Centre for Internet and Society

CIS Welcomes 52nd Report on Cyber Crime, Cyber Security, and Right to Privacy

elonnai — 2014-02-24T10:49:46Z

The “Fifty Second Report on Cyber Crime, Cyber Security, and Right to Privacy” issued by the 2013 -2014 Standing Committee on Information Technology on February 12th 2014, highlights the urgent need for reform in India’s cyber security framework and the need for the much awaited privacy legislation to be finalized and made into a law.

Read the Fifty-Second Report on Cyber Crime, Cyber Security and Right to Privacy released by the Department of Electronics and Information Technology

The Report consists of questions on the state of cyber security, cyber crime, and privacy posed by the Standing Committee and briefings and evidence provided by the Department of Electronics and Information Technology (DEITY ) in reply. The Report concludes with recommendations from the Standing Committee on the way forward.

The Report represents an important step forward in the realm of privacy and cyber security in India as the evidence provided by DEITY clarifies a number of aspects of India’s present and upcoming cyber security policies and practices. Furthermore, the recommendations by the Standing Committee highlight present gaps and inadequacies in India’s policies and practices and needed steps forward– particularly the need for a privacy legislation in India in the context of cyber security, increased transactions of sensitive data, and governmental projects like the Unique Identification Project.

Broadly, the Standing Committee sought input from DEITY on eight different aspects of cyber crime, cyber security, and privacy in India - namely: the growing incidents of cyber crime and resulting financial loss, the challenges and constraints of cyber crime, the role of relevant governmental organizations in India with respect to cyber security, preparedness and policy initiatives, cyber security and the right to privacy, monitoring and grievance redressal mechanism, and education and awareness initiatives. The evidence provided by DEITY sheds light on the present mindset of the Government at this time, upcoming policies, and capacity and infrastructure gaps in India’s cyber security framework.

The Centre for Internet and Society appreciates the Report and we would like to highlight and emphasize the following aspects:

Need for a privacy legislation and inadequacy of privacy provisions in Information Technology Act: When asked by the Standing Committee about the right to privacy and cyber security, DEITY highlighted the fact that the Information Technology Act contains sufficient safeguards for privacy, and added that the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) is in the process of developing a privacy legislation that will address the general concerns of privacy in the country, and thus the two together will be sufficient. DEITY also noted that no study on the extent of privacy breach due to cyber crime in India has been conducted. In their recommendations, the Standing Committee noted that it was unhappy that the Government has yet to institute a legal framework on privacy, as the increased transfer of sensitive data and projects like the UID leave citizens vulnerable to privacy violations . Significantly, the Standing Committee recommended that though the DoPT is currently responsible for drafting the Privacy Bill, DEITY should coordinate with the DoPT and become involved in the process.

As recognized by the Standing Committee, the Centre for Internet and Society would like to further emphasize the inadequacy of the provisions relating to privacy in the Information Technology Act, and the need for a privacy legislation in India. Inadequate aspects of the provisions have been pointed out by a number of sources. For example:

The Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy: Prepared by the committee chaired by Justice AP Shah
First Analysis of the Personal Data Protection Law in India: Prepared by the University of Namur for the Commission of the European Communities Directorate General for Justice, Freedom, and Security
Comments on the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules, 2011: Prepared by the Centre for Internet and Society and submitted to the Committee on Subordinate Legislation of the 15th Lok Sabha
India’s U-Turns on Data Privacy: Prepared by Graham Greenleaf for the Privacy Laws & Business International Report, Issues 110 -114, 2011

Unclear Enforcement of 43A and associated rules: In evidence provided, DEITY, while discussing section 43A and the associated Rules, noted that the Data Security Council of India and empanelled security auditors through CERT-in are responsible for the ‘auditing of best practice’s (pg 24). The Standing Committee did not directly respond to this comment.

The Centre for Internet and Society would like to point out that DEITY did not clearly state that DSCI and the auditors through CERT-in were responsible for auditing organizational security practices for compliance with 43A. Furthermore, there is no publicly available information regarding audits ensuring compliance with 43A or information about the number of companies that have been found to be compliant. The Centre for Internet and Society would like to encourage that this information be made public, and compliance with 43A be enforced at the organizational level.

UIDAI not in compliance with 43A and associated Rules: In evidence provided, DEITY noted that “..Section 43A and the rules published under that Section cover the entire privacy in case of digital data. These are being followed by UIDAI also and other organisations...” (pg.46) In their recommendations the Standing Committee did not directly address this comment, but did emphasize the need for a privacy legislation in light of the UID scheme.

The Centre for Internet and Society appreciates that the Standing Committee raised concern about the privacy implications of the UID project. We would like to highlight that the UIDAI is not a Body Corporate, and is not in compliance with 43A or the subsequent Rules in the Information Technology Act. Furthermore, the UID project involves the handling and processing of data in analogue and digital formats, and thus the privacy protections found under 43A are not sufficient.

The potential harms of metadata: In evidence provided, the Department noted “...we have been assured that whatever data has been gathered by them for surveillance relates only to the metadata..but we expressed that any incursion into the content will not be tolerated and is not tolerable from the Indian stand and point of view.” (pg.47) The Standing Committee did not respond directly to this comment.

The Centre for Internet and Society would like to thank the Standing Committee for noting that the Government should have taken prior steps to preventing such an interception from taking place and for recommending the Department to take develop a policy to prevent future instances of interception from taking place. The Centre for Internet and Society would like to emphasize the importance and potential sensitive nature of metadata. Metadata can, and often does, disclose more about an individual or an activity than the actual content. For example, metadata can reveal identity, behaviour patterns, associations, and can enable the mapping of location and individual movement. As such, the Centre for Internet and Society would recommend that the Government of India treat access to all information generated by individual and governmental communications as sensitive and confidential.

Inadequacy of the Information Technology Act: When asked by the Standing Committee if the Information Technology Act provided sufficient legal safeguards for cyber security and cyber crime, DEITY highlighted the fact that the Information Technology Act 2000 addresses all aspects of cyber crime in a comprehensive manner. DEITY also pointed out that the National Cyber Security Policy 2013 has provisions to enable the development of a legal framework, and the Department of Personnel and Training is in the process of drafting a privacy legislation for India that will fill any gaps that exist. In their recommendations, the Standing Committee recognized that the Information Technology Act does contain provisions that address cyber security and cyber crime, but, especially in the recent controversy over section 66A of the Act, Standing Committee emphasized the need for periodical reviews of the IT Act.

The Centre for Internet and Society appreciates the fact that the Committee recognized the need for periodical review of the Information Technology Act, particularly in light of the controversy over 66 A. The Centre for Internet and Society would like to underscore the problems associated with 66A and would like to highlight that with regards to privacy and cyber security, the IT Act is not adequate and falls short in a number of areas. Research that the Centre for Internet and Society has conducted explaining these weaknesses can be found through the below links:

Breaking Down Section 66A of the IT Act
Short note on IT Amendment Act, 2008

Implications of domestic servers: In response to questions posed by the Standing Committee about security risks associated with the importation of electronics and IT products, as well as the hosting of servers outside the country, DEITY noted the security risk of using foreign infrastructure and pointed to the hosting of servers in India as a solution to protecting the security and privacy of Indian data. The Standing Committee supported this initiative, and encouraged DEITY to take further steps towards securing and protecting the privacy of Indian data through the hosting of servers for critical sectors within India.

The Centre for Internet and Society appreciates the fact that the Standing Committee carefully limited the recommendation of locating servers in India to those in critical sectors, but would caution the Government of potential implications on users ability to freely access content and services, and highlight the fact that localization of servers is not a security solution in itself as a comprehensive solution and hardening of critical assets against cyber attacks is essential.

Incorporation of safeguards into MOU’s for international cooperation: When asked about MOU’s for international cooperation that DEITY has engaged in with other countries, DEITY reported that currently CERT-in is entering into a number of MOU’s with other countries to facilitate cooperation for cyber security purposes. Presently there are MOUs with the US, Japan, South Korea, Mauritius, Kasakhstan, Finland, and the Canada Electronics and ICT sector. DEITY is also seeking MOUs with Malaysia, Israel, Egypt, Canada, and Brazil. The Standing Committee supported India entering into MOU’s for purposes of international cooperation, and encouraged DEITY to continue entering into MOU’s to mitigate jurisdictional complications when seeking to address issues related to cyber security.

The Centre for Internet and Society recognizes the importance of international cooperation when handling issues related to cyber security and cyber crime. To ensure that this process is in line with human rights, the Centre for Internet and Society would encourage DEITY to ensure that all MOU’s and/or Mutual Legal Assistance Agreements:

Uphold the principle of dual criminality
Apply the highest level of protection for individuals in the case where the laws of more than one state could apply to communications surveillance
Are not used by any party involved to circumvent domestic legal restrictions on communications surveillance.
Are clearly documented and publicly available
Contain provisions guaranteeing procedural fairness.[1]

Hactivism as a benefit to society: In evidence provided on page 14, DEITY, among other elements, referred to Hactivism as a societal challenge to securing cyber security and tackling cyber crime. The Standing Committee did not directly address this comment.

The Centre for Internet and Society would like to point out that hacktivism is a complex topic and consists of methods. Though some methods used by hacktivists are illegal, and some use hacktivism for censorship purposes and to target certain groups, other forms of hacktivism can benefit society and strengthen cyber security by finding and revealing vulnerabilities in a system, and bringing attention to illegal or violative practices.

This works towards ensuring that a system is adequately secure. Because of the dynamic nature of hacktivism, the Centre for Internet and Society believes that hacktivism needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis and the Government should not broadly label hacktivism as a challenge to cyber security and cyber crime.[2]

Importance of the anonymous speech: In evidence provided, DEITY noted the threat to cyber security that the anonymous nature of the internet posed. This was reiterated by the Standing Committee in their recommendations.

While recognizing the potential threat to cyber security that the anonymous nature of the internet can pose, the Centre for Internet and Society would like to highlight the importance of anonymous speech online to an individual’s right to free expression.

Conclusion

Recognizing the direct connection between a strong privacy framework and a strong cyber security framework, as security cannot be achieved without privacy, and recognizing the need for a privacy legislation in light of governmental projects like the UID, the Centre for Internet and Society welcomes the Fifty Second Report on Cyber Crime, Cyber Security, and the Right to Privacy and echoes the Standing Committees recommendation and emphasis on the need for a comprehensive privacy legislation to be passed in India.

[1]. These safeguards are reflected in the principle of “safeguards for International Cooperation” found in the International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance” https://en.necessaryandproportionate.org/text

[2]. For more information about hacktivism see: Activism, Hacktivism, and Cyberterrorism. The Internet as a Tool for Influencing Foreign Policy. By Dorothy E. Denning. Georgetown University. Available at: http://www.iwar.org.uk/cyberterror/resources/denning.htm

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-welcomes-fifty-second-report-on-cyber-crime-cyber-security-right-to-privacy

Counter Surveillance Panel: DiscoTech & Hackathon (Flyer)

praskrishna — 2014-02-24T21:29:51Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/counter-surveillance.pdf

Counter Surveillance Panel: DiscoTech & Hackathon

praskrishna — 2014-02-28T05:36:15Z

We invite you to a Counter Surveillance DiscoTech and Hackathon at the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore on Saturday, March 1, 2014 (9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m.). The event is being co-organized by the Centre for Internet and Society in tandem with the MIT Centre for Civic Media Co-Design Lab, with support from members of Tactical Technology Collective, Hackteria.org and Srishti School of Art Design and Technology. Registrations begin at 9.00 a.m. The event shall close with a featured talk by renown information activist and maker lab innovator Smari McCarthy, titled "Privacy for Humanity" at 5.00 p.m.

Overview

Mirroring the call by MIT Civic Media Lab Co-Design Studio, this event brings together students, technologists, designers and citizens to explore counter-surveillance strategies. The event will be held simultaneously across various locations including Boston, Palestine, Lisbon and Buenos Aires. Click here for the definition of DiscoTech.(Discovering Technology)

Agenda

We shall begin with brief contextualized introductions catalyzed by researchers in the field of privacy & surveillance, followed by workshops and hackathons led by expert practitioners. Participants are welcome from diverse backgrounds looking to be involved in designing engaging and creative ways to counter surveillance. The event shall close with a featured talk by renown information activist and maker lab innovator Smari McCarthy , titled "Privacy for Humanity" at 5.00 p.m.

Introductory Catalyst Sessions

Malavika Jayaram: Fellow at Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University and the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore
Laird Brown: DesiSec Project at the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore and University of Toronto
Kaustubh Srikant: Head of Technology, Tactical Technology Collective and Maya Indira Ganesh (Program Director)
Abhay Raj Naik: Assistant Professor, Azim Premji University

Design and Hackathon Lead Catalysts

Yashas Shetty:Faculty@ www.srishti.ac.in and Co-Founder Hackteria.org (DNA Spoofing, Surveillance Camera: Avoidance, Microscopic Re-Appropriation & Bacterial Discotheque)

Hari Dilip Kumar: Co, Founder, FluxGen: (Introducing data transmission protocols, Software Defined Radio (SDR) design and surveillance detection )

Sharath Chandra Ram: Researcher @ CIS Open Lab and Faculty@Srishti (Civic Media solutions using open citizen networks and the web, spectrum scanning, visual communication design strategies, finger print mash-up publishing)

Featured Talk and Interactive Closing Session by Smari McCarthy

(Executive Director, International Modern Media Institute and Founder, Icelandic Pirate Party & Icelandic Digital Freedom Society)

Title of Talk: PRIVACY for HUMANITY - 5.00 p.m.

Click to download the flyer invite
Date: Saturday, March 1, 2014
Time: 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. (Registration 9.00 a.m. sharp)
Venue: Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore
Map : http://bit.ly /1fcDDLG

Please RSVP due to limited space and logistics for lunch and refreshments

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/events/counter-surveillance-panel-disco-tech-hackathon

Will You be Paid to Post a Picture?

nishant — 2014-03-06T11:58:41Z

The wave of free information production on the web is on the wane.

The article was published in the Indian Express on February 18, 2014

The age of volunteerism is officially over. The last decade of the mass adoption of the internet has been fuelled by endless human hours being spent in producing information which is the new currency of our times. The big transition to Web 2.0 began when the individual “user” became more than either an individual or the user. The individual found herself as a part of a collective, finding a voice and a community of others to belong to. Simultaneously, instead of being a passive consumer of the web, the user started producing data — blogs, videos, tweets, content management systems, online discussion boards, massively multiple online role-playing platforms, social network transactions — all of which became a part of the new Web’s widespread popularity.

Almost everything that we understand as the social web today is contingent upon people producing data in their interactions with the world around them. From knowledge producing websites like Wikipedia to entertainment platforms like YouTube, visualisation and data gathering spaces like Pinterest to photographs of self, food and cute animals on Instagram, political and social commentaries on Tumblr to Listicles and memes on Buzzfeed, the internet is a veritable smorgasbord of new information forms, formats and functions that are generated by the users.

What is possibly the most exciting about this burgeoning information universe has been the amount of free labour that goes into it, and often remains invisible. As digital labour scholar Trebor Schulz points out, the internet has become both a factory and a playground, where our leisure time is capitalised into producing work that sustains the new attention and information economies. For instance, the world’s largest social networking site, Facebook, does not produce any of its contents. It is, in fact, a system of information mining and sorting, which works as long as a growing user base continues to produce information on it. Tomorrow, if all of us stop producing Facebook, and only lurk on it, the platform will collapse. Which is why, Facebook continues to acquire new platforms and applications to be integrated into its universe.

Similarly, the real effort that goes into the sustenance of sites like Wikipedia, which has become the de facto reference for global knowledge systems, is carried out by unsung and invisible editors who patiently, meticulously, and without almost any expectation, continue to add, verify, strengthen and curate reliable information that we can use. When the non-profit organisation WikiMedia Foundation prides itself in running one of the least expensive websites in the top 10 most visited sites in the world, it is signalling its deep appreciation for the countless human hours that have made Wikipedia possible.

But, in recent years, there is noticeable stagnation in the wave of free information production on the Web. Oh, don’t get me wrong. We are producing an unprecedented amount of data — we are constantly being watched by surveillance technologies that detect biometric and genetic make-up of all our transactions, or we are inviting people to watch us on social network sites where we reveal some of our deepest secrets and desires, or we are watching ourselves, quantifying everything from things we ate to the number of hours we sleep. And yet, as we live in a world of Big Data, there is a definite decrease in people contributing to production of free information.

As the digital natives move from the web to mobile phones, traditional websites are already facing a crisis. News and media agencies that have celebrated the global citizen media networks have started realising that the individual user is more interested in local networks and information ecologies which are independent of mainstream conglomerates. And people are realising that their time and effort is worth money. They can be easily compensated for their online activities and gain reputation and importance.

The tension only becomes more palpable when people start realising that there are others who are being paid to work on the platforms that they are contributing to. We all knew that this model of depending on free information was not a sustainable one. But it seems the day has arrived, especially with the recent drives on Wikipedia to build specialised knowledge editors. In the last few months, we have seen people in the FemTechNet project — an academic activist feminist project that seeks to remind us of the intersections of feminism and technology in network societies — carry out “Wikistorming”, where students are adding pages of women’s contribution to technologies on Wikipedia. More recently, medicine students at University of Chicago have taken to correcting and adding accurate information to Wikipedia, which is often a source of health information.

Both of these are fantastic efforts to add to the platform that was the underdog that overthrew the mammoth encyclopaedia like The Encyclopaedia Britannica. We hope more specialised users in different locations, fields, disciplines and languages continue to edit and contribute to Wikipedia. However, it is also a signal that the generalist information producer is on the decline. We are transitioning into a new age, where people are going to need rewards, incentives and benefits for performing information transactions on the web. The user is no longer going to be available for free labour, and it is time we started thinking of “paid usership”.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/indian-express-february-18-2014-nishant-shah-will-you-be-paid-to-post-a-picture

Dark days for the creative class in India: Siddiqui

praskrishna — 2014-02-17T09:14:43Z

As India’s literacy rate improves, governments, courts, media, publishers and big business are all stifling free speech.

Haroon Siddiqui's article was published in thestar.com on February 16, 2014. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

In contrast to North America and Europe, India’s book publishers, newspapers and TV/radio stations are doing well, thanks to a rising literacy rate and a growing middle class. Authors, artists, journalists and filmmakers are enjoying big audiences and relatively good paycheques. Yet, paradoxically, free speech has never been so imperilled in the world’s largest democracy, for several reasons.

Governments are using colonial-era laws to stifle free speech. The lower courts and police are caving in to religious bigots who demand bans on what they don’t want to see and hear. Vigilante groups are using goon tactics to intimidate the creative class. Big business is slapping lawsuits and creating libel chill. Publishing houses are capitulating to legal, political and economic pressure. The media are too busy mollycoddling governments and advertisers to stand up for free speech.

Legal framework

The constitution guarantees free speech but, as in Canada and several European nations, it also imposes “reasonable restrictions” to maintain peace and public order. The Supreme Court has set a high bar for imposing any restrictions, yet both the federal and state governments routinely shut down anything that might flare communal riots, especially between Hindus and Muslims — a real and ever-present danger. Politicians don’t want blood on their hands to uphold the right of a preening writer to poke people in the eye. Critics counter that the political class doesn’t really care for intellectual freedom.

Libel and defamation laws criminalize speech and prescribe jail terms. This, again, is not much different than, say, the Canadian Criminal Code, under which those convicted of hate speech may be jailed for up to three years. (That’s what we are left with after the Stephen Harper Conservatives axed the civilian remedy that was available under the Human Rights Act.)

India’s Anti-Sedition Act prohibits words and actions that may cause “hatred or contempt or disaffection” toward government. This is used even against journalists, activists and those protesting government policies. As many as 6,000 farmers and fishermen were charged for opposing a nuclear plant along the southeast coast.

The Penal Code makes it an offence, punishable by up to three years in jail, to hurt anyone’s religious sensibilities; promote enmity between different religious groups; circulate “any statement or report containing rumour or alarming news with intent to create or promote, or which is likely to create or promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community feelings of enmity,” etc., etc.

Worse, the code allows anyone offended by anything to demand that the offensive material be removed.

Indians are easily offended, indeed are “desperate to be offended,” jokes novelist Manu Joseph. The milieu allows religious leaders and politicians to stoke real or imagined grievances and rush to the courts and the police, both of which usually cave in rather than risk the wrath of frenzied protesters.

“Instead of protecting the right of free expression, the state defends the offended,” writes Salil Tripathi on the website Index on Censorship.

Adds Kian Ganz, editor of the website Legally India: “Many of these British-colonial laws were written and enforced to ‘control’ a multi-ethnic and religious population. Yet they are still around and are regularly used to stifle free speech.”

Religious bigotry

While we hear mostly of angry Muslims taking offence to alleged insults to Islam — the 1988 ban on Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses being the prime example — increasingly it is Hindu fundamentalists who have been agitating successfully against what they do not like.

“Hindu bigots have matched, or perhaps even outperformed, their Islamic counterparts,” writes Ramachandra Guha, India’s pre-eminent historian. He was condemning Penguin India’s decision last week to recall and pulp American academic Wendy Doniger’s The Hindus: an Alternative History, under pressure from a Hindu group that said the 2009 book contained “heresies” and was focused on “sex and eroticism.”

There has been no bigger victim of Hindu wrath than the late M.F. Hussain, the “Picasso of India.” His priceless work was vandalized, he was slapped with hundreds of lawsuits and threatened with death for painting Hindu deities in the nude. He went into exile in Doha, Qatar, where I spoke to him on the phone in 2011 and heard his pain at having been hounded out of his beloved India. We agreed to meet later but he died soon after, at age 95.

Last year, India’s leading intellectual Ashish Nandy was threatened with arrest for ostensibly offending Dalits (Hindus of a lower caste, formerly known as untouchables).

In 2012, Mumbai police arrested a young woman who complained on Facebook about the shutdown of the city of 18 million on the death of Bal Thackeray, leader of a chauvinist regional Hindu party. Another woman who “liked” the page was also detained,both for “hurting religious sentiments.”

In 2011, the western state of Gujarat stopped the sale of American journalist Joseph Lelyveld’s biography of Mahatma Gandhi, which suggested that the great leader may have had a sexual relationship with a male German architect. The chief minister (premier), Narendra Modi, is now the prime ministerial candidate of the Hindu nationalist Bharata Janata Party for federal elections in May, which he is favoured to win.

In 2010, Canadian author Rohinton Mistry’s 1995 book, A Fine Balance, was removed from the syllabus of Bombay University, his alma mater, following objections by a student, the grandson of Thackeray. The head of the university’s English Department had to go into hiding after receiving death threats.

In 2008, Delhi University expunged from its history course an essay by A.K. Ramanujam on Hinduism following complaints by a Hindu group, and Oxford University Press India temporarily stopped printing it.

Other examples:

In 2007, a court issued an arrest warrant for actor Richard Gere for kissing Bollywood actress Shilpa Shetty, following complaints by irate Hindus. An institute in the western city of Pune was vandalized because American academic James Laine had done part of his research there for his book, Shivaji: Hindu King in Islamic India. An art gallery in Bangalore hastily removed partially nude pictures of Hindu deities fearing retaliation by a Hindu moral squad.

Guha, the historian, once suggested that both Rushdie and Hussain, one pilloried by Muslims and the other by Hindus, be conferred India’s highest civilian honours. “That would have been a blow for artistic freedom. And it’d have equally offended Hindu and Islamic bigots.”

Libel chill

There has been a steady rise in what free speech advocates see as nuisance lawsuits by corporate houses, businessmen and political parties.

In December, Jitender Bhargava, executive director of Air India until 2010, saw his book on the national airline withdrawn by Bloomsbury India, allegedly under political pressure.

The same month, another book, Sahara: The Untold Story, on the controversial finance and real estate conglomerate, was held back under a court order.

In 2011, Penguin removed a chapter in The Beautiful and the Damned from its Indian edition after Arindam Chaudhuri, who runs business schools, sued about his profile in it. He also sued Caravan, a journal of politics and culture, for an article on how he had “made a fortune off the aspirations and insecurities of India’s middle class.” The Delhi-based businessman still has the Delhi-based magazine entangled in the case he filed in a jurisdiction 1,750 kilometres away — and 300 kilometres from the nearest airport.

Penguin also held back a biography of J. Jayalalithaa, chief minister of the southern state of Tamil Nadu, who had a stay order issued against it.

In 1998, a book about the head of a textile conglomerate, Dhirubhai Ambani, was not published in India after the publisher was threatened with lawsuits. A second edition of The Polyester Prince was issued in India but with the offending material cut out.

It is difficult for outsiders, especially without the benefit of reading the materials in dispute, to judge the timidity of the publishers. But there’s no questioning the creeping self-censorship.

Obeisant media

Vinod Jose, executive editor of Caravan, writes in its annual media issue:

“Media owners bargained with the government to secure lucrative licences to mine coal blocks in return for their power to influence the public. Editors got caught on tape striking deals with lobbyists but remained arrogantly unapologetic. Owners fired political editors who wrote about politics independently . . . Forbes India pulled a story because it irked the finance ministry.”

Jose said that in 2013, the year surveyed, “the dominant mood of the press was docility.” If in the 1950s and 1960s, the media served the state, now they serve big business. They have begun to expose government corruption but remain mostly mum on corporate malfeasance. The Times of India, the country’s largest English daily, takes equity in some companies it provides advertising space to.

State surveillance

India, like the United States and other democracies, is under heavy criticism for invasion of citizen privacy under sweeping state surveillance, especially by its eight intelligence agencies that operate under mostly secretive powers.

“The real problem is that we don’t know what powers they do have — we only know bits and pieces about the Centralised Monitoring System (CMS), from some tender documents that indicate that the government intends to track web usage, phone calls, text messages and map location information, apparently without the knowledge of even telecom operators,” says Nikhil Pahwa of MediaNama (Media Journal), a website that provides news and analysis of digital media. “The issue is even less obvious here than that of the NSA,” the National Security Agency in the United States.

“The rules give the Indian government the ability to gag free speech, and block any website it deems fit, without publicly disclosing why or who blocked it — or providing adequate recourse for getting the block removed.”

“Intelligence agencies are not answerable to parliament, only to the Home ministry,” says Anja Kovacs of the Centre for Internet and Society. There are few checks and balances, little or no civilian oversight.

“The Indian government’s centralized monitoring is chilling, given its reckless and irresponsible use of the sedition and Internet laws,” says Human Rights Watch. “New surveillance capabilities have been used . . . to target critics, journalists and human rights activists.”

“Every month at the federal level, 7,000 to 9,000 phone taps are authorized or re-authorized,” writes Pranesh Prakash, policy director for the Centre for Internet and Society.

Conclusion

It is useful to remember that whatever is true of India, the exact opposite may also be true. So, while the situation is getting bleaker on the free speech front, in India the state is not the sole culprit, unlike in Russia, China or other authoritarian places. India also has a vibrant civil society that’s hammering away — is free to hammer away — at the need for a liberal polity to be liberal. The intellectuals, activists and NGOs I have quoted, testify to that. Here’s another:

The PEN All-India Centre in Mumbai and the newly formed Delhi Pen, both part of the global network of writers dedicated to free speech, said this last week:

“The removal of books from our bookshops, bookshelves and libraries, whether through state-sanctioned censorship, private vigilante action or publisher capitulation are all egregious violations of free speech that we shall oppose in all forms at all times.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/the-star-op-ed-february-16-2014-haroon-siddiqui-dark-days-for-creative-class-in-india

February 11: The Day We Fight Back Against Mass Surveillance

divij — 2014-02-14T06:00:05Z

The expansive surveillance being perpetuated by governments and corporations is the single biggest threat to individual liberties in the digital age.

The expanding scope and extent of massive data collection and surveillance undertaken by bodies like the USA’s National Security Agency compromises our privacy and stifles our freedom of speech and expression in its most vital public spheres, affecting the civil liberties of citizens of countries all across the world.

The previous year has been a watershed year for reclaiming the internet as a free and open space, primarily through the exposure of the unwarranted systems of surveillance that threaten it, by whistle-blowers like Edward Snowden and WikiLeaks. Despite all these efforts, they have only managed a dent in the surveillance regimes, which continue unbridled, with the protection of the state and the surveillance industry. The future of a free internet depends upon the systematic challenge of these programs by the millions of internet users they affect.

February 11, 2014 is the day we fight back against mass surveillance. Organized by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and supported by thousand of organizations like Mozilla and the Centre for Internet and Society, on this day of action, citizens around the world will demand an end to these programs that threaten the freedom of the internet. You can support this cause by signing and supporting the 13 Principles (International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance), and contacting your local media, petitioning your local legislators and telling your friends and colleagues about the topic. Publicizing the movement and creating a buzz around it will help spread the message to many others across the internet. Do anything that will make the fight more visible and viable, such as organizing or attending public lectures, or creating tools or memes or art to spread information. For more ways in which you can contribute, and more information on the event, visit the website.

The users of the internet deserve a free and open internet and deserve and end to mass surveillance. If we can make enough noise, make enough of an impact, we can greatly bolster the movement for reclaiming the internet.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-day-we-fight-back-against-mass-surveillance

A tale of two Internet campaigns

praskrishna — 2014-03-07T00:19:26Z

Techies supported anti-surveillance campaign, companies backed internet safety.

Deepa Kurup's article was published in the Hindu on February 11, 2014. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

The Internet was the subject of two distinctly different global campaigns, both coinciding on Tuesday. While one is backed by rights groups, civil society organisations and advocates of software and Internet freedom in general, another is run and supported by major tech corporations with a view to creating awareness on being safe online.

Supported by over 5,000 websites globally, including biggies Reddit, Mozilla (makers of Firefox) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the ‘Day We Fight Back’ campaign aimed at raising a voice against mass dragnet surveillance by the U.S. government. Despite being a largely U.S.-centric mass campaign attacking the National Security Agency’s spying activities worldwide, groups such as the Free Software Movement of Karnataka (FSMK) and Bangalore-based NGO Centre for Internet and Society have supported it.

On Tuesday, GNU/Linux user groups (known as glugs) in several colleges — coordinated by the FSMK — did classroom-to-classroom campaigns talking to students and creating awareness about surveillance. In some engineering colleges, such as the SJBIT, these glugs are even screening documentaries related to online privacy and mass surveillance over the week. Explaining why the FSMK decided to hold a campaign here, Sarath M.S. of the FSMK said: “While the call for action is directed towards lawmakers in U.S., this affects all of us. It has undermined the sovereignty of nations and privacy of individuals. Given this, it is important to build public opinion among the youth against these surveillance systems, and make them understand the political issues underlying products and services that they use regularly.”

Sunil Abraham of the CIS, an organisation that is listed on the campaign website (www.thedaywefightback.org) as a supporter, says that the global support comes from the fact that people have realised that the idea that the Internet is a democratic medium is not true anymore. “The aftermath of Snowden’s revelations have signalled the end of the Internet as we knew it. This is an attempt by civil society organisations to make a case for the web we want.

Safe Internet Day

Meanwhile, two big companies announced activities as part of the Safe Internet Day, an annual global campaign that promotes safer use of online tech. To mark the occasion, Microsoft Corp released results of the third annual Microsoft Safe Computing Index that found that 20 per cent Indians have been victims of online phishing attacks and 12 per cent have suffered identity theft.

Google India too launched the ‘Good to Know’ campaign on online safety. It announced a partnership with Digital Empowerment Foundation (DEF) and the Voluntary Organisation in the Interest of Consumer Education (VOICE) on this campaign.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/the-hindu-february-11-2014-deepa-kurup-a-tale-of-two-internet-campaigns

Towards an Equitable and Just Internet

praskrishna — 2014-02-17T11:20:19Z

IT for Change is organizing an international meeting to formulate a progressive response to issues of global governance of the Internet. Bhairav Acharya will be participating in this event to be held in New Delhi on February 14 and 15.

The Internet is emerging as a central feature of contemporary human life. We use it to access and disseminate information, to communicate and build community, to transact business and to practise democracy. Ever increasing dimensions of our social, economic, cultural and political life are tied to the Internet.

However, the benefits of the Internet - knowledge and power, wealth and influence, are distributed unevenly. A technology built on the egalitarian peer-to-peer principle, ironically, is emerging as a key axis of inequality, an instrument perpetuating and reinforcing longstanding social, economic, cultural and political injustices. Snowden's dramatic exposé of a deep nexus between the US government and a few global corporations to enable global surveillance, confirmed just one aspect of the problem. The truth about the Internet and how its socio-technical architecture is being shaped is considerably more complex and insidious. The rapid colonisation of the Internet by a few monopolizing global corporations, and its governance being subject, in a highly disproportionate manner, to the laws and policy priorities of one country, impacts not just privacy, but a huge range of very important social, economic, cultural and political issues. (To a lesser extent, policy frameworks developed by clubs of rich countries like the the OCED also impact the emerging shape of the Internet.)

Questions of democracy, social justice and equity need to become central to how the Internet, and how an Internet-mediated society, are evolving. The smokescreen of technical-neutrality has prevented for too long a critical, political examination of the social underpinnings of the Internet, its normative boundaries and legalinstitutional frames. In addition, self-serving formulations like 'Multistakeholderism' and 'Internet Freedom', are employed by the status quo to maintain a facade of legitimacy. Beyond the rhetoric, it is clear that the Internet – in its dominance by the powerful, is neither genuinely multi-stakeholder nor genuinely free.

There are foundational questions to be pursued, in this regard : How is the Internet redistributing power and resources? How does this impact those at the margins, those on the peripheries of an increasingly globalised world? How is such redistribution connected to the socio-technical architecture of the Internet? What kind of Internet would promote social justice and equity? What needs to be done to make it more just, more egalitarian? Who governs the Internet, and how can its governance be democratized? From the standpoint of global justice, two urgent priorities lie ahead of us.

A progressive conception and vision of the Internet, and
A common global ownership of the Internet that protects and promotes its public-ness, and its evolution as a 'global commons'. The Internet was envisaged as a decentralized network, with control from the peripheries. This characteristic of the network is rapidly eroding, What is urgently needed is a recasting of this technical principle into a socio-political framework for a truly people-owned and people-controlled Internet, and one that works for all. The global governance of the Internet requires a proper institutionalization and legal framework incorporating the true spirit of participatory democracy. It should inter alia serve to insulate the Internet both from corporatist and from statist dominations.

An international meeting, entitled 'Towards a Just and Equitable Internet', is envisaged to address the key issues identified above. It will be held in New Delhi, India, on February 14th and 15th, 2013. The meeting will bring together actors engaged in social justice movements and ICT, communication and media rights advocacy to dialogue with some of those already engaged with Internet governance issues, with a view to chart a progressive response to issues related to global governance of the Internet.

Potential outcomes from the meeting include:

A 'charter for Internet justice and equity';
Specific proposals for democratizing the global governance of the Internet as contributions to the 'Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance' being hosted by Brazilian government in April, 2013, the UN Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation and the WSIS + 10 process.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/towards-an-equitable-and-just-internet

The Dangers Of Birdsong

praskrishna — 2014-02-12T10:29:10Z

Instant gratification? Social media can quickly turn the game into checkmate if you don’t keep your emotions in check.

Namrata Joshi's article was published in Outlook on January 25, 2014. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

“Woke up from a dream in which I had just learned that I was going to keep wickets for India. In my dream, I thought, let me share this news on Twitter. I didn’t, fearing I would be made a laughing stock.” These are few of a series of stream of consciousness tweets about a dream posted this Monday by author-academician Amitava Kumar. Tweets that don’t just have to do with dreaming of a personal achievement, but also about tweeting it. “Twitter has invaded even our sleeping life,” says Amitava on an e-mail but also admits that he didn’t think for a moment that he was sharing something private in a public place while tweeting his reverie. “Instead, perhaps, I was seeking a private connection with a lot of readers.” Which he did rustle up in good measure. He followed it up by tweeting a picture of his son with him, taken by his 10-year-old daughter Ila, as a homage to a similar photostream by author- photographer-art historian Teju Cole.

Amitava’s unfussy and creative candidness about tweeting things personal, which he prefers to see as “grappling with a form of writing” came in the wake of a weekend of vigorous debate on how social media platforms were bringing the private under unblinking public scrutiny—the immediate hook being the sudden, tragic death of Sunanda Pushkar after her no-holds-barred Twitter war with Pakistani journalist Mehr Tarar (over the latter’s alleged liaison with her husband Shashi Tharoor, which was consumed with much amusement by their vicarious, at times vicious, followers). The Tharoor incident is not a stand-alone case. Be it a confidentiality clause or diplomatic tact, a professional decision or personal affair or even a death of someone close to you, social media has become a stage to play out the classified and the confidential (see infographic) by the celebrities and the aam aadmi alike. The payback? Spats, comebacks, breakdowns, meltdowns, resignations, embarrassments, humiliations, kerfuffles....

And it’s not something confined to India alone. “US Congressman Anthony Weiner’s tweet of his, let’s call it, torso, to a young woman in Seattle is perhaps the most egregious example of a US politician behaving badly online,” says Amitava. No surprise then that Weiner became a butt of late-night comedy shows.

But the larger question here is why. Why this urge and urgency to share it all? What is it about a platform like Twitter or Facebook that makes people bare and dare? Is it that the immediacy, speed and reach allows them the easiest way to extend the boundaries of their secluded, lonely lives, get instant attention and fan the curiosity of someone out there who they don’t even know? And why is propriety and moderation getting thrown out of the window in the world of virtual exchanges? Adman-columnist Santosh Desai calls Twitter a “broadcast system to the universe”. The tweets are often “thought bubbles”, “something you mutter” without a full sense of what public means. “The spur of the moment opinion or feeling acquires public currency,” he says. “The unraveling of the human being, the opening up of the closed box then becomes a new source of stimulation and pleasure,” he says. “I sometimes wonder how we shared before Twitter. We talk about what we like, don’t like at the drop of a hat. At times you are vulnerable and vent things out without an agenda and without knowing the repercussions. We creative bunch are like that,” says popular actress Divya Dutta.

According to Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, private information is a currency in the global attention economy. “One of the many ways of climbing the attention economy is to divulge private information. Those in public life like filmstars and socialites understand this completely and exploit all traditional broadcast channels and contemporary multicast channels like social media to amass public attention,” he says. Look closely and the online space is no different from the real. There are as many exceptions as there are rules. So for every exhibitionist handle that exploits our latent voyeurism, there is a Natasha Badhwar, one of the most life-affirming presences on Twitter. For her, like Amitava, sharing is a mode of expression. “Sharing gives us agency. We take back the power to tell our story, express our views, share our version in our own words,” she says. According to her, “honest” sharing fuels empathy. “It is contagious, it makes the reader want to share too,” she says. And from that sharing could emerge a new pool of acquaintances, friends and well-wishers. It may not be a virtual escape from the real but a journey and connect back to the actual, an expansion of the human circle than a depletion of it.

But not all our friends and followers need necessarily be sympathetic. Often they are also brutally savage. “The anonymity allows people to say exactly what they want without considering the implications. They don’t realise that it’s not just a handle but a human being they are talking to,” says Nikhil Pahwa, founder of medianama.com. Amitava compares it to drone warfare. “The technology of remote destruction has introduced a new experience of war, and a new logic of killing. You can kill with greater abandon; you can strike in unexpected places; you are confronted with few consequences of your fatal mistakes. Similarly, Twitter allows a mode of social exchange with less culpability. There are very few consequences for trolls, but disastrous ones for their victims,” he says.

But surely that doesn’t mean that you blur all the lines between the private and the public? How to exercise caution? How much to open up (or not) and how much of your core to keep to yourself? Life, after all, is too complex and fragile for blame games and finger-pointing at social media alone. It’s those using it who need to own up. “People need to take responsibility for what they say. It’s like someone telling me how he was abused for 15 minutes on the phone when he could have easily cut the call,” says Nikhil Pahwa. “It’s a modern form of communication which you have to embrace but there’s a line you must draw. For instance, my wife and I never interact on FB or Twitter. I keep the family to myself. Jokes are fine but I don’t abuse or use swear words,” says actor Ashwin Mushran. “There has to be a sense of decorum. I won’t put out what I gossip about with my friends. I have no strategy but am guarded by my own belief system,” says actor Rajat Kapoor.

“It’s normal human nature to express. Be it anger or frustration, as a counsellor I tell people to not suppress emotions but some moderation and etiquette need to apply in cyber space,” says Mukta Puntambekar deputy director of Pune-based Muktangan Rehabilitation Centre. “You have to accept that your followers and friends will have access to details about you. You have to exercise discretion in saving something of yourself for yourself. There are areas that need not be opened up for all,” says actor-comedian Vir Das, who recently posted an open letter on FB—‘Twitter Bad? Facebook Evil? or We Stupid?’—on the pointlessness of blaming social media for the Tharoor family tragedy. To extend the argument further, and add another layer to it, aren’t we also living in times when privacy itself is evolving, asks Rajesh Lalwani, CEO of blogworks and a self-confessed people-watcher. “My grandmother would not even eat in public. But we eat in restaurants, on the streets,” he says.

Privacy is also becoming an ambiguous, vague and complex entity. Getting tagged in a friend’s photo compromises your privacy without your involvement or participation. “The line between private and public has mostly dissolved because of the temporal persistence of digital traces in cyberspace, the global nature of the network and the ubiquitous and pervasive surveillance state,” says Abraham. “On Twitter and FB, things get circulated...what we put up, whether it’s a tweet, an update or a picture, is permanent unlike memory,” says Desai. The digital trail stays online. “We are leaving our digital footprints behind. What we post might be easy but the implications of it are complicated,” says writer, filmmaker and media observer Amit Khanna.

According to him, there is a gap between the progression of technology and society. “There are newer windows but our minds are not growing apace to handle the connected world in a mature way,” he says. So one needs to be additionally circumspect about what we do online, how much of us we put out there. The ‘creative minds’ don’t see it as cut and dried. Natasha thinks that sharing can make people vulnerable to ridicule. “Confronting and embracing that vulnerability is the only way forward. These are not real fears to cling to, these are fears to shed as we grow and realise the extent of our individual power.” Amitava says he has seen several careers destroyed because of a single tweet. But he’d hate to back down and be cautious. As he puts it, “You’ve got to push the envelope and experiment with expression. I hope that when my wrong moment comes, people will be forgiving.” Amen to that.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/outlook-namrata-joshi-january-25-2014-dangers-of-birdsong

Video Games: A Case Study of a Cross-cultural Video Collaboration

Larissa Hjorth and Nishant Shah — 2014-01-31T12:02:17Z

A new book focusing on Palestinian artists’ video, edited by Bashir Makhoul and published by Palestinian Art Court- al Hoash, 2013, includes a chapter co-authored by Larissa Hjorth and Nishant Shah.

This was published in a book on Palestinian art.

The rise of mobile media is heralding new forms of networked visualities. These visualities see place, politics and images entangled in new ways: what can be called ‘emplaced visuality’. In the images disseminated globally of citizen uprising such as the Arab Spring, it was mobile phones that provided the frame and context for new forms of networked visual politics. In the growth in networked photo apps such as Instagram and Hipstamic, how, when and why we are representing a relationship between place and co-presence is changing. No longer the poorer cousin to professional cameras, camera phones have lead the rise of do-it-yourself (DIY) aesthetics flooding mainstream and subcultural media cultures. In networked visuality contexts such as YouTube and Flickr, the aesthetic of what Burgess has called ‘vernacular creativity’[1] has become all-pervasive—so much so that even mainstream media borrows the DIY style.

Now, with locative media added into the equation, these visualities are not only networked but also emplaced—that is, entangled within the temporal and spatial movements of everyday life.[2]

Emplaced visualities represent a new relationship between place (as a series of what Doreen Massey calls ‘stories so far’)[3] co-presence, subjectivity and visuality. This phenomenon is impacting upon video art. In this chapter we reflect upon how mobile media visualities are impacting upon a sense of place and displacement. With the added dimension of Big Data and location-based services (like Google Maps and Facebook Places) now becoming part of the everyday informational circuits, how a sense of place and privacy is experienced and represented is changing. This phenomenon is apparent in the Palestinian cross-cultural video project called Al Jaar Qabla al Daar (The Neighbour before the House) as we will discuss in detail later in this chapter.

With its history of displacement and disapora, Palestinine’s role in contemporary art is increasingly becoming pivotal. This is especially the case with video art as a key medium for reflecting upon representations of place and movement. When we think of Palestinan video art the first artist we think of is Mona Hatoum. Hatoum was a poineer in so many ways. In particular, she gave voice to Arab women. Her work unsetttled the poetics of the everyday by evoking a sense of displacement and entanglement. While born in Beirut of Palestinan parents and then moving to London, she never identified as Lebanese. Despite never living in Palestinian, Hatoum was like a number of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon post 1948 who were never able to gain Lebanese identity cards. Unsurprisingly, Hatoum’s experiences of exile permulate her work. In particular, exile, politics and the body have played a key role. This is epitomised in her iconic Measures of Distance (1988) whereby Hatoum superimposes images of her mother having a shower with letters by her mum written in Arabian.

However, Hatoum is not the only artist representing the oevre of Palestinian video art. Over the last two decades—with the rise of mobile media affording easy accessibility to new media tools and networked contexts like YouTube—a new breed of video artists has arisen. An example is Navigations: Palestinian Video Art, 1988 to 2011 (curated as part of the Palestine Film Festival) that explored artists working in Palestine and the diaspora over nearly a quarter of a century. Unsurprisingly, motifs of diaspora and displacement feature throughout the fifteen works by Hatoum, Taysir Batniji, Manar Zoabi, Larissa Sansour and Khaled Jarrar to name a few. In Navigations: Palestinian Video Art key themes include ‘mobility and fluidity: the virtual and the real, the past and the future, the spectacular and the quotidian, the near and the far’.

Another example of an event promoting Palestinian video art is the /si:n/ Festival of Video Art & Performance. Consisting of performances, video installations, lectures, talks, and workshops in various venues all over the West Bank and includes artists from all over the world. The name /si:n/ is meant to linked the words ‘scene’ with ‘seen’ and has been seen as making an innovative context for video artists to share and collaborate in public venue. With themes such as ‘poetical revolution comes before political revolution’, the /si:n/ Festival provides a context that reflects upon exile and place in one of the most contested and politucal spaces, the West Bank. Beginning in 2009, the /si:n/ Festival became the first festival of video art in Palestine.

Given this rich tapestry of video art emerging in Palestine, in this chapter we explore the relationship between emergent mobile visualities, diaspora and place through a specific project called The Neighbour before the House. A cross-cultural video collaboration between Indian artists Shaina Anand, Ashok Sukumaran and Nida Ghouse, with Palestinian and Israeli artists Mahmoud Jiddah, Shereen Brakat and Mahasen Nasser-Eldin, The Neighbour before the House is a video art project that explores quotidian practices of life in a ‘post-surveillance society’. The Neighbour before the House is set in the context of the much contested territories and the relentless re-occupation and re-appropriation of East Jerusalem. Working with cheap surveillance technologies which have become such a ubiquitous part of the landscape of East Jerusalem, the artists use a PTZ (pan-tilt-zoom) security camera to inquire into the affective dimensions of ‘mobile’ life in the time of turbulent politics. The images that they capture look at jest, memory, desire and doubt, as fragile conditions of trust and life shape the everyday experiences of the region. The camera is given to the residents of a neighbourhood torn asunder by political strife and conflicts, asking them to search for the nugget of truth or morsel of thickness in the otherwise familiar flatness of walls and closed doors, which have been completely depleted of all depth because of the increased distance in the social relations.

The images eschew the tropes of traditional documentary making by and adopting the grainy, lo-res, digital non-frame, DIY aesthetics constantly in search of an image that might become the site of meaning making, but increasingly only capturing the mundane, the inane, the opaque and the evanescent. The image leads the commentary. The live camera operator’s interest and experience shape the image, rendering the familiar or the insignificant as hugely affective and evocative. The project further initiates a dialogue between the neighbours—both from across the contested zones, but also from across picket fences and walls of surveillance—by introducing the images to them, by inviting them to capture the images, and instil in them, the narratives of hope, despair, nostalgia, memory, loss, love, and longing.

The Neighbour before the House reflects upon the relationship between between art, technologies of visual reproduction and political strife. Moving away from the documentary style that has been popular in capturing the ‘real’, The Neighbour before the House refigures the temporality and spatiality through new affective and metaphorical tropes, playing with the tension between the presence of surveillance technologies and the familiarity of these images that breeds new conditions of life and living, trust and belonging, safety and threat, for people in Palestine. In the process, it introduces key questions to the role of the artist, the function of art, the form of video art practice, and the new negotiations that digital video apparatus introduce to the art worlds, beyond the now main-stream ideas of morphing, digitization, remixing etc.

Moreover, The Neighbour before the House reflects upon a shift away from the dominant network society paradigm and towards more contingent and ambivalent mirconarratives of camera phone practices. It toys with the DIY ‘banality’ aesthetics of camera phones in order to consider the ways in which place is overlaid with different types of information—electronic, geographic, psychological and metaphoric. On the one hand, The Neighbour before the House evokes network society metaphors. On the other hand, it suggests a move away from this paradigm and towards a politics of both ‘emplaced’ and displaced visuality. In order to discuss this transformation of the relationship between image, place and information from network society metaphors towards ‘emplaced’ visualities we firstly describe The Neighbour before the House before then reflecting upon a few key themes the project explores: that is, the movement of the networked society to emplaced visualities and the rise of the politics of the phoneur.

The Neighbour before the House 2012): A case study

As aforementioned, The Neighbor before the House is a collaborative video project between Indian, Israeli and Palestenian artists that appropriates, critically responds and insightfully rearranges the notion of art, politics and digital video technologies in its exploration of everyday practices of life in critical times in a networked post-surveillance society. The Neighbor before the House equips eight Palestenian families from East Jerusalem to be in control of PTZ (Pan Tilt Zoom) surveillance cameras mounted at strategic locations in the city, to observe the live feed on their TV sets, recording their reactions and live commentaries at what they see. Here the Big Brother, and its contemporary Big Data, is inverted through everyday citizens being given the omnipresent eye. It plays on the idea of the neighbour being both a friendly eye and when this watching shifts from being benevolent to malevolent.

As the artists write, ‘this footage shot with a security camera, takes us beyond the instrumental aspects of surveillance imaging, introducing us to the architecture of a deliberate and accelerated occupation of a city.’ Here the city is rendered into a cartography of informational circuits. Exploiting the conditions of networked spectacle, the project attempts to remap the real and the everyday through ‘inquisitiveness, jest, memory, fear, desire and doubt’. They use the surveillance cameras—symbols of suspicion and fear—to catalyse stories from Palestenians in different neighbourhoods about what can be seen: ‘messianic archeological digs; Israeli settlement activities; takeovers of Palestenian properties; the Old City, the Wall and the West Bank,’ among other mundane and marvellous details of living life in those precarious conditions.

Through the inversion of the politics of survellience from the Big Brother to the ubiquitous neighbour, The Neighbor before the House provides a rich, evocative and non-representational history of living in East Jerusalem. The networked media spectacles which have come to stand-in for the complex geo-political struggles of the region are displaced. As the low-res cameras reduce the deep geography into an alien flatness on the TV screens, as the camera captures glimpses of what could have been, records traces of blurred movements which require discussions and debates about their possible meaning, and engages the families to communicate their hopes, fears, desires and doubts, the art project also signals us to the new forms, functions and role of video art. Rather than the media event or spectacle,
The Neighbor before the House provides the micronarrative gestures of the everyday. The ways in which the place is a tapestery of subjectivities and experiences, not just a media spectacle.

As artist Shaina Anand mentions in an interview with Shah, this is a new kind of storytelling, where,

… a lot of the practice actually removes the filmmaker, the director, the auteur, and also therefore the cameraman, and also the lens... and offers these possibilities and privileges— of this look and gaze and all—to the subjects themselves[4]

And as the lens makes itself invisible, it also gives new importance to the apparatus of surveillance, seeing and its incorporation in our lives. As Florian Schenider mentions in the introduction to the project, the house upon which the camera is mounted, itself becomes a tripod made of stones. Instead of thinking of the video apparatus as out there, the private conditions of the home, the histories of the family, their relationships with neighbours and communities that they have lost, and strangers that they have inherited, all become the defining circumstances of this new crisis.

Borrowing from a Quranic saying, Al Jaar Qabla Al Daar, which is close to the idea of ‘loving they neighbour’ it explores how the presence of new digital video technologies establishes difference, distance, alienation, proximity, curiosity and surveillance which is not merely a function of governmental structures but also a condition of gamification and everyday engagement for the families in East Jerusalem. For the artists, this also takes up another connotation of ‘checking out your neighbour before you buy the house’ suggesting establishing bounded similarities to seek comfort. The edited footage of the video shows how and when the users got in control of the keyboard and a joy-stick, panning, tilting and zooming the camera, watching the live feeds on their Television sets as they speak live over the footage. These commentaries are personal as they are affective. Sometimes the commentary leads the person to probe the image, deeper, trying to find a meaning that can no longer be supported by the hyper-pixelated image on their screen, but becoming a site through which memories and interpretations

get generated. What begins as a playful probe soon takes up sinister shades, as some generate narratives of loss and death. Others take the opportunity to spy on the new settlers who have sometimes taken over their older houses, wondering what changes they are making to what was their own. There is a sense of rawness and urgency, as they look back, with fear, and anger, but also with resignation at the houses that they were evicted from, and the semblance of life that they can spot from their remote presence.

The final 5 cuts that the artist produce, give us a deep and evocative insight into geography, temporality, and the ways in which we can re-appropriate the network spectacle to look at things that are often forgotten, dropped out of, or rendered invisible in the neat and clean lines of network models and diagrams. The ‘footage’ quality of the probes, the long dwellings on insignificant images, and the panoptican nature of video as witness, video as spy, and video as affective engagement with territories and times that are lost, all give a new idea of what the future of video art would be like. Instead of looking at a tired old Foucauldian critique of surveillance, The Neighbor before the House posits the question of ‘Who watches the watchman?’ in ways that are both startling and assuring.

Visualising the Politics of the Network

One of the key themes of The Neighbour before the House is the changing role of the network society—especially in an age of Big Data and locative-based services (LBS)—whereby privacy and surveillance come to the forefront. The network society has often been cited as one of the defining frameworks of our heavily mediated times. From theorists such as Barry Wellman and Manuel Castells, the network metaphor has burgeoned in parallel with the all-pervasive rise of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) globally. According to Lee Raine and Wellman in Networked, the ‘new social operating systems of networked individualism liberates us from the restrictions of tightly knit groups.’[5]

Raine and Wellman argue that there has been a ‘triple revolution’: the rise of social networking, the capacity of the internet to empower individuals, and the always-on connectivity of mobile devices’.[6]

The ability of networks to explain a range of human personal and social relationships has afforded it great explanatory power, where everything (and hence, by association, everybody) can be understood and explained by the indexicalities and visual cartographies that networks produce. The network is simultaneously, and without any sense of irony, committed to both, examining sketchiness and producing clarity of any phenomena or relationality. The network presumes an externality which can be rich, chaotic and complex and proposes tools and models through which that diverse and discrete reality can be rendered intelligible by producing visualisations.

These visualisations are artefacts—in as much as all mapping exercises produce artefacts—and operate under the presumption of a benignity devoid of political interventions or intentions. The visualisations are non-representational, in terms that they do not seek to reproduce reality but actually understand it, and thereby shaping the lenses and tools to unravel the real nature of the Real. In this function, the network visualisations are akin to art, attaining symbolic value and attempting to decode a depth that the network itself defies and disowns, simulating conditions of knowing and exploring, emerging as surrogate structures that stand in for the real. Thus the rich set of actions, emotions, impulses, traces, inspirations, catalysts, memories, etc. get reified as transactions which can be sorted in indices, arranged in databases, and presented as an abstract, symbolic and hyper-visual reality which can now be consumed, accessed and archived within the network, thus obfuscating the reality that it was premised upon.

This phenomenon is what Shah calls the spectacle imperative of the network. Especially with the proliferation of ubiquitous image and video recording digital devices, this ability to create subjective, multiple, fractured spectacles that feed into the network’s own understanding of itself (rather than an engagement with a reality outside) has become the dominant aesthetic that travels from Reality TV programming to user generated content production on video distribution channels on the internet. This networked spectacle, without a single auteur or a concentrated intention—so the videos from the Arab Spring on YouTube, for example, range from small babies in prams to women forming barricades against a marching army, and from people giving out free food and water to acts of vandalism and petty thefts—has become the new aesthetic of video interaction, consumption and circulation. It invites an engagement, divesting our energies and attentions from the physical and the political, to the aesthetic and the discursive. Which is to say that when we consume these spectacles (or indeed, produce them, not necessarily only through the images but also through texts), we produce a parallel universe that demands that we understand the world ‘out there’ through these cultural artefacts which require an immense amount of decoding and meaning making. The network, in its turn, offers us better and more exhaustive tools of mining and sifting through this information, sorting and arranging it, curating and managing it, so that we build more efficient networks without essentially contributing to the on-the-ground action.

This peculiar self-sustaining selfish nature of the network, to become the only reality, under the guise of attempting to explain reality, is perhaps the most evident in times and geographies of crises. Where (and when) the conditions of politics, circumstances of everyday survival, and the algebra of quotidian life becomes too precarious, too wearisome, too unimaginable to cope with, the network spectacle appears as both the tool for governance as well as the site of protest. Hence, the same technologies are often used by people on different sides of the crises, to form negotiations and get a sense of control, on a reality that is quickly eluding their lived experiences. Surveillance cameras storing an incredible amount of visual data, forming banal narratives of the everyday, appear in critical times and geographies as symbols of control and containment, by authorities that seek to establish their sovereignty over unpredictable zones of public life and dwelling. The gaze of the authority is often criss-crossed by the cell-phone, the webcam, the tiny recording devices of everyday life that people on the streets and in their houses use, to record the nothingness of the crisis, the assurance of normalcy and the need to look over the shoulder and beyond the house, to know that whether or not god is in the heavens, all is well with the world.

The Place of the Visual: Towards a theory of emplaced visuality

However, with the rise of mobile media and its micronarrative capacity, the politics of network, and its relationship to a sense of place changes. Far from eroding a sense of place in the growing unboundness of home, mobile technologies reinforce the significance locality.[7] Mobile media also signal a move away from earlier depictions of the network society. Through the growth in camera phone practices overlaid with location-based services, we see new forms of visuality that reflect changing relations between place and information. With the rise of technologies in an increasingly mobile—physically and technologically—place has become progressively more contested. As Rowan Wilken and Gerard Goggin note in Mobile Technologies and Place, place is one of the most contested, ambiguous and complex terms today.[8] Viewing it as unbounded and relational, Wilken and Goggin observe, ‘place can be understood as all-pervasive in the way that it informs and shapes everyday lived experience—including how it is filtered and experienced via the use of mobile technologies’.[9] As social geographer Doreen Massey notes, maps provide little understanding into the complex elusiveness of place as a collection of ‘stories-so-far’:

One way of seeing ‘places’ is as on the surface of maps… But to escape from an imagination of space as surface is to abandon also that view of place. If space is rather a simultaneity of stories-so-far, then places are collections of those stories, articulations within the wider power-geometries of space. Their character will be a product of these intersections within that wider setting, and of what is made of them… And, too, of the non-meetings-up, the disconnections and the relations not established, the exclusions. All this contributes to the specificity of place.[10]

For anthropologist Sarah Pink, place is increasingly being mapped by practices of emplacement.[11] With location based media like Google Maps and geotagging becoming progressively part of everyday media practice, how place is imagined and experienced across geographic, psychological, online and offline spaces is changing. This impacts upon the role of ethnography and its relationship to geography and place. As Anne Beaulieu notes, ethnography has moved from co-location to co-presence.[12] In this shift, we see the role of ethnography to address the complex negotiations between online and offline spaces growing.

In The Neighbour before the House, we are made to consider the changing role of visuality in how place is experienced and practiced. By deploying a surveillant and multivalent gaze, The Neighbour before the House asks us to reconsider privacy and surviellance in an age of locative media. The rise of the network society has witnessed numerous tensions and ambivalence, especially around the the relationship between agency, information and place. This is epitomised by the second generation camera phones practices whereby with the added layer of LBS—where and when images were taken—becomes automatic by default. Whereas first generation of camera phone practices noted gendered differences.[13] through LBS, these differences take on new dimensions—particularly in terms of its potential ‘stalker’ elements.[14] While notions of privacy differ subject to socio-cultural context, LBS do provide more details about users and thus allow them to be victims of stalking (Cincotta, Ashford, & Michael 2011).

The shift towards second generation camera phone images sees a movement away from networked towards emplaced visualities (Pink & Hjorth 2012; Hjorth 2013; Hjorth & Arnold 2013). On the one hand, this overlaying of the geographic with the social highlights that place has always mattered to mobile media (Ito 2002; Hjorth 2005). Far from eroding place, mobile media amplify the complexities of place as something lived and imagined, geographic and yet psychological. LBS enable mobile media users to create and convey more complex details about a locality. On the other hand, LBS create new motivations for narrating a sense of place and the role of amateur and vernacular photography.

Shifts in contemporary amateur photography highlight the changes in how place, co-presence and information is navigated, performed and represented. This issues are particularly prevalent in contested location like Palestine. Last century it was the Kodak camera that epitomized amateur photography and played an important role in normalizing notions of the family as well as ritualizing events such as holidays.[15]

As Lisa Gye notes, personal photography is central to the process of identity formation and memorialization.[16] The shift towards camera phones not only changes how we capture, store, and disseminate images but also has ‘important repercussions for how we understand who we are and how we remember the past’.[17]

Moreover, with the rise in possibilities for sharing via social media like microblogs and Twitter, camera phone photography not only magnifies UCC, but also provides filters and lenses to enhance the “professional” and “artistic” dimensions of the photographic experience.[18]

For Daniel Palmer, smartphone photography is distinctive in various ways, with one key feature being the relationship between touch and the image in what he calls an ”embodied visual intimacy” (2012: 88). With the rise of high quality camera phones, along with the growth in distribution services via social and locative media, new forms of visuality are emerging (Pink & Hjorth 2012). The added dimensions of movement and touch becoming important features of the camera phone with the emphasis on networked is shifting to “emplaced” visuality. Images as emplaced in relation to what human geographer Tim Ingold has called a “meshwork” and entanglement of lines (2008). Images themselves are part of such lines as they are inextricable from the camera and person who took them. In this sense camera phone images are not simply about what they represent (although they are also about that) but are additionally about what is behind, above, below, and to either side.

By using different smartphone photo apps, respondents tried to inscribe a sense of place with emotion. This practice is what anthropologist Sarah Pink identifies as the “multisensorality of images.” That is, they are located in “the production and consumption of images as happening in movement, and consider them as components of configurations of place” (Pink 2011: 4). Drawing on Tim Ingold’s conceptualization of place as “entanglement” (Ingold 2008), Pink notes, “Thus, the ‘event’ where photographs are produced and consumed becomes not a meeting point in a network of connections but an intensity of entangled lines in movement… a meshwork of moving things” (Pink 2011: 8).

While the surveillant eye of Big Brother now takes the form of Big Data, the emplaced nature of camera phone images can help to contribute to a changing relationship between performativity, memory and place that is user-orientated. Rather than operating to memorialize place, camera phone practices, especially through LBS networks, are creating playful performances around the movement of co-presence, place and placing (Richardson & Wilken 2012). As noted elsewhere, Pink and Hjorth argue that camera phone practices are highlighting a move away from the network society towards emplaced visualities and socialities (2012). Emplaced visuality means understanding camera phone practices and the socialities that create and emerge through them in ways corresponding with non-representational (Thrift, 2008) or ‘more-than-representational’ approaches in geography which according to Hayden Lorimer encompass:

… how life takes shape and gains expression in shared experiences, everyday routines, fleeting encounters, embodied movements, precognitive triggers, affective intensities, enduring urges, unexceptional interactions and sensuous dispositions (Lorimer, 2005: 84).

Thus we see camera phone photography as a part of the flow of everyday life, an increasingly habitual way of being that is sensed and felt (emotionally and physically). Yet, because camera phone photography involves the production and sharing of images, it also compels us to engage with the relationship between the representational and the non-representational. Emplaced visualities see images as embedded with the movements of everyday life. Tim Cresswell has suggested that we consider ‘three aspects of mobility: the fact of physical movement—getting from one place to another; the representations of movement that give it shared meaning; and, finally, the experienced and embodied practice of movement’ (Cresswell, 2010: 19). These three aspects of mobility are deeply interwoven and entangled. In camera phone photography the experience and representation of camera phone photography is enacted in the ‘flow’ of everyday life at the interface where digital and material realities come together. These emplaced visualities are often abstracted through the mechanics of Big Data mega surveillance. But as The Neighbour before the House demonstrates, the perpetual movement of emplaced visualities is in sharp contrast with the unmoving, omipresent Big Data eye.

This contrast between the moving and unmoving, micro and macro information overlaid onto place can also be reflected as part of the shift from the flâneur to the phoneur. The notion of mobility—as a technology, cultural practice, geography and metaphor—has impacted upon the ways in which twenty-first century cartographies of the urban play out. Through the trope of mobility, and immobility, rather than overcoming all difference and distance, the significance of local is reinforced. While nineteenth-century narrations of the urban were symbolised by the visual economics of the flâneur, the twenty-first century wanderer of the informational city has been rendered what Robert Luke calls the phoneur. [19] The conceptual distance, and yet continuum, between the flâneur and the phoneur is marked by the paradigmatic shift of the urban as once a geospatial image of, and for, the bourgeoisie, as opposed to the phoneur which sees the city transformed into informational circuit in which the person is just a mere node with little agency. Beyond dystopian narrations about the role of technology in maintaining a sense of intimacy, community and place, we can find various ways in which the tenacity of the local retains control. In particular, through the tension between mobile media and Big Data, we can see how the local and the urban can be re-imagined in new ways.

The flâneur (or the wanderer of the modern city), best encapsulated by German philosopher Walter Benjamin’s discussion of Baudelaire’s painting, has been defined as an important symbol of Paris and modernity as it moved into nineteenth century urbanity. Thanks to the restructuring of one third of the small streets into boulevards by Baron Hausmann, Paris of the nineteenth century took a new sense of place and space.

Luke’s phoneur, on the other hand, is the ‘user’ as as part of the informational network flows constituting contemporary urbanity. If the flâneur epitomised modernism and the rise of nineteenth-century urban, then for Luke, the phoneur is the twenty-first-century extension of this tradition as the icon of modernity. As Luke observes, in a networked city one is connected as part of circuit of information in which identity and privacy is at the mercy of system. The picture of the urban city today painted by Luke is one in which the individuals have minimal power in the rise of corporate surveillance.

Neighbour before the House problematises Luke’s dystopian view of the phoneur. The picture painted by Neighbour before the House is much more ambivalent. However it does make the audience reflect upon the changing nature of surveillance in an age of Big Data.[20]

These tensions around the dystopian phoneur and a more embodied and emplaced version can be found running as an undercurrent in the work of Neighbour before the House.

Conclusion

In this chapter we have explored the cross-cultural video collaboration, The Neighbour before the House, to consider the changing relationship between a sense of place, information and the politics of visuality. As we have suggested, with the rise of location-based camera phone practices and Big Data we are seeing new forms of visuality that are best described as emplaced rather than networked. The notion of emplaced reflects some of the tensions around contemporary representations of mobility and movement, particularly prevalent in the often displaced and diasporic experiences of Palestine.

Filmed in Palestine,The Neighbour before the House explores the notion of place as entangled and embedded at the same time as displaced through the rise of ICTs. By providing some of the paradoxes and ambivalences surrounding contemporary media practices and its relationship between information and place, it allows for a space for reflection and contemplation about the surveillence and privacy.

[1]. Jean Burgess, Vernacular creativity and new media (Doctoral dissertation), 2007. Retrieved from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/16378/

[2]. Sarah Pink and Larissa Hjorth Emplaced Cartographies: Reconceptualising camera phone practices in an age of locative media’, Media International Australia, 145 (2012): 145-156.

[3]. Doreen Massey

[4]. Shaina Anand interviewed by Nishant Shah, December 2012.

[5]. Raine, L. and B. Wellman 2012, Networked, Cambridge, Mass, MIT Press.

[6]. Ibid.

[7]. Mizuko Ito, ‘Mobiles and the Appropriation of Place’. Receiver 8, 2002, (consulted 5 December 2012) http://academic.evergreen.edu/curricular/evs/readings/itoShort.pdf ; Hjorth, L. (2005) ‘Locating Mobility: Practices of Co-Presence and the Persistence of the Postal Metaphor in SMS/MMS Mobile Phone Customization in Melbourne’, Fibreculture Journal, 6, (consulted 10 December 2006) http://journal.fibreculture.org/issue6/issue6_hjorth.html.

[8]. Rowan Wilken and Gerard Goggin, ‘Mobilizing Place: Conceptual Currents and Controversies’, in R. Wilken and G. Goggin (Eds) Mobile Technology and Place, New York, Routledge, 2012, pp. 3-25 (5).

[9].Ibid 6.

[10]. Doreen Massey,For Space, London, Sage, 2005 (130).

[11]. Sarah Pink, Doing Sensory Ethnography, London, Sage, 2009.

[12]. Anne Beaulieu, ‘From Co-location to Co-presence: Shifts in the Use of Ethnography for the Study of Knowledge’. Social Studies of Science, 40 (3) 2010: June. 453-470.

[13]. Dong-Hoo Lee, ‘Women’s creation of camera phone culture’. Fibreculture Journal 6, 2005, URL (consulted 3 February 2006) http://www.fibreculture.org/journal/issue6/issue6_donghoo_print.html; Larissa Hjorth, ‘Snapshots of almost contact’. Continuum, 21 (2) 2007: 227-238.

[14]. Alison Gazzard, ‘Location, Location, Location: Collecting Space and Place in Mobile Media’. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 17 (4) 2011: 405-417.

[15]. Lisa Gye, ‘Picture this: the impact of mobile camera phones on personal photographic practices,’ Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies 21(2) 2007: 279–288.

[16]. Ibid 279.

[17]. Ibid 279.

[18]. Søren Mørk Petersen,Common Banality: The Affective Character of Photo Sharing, Everyday Life and Produsage Cultures, PhD Thesis, ITU Copenhagen.

[19]. Robert Luke, ‘The Phoneur: Mobile Commerce and the Digital Pedagogies of the Wireless Web’, in P. Trifonas (ed.) Communities of Difference: Culture, Language, Technology, pp. 185-204, Palgrave, London, 2006.

[20]. Sites such as www.pleaserobme.com, that seek to raise awareness about over-sharing of personal data, highlight not only the localised nature of privacy but also that privacy is something we do rather than something we possess.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/palestinian-video-art-larissa-hjorth-nishant-shah-video-games-a-case-study-of-cross-cultural-video-collaboration

India's Central Monitoring System (CMS): Something to Worry About?

maria — 2014-02-22T13:50:37Z

In this article, Maria Xynou presents new information about India's controversial Central Monitoring System (CMS) based on official documents which were shared with the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS). Read this article and gain an insight on how the CMS actually works!

The idea of a Panoptikon, of monitoring all communications in India and centrally storing such data is not new. It was first envisioned in 2009, following the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks. As such, the Central Monitoring System (CMS) started off as a project run by the Centre for Communication Security Research and Monitoring (CCSRM), along with the Telecom Testing and Security Certification (TTSC) project.

The Central Monitoring System (CMS), which was largely covered by the media in 2013, was actually approved by the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) on 16th June 2011 and the pilot project was completed by 30th September 2011. Ever since, the CMS has been operated by India's Telecom Enforcement Resource and Monitoring (TERM) cells, and has been implemented by the Centre for Development of Telematics (C-DOT), which is an Indian Government owned telecommunications technology development centre. The CMS has been implemented in three phases, each one taking about 13-14 months. As of June 2013, government funding of the CMS has reached at least Rs. 450 crore (around $72 million).

In order to require Telecom Service Providers (TSPs) to intercept all telecommunications in India as part of the CMS, clause 41.10 of the Unified Access Services (UAS) License Agreement was amended in June 2013. In particular, the amended clause includes the following:

“But, in case of Centralized Monitoring System (CMS), Licensee shall provide the connectivity upto the nearest point of presence of MPLS (Multi Protocol Label Switching) network of the CMS at its own cost in the form of dark fibre with redundancy. If dark fibre connectivity is not readily available, the connectivity may be extended in the form of 10 Mbps bandwidth upgradeable upto 45 Mbps or higher as conveyed by the Governemnt, till such time the dark fibre connectivity is established. However, LICENSEE shall endeavor to establish connectivity by dark optical fibre at the earilest. From the point of presence of MPLS network of CMS onwards traffic will be handled by the Government at its own cost.”

Furthermore, draft Rule 419B under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, allows for the disclosure of “message related information” / Call Data Records (CDR) to Indian authorities. Call Data Records, otherwise known as Call Detail Records, contain metadata (data about data) that describe a telecomunication transaction, but not the content of that transaction. In other words, Call Data Records include data such as the phone numbers of the calling and called parties, the duration of the call, the time and date of the call, and other such information, while excluding the content of what was said during such calls. According to draft Rule 419B, directions for the disclosure of Call Data Records can only be issued on a national level through orders by the Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs, while on the state level, orders can only be issued by the Secretary to the State Government in charge of the Home Department.

Other than this draft Rule and the amendment to clause 41.10 of the UAS License Agreement, no law exists which mandates or regulates the Central Monitoring System (CMS). This mass surveillance system is merely regulated under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, which empowers the Indian Government to intercept communications on the occurence of any “public emergency” or in the interest of “public safety”, when it is deemed “necessary or expedient” to do so in the following instances:

the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India
the security of the State
friendly relations with foreign states
public order
for preventing incitement to the commission of an offense

However, Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, appears to be rather broad and vague, and fails to explicitly regulate the details of how the Central Monitoring System (CMS) should function. As such, the CMS appears to be inadequately regulated, which raises many questions with regards to its potential misuse and subsequent violation of Indian's right to privacy and other human rights.

So how does the Central Monitoring System (CMS) actually work?

We have known for quite a while now that the Central Monitoring System (CMS) gives India's security agencies and income tax officials centralized access to the country's telecommunications network. The question, though, is how.

Well, prior to the CMS, all service providers in India were required to have Lawful Interception Systems installed at their premises in order to carry out targeted surveillance of individuals by monitoring communications running through their networks. Now, in the CMS era, all TSPs in India are required to integrate Interception Store & Forward (ISF) servers with their pre-existing Lawful Interception Systems. Once ISF servers are installed in the premises of TSPs in India and integrated with Lawful Interception Systems, they are then connected to the Regional Monitoring Centres (RMC) of the CMS. Each Regional Monitoring Centre (RMC) in India is connected to the Central Monitoring System (CMS). In short, the CMS involves the collection and storage of data intercepted by TSPs in central and regional databases.

In other words, all data intercepted by TSPs is automatically transmitted to Regional Monitoring Centres, and subsequently automatically transmitted to the Central Monitoring System. This means that not only can the CMS authority have centralized access to all data intercepted by TSPs all over India, but that the authority can also bypass service providers in gaining such access. This is due to the fact that, unlike in the case of so-called “lawful interception” where the nodal officers of TSPs are notified about interception requests, the CMS allows for data to be automatically transmitted to its datacentre, without the involvement of TSPs.

The above is illustrated in the following chart:

The interface testing of TSPs and their Lawful Interception Systems has already been completed and, as of June 2013, 70 ISF servers have been purchased for six License Service Areas and are being integrated with the Lawful Interception Systems of TSPs. The Centre for Development of Telematics has already fully installed and integrated two ISF servers in the premises of two of India's largest service providers: MTNL and Tata Communications Limited. In Delhi, ISF servers which connect with the CMS have been installed for all TSPs and testing has been completed. In Haryana, three ISF servers have already been installed in the premises of TSPs and the rest of currently being installed. In Chennai, five ISF servers have been installed so far, while in Karnataka, ISF servers are currently being integrated with the Lawful Interception Systems of the TSPs in the region.

The Centre for Development of Telematics plans to integrate ISF servers which connect with the CMS in the premises of service providers in the following regions:

Delhi
Maharashtra
Kolkata
Uttar Pradesh (West)
Andhra Pradesh
Uttar Pradesh (East)
Kerala
Gujarat
Madhya Pradesh
Punjab
Haryana

With regards to the UAS License Agreement that TSPs are required to comply with, amended clause 41.10 specifies certain details about how the CMS functions. In particular, the amended clause mandates that TSPs in India will provide connectivity upto the nearest point of presence of MPLS (Multi Protocol Label Switching) network of the CMS at their own cost and in the form of dark optical fibre. From the MPLS network of the CMS onwards, traffic will be handled by the Government at its own cost. It is noteworthy that a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for MPLS connectivity has been signed with one of India's largest ISPs/TSPs: BSNL. In fact, Rs. 4.8 crore have been given to BSNL for interconnecting 81 CMS locations of the following License Service Areas:

Delhi
Mumbai
Haryana
Rajasthan
Kolkata
Karnataka
Chennai
Punjab

Clause 41.10 of the UAS License Agreement also mandates that the hardware and software required for monitoring calls will be engineered, provided, installed and maintained by the TSPs at their own cost. This implies that TSP customers in India will likely have to pay for more expensive services, supposedly to “increase their safety”. Moreover, this clause mandates that TSPs are required to monitor at least 30 simultaneous calls for each of the nine designated law enforcement agencies. In addition to monitored calls, clause 41.10 of the UAS License Agreement also requires service providers to make the following records available to Indian law enforcement agencies:

Called/calling party mobile/PSTN numbers
Time/date and duration of interception
Location of target subscribers (Cell ID & GPS)
Data records for failed call attempts
CDR (Call Data Records) of Roaming Subscriber
Forwarded telephone numbers by target subscriber

Interception requests from law enforcement agencies are provisioned by the CMS authority, which has access to the intercepted data by all TSPs in India and which is stored in a central database. As of June 2013, 80% of the CMS Physical Data Centre has been built so far.

In short, the CMS replaces the existing manual system of interception and monitoring to an automated system, which is operated by TERM cells and implemented by the Centre for Development of Telematics. Training has been imparted to the following law enforcement agencies:

Intelligence Bureau (IB)
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI)
Research & Analysis Wing (RAW)
National Investigation Agency (NIA)
Delhi Police

And should we even be worried about the Central Monitoring System?

Well, according to the brief material for the Honourable MOC and IT Press Briefing on 16th July 2013, we should not be worried about the Central Monitoring System. Over the last year, media reports have expressed fear that the Central Monitoring System will infringe upon citizen's right to privacy and other human rights. However, Indian authorities have argued that the Central Monitoring System will better protect the privacy of individuals and maintain their security due to the following reasons:

The CMS will just automate the existing process of interception and monitoring, and all the existing safeguards will continue to exist
The interception and monitoring of communications will continue to be in accordance with Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, read with Rule 419A
The CMS will enhance the privacy of citizens, because it will no longer be necessary to take authorisation from the nodal officer of the Telecom Service Providers (TSPs) – who comes to know whose and which phone is being intercepted
The CMS authority will provision the interception requests from law enforcement agencies and hence, a complete check and balance will be ensured, since the provisioning entity and the requesting entity will be different and the CMS authority will not have access to content data
A non-erasable command log of all provisioning activities will be maintained by the system, which can be examined anytime for misuse and which provides an additional safeguard

While some of these arguments may potentially allow for better protections, I personally fundamentally disagree with the notion that a centralised monitoring system is something not to worry about. But let's start-off by having a look at the above arguments.

The first argument appears to imply that the pre-existing process of interception and monitoring was privacy-friendly or at least “a good thing” and that existing safeguards are adequate. As such, it is emphasised that the process of interception and monitoring will “just” be automated, while posing no real threat. I fundamentally disagree with this argument due to several reasons. First of all, the pre-existing regime of interception and monitoring appears to be rather problematic because India lacks privacy legislation which could safeguard citizens from potential abuse. Secondly, the very interception which is enabled through various sections of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, and the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, potentially infringe upon individual's right to privacy and other human rights.

May I remind you of Section 69 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, which allows for the interception of all information transmitted through a computer resource and which requires users to assist authorities with the decryption of their data, if they are asked to do so, or face a jail sentence of up to seven years. The debate on the constitutionality of the various sections of the law which allow for the interception of communications in India is still unsettled, which means that the pre-existing interception and monitoring of communications remains an ambiguous matter. And so, while the interception of communications in general is rather concerning due to dracodian sections of the law and due to the absence of privacy legislation, automating the process of interception does not appear reassuring at all. On the contrary, it seems like something in the lines of: “We have already been spying on you. Now we will just be doing it quicker and more efficiently.”

The second argument appears inadequate too. Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, states that the interception of communications can be carried out on the occurence of a “public emergency” or in the interest of “public safety” when it is deemed “necessary or expedient” to do so under certain conditions which were previously mentioned. However, this section of the law does not mandate the establishment of the Central Monitoring System, nor does it regulate how and under what conditions this surveillance system will function. On the contrary, Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, clearly mandates targeted surveillance, while the Central Monitoring System could potentially undertake mass surveillance. Since the process of interception is automated and, under clause 41.16 of the Unified License (Access Services) Agreement, service providers are required to provision at least 3,000 calls for monitoring to nine law enforcement agencies, it is likely that the CMS undertakes mass surveillance. Thus, it is unclear if the very nature of the CMS falls under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, which mandates targeted surveillance, nor is it clear that such surveillance is being carried out on the occurence of a specific “public emergency” or in the interest of “public safety”. As such, the vagueness revolving around the question of whether the CMS undertakes targeted or mass surveillance means that its legality remains an equivocal matter.

As for the third argument, it is not clear how bypassing the nodal officers of TSPs will enhance citizen's right to privacy. While it may potentially be a good thing that nodal officers will not always be aware of whose information is being intercepted, that does not guarantee that those who do have access to such data will not abuse it. After all, the CMS appears to be largely unregulated and India lacks privacy legislation and all other adequate legal safeguards. Moreover, by bypassing the nodal officers of TSPs, the opportunity for unauthorised requests to be rejected will seize to exist. It also implies an increased centralisation of intercepted data which can potentially create a centralised point for cyber attacks. Thus, the argument that the CMS authority will monopolise the control over intercepted data does not appear reassuring at all. After all, who will watch the watchmen?

While the fourth argument makes a point about differentiating the provisioning and requesting entities with regards to interception requests, it does not necessarily ensure a complete check and balance, nor does it completely eliminate the potential for abuse. The CMS lacks adequate legal backing, as well as a framework which would ensure that unauthorised requests are not provisioned. Thus, the recommended chain of custody of issuing interception requests does not necessarily guarantee privacy protections, especially since a legal mechanism for ensuring checks and balances is not in place.

Furthermore, this argument states that the CMS authority will not have access to content data, but does not specify if it will have access to metadata. What's concerning is that metadata can potentially be more useful for tracking individuals than content data, since it is ideally suited to automated analysis by a computer and, unlike content data which shows what an individuals says (which may or may not be true), metadata shows what an individual does. As such, metadata can potentially be more “harmful” than content data, since it can potentially provide concrete patterns of an individual's interests, behaviour and interactions. Thus, the fact that the CMS authority might potentially have access to metadata appears to tackle the argument that the provisioning and requesting entities will be seperate and therefore protect individual's privacy.

The final argument appears to provide some promise, since the maintenance of a command log of all provisioning activities could potentially ensure some transparency. However, it remains unclear who will maintain such a log, who will have access to it, who will be responsible for ensuring that unlawful requests have not been provisioned and what penalties will be enforced in cases of breaches. Without an independent body to oversee the process and without laws which predefine strict penalties for instances of misuse, maintaining a command log does not necessarily safeguard anything at all. In short, the above arguments in favour of the CMS and which support the notion that it enhances individual's right to privacy appear to be inadequate, to say the least.

In contemporary democracies, most people would agree that freedom is a fundamental human right. The right to privacy should be equally fundamental, since it protects individuals from abuse by those in power and is integral in ensuring individual liberty. India may literally be the largest democracy in the world, but it lacks privacy legislation which establishes the right to privacy, which guarantees data protection and which safeguards individuals from the potentially unlawful interception of their communications. And as if that is not enough, India is also carrying out a surveillance scheme which is largely unregulated. As such, it is highly recommended that India establishes a privacy law now.

If we do the math, here is what we have: a country with extremely high levels of corruption, no privacy law and an unregulated surveillance scheme which lacks public and parliamentary debate prior to its implementation. All of this makes it almost impossible to believe that we are talking about a democracy, let alone the world's largest (by population) democracy! Therefore, if Indian authorities are interested in preserving the democratic regime they claim to be a part of, I think it would be highly necessary to halt the Central Monitoring System and to engage the public and the parliament in a debate about it.

After all, along with our right to privacy, freedom of expression and other human rights...our right to freedom from suspicion appears to be at stake.

How can we not be worried about the Central Monitoring System?

The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) is in possession of the documents which include the information on the Central Monitoring System (CMS) as analysed in this article, as well as of the draft Rule 419B under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-central-monitoring-system-something-to-worry-about

UAS License Agreement Amendment regarding the Central Monitoring System (CMS)

maria — 2014-01-30T12:43:56Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/uas-license-agreement-amendment

New Document on India's Central Monitoring System (CMS) - 2

maria — 2014-01-30T12:40:31Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/new-cms-doc-2

January 2014 Bulletin

praskrishna — 2014-04-07T07:09:59Z

The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) welcomes you to the first issue of its newsletter (January) for the year 2014:

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

Amba Salelkar provides an analysis of the three stages of the Rights for Persons with Disabilities 2013 since it was initially commissioned.
We published revised chapters for the states of Andhra Pradesh and Chhattisgarh as part of our National Resource Kit project.
In the first of a three-part study Ananth Padmanabhan examines the "John Doe" orders that courts have passed against ISPs, which entertainment companies have used to block websites.
The second Institute on Internet and Society is being held in Pune from February 11 to 17.
CIS signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with KIIT University and Kalinga Institute of Social Sciences for furthering Odia Wikipedia.
Dr. Nishant Shah co-authored a chapter on video games in a book published by Palestinian Art Court-al Hoash.
Sneha gives an overview of the research enquiry in the field of Digital Humanities in her blog post on Mapping Digital Humanities in India.
In the first of the insightful seven part series, Gautam Bhatia looks at surveillance and the right to privacy in India from a constitutional perspective, tracing its genealogy through Supreme Court case law and compares it with the law in the USA.

-----------------------------------------------
Jobs
-----------------------------------------------
CIS is seeking applications for the posts of Program Officer (Access to Knowledge): http://bit.ly/1fnydB0 and Program Officer (Internet Governance): http://bit.ly/1aA57K6. There are two vacancies each for these posts and these are full-time based in Delhi. To apply, please send your resume to Sunil Abraham (sunil@cis-india.org), Nirmita Narasimhan (nirmita@cis-india.org) and Pranesh Prakash (pranesh@cis-india.org) with three writing samples of which at least one demonstrates your analytic skills, and one that shows your ability to simplify complex policy issues.

----------------------------------------------
Accessibility and Inclusion
----------------------------------------------
As part of our project (under a grant from the Hans Foundation) on creating a national resource kit of state-wise laws, policies and programmes on issues relating to persons with disabilities in India, we bring you draft chapters for the states of Madhya Pradesh and Arunachal Pradesh, and the union territory of Daman and Diu. With this we have completed compilation of draft chapters for 27 states and 5 union territories.

Based on the feedback and comments received from our readers the following chapters were revised:

► National Resource Kit Chapter

Andhra Pradesh Chapter (by Anandhi Viswanathan, January 31, 2014): http://bit.ly/1lzUFcG.
Chhattisgarh Chapter (by Anandhi Viswanathan, January 31, 2014): http://bit.ly/1fY4NZ0.

# Blog Entry

The Right of Persons with Disabilities Bill 2013 and the Lack of Access to Accessibility Rights (by Amba Salelkar, January 31, 2014): http://bit.ly/1diSg40.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Access to Knowledge
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Access to Knowledge programme addresses the harms caused to consumers and human rights, and critically examines Open Government Data, Open Access to Scholarly Literature, and Open Access to Law, Open Content, Open Standards, and Free/Libre/Open Source Software.

# Analysis

Can Judges Order ISPs to Block Websites for Copyright Infringement? (Part 1) (by Ananth Padmanabhan, January 30, 2014). Ananth looks at the theory behind John Doe orders and finds that it would be wrong for Indian courts to grant "John Doe" orders against ISPs: http://bit.ly/1nteYaK.

# Blog Entries

Open Letter to the Vatican: Request for Holy See to Comment on IPR (by Samantha Cassar, January 31, 2014): http://bit.ly/1dGN7OS.
The Game of IPR: Insights from the 6th Global Intellectual Property Convention in Hyderabad (by Samantha Cassar, January 31, 2014): http://bit.ly/1fY5qS6.

The following has been done under grant from the Wikimedia Foundation (http://bit.ly/SPqFOl). As part this project (http://bit.ly/X80ELd), we organised 4 workshops in the month of January, published an article in DNA, and signed a memorandum of understanding with KIIT University and Kalinga Institute of Social Sciences to further the development of Odia Wikipedia:

►Wikipedia

# Articles / Newspaper Columns

Odia Wikipedia: Three Years of Active Contributions Gives Life to a Ten Year Old Project (by Subhashish Panigrahi, HASTAC, January 31, 2014): http://bit.ly/1jvxD8r.
WikiSangamotsavam 2013 brings Indian Wikimedians together (by Netha Hussain and Subhashish Panigrahi, DNA, January 14, 2014). The article was edited by Rohini Lakshane: http://bit.ly/1jvynKP.

# Announcement

CIS-A2K, KIIT University and Kalinga Institute of Social Sciences sign MoUs (by Subhashish Panigrahi, January 11, 2014): KIIT University, Kalinga Institute of Social Sciences and the Centre for Internet and Society's Access to Knowledge team (CIS-A2K) have entered into a memorandum of understanding (MoUs) for furthering Odia Wikipedia: http://bit.ly/1j1qtFv.

# Blog Entries

Wikipedia Editing as Assessment Tool in the Indian Higher Education Classroom (by Dr. Tejaswini Niranjana, Ashwin Kumar A.P. and T. Vishnu Vardhan, January 30, 2014): http://bit.ly/1m5QHMD.
Wikipedia at Forefront in Christ University (by Syed Muzamiluddin, January 29, 2014): http://bit.ly/LTFA8E.

# Events Organised

Odia WikiMeetup (Bhubaneswar, January 11, 2014): http://bit.ly/NBkFJi.
Introductory talk about "Wikipedia in Academics" (KIIT School of Technology, Bhubaneswar, January 12, 2014): http://bit.ly/1j1yv1f.
Odia Wikipedia's 10th anniversary @ KISS (Kalinga Institute of Social Sciences, Bhubaneswar, January 28, 2014): http://bit.ly/1gsqkJC.
Odia Wikipedia 10th anniversary (Indian Institute of Mass Communication, Dhenkanal, January 29, 2014): http://bit.ly/1dGRBoy.

# Event Participated In

The Dynamics of Education to Employment Journey: Opportunities and Challenges (organized by KIIT School of Management, KIIT University, Bhubaneswar, February 21-22, 2014). T. Vishnu Vardhan gave a talk: http://bit.ly/1ePwqHc.

# Media Coverage

CIS gave its inputs to the following media coverage:

Digitising contest to preserve rare books in Malayalam (The Hindu, January 4, 2014): http://bit.ly/NBtVgz.
‘With Internet in every pocket, power to the people’ (by Shubhadeep Chaudhury, The Tribune, January 12, 2014): http://bit.ly/1ojb1IZ. Shubhadeep interviews T. Vishnu Vardhan on internet and social media.
ଆଦିବାସୀଭାଷାରଉନ୍ନତିକଳ୍ପେଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ(Odishan.com, January 12, 2014):http://bit.ly/1kAWJmG.
KIIT University to lead building free knowledge repository initiative (India Education Diary.com, January 20, 2014): http://bit.ly/1j1Rzwk.
Odisha: KISS to create tribal languages and heritage repository (Odisha Diary Bureau, January 20, 2014): http://bit.ly/1bLBhmB.
FDC recognition for the Centre for the Internet and Society (Wikimedia Foundation, January 30, 2014): http://bit.ly/1fYdxOz. Wikimedia Foundation published a resolution declaring CIS eligible for funding through the Annual Plan Grants program.
Tech-savvy students given tips to enter IT field (The Times of India, January 31, 2014): http://bit.ly/1j1QvIX.
Odia Wikipedia (Sanchar, January 31, 2014): http://bit.ly/1ePwAON.

Openness

# Event Organised

What is happening in South America and how Openness is an opportunity to Social, Political and Activist Movements? (Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, January 17, 2014): http://bit.ly/1bnZaq0.

-----------------------------------------------
Internet Governance
-----------------------------------------------
CIS is doing a project (under a grant from Privacy International and International Development Research Centre (IDRC)) on conducting research on surveillance and freedom of expression (SAFEGUARDS). So far we have organised seven privacy round-tables and drafted the Privacy (Protection) Bill. Gautam Bhatia gives an analysis of the right to privacy from a constitutional perspective and Elonnai Hickok analyses a public report published by GNI.

# Analyses

Surveillance and the Indian Constitution - Part 1: Foundations (by Gautam Bhatia, January 13, 2014): http://bit.ly/1ntqsen.
Surveillance and the Indian Constitution - Part 2: Gobind and the Compelling State Interest Test (by Gautam Bhatia, January 27, 2014): http://bit.ly/1dH3meL.

# Newspaper Columns / Book Chapter

Big Brother is Watching You (by Chinmayi Arun, The Hindu, January 3, 2014): http://bit.ly/1cGpg0K.
Making the Powerful Accountable (by Chinmayi Arun, The Hindu, January 30, 2014): http://bit.ly/1nvzSpC.
Video Games: A Case Study of a Cross-cultural Video Collaboration (by Larissa Hjorth and Nishant Shah, January 31, 2014): http://bit.ly/1eTaXLX. A new book focusing on Palestinian artists’ video, edited by Bashir Makhoul and published by Palestinian Art Court- al Hoash, 2013, includes a chapter co-authored by Larissa and Nishant.

# Blog Entries

Letter requesting public consultation on position of GoI at WGEC (by Snehashish Ghosh, January 7, 2014): http://bit.ly/1g66bL7.
Electoral Databases – Privacy and Security Concerns (by Snehashish Ghosh, January 16, 2014): http://bit.ly/Mb4ktM.
GNI Assessment Finds ICT Companies Protect User Privacy and Freedom of Expression (by Elonnai Hickok, January 20, 2014): http://bit.ly/1mjbpmL.
Interview with Mathew Thomas from the Say No to UID campaign - UID Court Cases (by Maria Xynou, January 27, 2014): http://bit.ly/1eT9XHv. Maria interviewed Mathew Thomas on UID.
India's Central Monitoring System (CMS): Something to Worry About? (by Maria Xynou, January 30, 2014): http://bit.ly/1gsM4oQ.

# Events Organized

Biometrics or Bust? Implications of the UID for Participation and Inclusion (CIS, Bangalore, January 10, 2014). Malavika Jayaram gave a talk: http://bit.ly/1lJZhuK.
Digital Citizens: Why Cyber Security and Online Privacy are Vital to the Success of Democracy and Freedom of Expression (CIS, Bangalore, January 14, 2014): http://bit.ly/KucEU5. Michael Oghia gave a talk.
Nullcon Goa Feb 2014 — International Security Conference (organised by Nullcon, Bogmallo Beach Resort, Goa, February 12 – 15, 2014). CIS is one of the sponsors for this event: http://bit.ly/1lrBu5I.

# Events Co-organised

CPDP 2014 Reforming Data Protection: The Global Perspective (organised by CPDP, Brussels, January 22 – 24, 2014): http://bit.ly/KsgCws. CIS is one of the sponsors for this event. Malavika Jayaram was a speaker.
The Future of the Internet, Who Should Govern It and What is at Stake for You? (organised by Internet and Mobile Association of India, Cellular Operators Association of India, Internet Democracy project, Media for Change, SFLC and CIS, India International Centre, January 29, 2014): http://bit.ly/1eqkSUu. Chinmayi Arun moderated a session. Snehashish Ghosh participated in the event as a speaker.

# Events Participated In

Seminar on "Hate Speech and Social Media" (organized by NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad and British Deputy High Commission, Hyderabad, January 4 – 5, 2014): http://bit.ly/1dmcEkT. Chinmayi Arun was one of the speakers.
Multistakeholders Consultation on International Public Policy Issues (organized by the Department of Electronics & Information Technology, New Delhi, January 21, 2014): http://bit.ly/Mbfkao. Snehashish Ghosh participated in this meeting.
Internet Governance and India: The Way Forward (organized by Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi, January 22, 2014): http://bit.ly/1ePFueY. Snehashish Ghosh participated in the event.
Data Privacy Day 2014 (organized by Data Security Council of India, Infosys, Bangalore, January 28, 2014). Elonnai Hickok was a panelist: http://bit.ly/1ePFfk8.
TACTIS Symposium 2014 (organized by Tata Consultancy Service, TCS Siruseri, Chennai, January 28 and 29, 2014): http://bit.ly/1bo9y0R. Sunil Abraham gave the keynote address.

--------------------------------
News & Media Coverage
--------------------------------
CIS gave its inputs to the following media coverage:

Inventions that will make a difference (by Geeta Padmanabhan, The Hindu, January 1, 2014): http://bit.ly/MKwmfu.
Rise of the bot: all you need to know about the latest threat online (by Danish Raza, Hindustan Times, January 5, 2014): http://bit.ly/1dHgNex.
Despite apex court order, IOC proceeds with Aadhaar-linked DBT (by Deepa Kurup, The Hindu, January 6, 2014): http://bit.ly/1g6ffjn.
Worldwide: International Privacy - 2013 Year in Review – Asia (by Gonzalo S. Zeballos, James A. Sherer and Alan M. Pate, Mondaq Yearly Review, January 8, 2014): http://bit.ly/1iOaYRO.
Election panel rejects Google’s proposal for electoral services tie-up (by Anuja and Moulishree Srivastava, Livemint, January 9, 2014): http://bit.ly/1gpaGjF.
Social Notworking - 'Murder by Twitter'(by Malini Nair, The Times of India, January 19, 2014): http://bit.ly/1j2kT63.
The net is taking over (by Veenu Sandhu and Surabhi Agarwal, Business Standard, January 24, 2014): http://bit.ly/1hb4eQL.
The Dangers of Birdsong (by Namrata Joshi, January 25, 2014): http://bit.ly/1kB8J7L.
Is Bhutan selling its soul to Google? (by Lucky Wangmo from Thimphu and Pema Seldon form Bangalore, Business Bhutan, January 25, 2014): http://bit.ly/1fYl3sO.
What is net neutrality and why it is important (The Times of India, January 30, 2014): http://bit.ly/1ePFZ8P.

--------------------------------
Digital Humanities
--------------------------------
CIS is building research clusters in the field of Digital Humanities. The Digital will be used as a way of unpacking the debates in humanities and social sciences and look at the new frameworks, concepts and ideas that emerge in our engagement with the digital. The clusters aim to produce and document new conversations and debates that shape the contours of Digital Humanities in Asia:

# Blog Entry

Mapping Digital Humanities in India (by Sneha PP, January 16, 2014): http://bit.ly/1gsQEEQ.

--------------------------------
Digital Natives
--------------------------------
CIS is doing a research project titled “Making Change”. The project will explore new ways of defining, locating, and understanding change in network societies. Having the thought piece 'Whose Change is it Anyway' as an entry point for discussion and reflection, the project will feature profiles, interviews and responses of change-makers to questions around current mechanisms and practices of change in South Asia and South East Asia:

►Making Change Project

# Blog Entry

Creative Activism - Voices of Young Change Makers in India (UDAAN) (by Denisse Albornoz, January 20, 2014): http://bit.ly/1cxXAMI.

►Other
# Newspaper Column

10 Ways to Say Nothing New (by Nishant Shah, Indian Express, January 19, 2014): http://bit.ly/1gsONjn.

----------------------------------------------------------
Knowledge Repository on Internet Access
----------------------------------------------------------
CIS in partnership with the Ford Foundation is executing a project to create a knowledge repository on Internet and society. This repository will comprise content targeted primarily at civil society with a view to enabling their informed participation in the Indian Internet and ICT policy space. The repository is available at the Internet Institute website: http://bit.ly/1iQT2UB.

►Ongoing Event

Institute on Internet and Society (organised by Ford Foundation and CIS, Yashada, Pune, February 11-17, 2014): http://bit.ly/180mQi9.

-----------------------------------------------------
About CIS
-----------------------------------------------------
The Centre for Internet and Society is a non-profit research organization that works on policy issues relating to freedom of expression, privacy, accessibility for persons with disabilities, access to knowledge and IPR reform, and openness (including open government, FOSS, open standards, etc.), and engages in academic research on digital natives and digital humanities.

► Follow us elsewhere

Twitter:https://twitter.com/CISA2K
Facebook group: https://www.facebook.com/cisa2k
Visit us at:https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/India_Access_To_Knowledge
E-mail: a2k@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:
We invite researchers, practitioners, and theoreticians, both organisationally and as individuals, to collaboratively engage with Internet and society and improve our understanding of this new field. To discuss the research collaborations, write to Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, at sunil@cis-india.org or Nishant Shah, Director – Research, at nishant@cis-india.org. To discuss collaborations on Indic language Wikipedia, write to T. Vishnu Vardhan, Programme Director, A2K, at vishnu@cis-india.org.

CIS is grateful to its donors, Wikimedia Foundation, Ford Foundation, Privacy International, UK, Hans Foundation and the Kusuma Trust which was founded by Anurag Dikshit and Soma Pujari, philanthropists of Indian origin, for its core funding and support for most of its projects.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/newsletters/january-2014-bulletin

The Future of the Internet, Who Should Govern It and What is at Stake for You?

praskrishna — 2014-02-12T11:12:54Z

Internet and Mobile Association of India, Cellular Operators Association of India, Internet Democracy project, Media for Change, SFLC and the Centre for Internet Society is organizing a Multi-stakeholder Dialogue on the future of internet on January 29, 2014 at Multipurpose Hall, India International Center (IIC).

Snehashish Ghosh will participate in the event as a speaker.

Schedule

10.00 - 10.30: Registration
10.30 -13.30: Discussion and Open House
13.30: Lunch

The meeting seeks to address, among others, the following questions:

The issue of governing the internet through a multistakeholder mechanism (including government, business, civil society, academia and the technical community) versus a multilateral one (or an intergovernmental one, including only governments in a decision making role) is leading the global discourse.

What is multistakeholderism? How is it practiced? How is it different from multilateralism or intergovernmental decision making? Why has multistakeholderism assumed such an important role in internet governance?
Moderator – Subi Chutervedi

Several of the arguments are based in a framework document known as ‘Tunis Agenda 2005’.
What is the role of the Tunis Agenda in these debates? Since its formulation 9 years ago, is it still relevant? What does “stakeholders in their respective roles” mean in 2014 and beyond?
Moderator – Subi Chaturvedi

The positions taken by the Government of India at international fora are linked to its cyber security concerns.
Will India’s position of multilateral/intergovernmental governance of the Internet actually address these cyber security concerns?
Moderator – Anja Kovacs

Since the Snowden revelations, mass surveillance by governments has assumed center stage and is driving the recent discourse.
Will a multilateral/inter-governmental mechanism adequately address serious concerns of government surveillance and intrusion into the privacy of internet users and citizens?
Moderator – Anja Kovacs

Innovation, freedom of speech and expression and privacy rights are critical to a free and open internet. How are these impacted under a multistakeholder vis-à-vis a multilateral/inter-governmental mechanism?
Moderator- Chinmayi Arun

Internet governance has both a domestic and a global angle. In 2014, what should be the process of policy making involving stakeholders? Should there be consultation and what should be the process, quality and outcome of such consultation, especially as it relates to Internet Governance?

What process should the government adopt before taking a position internationally and while formulating domestic policy related to internet governance?
Moderator Chinmayi Arun

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/events/future-of-internet-january-29-2014