalization of ICANN speeds up leading to a truly international and global organization serving the public interest with clearly implementable and verifiable accountability and transparency mechanisms that satisfy requirements from both internal stakeholders and the global community.

The active representation from all stakeholders in the ICANN structure from all regions is a key issue in the process of a successful globalization.

As our past analysis has shown, the IANA transition process and the discussions on the mailing lists that shaped it were neither global nor multistakeholder. The DNS industry represented in ICANN is largely US-based. 3 in 5 registrars are from the United States of America, whereas less than 1% of ICANN-registered registrars are from Africa. Two-thirds of the Business Constituency in ICANN is from the USA. While ICANN-the-corporation has sought to become more global, the ICANN community has remained insular, and this will not change until the commercial interests involved in ICANN can become more diverse, reflecting the diversity of users of the Internet, and a TLD like .COM can be owned by a non-American corporation and the PTI can be a non-American entity.

What We Need: Jurisdictional Resilience

It is no one's case that the United States is less fit than any other country as a base for ICANN, PTI, or the Root Zone Maintainer, or even as the headquarters for 9 of the world's 12 root zone operators (Verisign runs both the A and J root servers). However, just as having multiplicity of root servers is important for ensuring technical resilience of the DNS system (and this is shown in the uptake of Anycast by root server operators), it is equally important to have immunity of core DNS functioning from political pressures of the country or countries where core DNS infrastructure is legally situated and to ensure that we have diversity in terms of legal jurisdiction.

Towards this end, we at CIS have pushed for the concept of "jurisdictional resilience", encompassing three crucial points:

Legal immunity for core technical operators of Internet functions (as opposed to policymaking venues) from legal sanctions or orders from the state in which they are legally situated.
Division of core Internet operators among multiple jurisdictions
Jurisdictional division of policymaking functions from technical implementation functions

Of these, the most important is the limited legal immunity (akin to a greatly limited form of the immunity that UN organizations get from the laws of their host countries). This kind of immunity could be provided through a variety of different means: a host-country agreement; a law passed by the legislature; a U.N. General Assembly Resolution; a U.N.-backed treaty; and other such options exist. We are currently investigating which of these options would be the best option.

And apart from limited legal immunity, distribution of jurisdictional control is also valuable. As we noted in our submission to the ICG in September 2015:

Following the above precepts would, for instance, mean that the entity that performs the role of the Root Zone Maintainer should not be situated in the same legal jurisdiction as the entity that functions as the policymaking venue. This would in turn mean that either the Root Zone Maintainer function be taken up Netnod (Sweden-headquartered) or the WIDE Project (Japan-headquartered) [or RIPE-NCC, headquartered in the Netherlands], or that if the IANA Functions Operator(s) is to be merged with the RZM, then the IFO be relocated to a jurisdiction other than those of ISOC and ICANN. This, as has been stated earlier, has been a demand of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. Further, it would also mean that root zone servers operators be spread across multiple jurisdictions (which the creation of mirror servers in multiple jurisdictions will not address).

However, the issue of jurisdiction seems to be dead-on-arrival, having been killed by the United States government.

Unfortunately, despite the primary motivation for demands for the IANA transition being those of removing the power the U.S. government exercises over the core of the Internet's operations in the form of the DNS, what has ended up happening through the IANA transition is that these powers have not only not been removed, but in some ways they have been entrenched further! While earlier, the U.S. had to specify that the IANA functions operator had to be located in the U.S., now ICANN's by-laws themselves will state that the post-transition IANA will be a California corporation. Notably, while the Montevideo Declaration speaks of "globalization" of ICANN and of the IANA functions, as does the NETmundial statement, the NTIA announcement on their acceptance of the transition proposals speaks of "privatization" of ICANN, and not "globalization".

All in all, the "independence" that IANA is gaining from the U.S. is akin to the "independence" that Brazil gained from Portugal in 1822. Dom Pedro of Brazil was then ruling Brazil as the Prince Regent since his father Dom João VI, the King of United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves had returned to Portugal. In 1822, Brazil declared independence from Portugal (which was formally recognized through a treaty in 1825). Even after this "independence", Dom Pedro continued to rule Portugal just as he had before indepedence, and Dom João VI was provided the title of "Emperor of Brazil", aside from being King of the United Kingdom of Portugal and the Algarves. The "indepedence" didn't make a whit of a difference to the self-sufficiency of Brazil: Portugal continued to be its largest trading partner. The "independence" didn't change anything for the nearly 1 million slaves in Brazil, or to the lot of the indigenous peoples of Brazil, none of whom were recognized as "free". It had very little consequence not just in terms of ground conditions of day-to-day living, but even in political terms.

Such is the case with the IANA Transition: U.S. power over the core functioning of the Domain Name System do not stand diminished after the transition, and they can even arguably be said to have become even more entrenched. Meet the new boss: same as the old boss.

It is an allied but logically distinct issue that U.S. businesses — registries and registrars — dominate the global DNS industry, and as a result hold the reins at ICANN.↩
As Goldsmith & Wu note in their book Who Controls the Internet: "Back in 1998 the U.S. Department of Commerce promised to relinquish root authority by the fall of 2006, but in June 2005, the United States reversed course. “The United States Government intends to preserve the security and stability of the Internet’s Domain Name and Addressing System (DNS),” announced Michael D. Gallagher, a Department of Commerce official. “The United States” he announced, will “maintain its historic role in authorizing changes or modifications to the authoritative root zone file.”↩
Mr. Fadi Chehadé revealed in an interaction with Indian participants at ICANN 54 that he had a meeting "at the White House" about the U.S. plans for transition of the IANA contract before he spoke about that when he visited India in October 2013 making the timing of his White House visit around the time of the Montevideo Statement.↩
As an example, NSD, software that is used on multiple root servers, is funded by a Dutch foundation and a Dutch corporation, and written mostly by European coders.↩

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/jurisdiction-the-taboo-topic-at-icann

June and July Newsletter

pranav — 2021-08-10T15:57:16Z

The newsletter presents the work done in the months of June and July 2021.

Announcements

We are pleased to announce the launch of a seminar series to showcase research around digital rights and technology policy, with a focus on the Global South. The CIS seminar series will be a venue for researchers to share works-in-progress, exchange ideas, identify avenues for collaboration, and curate research. It will also seek to mitigate the impact of Covid-19 on research exchange, and foster collaborations among researchers and academics from diverse geographies. For more details on the first session, on Information Disorders, and to register, click here: [link]

We are also hiring for two full time remote positions:

Research Associate: Access to Knowledge Programme: Apply by August 13 [link]
Communication Designer: Apply by August 20 [link]

Cybersecurity, Privacy, and Emerging Technology

Following the MCA notification mandating disclosures of crypto currency holdings by companies, Aryan Gupta, in an issue brief, discusses the policy landscape in the United States of America, United Kingdom, and Japan with particular emphasis upon definition, accounting practices, and taxation, with respect to crypto currencies. [link]
We submitted comments in response to the Supreme Court E-committee’s draft vision document of phase III of the E-courts project. Aman Nair, Arinjay Vyas, Pallavi Bedi and Garima Saxena submitted their general comments and recommendations, and comparatively analysed the integration of digital technology into the judiciary in both South Asia and Africa. [link]
Google’s new Privacy Sandbox platform promises to preserve anonymity when serving tailored advertising. But does this new framework help users in any way? Maria Jawed’s analysis reveals that Google’s gambit to reorient the ad-tech ecosystem under the garb of privacy, ultimately ends up undermining it. [link]
Pandemic technology is taking a toll on data privacy, especially in the absence of any legal framework; these tools are being used for purposes beyond managing the pandemic. In an article published in the Deccan Herald, Aman Nair and Pallavi Bedi argue that India’s digital response to the pandemic has stoked concerns that surveillance could pose threats to the privacy of the personal data collected. [link]
In a piece for The Wire, Aman Nair analyses Tether, a lesser known crypto currency that is at the heart of a $3 trillion market. Issued by Tether Limited, Tether forms the foundation for modern day crypto trading and could potentially be one of the biggest schemes in financial history. [link]
India has 500 million internet users — over a third of its total population — making it the country with the second largest number of internet users after China. With this comes several kinds of digital threats that an average digital consumer in India must regularly contend with. Pranav M.B. attempts to identify the existing state of digital safety in India, with a report that maps digital threats in the country. [link]
Since last year, there have been regular questions around the anti-competitive practices of digital platforms. After 46 US states filed an antitrust case against Facebook along with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in December 2020, Kamesh Shekar analyzed these developments in a blog post. [link]
Recently, the Indian government mandated online messaging providers to enable identification of originators of messages on their platforms. In an academic paper for the NUJS Law Review, Gurshabad Grover, Tanaya Rajwade and Divyank Katira conduct a legal and constitutional analysis of this ‘traceability’ requirement, how it can be implemented, and how these methods come with serious costs to usability, security, and privacy. [link]
The National Digital Health Mission: Health Data Management Policy seeks to establish a digital health ecosystem by creating a unique health identity (UHID) for every Indian citizen. Pallavi Bedi points out that hasty implementation of the policy without adequate safeguards not only risks the privacy and security of medical data, but also undermines trust in the system leading to low uptake. [link]
In our comments to the proposed amendments to the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020, our analysis focuses on eight points: Definitions and Registration, Compliance, Data Protection and Surveillance, Flash Sales, Unfair Trade Practices, Jurisdictional Issues with Competition Law, Compliance with International Trade Law and Liabilities of Marketplace E-commerce Entities. [link]

Freedom of Expression, Intermediary Liability and Information Disorders

The recent “Infodemic” clearly shows that disinformation costs people’s lives. CIS, and the Global Disinformation Index have published a report that examines the risk of disinformation on digital news platforms in India, creating an index that is intended to serve donors and stakeholders with a neutral assessment of news sites that they can utilise to defund disinformation. [link]
Torsha Sarkar, Gurshabad Grover, Raghav Ahooja, Pallavi Bedi and Divyank Katira examine the legality and constitutionality of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, highlighting potential benefits and harms that may arise from the rules, and making recommendations to retain the rules within constitutional bounds, and retain consistency with human rights based approaches to content regulation. [link]
The passage of the Intermediary Liability Rules, 2021, has also formalized the legal requirement for the utilization of automated tools in content moderation. In a blog-post for the KU Leuven’s Centre for IT and IP (CITIP) Blog, Shweta Mohandas and Torsha Sarkar analyze the requirement in light of concerns of freedom of expression of Internet users. [link]
Our comments to the Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill, 2021, authored by Tanvi Apte, Anubha Sinha, and Torsha Sarkar, examine the constitutionality and legality of the Bill and whether the proposed amendments are compatible with established constitutional principles, precedents, previous policy positions and existing law. [link]
Tanvi Apte and Torsha Sarkar, in a submission to the Facebook Oversight Board in Case 2021-008-FB-FBR: Brazil, Health Misinformation and Lockdowns, answer questions set out by the Board which concerned a post made by a Brazilian sub-national health official, and raised questions on health misinformation and enforcement of Facebook's community standards. [link]
In an essay for the Indian Journal of Law and Technology (IJLT), Torsha Sarkar analyzes issues rising out of the recent litigation between Trump and Twitter. Torsha examines intermediary liability issues under American law, and draws parallel for India, in light of the ongoing litigation around the suspension of advocate Sanjay Hegde’s Twitter account. [link]

Copyright & Access to Knowledge

The Indian Parliamentary Standing Committee on Commerce’s report weighs on several aspects of the Indian IPR system and issues of protection and enforcement. In a blog post, Anubha Sinha summarily notes the observations and recommendations of the Committee on the Copyright Act, 1957 which stand to impact access to knowledge. [link]
The 41st edition of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) organized by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) was held from 28 June to 1 July. Anubha Sinha participated in the event as a speaker and delivered statements on the Protection of Broadcasting Organisations [link], and on Limitations and Exceptions [link]. Readers can access the notes from Day 1 [link], Day 2 [link], and Days 3 & 4 [link].
The CIS Access to Knowledge team published a comparative analysis of two prominent Wikimedia initiatives, Wikipedia Asian Month and Project Tiger, to understand prevailing challenges and opportunities, and strategies to address the same. Nitesh Gill in a two-part report outlines the research questions and methods of this study [link], and then presents some of the observations and learnings [link].

Labour and Social Justice

In a flagship report on domestic and care workers on digital platforms, Aayush Rathi and Ambika Tandon argue that digital platforms are complicit in discriminating against workers on the basis of their identities, and that domestic workers continue to remain in precarious positions without any legal recognition or support. This work was jointly authored between the Centre for Internet and Society and the Domestic Workers’ Rights Union. [link]
The ongoing pandemic has raised very valid questions of access and infrastructure in India, especially during a time when the Internet and digital technologies are essential, and in many ways the ‘new normal’. P.P. Sneha and Anasuya Sengupta write in Seminar Magazine, outlining some key challenges in digitalisation and representation of non-dominant/marginalised languages on the Internet, through reflections on two recent projects related to languages and the Internet. [link]
With the onset of the national lockdown on 24th March 2020 in response to the outbreak of COVID-19, the fate of millions of migrant workers was left uncertain. In addition, lack of enumeration and registration of migrant workers became a major obstacle for all state governments and the Central Government to channelize relief and welfare measures. Ankan Barman compiled a report to qualitatively assess health conditions of migrant workers and access to welfare during the first COVID-19 lockdown, in three host-states, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Haryana. [link]
Between July to November 2019, Indian Federation of App-based Transport Workers (IFAT) and International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) conducted 2,128 surveys across six major cities: Bengaluru, Chennai, Delhi NCR, Hyderabad, Jaipur, and Lucknow, to determine the occupational health and safety of app-based transport workers. Findings from the survey have been compiled as a report which reveals the complete absence of social security and protection of workers in a digital platform economy. [link]

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/newsletters/june-july-2021-newsletter

June 2019 Newsletter

praskrishna — 2019-07-16T16:00:11Z

The Centre for Internet & Society Newsletter for June 2019.

Highlights for June 2019

Rohini Lakshané and Shweta Mohandas have updated their paper 'Joining the Dots in India's Big-Ticket Mobile Phone SEP Litigation' which chronicles mobile device SEP litigation in India. All developments in the lawsuits filed in the Delhi High Court and complaints made to the CCI that were published in reliable sources till 20 September 2018 are mentioned in this paper. Christ University in association with CIS-A2K organized the Wikimedia Education SAARC Conference 2019, from 20 - 22 June 2019, at Christ University, Bengaluru. Forty-nine Wikimedians from four countries (Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh, and India) participated in the event. Subodh Kulkarni in his report reveals that the event discussed challenges pertaining to retention and quality and methodologies to evaluate and measure the work being done on Wikipedia. CIS and Internet Society organized an event on the impact of consolidation in the Internet economy. The round-tables focused on the policies and regulation and technical evolution of the Internet. The report by Akriti Bopanna and Gurshabad Grover contributed to the Internet Society’s 2019 Global Internet Report on Consolidation in the Internet Economy. An excerpt from an essay by Sadaf Khan, written for and published as part of the Bodies of Evidence collection of Deep Dives was mirrored on the website. The Bodies of Evidence collection, edited by Bishakha Datta and Richa Kaul Padte, is a collaboration between Point of View and the Centre for Internet and Society, undertaken as part of the Big Data for Development Network supported by International Development Research Centre, Canada.

CIS and the News

The following news pieces were authored by CIS and published on its website in May:

5G Aspirations and Realities (Shyam Ponappa; Business Standard; June 6, 2019).
Staying silent about cyberbullying is no longer an option (Nishant Shah; Indian Express; June 16, 2019).
Facebook sees its salvation with its cryptocurrency Libra (Nishant Shah; Indian Express; June 30, 2019).

CIS in the News

CIS was quoted in these news articles published elsewhere:

Plugging into India’s broadband revolution (Navadha Pandey; Livemint; June 4, 2019).
Banking on artificial intelligence: In hiring drive, Bots are calling the shots now (Anjali Venugopal; Economic Times; June 4, 2019).
Fragmenting Cybersecurity Norms through the Language(s) of Subalternity: India in the East and the Global Community (Riccardo Vecellio Segate; Columbia Journal of Law; June 6, 2019).
Interpreting the Outer Space Treaty's Non-Appropriation Principle: Customary International Law from 1967 to Today (Abigail D. Pershing; Yale Journal of International Law; June 6, 2019).
No Fintech company meets every single privacy requirement under IT Act: CIS report (Shilpa S. Ranipeta; Newsminute; June 10, 2019).
Facebook to pay Indians to give up privacy: Experts raise questions (Geetika Mantri; Newsminute; June 14, 2019).
Chasing fame and fun 15 seconds at a time: Why TikTok has India hooked (Tora Agarwala, Surbhi Gupta, and Karishma Mehrotra; Indian Express; June 23, 2019).
Facebook’s Libra: A bit too ambitious? (Rajmohan Sudhakar; Deccan Herald; June 30, 2019).

Access to Knowledge

Our Access to Knowledge programme currently consists of two projects. The Pervasive Technologies project, conducted under a grant from the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), aims to conduct research on the complex interplay between low-cost pervasive technologies and intellectual property, in order to encourage the proliferation and development of such technologies as a social good. The Wikipedia project, which is under a grant from the Wikimedia Foundation, is for the growth of Indic language communities and projects by designing community collaborations and partnerships that recruit and cultivate new editors and explore innovative approaches to building projects.

Copyright & Patent

Research Paper

Joining the Dots in India's Big-Ticket Mobile Phone SEP Litigation (Rohini Lakshané and Shweta Mohandas; June 30, 2019).

Wikipdedia

As part of the project grant from the Wikimedia Foundation we have reached out to more than 3500 people across India by organizing more than 100 outreach events and catalysed the release of encyclopaedic and other content under the Creative Commons (CC-BY-3.0) license in four Indian languages (21 books in Telugu, 13 in Odia, 4 volumes of encyclopaedia in Konkani and 6 volumes in Kannada, and 1 book on Odia language history in English).

Blog Entries

What is Wikimedia Education SAARC Conference? (Sailesh Patnaik; June 5, 2019).
Karavali Wikimedians at All India Radio, Mangaluru (Bharathesha Alasandemajalu; June 13, 2019).
Wikimedia Education SAARC Conference 2019 (Subodh Kulkarni; June 22, 2019).
SVG translation workshop Kannada (Gopala Krishna; June 29, 2019).

Jobs

CIS-A2K team is seeking applications for the following posts:

Event Organized

Wikimedia Education SAARC conference (Christ University; Bangalore; June 20 - 22, 2019).

Openness

Innovation and creativity are fostered through openness and collaboration. The advent of the Internet radically defined what it means to be open and collaborative. The Internet itself is built upon open standards and free/libre/open source software. Our work in the Openness programme focuses on open data, especially open government data, open access, open education resources, open knowledge in Indic languages, open media, and open technologies and standards - hardware and software.

Event Hosted

Discussion on Open Standards with Bernd Erk and Jiten Vaidya (CIS, Bangalore; June 20, 2019).

Participation in Event

Rootconf 2019 (Organized by Has Geek; NIMHANS Convention Centre, Bangalore; June 21 - 22, 2019). Karan Saini participated in the event.

Internet Governance

As part of its research on privacy and free speech, CIS is engaged with two different projects. The first one (under a grant from Privacy International and IDRC) is on surveillance and freedom of expression (SAFEGUARDS). The second one (under a grant from MacArthur Foundation) is on restrictions that the Indian government has placed on freedom of expression online.

Privacy

Blog Entry

The Impact of Consolidation in the Internet Economy on the Evolution of the Internet (Akriti Bopanna and Gurshabad Grover; July 3, 2019).

Event Organized

Setting the Agenda: A Behavioural Science approach to Data Privacy (Organized by Centre for Social Behaviour Change; Ashoka University and the Busara Center for Behavioral Economics, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi). Amber Sinha attended the meeting.

Participation in Events

Pranesh Prakash as Resource Person for ITD seminar on Competition (Organized by International Institute for Trade and Development; Bangkok; June 24 - 26, 2019). Pranesh Prakash was also a speaker in the session on Consumer Protection and Digital Rights- Defining Welfare and Fair Competition.

Cyber Security

Participation in Events

The Global Nature of Cybersecurity in a Changing World (Organized by Hewlett Foundation; San Diego; June 20 - 22, 2019).
Workshop on Cyber-Ethics: Values-driven Innovative Solutions (Organized by Embassy of Switzerland; Bangalore; June 28, 2019). Arindrajit Basu moderated a discussion on Cyber-Ethics.

Free Speech

Participation in Events

ICANN Masterclass (Organized by ICANN, Bangalore; June 19, 2019). Akriti Bopanna attended the event.
ICANN 65 (Organized by ICANN; Morocco; June 24 - 27, 2019). Akriti Bopanna attended the event.

Telecom

The growth in telecommunications in India has been impressive. While the potential for growth and returns exist, a range of issues need to be addressed for this potential to be realized. One aspect is more extensive rural coverage and the second aspect is a countrywide access to broadband which is low at about eight million subscriptions.

Article

5G Aspirations and Realities (Shyam Ponappa; Organizing India Blogspot; June 6, 2019).

Researchers at Work (RAW)

The Researchers at Work (RAW) programme is an interdisciplinary research initiative driven by an emerging need to understand the reconfigurations of social practices and structures through the Internet and digital media technologies, and vice versa. It aims to produce local and contextual accounts of interactions, negotiations, and resolutions between the Internet, and socio-material and geo-political processes:

Essay

Data bleeding everywhere: a story of period trackers (Sadaf Khan; June 11, 2019). This was written for and published as part of the Bodies of Evidence collection of Deep Dives.

Participation in Event

Unpacking video-based surveillance in New Delhi (Organized by the University of Manchester, England; June 14, 2019). Aayush Rathi and Ambika Tandon presented their research on 'Urban Data, Inequality and Justice in the Global South'.

Blog Entries

Patreon: Understanding the Intersection of Art, Artiste, and Labour (Upasana Bhattacharjee; June 1, 2019).
#ArchivesForStorytelling (Aliyeh Rizvi, Bhanu Prakash, Dinesh, Malini Ghanathe, and Venkat Srinivasan; June 1, 2019).
#DigitalIdentities (Anjali K Mohan, Harish Boya, Janaki Srinivasan, Khetrimayum Monish Singh, and Sarita Seshagiri; June 11, 2019).

About CIS

The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) is a non-profit organisation that undertakes interdisciplinary research on internet and digital technologies from policy and academic perspectives. The areas of focus include digital accessibility for persons with disabilities, access to knowledge, intellectual property rights, openness (including open data, free and open source software, open standards, open access, open educational resources, and open video), internet governance, telecommunication reform, digital privacy, and cyber-security. The academic research at CIS seeks to understand the reconfigurations of social and cultural processes and structures as mediated through the internet and digital media technologies.

► Follow us elsewhere

Twitter: http://twitter.com/cis_india
Twitter - Access to Knowledge: https://twitter.com/CISA2K
Twitter - Information Policy: https://twitter.com/CIS_InfoPolicy
Facebook - Access to Knowledge: https://www.facebook.com/cisa2k
E-Mail - Access to Knowledge: a2k@cis-india.org
E-Mail - Researchers at Work: raw@cis-india.org
List - Researchers at Work: https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/researchers

► Support Us

Please help us defend consumer and citizen rights on the Internet! Write a cheque in favour of 'The Centre for Internet and Society' and mail it to us at No. 194, 2nd 'C' Cross, Domlur, 2nd Stage, Bengaluru - 5600 71.

► Request for Collaboration

We invite researchers, practitioners, artists, and theoreticians, both organisationally and as individuals, to engage with us on topics related internet and society, and improve our collective understanding of this field. To discuss such possibilities, please write to Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, at sunil@cis-india.org (for policy research), or Sumandro Chattapadhyay, Research Director, at sumandro@cis-india.org (for academic research), with an indication of the form and the content of the collaboration you might be interested in. To discuss collaborations on Indic language Wikipedia projects, write to Tanveer Hasan, Programme Officer, at tanveer@cis-india.org.

CIS is grateful to its primary donor the Kusuma Trust founded by Anurag Dikshit and Soma Pujari, philanthropists of Indian origin for its core funding and support for most of its projects. CIS is also grateful to its other donors, Wikimedia Foundation, Ford Foundation, Privacy International, UK, Hans Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, and IDRC for funding its various projects.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/newsletters/june-2019-newsletter

June 2018 Newsletter

praskrishna — 2018-08-11T02:52:10Z

CIS newsletter for the month of June 2018.

Dear readers,

Previous issues of the newsletters can be accessed here.

Highlights

Balbharati – the Maharashtra state bureau of textbook production and curriculum research – has issued a copyright policy that forces all publishers, digital educational-content creators, and coaching classes to obtain expensive licenses for developing material directly or indirectly relating to Balbharati’s content. This is an alarming development for Indian students reported Anubha Sinha in an article in the Asian Times on June 20, 2018.
CIS-A2K has started dialogue with the publishers for the last 6 months regarding FOSS, Open knowledge and content donation to Wikimedia Projects. As a result Akhil Bharatiya Marathi Prakashak Sangh, an apex body of publishers at all India level invited us for a orientation session at their annual gathering in Pune.
Submitted comments on the Draft Digital Communications Policy which was released to the public by the Department of Telecommunications of the Ministry of Communications on 1st May 2018 for comments and views.
Submitted comments on the Telecom Commercial Communications Customer Preference Regulations which was released to the public by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) on 29th May 2018 for comments and views.
The Task Force on Artificial Intelligence was established by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry to leverage AI for economic benefits, and provide policy recommendations on the deployment of AI for India. Elonnai Hickok, Shweta Mohandas and Swaraj Paul Barooah wrote a blog entry on the artificial intelligence task force. The blog entry was edited by Swagam Dasgupta.
The world’s oldest networked infrastructure, money, is increasingly dematerialising and fusing with the world’s latest networked infrastructure, the Internet, wrote Sunil Abraham in an article published in the Economic Times on June 10, 2018.
An essay by P.P. Sneha was published in Summer Hill, a journal published by Indian Institute of Advanced Study. In the essay, edited by Dr. Bindu Menon, Sneha draws upon excerpts from a study on the field of digital humanities and related practices in India, to outline the diverse contexts of humanities practice with the advent of the digital and explore the developing discourse around digital humanities in the Indian context.
The inaugural conference of the Digital Humanities Alliance of India (DHAI) was held at the Indian Institute of Management (IIM), Indore on June 1-2, 2018. P.P. Sneha was a keynote speaker at the event. Her talk was titled ‘New Contexts and Sites of Humanities Practice in the Digital’.

Articles

Why NPCI and Facebook need urgent regulatory attention (Sunil Abraham; Economic Times; June 10, 2018).
Digital Native: Cause an Effect (Nishant Shah; Indian Express; June 17, 2018).
Maharashtra's Copyright Policy Makes Education Unaffordable (Anubha Sinha; Asia Times; June 20, 2018).

CIS in the News

Allow admins to add users to online group chats only after permission: SFLC.in (Times of India; June 1, 2018).
EC disables easy access to electoral data across states (Akshatha M; Economic Times; June 5, 2018).
Draft bill proposes Rs 1 crore fine, 3 year jail for data privacy violation (Vidhi Choudhury; Hindustan Times; June 8, 2018).
Citizens’ Draft Privacy Bill Seeks To Revolutionise Data Collection, Storage In India (Arpan Chaturvedi; Bloomberg Quint; June 9, 2018).
Police to counter fake news on WhatsApp (Nilesh Christopher and Naveen Menezes; Times of India; June 14, 2018).
'Full belief in fake texts shows cops not trusted' (Times of India; June 18, 2018).
Anushka finds support for her anti-litter tirade (Nina C. George; Deccan Herald; June 19, 2018).
Jindal varsity's international affairs students shine in job market (Economic Times; June 19, 2018).
Data Privacy: Footprints on the Web (Sujit Bhar; IndiaLegal; June 21, 2018).
Death By WhatsApp (News18.com, June 25, 2018).
Tech transformation: how agriculture is being redefined through digital innovation and startups (Your Story; June 29, 2018).

Access to Knowledge

Access to Knowledge (A2K) is a campaign to promote the fundamental principles of justice, freedom, and economic development. It deals with issues like copyrights, patents and trademarks, which are an important part of the digital landscape. Our A2K program comprises 2 projects: Pervasive Technologies done under a grant from International Development Research Centre examining interplay between cost-effective pervasive technologies and intellectual property and encouraging development of such technologies for social good, and Wikipedia under a grant from Wikimedia Foundation to enable the growth of Indic language communities and cultivate new editors in different Indian languages.

Wikipedia

Event Organized

Marathi Publishers' orientation session on FOSS,Open knowledge & Wikimedia Projects (Co-organized by Akhil Bharatiya Marathi Prakashak Sangh and CIS-A2K; Maratha Chamber of Commerce, Tilak Road, Pune; June 17, 2018).

Internet Governance

The Tunis Agenda of the second World Summit on the Information Society has defined internet governance as the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles of shared principles, norms, rules, decision making procedures and programs that shape the evolution and use of the internet. CIS is engaged in two different projects. The first one (under a grant from Privacy International and IDRC) is on surveillance and freedom of expression (SAFEGUARDS). The second one (under a grant from MacArthur Foundation) is on restrictions that the Indian government has placed on freedom of expression online.

Privacy

Blog Entries

NITI Aayog Discussion Paper: An aspirational step towards India’s AI policy (Sunil Abraham, Elonnai Hickok, Amber Sinha, Swaraj Barooah, Shweta Mohandas, Pranav M Bidare, Swagam Dasgupta, Vishnu Ramachandran and Senthil Kumar; June 13, 2018).
The AI Task Force Report - The first steps towards India’s AI framework (Authored by Elonnai Hickok, Shweta Mohandas and Swaraj Paul Barooah and Edited by Swagam Dasgupta; June 27, 2018).

Submissions

Comments on the Draft National Policy on Official Statistics (Gurshabad Grover and Sandeep Kumar; June 7, 2018).
Comments on the Draft Digital Communications Policy (Anubha Sinha, Gurshabad Grover and Swaraj Barooah; June 14, 2018).

Participation in Event

Is Privacy Obsolete? (Organized by TERI; Bangalore; June 22, 2018). Pranesh Prakash was a panelist.

Free Speech & Expression

Blog Entry

Network Disruptions Report by Global Network Initiative (Akriti Bopanna; June 12, 2018).

Telecom

CIS is involved in promoting access and accessibility to telecommunications services and resources, and has provided inputs to ongoing policy discussions and consultation papers published by TRAI. It has prepared reports on unlicensed spectrum and accessibility of mobile phones for persons with disabilities and also works with the USOF to include funding projects for persons with disabilities in its mandate:

Submission

Comments on the Telecom Commercial Communications Customer Preference Regulations (Sandeep Kumar, Torsha Sarkar, Swaraj Barooah, and Gurshabad Grover; June 22, 2018).

Researchers at Work

Participation in Event

Digital Humanities Alliance of India - Inagural Conference 2018 (Co-organized by IIM and IIT, Indore with support from CIS; IIM, Indore; June 1 - 2, 2018). P.P. Sneha was a speaker and gave the keynote address.

Essay

New Contexts and Sites of Humanities Practice in the Digital (Paper) (P.P. Sneha; June 25, 2018).

About CIS

► Follow us elsewhere

Twitter: http://twitter.com/cis_india
Twitter - Access to Knowledge: https://twitter.com/CISA2K
Twitter - Information Policy: https://twitter.com/CIS_InfoPolicy
Facebook - Access to Knowledge: https://www.facebook.com/cisa2k
E-Mail - Access to Knowledge: a2k@cis-india.org
E-Mail - Researchers at Work: raw@cis-india.org
List - Researchers at Work: https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/researchers

► Support Us

► Request for Collaboration

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/newsletters/june-2018-newsletter

June 2017 Newsletter

praskrishna — 2017-07-18T02:21:10Z

Welcome to the Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) newsletter for June 2017.

Dear readers,

Previous issues of the newsletters can be accessed here.

Highlights
CIS made a submission on the Goods and Services Tax (GST) that has come into force this year. In the submission assessed the impact of GST on persons with disabilities. Indian Patent Office updated the Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions. Anubha Sinha throws light on the updated guidelines in a blog post. She has clarified that the updated Guidelines take no concrete position to help clarify the ambiguity around patentability of software inventions in India. A strategic symposium on Marathi Wikipedia and its sister projects was conducted in April 2017. Subodh Kulkarni has shared the developments in a report. Compiled a compendium on cyber security from the Indian context. The document is a comprehensive source compiling all the cyber-security related regulations, policies, guidelines, notifications, executive orders, court rulings, etc. CIS commented on the renewal of the .NET Registry Agreement. CIS expressed its strong opposition to the proposed renewal. The comments were prepared by Vidushi Marda with inputs from Sunil Abraham and Pranesh Prakash. Harsh Gupta discussed "FAT ML (Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency in Machine Learning) for Lawyers and Lawmakers" at the CIS office in Delhi on June 29, 2017. Shyam Ponappa in an article in the Business Standard opined that broadband in India needs reforms for local manufacturing and for infrastructure expansion and utilisation

CIS in the news:

Aadhaar: Ushering in a Commercialized Era of Surveillance in India (Jyoti Panday; Electronics Frontier Foundation; June 1, 2017).
Privacy is culture specific, MNCs hit by Aadhaar, says TRAI chief (Pranav Mukul; Indian Express; June 1, 2017).
Centre brings in new safeguards following cases of Aadhaar data leaks on government websites (Nidhi Sharma; Economic Times; June 2, 2017).
New rules for govt agencies to ensure security of personal data (Komal Gupta; Livemint; June 2, 2017).
Explore money apps but watch your data (Shaikh Zoaib Saleem; Livemint; June 8, 2017).
New law to unlock data economy (Yuthika Bhargava; Hindu; June 9, 2017).
Placements at NUJS: Class of 2017 Scores 100% (Simran Sahni; Livelaw; June 10, 2017).
Why did Nandan Nilekani praise a Twitter troll? (Kiran Jonnalgadda; Indian Express; June 10, 2017).
Are biometrics hack-proof? (Shaikh Zoaib Saleem; Livemint; June 11, 2017).
GoldenEye ransomware attack hit operations at Pipavav Port, JNPT (Jyotika Sood and Utpal Bhaskar; Livemint; June 28, 2017).

CIS members wrote the following articles

Digital Native: In digiville attention is Currency (Nishant Shah; Indian Express; June 11, 2017).
Digital Native: On mute, the Voice of the People (Nishant Shah; Indian Express; June 24, 2017).

-------------------------------------
Accessibility & Inclusion
-------------------------------------
India has an estimated 70 million persons with disabilities who don't have access to read printed materials due to some form of physical, sensory, cognitive or other disability. As part of our endeavour to make available accessible content for persons with disabilities, we are developing a text-to-speech software in 15 languages with support from the Hans Foundation. The progress made so far in the project can be accessed here.

Submission

GST - A Barrier to Human Rights for Persons with Disabilities (Nirmita Narasimhan; June 24, 2017).

Participation in Events

WSIS Forum 2017 (Co-organized by ITU, UNESCO, UNCTAD and UNDP, in close collaboration with all UN agencies; Geneva; June 12 - 16, 2017). Nirmita Narasimhan was a speaker.
Digital Accessibility (Organized by National Informatics Centre; Bengaluru; June 17, 2017). Rakesh Paladugula, a web accessibility trainer and Nirmita Narasimhan made a presentation to scientists about digital accessibility.

-----------------------------------
Access to Knowledge
-----------------------------------
Our Access to Knowledge programme currently consists of two projects. The Pervasive Technologies project, conducted under a grant from the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), aims to conduct research on the complex interplay between low-cost pervasive technologies and intellectual property, in order to encourage the proliferation and development of such technologies as a social good. The Wikipedia project, which is under a grant from the Wikimedia Foundation, is for the growth of Indic language communities and projects by designing community collaborations and partnerships that recruit and cultivate new editors and explore innovative approaches to building projects.

►Copyright

Participation in Event

Fixing Copyright for Education (SCCR34 Side Event) (Communia, EIFL, Creative Commons, and PIJIP; June 7, 2017). Anubha Sinha was a speaker.

►Pervasive Technologies

Participation in Event

Preliminary Findings: Working Requirements for Complex Products under the Indian Patent System (Organized by O.P. Jindal University; New Delhi; June 10 - 11, 2017). Prof. Jorge Contreras gave a talk on a forthcoming paper.

►Wikipedia

Blog Entries

Train The Trainer 2017 (Manasa Rao; June 5, 2017).
Thematic Edit-a-thon at J.P.Naik Centre for Education & Development, Pune (Subodh Kulkarni; June 7, 2017).
Wiki Loves Mayabazaar (Pavan Santhosh; June 7, 2017).
Marathi Wikipedia Symposium at Gokhale Institute Of Politics & Economics (Subodh Kulkarni; June 7, 2017).
Digitisation, Wikimedia Commons and Wikisource Orientation Workshop at Vigyan Ashram, Pabal, Pune District (Subodh Kulkarni; June 7, 2017).

Note: The workshops for the above blog posts were held earlier but the reports were published during the month of June.

-----------------------------------

Internet Governance
-----------------------------------

►Cybersecurity

Blog Entry

Cybersecurity Compilation: Indian Context (Leilah Elmokadem and edited by Elonnai Hickok; June 18, 2017).

Participation in Events

2nd India Think Tank Forum (Organized by Observer Research Foundation; New Delhi; June 19 - 21, 2017). Udbhav Tiwari participated in the forum.
Second India China Think-Tank Forum (Organized by Institute of Chinese Studies, the Indian Council of World Affairs, and the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences; Beijing; June 22 - 27, 2017). Saikat Dutta represented an Indian think tank.

►Free Speech and Expression

Submission

Comments from the Centre for Internet and Society on Renewal of .NET Registry Agreement (Vidushi Marda, Sunil Abraham and Pranesh Prakash; June 6, 2017).

Participation in Events

ISEA 2017 (Organized by the University of Caldas, Manizales; Columbia; June 11 - 16, 2017). Sharat Chandra Ram was a panelist.
Freedom of Expression on the Internet : Possibilities and Challenges (Organized by Bolivar Technological University; Cartagena; June 29, 2017). Sharat Chandra Ram was a speaker.

►Privacy

Participation in Events

BIS LITD 17 Privacy Panel meeting (Organized by National School of India University; Bangalore; June 21, 2017). Udbhav Tiwari attended the meeting.
DSCI Best Practices Meet (Organized by Data Security Council of India; Bangalore; June 22 - 23, 2017). Udbhav Tiwari attended the meeting.

-----------------------------------
Telecom
-----------------------------------
CIS is involved in promoting access and accessibility to telecommunications services and resources, and has provided inputs to ongoing policy discussions and consultation papers published by TRAI. It has prepared reports on unlicensed spectrum and accessibility of mobile phones for persons with disabilities and also works with the USOF to include funding projects for persons with disabilities in its mandate:

Newspaper Column

Broadband Reforms for Local Manufacturing (Shyam Ponappa; Business Standard; May 31, 2017 and Organizing India Blogspot; June 5, 2017).

-----------------------------------
Researchers at Work
-----------------------------------
The Researchers at Work (RAW) programme is an interdisciplinary research initiative driven by an emerging need to understand the reconfigurations of social practices and structures through the Internet and digital media technologies, and vice versa. It aims to produce local and contextual accounts of interactions, negotiations, and resolutions between the Internet, and socio-material and geo-political processes:

Event Organized

CISxScholars Delhi - Harsh Gupta - FAT ML for Lawyers and Lawmakers (CIS; New Delhi; June 29, 2017). Harsh Gupta gave a talk.

-----------------------------------

About CIS
-----------------------------------
The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) is a non-profit organisation that undertakes interdisciplinary research on internet and digital technologies from policy and academic perspectives. The areas of focus include digital accessibility for persons with disabilities, access to knowledge, intellectual property rights, openness (including open data, free and open source software, open standards, open access, open educational resources, and open video), internet governance, telecommunication reform, digital privacy, and cyber-security. The academic research at CIS seeks to understand the reconfigurations of social and cultural processes and structures as mediated through the internet and digital media technologies.

► Follow us elsewhere

Twitter: http://twitter.com/cis_india
Twitter - Access to Knowledge: https://twitter.com/CISA2K
Twitter - Information Policy: https://twitter.com/CIS_InfoPolicy
Facebook - Access to Knowledge: https://www.facebook.com/cisa2k
E-Mail - Access to Knowledge: a2k@cis-india.org
E-Mail - Researchers at Work: raw@cis-india.org
List - Researchers at Work: https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/researchers

► Support Us

► Request for Collaboration

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/newsletters/june-2017-newsletter

June 2016 Newsletter

praskrishna — 2016-08-04T01:57:04Z

Welcome to the June 2016 newsletter of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS).

Previous issues of the newsletters can be accessed here.

Highlights
The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) held a consultation on Free Data. CIS sent its comments to the 4 questions that TRAI posed: (a) need to have TSP agnostic platform to provide free data or suitable reimbursement to users; (b) whether such platforms need to be regulated by TRAI; (c) whether free data to users should be limited; and (d) any other issue related to the matter of consultation. IANA transition is a sham since it doesn't address the most important question - that of jurisdiction. Pranesh Prakash has explored why the issue of jurisdiction is the most important question and why it remains unaddressed. On April 20, 2016, DNA carried a report on a PIL seeking action against advertisements for prostitution in newspapers and on websites. The report noted that the Mumbai Police had obtained an order from a magistrates court to block 174 objectionable websites. The Mumbai Police has not proceeded against any of the people who run these websites. CIS in a blog post has listed out 239 websites that were blocked by the government. Wikipedia is the source for different kinds of knowledge for any one starting-off in a particular field of study. Indian languages are the default languages for study in classroom in India. In this light strengthening the quality of material available on Indian language Wikipedias is certain to have widespread tangible and intangible impact according to Tejaswini Niranjana. An extended survey of digital initiatives in arts and humanities practices in India was undertaken during the last year. Provocatively called 'mapping digital humanities in India', this enquiry began with the term 'digital humanities' itself, as a 'found' name for which one needs to excavate some meaning, context, and location in India at the present moment. The final section has been published. The Reserve Bank of India published a Consultation Paper on Peer to Peer Lending on April 28, 2016, and invited comments from the public. CIS submitted its response. The Department of Science and Technology published the first public draft of the National Geospatial Policy (v.1.0) on May 05, 2016, and invited comments from the public. CIS submitted its comments. The first public draft of the open data license to be used by Government of India was released by the Department of Legal Affairs. CIS was a member of the committee constituted to develop the license concerned, and we contributed substantially to the drafting process. Harsh Gupta and Aditya Tejas wrote a blog post on the Airtel Open Network that was launched recently. The web page displays visualization data on network coverage and signal strength across the country, as well as a detailed breakdown of cell tower placement, including towers that are shutdown or still being planned. CIS organized a one-day workshop in Delhi on Tuesday, July 12 on the evolution and state of the set-top box as an access device in India.

CIS in the News

CIS gave inputs to the following media coverage:

Why Geospatial Bill is draconian and how it will hurt startups (Prabhu Mallikarjunan; Financial Express; June 13, 2016).
ISPs start blocking escort websites following govt order (Moulishree Srivastava; Business Standard; June 14, 2016).
Here is the entire list of 'escorts service' websites that the government has banned (India Today; June 16, 2016).
Indian experts doubt government ban on porn sites will be effective (VL Srinivasan; ZD Net; June 20, 2016).
Slow internet driving you nuts? Here is how your service provider is fleecing you (Kalyan Parbat; Economic Times; June 23, 2016).
Behind the scenes of Escort Economy 2.0 (Sharmila Ganeshan Ram; The Times of India; June 26, 2016).
Call drops: Dealing with the menace or just shifting goal posts? (India TV News; June 26, 2016).

CIS members wrote the following pieces:

Tweak the Make in India Recipe (Rohini Lakshané; Business Today; June 3, 2016).

ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆର ବିକାଶ (Subhashish Panigrahi; The Samaja; June 2, 2016).
ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ: ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟରେ ବିଶାଳତମ ଅନଲାଇନ ଜ୍ଞାନକୋଷ ଗଢ଼ିବାର ଅଭିଯାନ (Subhashish Panigrahi; Your Story Odia; June 3, 2016).
ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ: ଏକ ଅଭିଯାନ (Subhashish Panigrahi; Suryaprava; June 3, 2016).
ଅନଲାଇନ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଜ୍ଞାନକୋଷ ଗଢ଼ା (Subhashish Panigrahi; Samanya Kathan; June 5, 2016).
Digital native: Control A, Backspace (Nishant Shah; Indian Express; June 5, 2016).

►NVDA and eSpeak

June 2016 Report (Suman Dogra; June 30, 2016).

►Pervasive Technologies

Article

Tweak the Make in India Recipe (Rohini Lakshané; Business Today; June 3, 2016).

Media Coverage

NGOs urge PM to ‘resist pressure’ from U.S. on IPRs (Hindu; June 2, 2016).
Climate change will be a priority in talks with Modi: U.S. (Varghese K. George; Hindu; June 6, 2016).
NGOs tell Modi not to succumb to US pressure on intellectual property (Rinku Patel; India Tribune; June 7, 2016).
NGOs tell PM not to succumb to pressure from US on IPR (Economic Times, June 7, 2016).

►Wikipedia

Articles

ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆର ବିକାଶ (Subhashish Panigrahi; The Samaja; June 2, 2016).
ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ: ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟରେ ବିଶାଳତମ ଅନଲାଇନ ଜ୍ଞାନକୋଷ ଗଢ଼ିବାର ଅଭିଯାନ (Subhashish Panigrahi; Your Story Odia; June 3, 2016).
ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ: ଏକ ଅଭିଯାନ (Subhashish Panigrahi; Suryaprava; June 3, 2016).
ଅନଲାଇନ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଜ୍ଞାନକୋଷ ଗଢ଼ା (Subhashish Panigrahi; Samanya Kathan; June 5, 2016).
Digital native: Control A, Backspace (Nishant Shah; Indian Express; June 5, 2016).

Blog Entry

Beyond Editor Count: Assessing Quality on Wikipedia (Tejaswini Niranjana; June 12, 2016).

Media Coverage

Online space for Odia (Diana Sahu; New Indian Express; June 10, 2016).
शंभर वर्षापूर्वीचे ग्रंथ मराठी विकिपीडियावर (Maharashtra Times; June 15, 2016).

Event Organized

Wikipedia edit-a-thon at TEDSummit 2016 (Organized by CIS-A2K and Wikimedians Netha Hussain and Ayyappadas; Banff, Canada; June 26 - 30, 2016). Abhinav Garule represented CIS-A2K.

►Openness

Submission

Comments on the National Geospatial Policy (Draft, V.1.0), 2016 (Adya Garg, Anubha Sinha, and Sumandro Chattapadhyay; June 1, 2016).

Blog Entry

Public Consultation for the First Draft of 'Government Open Data Use License - India' Announced (Anubha Sinha; June 30, 2016).

-----------------------------------
Internet Governance
-----------------------------------

►Freedom of Expression

Submission

Submission by the Centre for Internet and Society on Revisions to ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior (Vidushi Marda with inputs from Nirmita Narasimhan and Sunil Abraham; June 29, 2016).

Blog Entries

UN Special Rapporteur Report on Freedom of Expression and the Private Sector: A Significant Step Forward (Vidushi Marda; June 8, 2016).
Jurisdiction: The Taboo Topic at ICANN (Pranesh Prakash; June 27, 2016).

►Privacy

Article

Criminal Defamation and the Supreme Court’s Loss of Reputation (Bhairav Acharya; June 3, 2016). The article was published in the Wire on May 14 but mirrored in June on CIS website.

Blog Entry

Smart City Policies and Standards: Overview of Projects, Data Policies, and Standards across Five International Smart Cities (Kiran A. B., Elonnai Hickok and Vanya Rakesh; June 8, 2016).

Event Organized

Stand up for Digital Rights (CIS, Bangalore, June 15, 2016)

Submission

Comments on the RBI's Consultation Paper on Peer to Peer Lending (Elonnai Hickok, Pavishka Mittal, Sumandro Chattapadhyay, Vidushi Marda, and Vipul Kharbanda; June 1, 2016).

Blog Entries

Creativity, Politics, and Internet Censorship (P.P. Sneha; June 16, 2016).
Digital Humanities in India – Concluding Thoughts (P.P. Sneha; June 30, 2016).

-----------------------------------
Telecom
-----------------------------------
CIS is involved in promoting access and accessibility to telecommunications services and resources, and has provided inputs to ongoing policy discussions and consultation papers published by TRAI. It has prepared reports on unlicensed spectrum and accessibility of mobile phones for persons with disabilities and also works with the USOF to include funding projects for persons with disabilities in its mandate:

Blog Entry

Airtel Open Network (Harsh Gupta and Aditya Tejas; June 17, 2016).

Event

Workshop on Set-top Boxes (Organized by CIS, Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar IV, New Delhi; July 12, 2016).

-----------------------------------
About CIS
-----------------------------------
The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) is a non-profit organisation that undertakes interdisciplinary research on internet and digital technologies from policy and academic perspectives. The areas of focus include digital accessibility for persons with diverse abilities, access to knowledge, intellectual property rights, openness (including open data, free and open source software, open standards, open access, open educational resources, and open video), internet governance, telecommunication reform, digital privacy, and cyber-security. The academic research at CIS seeks to understand the reconfigurations of social and cultural processes and structures as mediated through the internet and digital media technologies.

► Follow us elsewhere

Twitter: http://twitter.com/cis_india
Twitter - Access to Knowledge: https://twitter.com/CISA2K
Twitter - Information Policy: https://twitter.com/CIS_InfoPolicy
Facebook - Access to Knowledge: https://www.facebook.com/cisa2k
E-Mail - Access to Knowledge: a2k@cis-india.org
E-Mail - Researchers at Work: raw@cis-india.org
List - Researchers at Work: https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/researchers

► Support Us

► Request for Collaboration

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/newsletters/june-2016-newsletter

June 2015 Bulletin

praskrishna — 2015-09-13T16:10:19Z

Newsletter for the month of June.

We are happy to share with you the sixth issue of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) newsletter (June 2015). The past editions of the newsletter can be accessed at http://cis-india.org/about/newsletters.

-------------------------------
Highlights
-------------------------------

As part of its project on mapping cyber security actors in South Asia and South East Asia, CIS conducted a series of interviews with cyber security actors. The interviews were compiled and edited into one documentary . The film was produced by Purba Sarkar, edited by Aaron Joseph, and directed by Oxblood Ruffin features Malavika Jayaram, Nitin Pai, Namita Malhotra, Saikat Datta, Nishant Shah, Lawrence Liang, Anja Kovacs, Sikyong Lobsang Sangay and, Ravi Sharada Prasad.

CIS conducted a training on eSpeak Tamil Computing with NVDA in Tirunelveli in the month of June. Sixteen delegates attended the event.
The 30th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization's ("WIPO") Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights ("SCCR") was held from June 30 to July 3, 2015. CIS was unable to attend the meeting. However, CIS had a statement to make on negotiations on the Proposed Treaty for Broadcasting Organizations .
The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India had called for comments on the technical background paper prepared by the WIPO Secretariat in relation to the Broadcast Treaty. CIS submitted its comments .
Rohini Lakshané in a blog post analysed the commonalities in big-ticket patent infringement lawsuits pertaining to mobile devices.

Sumandro Chattapadhyay co-authored a report on open data intermediaries in developing countries . The report concluded by saying that consideration needs to be given to the presence of multiple intermediaries in an open data ecosystem, each of whom may possess different forms of capital to enable the use and unlock the potential impact of open data.
Odia language Wikipedia has grown to 800k page views in a month. The Odia Wikipedia community gathered in Bhubaneswar on June 3 to celebrate Odia Wikipedia's 13^th anniversary. Subhashish Panigrahi wrote about this.
Sunil Abraham in an article titled "The generation of e-Emergency" published by Livemint on June 22 argued that the next generation of censorship technology is expected to be 'real-time content manipulation' through ISPs and Internet companies.
In two separate blog entries, Jyoti Panday provided insights into IANA Transition Stewardship & ICANN Accountability. The first part gives a background to the IANA transition and updates on the ensuing processes in an attempt to familiarise people with the issues at stake and the second part provides an overview of submitted proposals and highlights the areas of concern that will need attention moving forward .

Sumandro Chattapadhyay co-designed and co-facilitated a workshop for government officials from Bhutan, Maldives, Meghalaya, Sikkim, and Tripura, on open data policy and implementation, organised by UNDP India.
Shyam Ponappa in his monthly column published in the Business Standard stated that government can't control market forces but can and must fix regulatory issues.

----------------------------------------------
Accessibility and Inclusion
----------------------------------------------

Under a grant from the Hans Foundation we are doing two projects. The first project is on creating a national resource kit of state-wise laws, policies and programmes on issues relating to persons with disabilities in India. CIS in partnership with CLPR (Centre for Law and Policy Research) compiled the National Compendium of Policies, Programmes and Schemes for Persons with Disabilities (29 states and 6 union territories). The publication has been finalised and is being printed. The draft chapters and the quarterly reports can be accessed on the project page. The second project is on developing text-to-speech software for 15 Indian languages. The progress made so far in the project can be accessed here.

►NVDA and eSpeak

# Monthly Updates

June 2015 Report (Suman Dogra; June 30, 2015).

# Language Testing Reports

Report on eSpeak Tamil Computing with NVDA Training Workshop in Tirunelveli (Organized by NVDA team; Anne Jane Askwith Higher Secondary School for the Visually Impaired, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli; June 3 - 7, 2015).

►Other

# White Paper

Inclusive Financial Services - Global Trends in Accessibility Requirements (Nirmita Narasimhan; May 3, 2015).

-----------------------------------------------------------
Access to Knowledge
-----------------------------------------------------------
As part of the Access to Knowledge programme we are doing two projects. The first one (Pervasive Technologies) under a grant from the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) is for research on the complex interplay between pervasive technologies and intellectual property to support intellectual property norms that encourage the proliferation and development of such technologies as a social good. The second one (Wikipedia) under a grant from the Wikimedia Foundation is for the growth of Indic language communities and projects by designing community collaborations and partnerships that recruit and cultivate new editors and explore innovative approaches to building projects.

# Submission / Comments

Comments on the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations: Technical Background Paper Prepared by the WIPO Secretariat (Nehaa Chaudhari; June 28, 2015).
Statement by the Centre for Internet and Society on the Broadcast Treaty at SCCR 30 (Nehaa Chaudhari; June 30, 2015).

# Blog Entries

Joining the Dots in India's Big-Ticket Mobile Phone Patent Litigation (Rohini Lakshané; June 1, 2015).
National IPR Policy Series: India's National IPR Policy - What Would WIPO Think? (Nehaa Chaudhari; June 20, 2015).
National IPR Policy Series: Follow-up RTI to DIPP on the IPR Think Tank (Nehaa Chaudhari; June 25, 2015).
The US 301 Report - A Myopic View of IP Rights (Varun Baliga and Nehaa Chaudhari; June 24, 2015).

# Media Coverage

CIS gave inputs for the following:

One reason startups are moving out of India (Evelyn Fok and Varun Aggarwal; The Times of India; April 10, 2015). This was also mirrored in Economic Times .
Indian businesses crave IP certainty, but better patent values are tempting them overseas (IAM Magazine; April 28, 2015).

►Wikipedia

# Blog Entries

How the Odia Wikimedia community is enriching Wikipedia with character encoding technology (Subhashish Panigrahi; June 14, 2015).
Odia Wikipedia meets Google Developer Group (Sailesh Patnaik; June 29, 2015).

# Event Organized

Odia Wikipedia Turning 13 this June 3 (Organized by CIS-A2K and Odia Wikipedia Community; Institute of Physics, Sachivalaya Marg, Sainik School PO, Gajapati Nagar, Bhubaneswar, Odisha; June 3, 2015).

# Media Coverage

CIS gave its inputs for the following:

ଭୁବନେଶ୍ୱରରେ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆର ୧୩ ତମ ଜନ୍ମତିଥି ପାଳନ, ୨୦୧୫ ଜୁନ ୩ ତାରିଖ (Odishan.com; June 2, 2015).
Odia Wikipedia celebrates 13 years of free knowledge contribution at Bhubaneswar (Orissadairy.com; June 2, 2015).
Odia Wikipedia Celebrates 13 Years of Free Knowledge Contribution at Bhubaneswar (FullOdisha.com; June 3, 2015).

►Openness

# Blog Entries

FOSS for Public Use:Free and Open Source Software for Digital India (Anubha Sinha; June 1, 2015).
Workshop on Open Data for Human Development (Sumandro Chattapadhyay; June 2, 2015).
Open Data Intermediaries in Developing Countries - A Synthesis Report (Sumandro Chattapadhyay; June 16, 2015).

-----------------------------------------------
Internet Governance
-----------------------------------------------

As part of its research on privacy and free speech, CIS is engaged with two different projects. The first one (under a grant from Privacy International and International Development Research Centre (IDRC)) is on surveillance and freedom of expression (SAFEGUARDS). The second one (under a grant from MacArthur Foundation) is on studying the restrictions placed on freedom of expression online by the Indian government.

►Free Speech and Expression

# Article

The generation of e-Emergency (Sunil Abraham; May 20, 2015).

# Blog Entries

IANA Transition Stewardship & ICANN Accountability (I) (Jyoti Panday; June 20, 2015).
IANA Transition Stewardship & ICANN Accountability (II) (Jyoti Panday; June 21, 2015).

# Participation in Event

Panel Discussion on Internet Intermediaries, Law and Innovation (Organized by Confederation of Indian Industries, Google and Centre For Communications Governance, NLU Delhi; New Delhi; June 2, 2015). Jyoti Panday attended the panel discussion.

► Cyber Security

# Film

DesiSec: Cybersecurity and Civil Society in India (produced by Purba Sarkar, edited by Aaron Joseph, and directed by Oxblood Ruffin). The film features Malavika Jayaram, Nitin Pai, Namita Malhotra, Saikat Datta, Nishant Shah, Lawrence Liang, Anja Kovacs, Sikyong Lobsang Sangay and, Ravi Sharada Prasad.

--------------------------------
Telecom
--------------------------------
CIS is involved in promoting access and accessibility to telecommunications services and resources and has provided inputs to ongoing policy discussions and consultation papers published by TRAI. It has prepared reports on unlicensed spectrum and accessibility of mobile phones for persons with disabilities and also works with the USOF to include funding projects for persons with disabilities in its mandate:

# Op-ed

Unfettering Stranded Capacity (Shyam Ponappa; Business Standard; June 3, 2015 and Organizing India Blogspot; June 4, 2015).

--------------------------------
Researchers at Work
--------------------------------
The Researchers at Work (RAW) programme is an interdisciplinary research initiative driven by contemporary concerns to understand the reconfigurations of social practices and structures through the Internet and digital media technologies, and vice versa. It is interested in producing local and contextual accounts of interactions, negotiations, and resolutions between the Internet, and socio-material and geo-political processes:

# Blog Entry

Indic Scripts and the Internet (Dibyajyoti Ghosh; June 30, 2015).

---------------------------------
News & Media Coverage
---------------------------------

CIS gave its inputs to the following media coverage:

Can Uber, Ola apps be blocked? Govt fighting cyber odds (Siladitya Ray; Hindustan Times; June 4, 2015).
Government's stand on internet governance draws applause from civil society organisations (Neha Alawadhi; Economic Times; June 24, 2015).
Most emerging firms low on cyber security: Experts (Malavika Murali and Payal Ganguly; June 24, 2015).

---------------------------------
About CIS
---------------------------------
The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) is a non-profit organisation that undertakes interdisciplinary research on internet and digital technologies from policy and academic perspectives. The areas of focus include digital accessibility for persons with diverse abilities, access to knowledge, intellectual property rights, openness (including open data, free and open source software, open standards, open access, open educational resources, and open video), internet governance, telecommunication reform, digital privacy, and cyber-security. The academic research at CIS seeks to understand the reconfigurations of social and cultural processes and structures as mediated through the internet and digital media technologies.

► Follow us elsewhere

Twitter: http://twitter.com/cis_india
Twitter - Access to Knowledge: https://twitter.com/CISA2K
Facebook - Access to Knowledge: https://www.facebook.com/cisa2k
E-Mail - Access to Knowledge: a2k@cis-india.org
E-Mail - Researchers at Work: raw@cis-india.org

► Support Us

Please help us defend consumer / citizen rights on the Internet! Write a cheque in favour of 'The Centre for Internet and Society' and mail it to us at No. 194, 2nd 'C' Cross, Domlur, 2nd Stage, Bengaluru - 5600 71.

► Request for Collaboration:

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/newsletters/june-2015-bulletin