Centre for Internet and Society

The Privatisation of Censorship: The Online Responsibility to Protect Free Expression

praskrishna — 2012-12-09T01:48:13Z

Pranesh Prakash was a panelist at this workshop organised on November 5, 2012. It was organized by Index on Censorship.

Much is known about state censorship, but increasingly private corporations are implementing censorship either at the behest of governments, or as part of a ‘walled garden’ approach. This censorship takes many guises: whether the proactive take-down of entirely legal material, the blocking of websites by overly zealous ISPs, mobile filters that cut access to websites such as Index on Censorship and the use of surveillance technology on behalf of autocratic states. The combination of state-led censorship with the privatisation of censorship requires a debate on the responsibilities of corporations and the framework needed to protect free expression online.

This side session will focus on two key areas:
1. Take-down, blocking and filtering of content
2. The export of surveillance technology, privacy

The panel will explore the ways in which the above can affect free expression online, and how civil society, governments and corporations can and should approach these issues, addressing the following questions:

1. Whether, why and in what ways censorship and surveillance is either as or more pervasive, intrusive and chilling than offline, and the impact on free speech and press freedom?
2. The inappropriate, intrusive or excessive use of filters and firewalls including how these impact directly and indirectly on access to media and the nature of news provision
3. Criminalisation of free speech and free expression – chilling use of takedown requests (impacting on public online debates, on media freedom including investigative journalism), and constraints on comment and debate (twitter, trolls, comment threads etc);
4. Excessive and blanket surveillance and data-gathering
5. Regulations and laws including intermediary responsibility that curtail digital free speech

Chair:
Michael Harris, Head of Advocacy, Index on Censorship

Panelists:

Dr Hosein Badran, Regional Chief Technology Officer, Cisco Systems International, covering MENA
Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director at the Centre for Internet and Society
Abhilash Nair, Northumbria University, UK
Camino Manjon Sierra, International Relations Policy Officer, Directorate General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, European Commission
Andrew Puddephatt, Global Partners and Associates

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

Privacy Perspectives on the 2012 -2013 Goa Beach Shack Policy

elonnai — 2012-10-25T10:23:50Z

CCTVs in India are increasingly being employed by private organizations and the government in India as a way to increase security and prevent/ deter crime from taking place. When the government mandates the use of CCTV’s for this purpose, it often does so by means of a blunt policy mandate, requiring the installation of CCTV systems, but without any further clarification as to who should oversee the use of the cameras, what bodies should have access to the records, how access should be granted or obtained, and how long the recordings should be retained.

The lack of clarity and specificity in these requirements, the fact that these technologies are used in public spaces to collect undefined categories and amounts of information, and the fact that the technology can cut through space – and does not distinguish between private and public and primarily captures information where it is directed to, give rise to privacy concerns and raises fundamental questions about the ways in which technologies can be used to effectively increase security while still protecting the rights of individuals and the promotion of business.

An example of a blanket CCTV installation requirement from the government is seen in the 2012-2013 Goa Beach Shack Policy.[1] This blog will examine the shack policy from a privacy perspective, and how identification requirements are evolving. The blog will explore different principles by which surveillance technologies like CCTVs can be employed in order to promote effectiveness and protect the rights of individuals.

To help understand the current status of the Shack Policy and the extent of CCTV use in Goa, I spoke with a number of shack owners, cyber café owners, the Ministry of Tourism, and the Police of Goa. In this blog I do not use any direct quotes and write only from the perspective of my personal observations.

Current Status of the Shack Policy

This year, for the 2012-2013 tourist season, the Department of Tourism of Goa is implementing the Beach Shack Policy for regulating the establishment and running of temporary shacks at beaches in Goa. The policy applies only to the licensing, construction, maintenance, and demolition of temporary shacks on beaches owned by the government. The policy lays out requirements that must be submitted by applicants for obtaining a license and requirements relating to the operation of the shacks including size, security, health and safety, and noise control. Shacks, huts, hotels, etc. built on private land do not come under the scope of the policy. The shacks can only be bars and restaurants that can run from November 1^st through May 31^st, after which they must be taken down until the next season. The licensing of these shacks is to enable local employment opportunities in Goa. This can be seen by the requirement in the policy that Shacks are to be granted to only one member of the family who is unemployed.[2] Currently, the Ministry of Tourism has almost completed the allotment of shack spaces on all beaches in Goa. The police will assist in the enforcement of the policy, but their exact role is in the process of being clarified. Before the 2012-2013 policy, shacks were regulated by annual beach shack policies, which are not available online, but can be accessed through an RTI request to the Department of Tourism. Resistance to the policy has been seen by some because of concerns that the shacks will take away business from local private owners, will block fishing boats, will cause trash and sewage problems, and create issues for free movement of people on the beach.

Inside the policy:

Application Requirements

To apply for a license for a temporary shack, every application must be turned in by hand and must be accompanied by a residence certificate in original issued by Village Panchayat Municipality, attested copy of ration card, four copies of a recent colored passport photos with name written on the back, attested copy of birth certificate/passport copy/Pan Card and any other information that the applicant desires to furnish, and affidavit. In addition individuals must provide their name, address, telephone number, name of the shack, name of the beach stretch, nationality, experience, and any other information they wishes to provide.[3] These requirements are not excessive and have been kept to what seems minimally necessary for providing a license, though the option for individuals to provide any additional information they wish – could be used to convey meaningful information or extraneous information to the government.

Operational Requirements

The policy has a number of operational requirements for shack owners as well. For example owners must clearly display a self identifying photograph on the shack[4] and they must agree to assist the Tourism Department and Police department in stopping any crime and violation of any law along the Beach.[5]

The policy also requires that any person handling food must take a course conducted by IHMCT, GTDC, or Porvorim,[6] shacks must also be made out of eco friendly material as much as possible and the use of cement is banned,[7] and the proper disposal of trash and waste water will be the responsibility of the shack owner.[8] Furthermore, foreigners working in the shacks must have a work visa,[9] and loud music is not allowed to be played after 10:30 p.m.[10]

As noted in the introduction, each shack must install a CCTV surveillance system that provides real-time footage with an internal looping system in a non-invasive form. [11] But I got to understand that the CCTV requirement will be slowly introduced and will not be implemented this year due to resistance from shack owners. When the requirement is implemented, hopefully different aspects around the use of CCTVs will be clarified including: the retention period for the recordings, access control to the recordings, the responsibilities of the shack owner, where the camera will be set up and where it needs to be directed to, etc.

Currently in Goa there are official requirements for CCTVs to be installed in Cyber Cafes under section 144 of the CrPc. This requirement only came into effect on October 1st 2012.[12]Some private hotels, huts, and restaurants run CCTV cameras for their own security purposes. When asked if CCTVs will also become mandatory for private areas, some said this will happen, while others said it would be difficult to implement.

Enforcement

The policy uses a number of measures to ensure enforcement. For examples, successful applicants must place a security deposit of 10,000 with Director of Tourism. If any term of the policy is violated, the deposited amount will be given to the Government Treasury and the individual is required to pay another Rs. 10,000 to continue operating.[13]The placement of deck beds on the beach without authorization will also be treated as an offense under the Goa Tourist Places (protection and maintenance) Act 2001 and will be punished with a term of imprisonment minimum three months, which may extend to 3 years, and a fine which may extend to Rs. 5,000 or both. All offenses under the Act are cognizable and non-refundable. [14] If the shack is not dismantled at the end of the season, the individual will have their application rejected for the next three years.[15] Shack owners will also be penalized of they are caught discriminating against who can and cannot enter into the shack.[16]

Interestingly, though CCTV cameras can be used to ‘catch’ a number of offenses, the offenses that are penalized under the Act do not seem to require the presence of a CCTV camera. Additionally, the policy is missing penalties for the tampering and misuse of these cameras and unauthorized access to recordings.

Other practices around security and identification in Goa

In 2011 Goa also issued a new ‘C’ form that must be filled out by foreigners entering hotels.[17]

The form requires twenty six categories of information to be filled out including: permanent address, next destination to be proceeded to, contact number in hotel, purpose of visit, whether employed in India, and where the foreigner arrived from. According to hotel owners, three copies of these records are made. Two are submitted to the police and one is kept with the hotel. The records kept with the hotel are often kept for an undefined time period. In 2011 the police also enforced a new practice where every shack, hut, hotel etc. must have an all night security guard to ensure security on the beach. It was noted that registration of migrant workers is now mandatory, and that non-registered or undocumented vendors are removed from working on the beaches.

Will the 2012 – 2013 Beach Shack Policy have new implications?

In its current form, especially taking into consideration that the CCTV requirement will not be implemented immediately, the 2012 – 2013 shack policy does not seem alarming from a privacy perspective. On the general policy, though the penalties, such as the possibility of three months in prison for having too many beach chairs, seems to be over-reaching, there are a number of positive requirements in the policy such as the use of eco-friendly material, noise control, and strict procedures for disposing of trash and sewage.

The privacy perspective could change when CCTVs are implemented. The amount of data that would be generated and the ambiguity around the employment of the cameras could raise a number of privacy concerns. Yet the fact that this part of the policy will only be implemented later down the road seems indicative of both the shack owners discomfort in using the technology, and perhaps the government’s recognition that a certain level of ground work needs to be done before CCTVs are made mandatory for every shack in the state. Hopefully before the requirement is implemented, the ground work will be set up either at a national level – in the form of a national privacy legislation, or at the state level – in the form of appropriate safeguards and procedures built into the policy.

At the macro level, and when examined in the context of the growing use of CCTVs by private owners, the implementation of the UID and NPR requirements in Goa, and the introduction of the new ‘C’ form for foreigners, the CCTV requirement found in the Shack Policy seems to part of a growing trend across the country where the government seems to seek to identify all individuals and their movements/actions for unclear and undefined purposes, and looks towards identification through the collection of personal information and use of technology as a means to solve security issues.

For example, Goa is not the only city to consider mandatory installation of CCTV’s. In Delhi, the Department of Tourism issued a similar requirement in a 2012 amendment to the “existing Guidelines for Classification/Reclassification of Hotels”. According to the amendment hotels applying for approval are required to provide documentation that security features including CCTV systems are in place.[18] Similarly, in 2011 the Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation began implementing a plan to install CCTVs outside of government and private liquor shops, amounting to 550 shops in total. The goal was to use the CCTV cameras to catch individuals breaking the Excise Act on camera and use the recordings during trials. According to news coverage, the cameras are required to be capable of recording images 50 meters away and all data must be stored for a period of 30 days.[19]

The ambiguity that exists around the legal use of many of these security systems and technologies, including CCTV’s was recently highlighted in Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy headed by Justice A.P Shah.[20] The report noted that the use of CCTV cameras and more broadly the use of electronic recording devices in India is an area that needs regulation and privacy safeguards. The report describes how the nine proposed national privacy principles of notice, choice and consent, collection limitation, purpose limitation, access and correction, disclosure of information, security, and openness, could be applied and will be affected by the use of these technologies.[21]

Conclusion

In India and elsewhere, the police are faced on a daily basis with the challenge of preventing and responding to all types of crime, and from this perspective – any information, clue, or lead is helpful and necessary, and the potential usefulness of CCTVs in identifying criminals and to some extent deterring crime is clear. On the other hand when CCTVs are employed without safeguards and regulations it could result in infractions of privacy and rights or could simply move the crime away from the surveilled area to an unsurveilled area.

Finding a way to ensure that police have access to the information that they need and that crime is prevented, while at the same time ensuring that the rights of individuals are not compromised, and the private sectors ability to easily do business is not limited by unrealistic security requirements, is an important discussion that governments, policy makers, and the public should be having. The answer hopefully is not found in a binary game of all or nothing, surveillance or no surveillance – but instead is found through mechanisms and principles that apply to both security and privacy such as transparency, oversight, proportionality, and necessity. For example, practices around what access the police legally have via surveillance systems, retention practices, cost of implementing surveillance, and amount of surveillance undertaken each year could be made transparent to the public to ensure that the public is informed and aware of the basic information around these systems. Furthermore, clear oversight over surveillance systems including distinction between the responsibilities and liabilities can ensure that unreasonable requirements are not placed. Lastly any surveillance that is undertaken should be necessary and proportional to the crime or threat that it is being used to prevent or detect. These principles along with the defined National Privacy Principles could help measure what amount and what type of surveillance could be the most effective, and ensure that when surveillance is employed it is done in a way that also protects the rights of individuals and the private sector.

Notes
[1].Ministry of Tourism. Goa Government. 2012-2013 Beach Shack Policy. Available at: http://bit.ly/Xk18NH. Last accessed: October 24th 2012.
[2]. Id. Section 2.
[3]. Id. Application Requirements 1-8. Pg 1&2.
[4]. Section 33.
[5].A part of the affidavit
[6].Id. Section 4.
[7]. Id. Section 17.
[8].Id. Section 28.
[9]. Id. Section 35.
[10].Id. Section 37.
[11]. Id. Section 38.
[12]. Order No. 38/10/2006. Under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Available at: http:// www.goaprintingpress.gov.in/downloads/1213/1213-28-SIII-OG.pdf
[13]. Beach Shack Policy 2012 - 2013, Section 16.
[14]. Id. Section 18.
[15]. Id. Section 22.
[16]. Id. Section 32.
[17]. Arrival Report of Foreigner in Hotel.”Form C” . Available at: http://bit.ly/TbUO4S
[18]. Government of India. Ministry of Tourism. Amendment in the existing Guidelines for Classification / Reclassification of Hotels. June 28^th 2012. Available at: http://bit.ly/RXtgBg. Last Accessed: October 24th 2012.
[19]. Bajpaj, Ravi. CCTV shots to check drinking outside city liquor vends. The Indian Express reproduced on the website of dsidc. December 20^th 2011. Available at: http://bit.ly/VHwCzd. Last accessed: October 24th 2012.
[20]. GOI. Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy. October 2012. Available at: http://bit.ly/VqzKtr. Last accessed: October 24th 2012.
[21]. Id. pg. 61-62.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/privacy-perspectives-on-the-2012-2013-goa-beach-shack-policy

Draft Annual Report (2010-11)

praskrishna — 2014-10-21T23:55:55Z

This is the draft of the 2010-11 Annual Report.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/reports/annual-report-2010-2011.pdf

Annual Report (2011-12)

praskrishna — 2014-10-22T00:15:01Z

Draft Annual Report of 2011-12 from the Centre for Internet and Society

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/reports/annual-report-2011-2012.pdf

The Public Voice: Privacy Rights are a Global Challenge

praskrishna — 2012-10-22T14:28:09Z

October 21, 2012 is an important day for global civil society defending privacy and free speech. The Public Voice coalition will be hosting a global conference in Punta del Este, Uruguay, and you are invited to take part in the conversation and interact with the panelists. Malavika Jayaram is speaking at this event.

You can follow the live conversation here, and join the conversation by using #thepublicvoice hashtag, ask questions, participate in polls and interact with those covering the event in several languages. The conference aims to assess cultures and privacy perspectives from around the World, and members of civil society wil discuss the spread of Surveillance Technologies and its implications in societies, experts will explore Latin American policy, law, and technology perspectives on privacy governance and suggest to governments and private sector to safeguard citizens privacy.

You can read the program and follow the live Webcast in English and Spanish.

During the day the panelists will assess cultures and privacy perspectives from around the world. They will raise public awareness of surveillance technology and its consequences to consumers, for freedom of expression and human rights, and they will explore Latin American policy, law, and technology perspectives. It is the small window civil society has before the 34th International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners comprising all the governmental agencies all over the World, webcast available here. It certainly can bring the relevant topics for citizens to the discussion table. I hope you join us.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/privacy-rights-are-a-global-challenge

Experts' committee moots law to protect privacy

praskrishna — 2012-10-22T10:18:34Z

In its report submitted to the Planning Commission on Thursday, the first ever experts’ group to identify the privacy issues and prepare a report to facilitate authoring of the privacy bill, has said that existing laws have created an ‘unclear regulatory regime’ which allows a state to be intrusive.

Saikat Datta's article was published in DNA on October 19, 2012

The report has been prepared by experts led by justice AP Shah, former chief justice of the Delhi high court.

In its exceptions to the proposed law on privacy, the experts’ group has recommended that national security, public order and disclosures made in ‘public interest’ will be exempted from the limitations of privacy. Several members of the group unsuccessfully argued to bring in the Intelligence agencies which are empowered to legally tap phones, intercept emails and conduct surveillance on citizens under the ambit of the Privacy Act.

The report, a copy of which is available with DNA, recognises that there are major differences in the existing laws that permit intrusive phone-tapping or surveillance of private citizens by the government.The group feels that “these differences have created an unclear regulatory regime that is inconsistent, non-transparent, and prone to misuse and does not provide remedy or compensation to aggrieved individuals.”

Therefore, the group has recommended that when the government conducts any intrusive surveillance like phone tapping, it must adhere to the principles of proportionality, legality and remain within the boundaries of a democratic state.

“The limitation (on tapping phones, etc) should be in proportion to the harm that has been caused or will be caused,” the report states.

Interestingly, the report also exempts the disclosure of personal or private information for journalistic or historical and scientific purposes from being curbed under the proposed Privacy Act. Interestingly, this will give journalists a legal cover from being hauled up under the proposed privacy laws when they file stories.

The government is keen to enact a privacy law quickly because of two major issues. The fallout of the leakage of the tapes of Niira Radia speaking to industry heads like Ratan Tata which led to a renewed clamour for a comprehensive Privacy Act. Ironically, anything related to phone-tapping has now been left out of the provisions of such an Act.

The other reason was the pressure from the industry that is keen to get business from abroad that deals with sensitive personal data. In the absence of any personal data protection laws, Indian companies were not getting any business from European or American firms. With this law, India can look forward to getting substantial business that involves personal data.

With this framework in mind the experts’ group has recommended that notice be given to any individual from whom personal information will be sought. With intrusive government projects like the UID or the NATGRID, the group was worried that this kind of massive data in the hands of the government could turn this into a police state.

It has also mandated that the choice and consent of the individual must be taken before collecting this information. Also, there has to be a limitation on collecting this information and anything that has been collected will use the data for only a limited purpose. A data controller should be appointed to collect, maintain and use the data under strict stipulations.

Therefore, the data controller will be made accountable for any lapse in handling or disclosure of the data. To ensure that this kind of control can be exercised, the group has suggested the appointment of privacy commissioners who will adjudicate on any matter of illegal disclosures and mete out server punishment.

Recommendations

National security, public order and disclosures made in ‘public interest’ will be exempted from the limitations of privacy
The limitation (on tapping phones, etc) should be in proportion to the harm caused or will be caused
Disclosure of personal or private information for journalistic or historical and scientific purposes should be exempted from being curbed under the proposed Act
Notice be given to individual from whom information has to be sought
A data controller should be appointed to collect, maintain and use the data
Privacy commissioners who will adjudicate on any matter of illegal disclosures be appointed

Note: The Centre for Internet & Society was part of the expert committee even though not explicitly mentioned.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/dna-india-october-19-2012-saikat-datta-experts-committee-moots-law-to-protect-privacy

Bill to create bank for DNA profiling of accused coming

praskrishna — 2012-10-22T09:15:43Z

Access to data only for victim’s or suspect’s relatives.

This article by Aarthi Dhar was published in the Hindu on October 21, 2012.

A Bill to create a DNA data centre to profile people accused of serious crimes and unknown deceased is in the works. The proposal was originally mooted in 2007 but was dropped to factor in ethical, moral and legal issues on the sensitive matter.

Crafted by the Department of Biotechnology, it allows Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid (DNA) profiling for cases of culpable homicide, murder, death by negligence, miscarriage, dowry deaths, causing death of new born child, sexual assault, unnatural offences, outraging the modesty of a woman, co-habitation with a woman by deceit, adultery, enticing a married woman with criminal intent, among others.

Protecting privacy

Addressing issues related to protecting privacy of individuals, the draft Bill envisages that access to the information in the National DNA Data Bank will be restricted to those related to the victim or suspect; any individual undergoing a sentence of imprisonment or death sentence can apply to the court which convicted him, for an order of DNA testing of specific evidence under specific conditions.

The Human DNA Profiling Bill seeks to establish a DNA Profiling Board that will lay down the standards for laboratories, collection of human body substances and custody trail from collection to reporting. It also has a provision for setting up a National DNA Data Bank.

The DNA analysis of body substances that makes it possible to determine whether the source of origin of one body substance is identical to that of another, and to establish the biological relationship, if any, between two individuals.

The “forensic material” from which the DNA sample can be lifted is biological material from the body and represents intimate body samples. They include blood, semen, or any other tissue fluid.

DNA Profiling Board

As envisaged in the Bill, the DNA Profiling Board at the national level, with similar structures at the State level, will be headed by a renowned molecular biologist with the other members being from police, legal, biological and related fields.

It will deliberate and advise on all ethical and human rights issues emanating out of DNA profiling in consonance with the United Nations vis-à-vis the rights and privacy of citizens, civil liberties and issues having ethical and other social implications.

The Board will make recommendations on the use and dissemination of DNA information, ensure the accuracy, security and confidentiality of DNA and guidelines destruction of obsolete, expunged or inaccurate information.

Jail, fine for data misuse

It will also will lay down standards and procedures for establishment and functioning of DNA laboratories and Data Banks and prepare guidelines for storage of biological substances and their destruction. Any misuse of DNA data will attract imprisonment up to three years and monetary fine.

The working draft of the Bill has been sent to the Centre for Internet and Society for analysis and comments. The Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties has already opposed the proposed legislation and sought pre-emptive intervention to stop “dangerous” erosion of privacy by DNA profiling of citizens.

In a representation submitted to the National Human Rights Commission, the Forum has said DNA profiling is “undesirable, particularly as forensic DNA developments are intertwined with significant changes in legislation and contentious issues of privacy, civil liberty and social justice.”

The Forum has sought “immediate intervention to safeguard citizens’ privacy and their civil liberties, which face an unprecedented onslaught from the provisions of the DNA Profiling Bill and other related surveillance measures being bulldozed by unregulated and ungovernable technology.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/the-hindu-aarti-dhar-october-21-2012-bill-to-create-bank-for-dna-profiling-of-accused-coming

Court’s approval needed to tap phones: Panel

praskrishna — 2012-10-22T07:02:34Z

Investigators can monitor a person for 15-20 days on executive orders in case of emergencies, suggests panel.

Surabhi Agarwal's article was published in LiveMint on October 18, 2012. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

Government agencies need judicial permission before intercepting any communication or starting surveillance of any individual, a panel on the proposed privacy law suggested on Thursday.

If there is any urgency, investigators can tap phones or monitor a person’s movements for 15-20 days on executive orders but will then have to approach the courts to continue, the committee led by retired Delhi high court judge Ajit P. Shah recommended.

“Phone tapping under the present regime is done under executive permission whereas in other countries it is done only with the permission of the courts,” Shah said.

Security agencies currently require permission from home secretaries, either at the Centre or the states, to set up wiretaps or monitor emails. An oversight group of the cabinet, law and telecom secretaries at the Centre reviews all such authorizations.

	The government established the Shah committee in Feburary under the Planning Commission to study international best practices on privacy and surveillance after concerns arose on misuse of information collected by official agencies. Shah said on Thursday that the committee was “not interested” in preparing a privacy law but has only laid down the principles. The department of personnel and training will deliberate on the panel’s recommendations and then draft a legislation, said Ashwani Kumar, junior minister in the Planning Commission.

The government established the Shah committee in Feburary under the Planning Commission to study international best practices on privacy and surveillance after concerns arose on misuse of information collected by official agencies.

Shah said on Thursday that the committee was “not interested” in preparing a privacy law but has only laid down the principles.

The department of personnel and training will deliberate on the panel’s recommendations and then draft a legislation, said Ashwani Kumar, junior minister in the Planning Commission.

The Shah panel has recommended appointing privacy commissioners and a system under which organizations will have to develop privacy standards that will be approved by a commissioner as a means of self-regulation.

Sectoral industry associations would form a code of conduct for companies that will comply with law as they will be approved by the privacy commissioner, according to Kamlesh Bajaj, chief executive officer of Data Security Council of India, one of the members of the committee. “These associations could also act as alternative dispute-resolution mechanisms,” Bajaj said.

The committee’s other recommendations include giving individuals a choice to provide personal information, collection of only critical personal information, use of data only for the purpose for which it has been collected, and a penalty for violations.

“Without a comprehensive horizontal regulatory framework and the office of the regulator both private and public entities in India have been trampling on the rights of citizens without complying to any of the international best practices when it comes to protecting the right to privacy,” said Sunil Abraham, executive director of Centre for Internet and Society, a Bangalore-based advocacy group. After the privacy law is enacted and the office of a privacy commissioner is created, people will be able to seek redressal against these erring pubic and private entities if their rights are violated, he added.

The government has been looking to enact a privacy law to ensure data collected by various programmes such as the National Population Register, Unique Identification Authority of India and National Intelligence Grid was not misused. It was expected to scotch criticism of these programmes by privacy and Internet activists. It later expanded the scope of the proposed legislation after catching flak for a leak of tapped conversations between corporate lobbyist Niira Radia, industrialists and journalists.

The government now aims to uphold the right of all Indians against any misuse of personal information, interception of personal communication, unlawful surveillance and unwanted commercial communication. That means it effectively covers everything from the misuse of data collected by the government to spam.

However, there could be opposition from law enforcement agencies if the privacy law mandates that prior permission of the courts will be required before intercepting communication.

If judges begin taking a call on interception requests, there could be chances of leakage, “since there are so many judges at so many levels”, said Rumel Dahiya, deputy director general at Institute of Defence Studies and Analyses, a New delhi-based think tank. “The government carries out surveillance to gain fool-proof intelligence. That purpose will be defeated.”

Last week, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said a fine balance needs to be maintained between the right to information and the right to privacy.

The Shah committee included representatives from the private sector, the department of information technology, ministry of home affairs, department of telecommunication, the law ministry and the department of personnel and training.

Kirthi V. Rao contributed to this story.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/livemint-october-18-2012-surabhi-agarwal-courts-approval-needed-to-tap-phones

Censorship makes India fall two places on global internet freedom chart

praskrishna — 2012-09-27T10:37:47Z

A recently released global report on the internet freedom rated India 39th in 2012, a slip from two places last year.

The article by Dilnaz Boga was published in DNA on September 27, 2012.

The report titled, Freedom on the net 2012 (FOTN): A global assessment of internet and digital media by Freedom House, a Washington-based monitoring group conducted a comprehensive study of internet freedom in 47 countries.

Quoting Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society, the report said 309 specific items (URLs, Twitter accounts, img tags, blog posts, blogs, and a handful of websites) have been blocked by the government. But officially, the government has admitted to blocking 245 web pages for inflammatory content hosting of provocative content.

Ketan Tanna, India analyst for Freedom House told DNA, “A reflection of the downward spiral in the freedom on the net that Indians enjoy is evident in the upward revision of scores for India in the FOTN 2012 report. India was one of the only 4 of the 20 countries that “recently experienced declines” and are democracies. The other three are Mexico, Turkey and South Korea.”

Internet usage in India continues to increase, with tens of millions of new users getting online each year. According to the International Telecommunications Union, internet penetration was 10% — or about 120 million people at the end of 2011. Among internet users, 90 million were ‘active,’ accessing it at least once a month (70 million urban and 20 million rural).

The report has mentioned that in India, “amid several court cases regarding intermediaries’ responsibility for hosting illegal content, much evidence has surfaced that intermediaries are taking down content without fully evaluating or challenging the legality of the request”.

Citing an example, Tanna said in December 2011, the website Cartoons against Corruption was suspended by its hosting company after a complaint filed with the Mumbai police alleged that the site’s cartoons ridiculed parliament and national emblems. “As a result of such dynamics, large swaths of online content are disappearing, and the losses are far more difficult to reverse than the mere blocking of a website,” he added.

More common than website blocking is the removal of content based on judicial orders, government directives, and citizen complaints. This phenomenon that has increased in recent years and in some cases, targeted content on political, social, and religious topics, the report said.

The Indian authorities had submitted 68 removal requests covering 358 items between January and June 2011. According to Google, 255 items related to what it categorised as “government criticism,” while 39 involved defamation and 8 pertained to hate speech.

In January, responding to a freedom of information request, the home ministry reported that the government orders 7,500 to 9,000 phone interceptions per month, the report disclosed. Criticising this practice and the government’s disregard for the Constitution, the data revealed, “Established guidelines regulate the ability of state officials to intercept communications, but India lacks an appropriate legal framework and procedures to ensure proper oversight of Intelligence agencies’ growing surveillance and interception capabilities, opening the possibility of misuse and unconstitutional invasion of citizens’ privacy.”

As another method of controlling speech and activism online, governments have imposed temporary shutdowns of the internet or mobile phone networks during protests or other sensitive times. Localised internet shutdowns and mobile phone shutdowns occurred in India due to security concerns, the report said.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/dna-india-sep-27-2012-dilnaz-boga-censorship-makes-india-fall-two-places-on-global-internet-freedom-chart

The Five Monkeys & Ice-cold Water

sunil — 2012-10-30T10:43:38Z

The Indian government provides leadership, both domestically and internationally, when it comes to access to knowledge.

This article by Sunil Abraham was published in Deccan Chronicle on September 16, 2012.

Our domestic patent policy ensures that generic medicines are available and largely affordable not only within India but also in Africa and elsewhere. It also allows Indians to consume a wide range of technological innovations without worrying about legal bans that are an otherwise common feature in the developed countries, thanks to phenomena such as the ongoing mobile phone patent wars.

Copyright policy, including the last amendment of the copyright act, has ensured that fair dealing and the rights of students, researchers, disabled, etc., are protected. Texts, audio and video for education and entertainment are relatively affordable, especially in comparison to other countries in the Asia-Pacific.

Even at the World Intellectual Property Organisation, other developing countries look to India for guidance. The interventions of the copyright registrar G.R. Raghavender and the Indian team won praise during the most recent round of negotiations for the Treaty for the Visually Impaired. An excellent example of India's soft power protecting public interest at home and abroad.

In diametrical contrast, India has a terrible track record when it comes to freedom of expression, especially expression mediated by networked technologies such as telecommunications and the Internet.

Our policy-makers seem determined to extinguish the privacy of communications and also anonymous/pseudonymous speech through such devices as Know Your Customer (KYC) and data retention requirements for accessing the Internet through cyber-cafes, mobile phones, dial-up or broadband, ban on open wi-fi networks, plans to tie together Aadhaar and NATGRID and Central Monitoring System (CMS) to track a citizen using his/her UID across devices, networks and intermediaries, and requiring real-time interception equipment to be installed at all network and data centres.

All these without any horizontal privacy law or a data protection law that is compliant with international best practices. Security hawks argue that this pervasive, multi-tiered surveillance regime helps thwart criminal and terrorist attacks, but its poor design extracts a terrible price in terms of freedom of expression.

Citizens who cannot express themselves anonymously and privately begin to censor themselves, seriously undermining our democracy, which is most importantly founded on an anonymous expression, the electoral ballot.

In addition, in April 2011, rules under the amended IT Act were notified for intermediaries that have a chilling effect on free speech via unclear and unconstitutional limits on freedom of expression, encouragement of private censorship without any notice to those impacted, missing procedure for redress, and lack of penalties for those who abuse the rules to target legitimate speech. This was followed by calls for proactive censorship of social media, which caused much outrage amongst the twitterati.

Even when the government had legitimate grounds (the recent exodus of North-East Indians) to censor free speech, it overreached and acted incompetently, cracking down on parody accounts on social media rather than carefully configuring the text message ban. As if that weren't enough, the government beats up a cartoonist and jails him for sedition.

There’s a plan behind such attacks on free speech. The powerful in India, with their fragile egos, can afford expensive lawyers who can ensure that for those who dare to speak their mind, “the process is the punishment”, as Lawrence Liang of the Alternative Law Forum put it. Needless to say, cartoonists and others that dare to speak their mind cannot usually afford the time and expense of courts.

An experiment featuring monkeys, bananas and ice-cold water, commonly attributed to the late American psychologist Harry Harlow, explains what’s being attempted by those who attack free speech. First, five monkeys are put in a cage with bananas hanging from the top that can be reached by climbing a ladder. Every time one of the monkeys try to climb the ladder, ice-cold water is thrown on all of them. Soon, the monkeys learn not to climb the ladder.

Then, one of them is replaced with a monkey that has never been drenched with ice-cold water. When the new monkey tries to climb the ladder, the other four monkeys attack it and prevent it from reaching the banana. This is continued till all the original monkeys are replaced with new ones.

When that’s done, although none of the monkeys left in the cage has ever been drenched with ice-cold water, they continue to enforce the regulation on themselves. This is what has happened in China. This is what is being attempted here – to social engineer the Indian netizen.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/www-deccan-chronicle-sep-16-2012-sunil-abraham-the-five-monkeys-and-ice-cold-water

DNA Databases and Human Rights

praskrishna — 2012-09-17T05:39:06Z

Using DNA to trace people who are suspected of committing a crime has been a major advance in policing.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/dna-databases-and-human-rights.pdf

Consumer Privacy

praskrishna — 2012-09-13T09:21:26Z

This chapter will examine the present legal state of consumer privacy in India and seek to understand the gap between policy and implementation of policy. In doing so, it will look at what are the existing avenues for protection of consumer privacy in India, how is the definition of consumer privacy evolving through case law and public opinion, and what are the current challenges to consumer privacy in India. Traditionally speaking, and according to the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in India, a consumer is a broad label for any person who buys goods or services with the intent of using them for non-commercial purposes. In the typical sense, when people think of themselves as being consumers, they think about transactions with a vendor through a physical exchange of money in a store or through an online exchange for a product or service. Certain services that consumers use put an extraordinary amount of sensitive personal information into the hands of vendors.

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

August 2012 Bulletin

praskrishna — 2012-09-11T14:53:44Z

Welcome to the newsletter issue of August 2012 from the Centre for Internet & Society (CIS). The present issue features an analysis of the latest list of sites blocked by the Indian government from August 18, 2012 to August 21, 2012, the India Report for Consumers International IP Watchlist 2012, and press coverage related to the recent North East exodus.

Internet Governance

The Internet Governance programme conducts research around the various social, technical, and political underpinnings of global and national Internet governance, and includes online privacy, freedom of speech, and Internet governance mechanisms and processes:

Special Section on Freedom of Expression

We usually cover Freedom of Expression under Internet Governance. However, in the month of August there has been much discussion regarding the North East exodus from Bangalore and the blocking of a number of websites by the Indian government from August 18 to 21, 2012. This special section covers reportage and original content from CIS:

Featured Research

Analysing Latest List of Blocked Sites (Communalism & Rioting Edition) (by Pranesh Prakash): Pranesh Prakash did a preliminary analysis on a leaked list of the websites blocked from August 18, 2012 till August 21, 2012 by the Indian government. There were a total of 309 specific items (those being URLs, Twitter accounts, img tags, blog posts, blogs, and a handful of websites) that were blocked. In this analysis, Pranesh examines why these have been blocked, are the blocks legitimate, are there any egregious mistakes, why the whole list hasn’t been put up, why can one access items that are supposed to be blocked, what should the government have done, etc. The analysis was quoted/cross-posted in the following places: Wall Street Journal (August 25, 2012), The Hindu (August 24, 2012), LiveMint (August 24, 2012), Global Voices (August 24, 2012), Outlook (August 23, 2012), FirstPost.India (August 23, 2012), IBN Live (August 23, 2012), News Click (August 23, 2012), Medianama (August 23, 2012) and KAFILA (August 23, 2012).

Columns

To regulate Net intermediaries or not is the question (by Sunil Abraham, Deccan Herald, August 26, 2012): “Given the disruption to public order caused by the mass exodus of North-Eastern Indians from several cities, the government has had for the first time in many years, a legitimate case to crackdown on Internet intermediaries and their users.”

Social media, SMS are not why NE students left Bangalore (by Nishant Shah, First Post, August 25, 2012): “I woke up one morning to find that I was living in a city of crisis. Bangalore, where the largest public preoccupations to date have been about bad roads, stray dogs, and occasionally, the lack of night-life, the city was suddenly a space that people wanted to flee and occupy simultaneously.”
What lurks beneath the Network (by Nishant Shah, Down to Earth, August 24, 2012): “There is a series of buzzwords that have become a naturalised part of discussions around digital social media—participation, collaboration, peer-2-peer, mobilisation, etc. Especially in the post Arab Spring world (and our own home-grown Anna Hazare spectacles), there is this increasing belief in the innate possibilities of social media as providing ways by which the world as we know it shall change for the better. Young people are getting on to the streets and demanding their rights to the future.”
Censoring the Internet: A brief manual (by Sunil Abraham, Tehelka, August 23, 2012): “Blocking websites on the Internet should be proportionate to harm they intend. However, the government of India's approach is against the principles of natural justice.”
The Perils of 'Hactivism' (by Chinmayi Arun, LiveMint, August 20, 2012): “Civil disobedience includes accepting the penalty for breaking the law. Untraceable hackers are far removed from this ethic.”

Foreign Media Coverage

India blocks more than 250 Web sites for inciting hate, panic (by Rama Lakshmi, Washington Post on August 20, 2012): “A blanket ban does not necessarily lead to a reduction in the circulation of rumors because people become more vulnerable in a communication vacuum.”— Sunil Abraham.
India’s ethnic clashes intensify within social-media maelstrom (by Stephanie Nolen, Globe Mail, August 23, 2012): “Now for a change, the government has legitimate grounds to censor speech...but they’ve cried wolf on so many occasions before.” — Sunil Abraham.
India limits social media after civil unrest (by Mark Magnier, Australian Financial Review, August 24, 2012): “Before, the government’s had no grounds for censorship, it was only acting on the bruised egos of bureaucrats and officials... this time, it’s got a legitimate right given the disruption of public order. But it hasn’t done so very effectively.” — Sunil Abraham.
New Delhi Expands Curbs on Web Content (by R Jai Krishna and Rumman Ahmed, Wall Street Journal, August 23, 2012): “The government's move to block several Twitter handles is a clear case of administrative overreach...This action means citizens are less likely to believe that the government can use its powers responsibly.” — Sunil Abraham.
Govt in line of fire over web censorship (by Surabhi Agarwal, Livemint, August 24, 2012): “Both Kanchan Gupta and Swapan Dasgupta seem to be having a right wing ideology, but while the former’s account is blocked the latter’s is not...The difference is on the kind of content which has been posted.” — Pranesh Prakash.
India's social media crackdown reveals clumsy govt machinery (by David Lalmalsawma, Reuters, August 24, 2012): Pranesh Prakash’s analysis is quoted.
Internet expert criticizes Indian cyber blockades (by Muneeza Naqvi, Associated Press, August 24, 2012): “The government has gone overboard and many of its efforts are legally questionable.” — Pranesh Prakash. This was also covered in Bloomberg Businessweek (August 24, 2012), Khaleej Times (August 24, 2012), ABC News (August 24, 2012), Seattle Times (August 24, 2012), Vancouver Sun (August 24, 2012), Kansas City. (August 24, 2012), Times Colonist (August 24, 2012), Merced Sun-Star (August 24, 2012), Yahoo News (August 24, 2012), SanLuisObispo.com (August 24, 2012), Terrorism Watch (August 25, 2012), Sci-Tech Today (August 26, 2012).
How ISPs block websites and why it doesn’t help (by Gopal Sathe, Livemint, August 24, 2012): “Even though many of the items on that list do deserve (in my opinion) to be removed [...] the people and companies hosting the material should have been asked to remove it, instead of ordering the ISPs to block them.” — Pranesh Prakash.
India’s Internet Curbs Under Legal Cloud (by Rumman Ahmed and R Jai Krishna, Wall Street Journal, August 26, 2012):” The four orders that were sent to the ISPs don’t say under which section or under what power these orders are being sent...They were sent without invoking any statute or without invoking any law.” — Pranesh Prakash.
After Violence in India, a Crackdown Online (by Gardiner Harris, New York Times, August 25, 2012): “I don’t see this as politically motivated censorship...I see this as gross ineptitude by the government.” — Pranesh Prakash.
Inde: la tentative de contrôler l'internet est "illégale" (Agence France Presse, August 24, 2012): Pranesh Prakash is quoted.
India threatens action against Twitter for ethnic violence 'rumors' (originally posted by Ben Sheppard in AFP and published in the China Post, August 25, 2012): Pranesh Prakash’s analysis is quoted.
Blocked websites: Where India flawed (CIOL, August 23, 2012): Pranesh Prakash’s analysis is quoted.
India: Social Media Censorship to Contain ‘Cyber-Terrorism'? (by Aparna Ray, Global Voices, August 24, 2012): Pranesh Prakash’s analysis is quoted.
Delhi defends Internet blocking (Gulf Today, August 25, 2012): “The officials who are trusted with this don’t know the law or modern technology well enough.” — Pranesh Prakash.
India Blocks News Website Pages for 'Spreading Fear' over Assam Violence (by Gianluca Mezzofiore, International Business Times, August 24, 2012): “The government's highest priority should have been to counter the rumours and it did a really bad job of that.” — Pranesh Prakash.
Internet clamp outrage (Gulf Daily, August 25, 2012): Pranesh Prakash is quoted.
India faces Twitter backlash over Internet clampdown (by Devidutta Tripathy and Satarupa Bhattacharjya, Reuters, August 24, 2012): “This isn't about political censorship. This is about the government not knowing how to do online regulation properly.” — Pranesh Prakash.
Indian government defends Internet blocking (AFP, August 23, 2012): “I hope that this fiasco shows the folly of excessive censorship and encourages the government to make better use of social networks and technology to reach out to people.” — Pranesh Prakash. This was cross-posted in the following: The National (August 25, 2012), MSN News (August 24, 2012), StarAfrica.com (August 24, 2012), Jakarta Globe (August 24, 2012).
Criticism mounts over India censorship (by James Crabtree in Mumbai and Tim Bradshaw in San Francisco, Financial Times, August 24, 2012): “I am not questioning their original motives, but I do think this is excessive and incompetent censorship.” — Pranesh Prakash.
Facebook's Delicate Dance With Delhi On Censorship (by Mark Bergen, Forbes, August 29, 2012): “Perhaps the Indian government has wasted, frittered away goodwill...It has cried ‘wolf’ so many times that this time the internet intermediaries are not taking them as seriously as they should.” — Sunil Abraham.
Internet Analysts Question India’s Efforts to Stem Panic (by Vikas Bajaj, New York Times, August 21, 2012): “The Internet intermediaries are responding slowly because now they have to trawl through their networks and identify hate speech.” — Sunil Abraham. This was cross-posted in NDTV on August 22, 2012. A version of this article appeared in print on August 22, 2012, on page B4 of the New York edition with the headline: Internet Moves by India to Stem Rumors and Panic Raise Questions.
India limits social media after civil unrest (by Mark Magnier, Los Angeles Times, August 23, 2012 and cross-posted in Channel 6 News on August 24, 2012): Sunil Abraham is quoted.
India Debates Misuse of Social Media (by Anjana Pasricha, Voice of America, August 21, 2012 and re-posted in Chosunilbo on September 4, 2012): “Social media websites and other Internet intermediaries should have been asked by the government to run banner advertising or some other form of messaging that revealed the lack of truth in the rumors that were circulating.” — Sunil Abraham.
Officials Raise Questions over Indian Government’s Efforts (by Bruce Totolos, French Tribune, August 22, 2012). “The government acted appropriately, but without sufficient sophistication.” — Sunil Abraham.
India seeks a tighter grip on social media (United Press International, August 24, 2012): Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

National Media Coverage

Internet expert Pranesh Prakash criticizes Indian cyber blockades (Economic Times, August 24, 2012): Pranesh Prakash is quoted.
Govt orders blocking of 300 specific URLs including 16 Twitter accounts (Times of India, August 23, 2012): “The blocking of many of the items on the list are legally questionable and morally indefensible, even while a large number of the items ought to be removed.” — Pranesh Prakash.
NE exodus: List containing 309 blocked URLs leaks online (tech 2, August 23, 2012): Pranesh Prakash's analysis is quoted.
Govt cracks down on Twitter (Hindustan Times, August 24, 2012): “The blocking was done without due process of law...the government should have engaged with the social media platforms since a majority — 217 out of 310 — of the block orders were aimed at Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter.” — Pranesh Prakash.
Twitter users hit back at government ban (originally posted in Reuters and carried in the Hindustan Times, August 24, 2012): “This isn't about political censorship. This is about the government not knowing how to do online regulation properly.” — Pranesh Prakash.
When #GOIBlocks, twitterati fly off their ‘handles’ (Hindustan Times, August 26, 2012). Pranesh Prakash’s tweet is quoted.
Regulating the Internet by fiat (by V Sridhar, Hindu, August 26, 2012): Pranesh Prakash’s analysis is quoted.
Twitter handles: How and why govt erred and what it can do to be smarter & more effective (by TV Mahalingam and Shantanu Nandan Sharma, Economic Times, August 26, 2012): “Perhaps, for the first time, the Indian government had legitimate reasons to censor speech.” — Sunil Abraham.
Some ISPs block Wordpress domain across India (tech 2, August 25, 2012): Pranesh Prakash’s analysis is quoted.
Details emerge on government blockade of websites (Hindu, August 24, 2012): Pranesh Prakash’s analysis is quoted.
India faces Twitter backlash over Internet clampdown (INDOLink, August 25, 2012): Pranesh Prakash is quoted.
India Blocks Facebook, Twitter, Mass Texts in Response to Unrest (by Simon Roughneen, Media Shift, August 28, 2012): “In the older forms of governance, which were imagined through a broadcast model, the government was at the center of the information wheel, managing and mediating what information reached different parts of the country. In the [peer-to-peer] world, where the government no longer has that control, it is now trying different ways by which it can reinforce its authority and centrality to the information ecosystem. Which means that there is going to be a series of failures and models that don't work.” — Nishant Shah.
Tata Photon unblocks Wordpress.com (by Rohini Lakshane, tech 2, August 30, 2012): “This is not the first time an ISP has gone overboard in implementing censorship, be it copyright issues, piracy or inflammatory content. In 2006, the government had chastised ISPs for over-censoring content and blocking unintended websites and pages...ISPs have numerous grouses against the government. They do not possess the technical capabilities to implement the government's orders, at times, whether about surveillance or censorship.” — Pranesh Prakash.
Northeast exodus: Is there a mechanism to pre-screen social media content? (by Wahid Bukhari, Merinews.com, August 23, 2012): “Given the amount of content uploaded on the larger social networks, pre-screening content is just not possible, while removal upon complaint is. They don't have editors like newspapers do; importantly, they shouldn't.” — Pranesh Prakash.
Haphazard censorship? Leaked list of blocked websites in India (IBN Live, August 23, 2012): Pranesh Prakash’s analysis is quoted.
Government asks Twitter to block fake 'PMO India' accounts; site fails to respond (Economic Times, August 23, 2012): Sunil Abraham is quoted.

Videos

FTN: Is it time to regulate social media? (IBN Live, August 21, 2012): Sunil Abraham, Pavan Duggal, A Mukherji and Nikhil Pahwa spoke to CNN-IBN Deputy Editor Sagarika Ghose in Face the Nation episode that was telecasted in IBNLive on August 21, 2012. Sunil said “if one looks at the initial orders that the government sent these intermediaries those were very broad instructions. The order was addressed to all intermediaries under the IT Act.” Watch the full video on IBN Live.
Govt vs Tweeple: Has clampdown hit free speech? (NDTV, August 23, 2012): Has the Government crossed the line by ordering the blocking of several Twitter accounts, many belonging to prominent journalists? The debate was featured in NDTV on August 23, 2012. Sunil Abraham spoke to Sonia Singh of NDTV. Sunil said that “we should focus on designing of the censorship regime in the country and the lack of compliance with the principles of natural justice.” Watch the full video on NDTV.
Is the govt caught in the 'censorship' web? (NDTV, August 26, 2012): In “We the People” Pranesh Prakash responded to Barkha Dutt’s question on what does a government do in a time of social unrest. See the full debate on NDTV.

Events Organised

Role of the US Tech Companies in Government Surveillance: A Lecture by Christopher Soghoian (CIS, Bangalore, August 27, 2012): Christopher Soghoian gave a lecture on the role companies play in assisting government surveillance.
The Asian Edge: 2012 Inter-Asia Cultural Studies Society Summer School: The 2nd Biannual Inter Asia Cultural Studies (IACS) Summer School was hosted in Bangalore by CIS and the Centre for the Study of Culture and Society.
Biometric Identification: Specified Error, Accuracy and Efficiency, Considered for the Operations of the UIDAI — A Talk by Hans Varghese Mathews (CIS, Bangalore, August 17, 2012): Hans Varghese Mathews gave a public lecture on biometric identification.

Events Participated

Sixth Meeting of the two Sub-Groups on Privacy Issues under the Chairmanship of Justice AP Shah (Committee Room No. 228, Yojana Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi, August 31, 2012): Sunil Abraham participated in the meeting.
APNIC 34 Conference (Phnompenh, Cambodia, August 23 – 31, 2012): Sunil Abraham was a panelist along with Ang Peng Hwa, Paul Wilson, Duangthip Chomprang and Raul Echeberria in the session on Internet Governance Plenary. The event was organised by APNIC.

Events Hosted

Meetup for Bangalore's designers (CIS, Bangalore, August 11, 2012): CIS hosted the meet-up in Bangalore.
Visit by students from Hindustan University, Chennai (CIS, Bangalore, August 16, 2012): Sunil Abraham and Elonnai Hickok gave a lecture to students from the Hindustan University.
Interface Intimacies (TERI Complex, Bangalore, August 18 – 20, 2012): CIS conducted a research workshop with Audrey Yue and Namita Malhotra.

Upcoming Events

Thinking with Data@CIS (CIS, Bangalore, September 16 – 18, 2012): The Thinking with Data course offered at the National Institute of Advanced Studies (NIAS) will be screened at CIS, Bangalore. The screening will be followed by online discussions with the faculty through Skype or Google+ Hangouts. Screening starts from September 12.
Cartonama Conference (MLR Convention Centre, JP Nagar, Bangalore, September 22, 2012): The Cartonama Conference is centred around geospatial data, mapping and location based services. HasGeek supported by CIS is organising this event.
UK DNA Database and the European Court of Human Rights: Lessons that India can Learn from Its Mistakes (Alternative Law Forum, Infantry Road, Shivaji Nagar, Bangalore, September 24, 2012): CIS in collaboration with Alternative Law Forum invites the public to a talk with international experts, Helen Wallace from GeneWatch, UK and Jeremy Gruber from the Council for Responsible Genetics in the United States.

Telecom

While the potential for growth and returns exist for telecommunications in India, a range of issues need to be addressed. One aspect is more extensive rural coverage and the other is a countrywide access to broadband which is low. Both require effective and efficient use of networks and resources, including spectrum:

Building Knowledge and Capacity around Telecommunication Policy in India

Ford Foundation has given a grant of USD 2,00,000 to CIS to build expertise in the area of telecommunications in India. The knowledge repository deals with these modules: Introduction to Telecommunications, Telecommunications Infrastructure and Technologies, Government of India Regulatory Framework for Telecom, Telecommunication and the Market, Universal Access and Accessibility, The International Telecommunications Union and other international bodies, Broadcasting, Emerging Topics and Way Forward. Dr. Surendra Pal, Satya N Gupta, Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, Payal Malik, Dr. Rakesh Mehrotra and Dr. Nadeem Akhtar are the expert reviewers.

The following are the new outputs:

Auctioning and Allocation of Spectrum (by Snehashish Ghosh): Auction of spectrums was introduced in the telecommunication market after the failure of the administrative process of allocating spectrum. Auctions use a price mechanism to allocate spectrum. Auction of spectrum can be used to increase efficiency and earn maximum revenue.
The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (by Snehashish Ghosh): The main objective of the TRAI Act was to establish the TRAI and the Telecom Dispute Settlement Appellate Tribunal. Snehashish also touches upon the amendment to the TRAI Act, government control over TRAI, scheme of the TRAI Act, constitution of TRAI, its powers and functions, grounds and procedures for appeal to the tribunal, etc.
Broadband Wireless Access – Standards (by Jürgen Kock): Jürgen tells us about the broadband wireless access standards, why we need technical standards, who define BWA standards, WiMAX standards and long term evolution.
Mesh Networks (by Ravikiran Annaswamy): Ravikiran tells us the definition of Mesh Networks, its importance, applications and the things to explore in future.
National Telecom Policy, 2012 (by Snehashish Ghosh): The National Telecom Policy, 2012 was approved by the Union Cabinet on May 31, 2012. Snehashish tells us about the vision of the National Telecom Policy, 2012, its background, the strategies (broadband rural telephony and universal service obligation fund), licensing, convergence and value-added services, spectrum management, etc.
New Telecom Policy, 1999 (by Snehashish Ghosh): The New Telecom Policy, 1999 was formulated on the basis of the report of Group on Telecommunication. In this unit, Snehashish talks about the objectives of the Policy, its targets, the new category of service providers, role of the regulator, other mandates to the Policy, amendment to the New Telecom Policy, 1999, etc.
National Telecom Policy, 1994 (by Snehashish Ghosh): The National Telecom Policy, 1994 was formulated for the purpose of opening up the Indian markets for foreign direct investment as well as domestic investment in the telecom sector. Snehashish throws light on the objectives of the National Telecom Policy, 1994, the status of telecom services prior to the implementation of the aforesaid Policy; value added services, hardware and technological aspects, basic services, and outcomes of the National Telecom Policy.

Column in Business Standard

Decision Analysis for Interest Rates - II (Shyam Ponappa, Business Standard, August 2, 2012): “India needs to make practical choices that prioritise growth. This is the second column. The previous column was published in the Business Standard on July 5, 2012. It explained how lower interest rates could improve growth by increasing net profits.”

Access to Knowledge

The Access to Knowledge programme addresses the harms caused to consumers, developing countries, human rights, and creativity/innovation from excessive regimes of copyright, patents, and other such monopolistic rights over knowledge:

Key Research

Consumers International IP Watchlist 2012 — India Report (by Pranesh Prakash): The India Report for Consumers International IP Watchlist 2012 was published on the A2K Network website. According to the report, India's Copyright Act is a relatively balanced instrument that recognises the interests of consumers through its broad private use exception, and by facilitating the compulsory licensing of works that would otherwise be unavailable. However, the compulsory licensing provision have not been utilized so far, because of both a lack of knowledge and more importantly because of the stringent conditions attached to them.

Press Coverage

Copyright Law: More Than a Moral Obligation (by Jaya Bhattacharji Rose, Businessworld, August 9, 2012): “So far, things have worked well because sepia-tinted photographs have generally become part of the public domain. But now, only photographs by photographers who died before 1951 are part of the public domain. This has shrivelled up the public domain in photographs since it is even more difficult to trace the photographer...than to estimate the age of a photograph, determining whether a photograph is in the public domain is laden with uncertainty. The use of historical photos in books (and Wikipedia) will be badly affected.”— Pranesh Prakash.

Accessibility

India has an estimated 70 million disabled persons who are unable to read printed materials due to some form of physical, sensory, cognitive or other disability. The disabled need accessible content, devices and interfaces facilitated via copyright law and electronic accessibility policies:

Blog Entry

Ring Side View: Update on WIPO Negotiations on the Treaty for the Visually Impaired (by Rahul Cherian): As the negotiations between Member States progressed it became clear that the United States and the European Union were blocking the Treaty while everybody else was pushing hard for the Treaty. The United States and the European Union were pushing for some form of non-binding instrument that would be more in the nature of a recommendation. Further coverage of this is at Huffington Post and in the Guardian.

Digital Natives

Digital Natives with a Cause? examines the changing landscape of social change and political participation in light of the role that young people play through digital and Internet technologies, in emerging information societies. Consolidating knowledge from Asia, Africa and Latin America, it builds a global network of knowledge partners who critically engage with discourse on youth, technology and social change, and look at alternative practices and ideas in the Global South:

Public Talk

Decoding Digital Natives (Mudra Institute of Communications, Ahmedabad, August 31, 2012): Nishant Shah gave a public lecture.

Openness

The 'Openness' programme critically examines alternatives to existing regimes of intellectual property rights, and transparency and accountability. Under this programme, we study Open Government Data, Open Access to Scholarly Literature, Open Access to Law, Open Content, Open Standards, and Free/Libre/Open Source Software:

Event Hosted

Bangalore Force.com August Meetup (CIS, Bangalore, August 19, 2012): John Barnes, CTO Model Metrics gave a lecture at the event organised by Bangalore Force.com.
Technology Evangelists and Religious Evangelists — A Talk by Katherine Sydenham (CIS, Bangalore, August 10, 2012): Katherine Sydenham from the University of Michigan School gave a lecture.
Data-Driven Journalism, Data Literacy & Open Government — Talk at CIS (CIS, Bangalore, August 1, 2012): The event was co-organised by Open Knowledge Foundation and CIS. Lucy Chambers and Laura Newman gave an informal talk on ‘Data-Driven Journalism, Data Literacy, and Open Government'.

CIS is hiring
*Jobs*
CIS is seeking applications from interested candidates for the following posts:

Research Manager: CIS is seeking an individual, full-time, for a period of 12 months, beginning from October 2012. The Research Manager is expected to contribute to conceptualising, managing and executing research projects in the field of Internet and Society, build knowledge networks of researchers towards collaborative and open knowledge production and dissemination, developing and executing the monitoring and evaluation processes for humanities and social sciences based research, supporting and managing academic, popular and hybrid publishing projects from existing and new research and initiate innovative and creative areas and methodologies of studying the Internet and its practices in India and the larger Global South, to develop key research clusters and networks. Send in your applications to admin@cis-india.org.
Researcher/Editor (Accessibility): CIS is hiring for the full-time position of a researcher for its accessibility programme. The job will entail working on researching on national and international policies and best practices in the field of accessibility of information and technology for persons with disabilities. To apply, please send your CV and three examples of writing to nirmita@cis-india.org
Programme Director – Access to Knowledge: CIS is seeking a Programme Director for its New Delhi office. The Programme Director will manage CIS’s Access to Knowledge programme which is funded by the Wikimedia Foundation, to support the growth of Wikipedia and its sister projects and to advance access to free knowledge in India. The Programme Director will partner with the large Wikimedia community in India to focus on Indic and English languages and will manage a team of four staff members.
Programme Officer – Internet Governance: CIS is seeking an individual with a strong background in legal research and policy work to be part of its internet governance (IG) programme. The candidates must have good knowledge of Indian and international law on freedom of expression and privacy, demonstrable research skills, have strong communication skills and be media savvy with the ability to convey complex legal issues clearly to a general audience, open to travel and work independently.

To apply for the posts of Programme Director and Programme Officers, please send your resume to Sunil Abraham (sunil@cis-india.org) or Pranesh Prakash (pranesh@cis-india.org) with three references.

About CIS

CIS was registered as a society in Bangalore in 2008. As an independent, non-profit research organisation, it runs different policy research programmes such as Accessibility, Access to Knowledge, Openness, Internet Governance, and Telecom. Over the last four years our policy research programmes have resulted in outputs such as the e-Accessibility Policy Handbook for Persons with Disabilities with ITU and G3ict, and Digital Alternatives with a Cause?, Thinkathon Position Papers and the Digital Natives with a Cause? Report with Hivos. With the Government of India we have done policy research for Ministry of Communications & Information Technology, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, etc., on WIPO Treaties, Copyright Bill, NIA Bill, etc.

CIS is an accredited NGO at WIPO and has given policy briefs to delegations from various countries, our Programme Manager, Nirmita Narasimhan won the National Award for Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities from the Government of India and also received the NIVH Excellence Award.

Follow us elsewhere

Get short, timely messages from us on Twitter
Join the CIS group on Facebook
Visit us at http://cis-india.org

CIS is grateful to its donors, 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/august-2012-bulletin

Facebook's Delicate Dance With Delhi On Censorship

praskrishna — 2012-09-03T04:39:45Z

At the end of last week, a hashtag briskly rose across India: #Emergency2012. It was a reference to the 21-month stint, beginning in the summer of 1975, when then PM Indira Gandhi determined democracy an inconvenience.

Contributed by Mark Bergen, the post was published in Forbes on August 29, 2012. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

This time around, the government launched a jumbled attempt, following ethnic violence in the northeast, to stem rumors behind a panicked exodus. They blocked over 300 sites and axed at least 16 Twitter accounts, including those of political opponents and journalists. Many of us found our cell phone texts suddenly, with no announcement, cut off after five missives.

It was hardly the Emergency of 1975. The government’s actions were far less draconian than three decades ago. But, back then, there were no foreign internet companies to complicate matters—and, it seems, absolve the government.

In response to the recent charges, Delhi claimed that there was “no censorship at all.” As the communications minister, Kapil Sibal, put it, “Facebook and Google are cooperating with us.”

Under the circumstances, shutting down the incendiary hate speech online was warranted, explained Sunil Abraham, the director of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) in Bangalore. The process was just incredibly inept. “There were so many things they did wrong,” he told me when I asked about the government’s response. And the reaction can be tacked onto a very recent history of Delhi issuing sweeping, usually empty, threats of censoring U.S. internet companies.

“Perhaps the Indian government has wasted, frittered a way goodwill,” Abraham continued. “It has cried ‘wolf’ so many times that this time the internet intermediaries are not taking them as seriously as they should.”

His group analyzed the sites shut down last week, pointing out the “numerous mistakes and inconsistencies that make blocking pointless and ineffectual.” It’s clear that the censorship was also opportunistic—used to stamp out political parody Twitter accounts—and counterproductive. Among the sites blocked was a Pakistani blog debunking the rumors behind the whole exodus episode.

Abraham criticized the government for coming to the intermediaries with broad demands first, rather than directly to Twitter, Facebook and Google. That approach, coupled with earlier censorship demands, may strain the trust between the ruling coalition and the web giants.

Still, Facebook has every reason to keep Delhi happy. This year, the number of users in India hit 32 million—a 85 percent jump from the last. The total is expected to nearly double next year, leap-frogging Indonesia for the title of second largest market. An overwhelming chunk of that growth will come from mobile users. As this solid report from Forbes India shows, the company is still struggling here, as it is in the U.S., to turn those new users into ad revenue:

Indian businesses spent Rs 2,850 crore on digital advertising as of March 2012, a number that’s expected to grow to Rs 4,391 crore next year, according to a report by the Internet Mobile Association of India/Indian Market Research Bureau (IAMAI/IMRB).

…But Facebook has not been able to capture much of this share. Mahesh Murthy reckons that businesses spent about Rs 150 crore on Facebook marketing, but only a third went to Facebook’s own kitties in the form of ad revenues. The rest went to social media marketing firms which handle Facebook accounts.

That’s not to say that the company will discontinue its aggressive efforts. It likely will not be deterred by policies that attack free speech—Zuckerberg’s empire has long been accused of complacency with censorship. It’s India’sinfamously unpredictable tax policies toward foreign entities that would conceivably slow the company’s expansion.

There’s little reason to suspect, then, that Facebook, Google and the western web behemoths will not continue to cooperate with Delhi moving forward. And much of that cooperation should come not as blatant censorship but covert surveillance. According to the Google Transparency Report, India has made over 2,000 data requests and 100 removal requests, third only to the States and Brazil. As the mobile revolution soars, that number will surely rise.

On Monday evening, Christopher Soghoian, a D.C.-based privacy analyst, spoke at the CIS before a crowd of young Indian law students and activists. Despite the shoddy security default of internet firms, he said, they can impose limits on government surveillance. “When these companies receive requests from where they don’t have an office,” he claimed, “they refuse.” Two years ago, Facebook India opened its first office in Hyderabad.

Soghoian advised his audience to push for privacy and transparency standards in India. He shared the story of the long-fought battle for encryption protection with Facebook in the U.S. Yet, he admitted that security provisions can falter when a government is bent on policing the internet—and a company is bent on cooperation. “If you can force companies to hand over the keys,” he said, “then encryption is useless.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/www-forbes-com-mark-bergen-aug-29-2012-facebooks-delicate-dance-with-delhi-on-censorship

Tata Photon unblocks Wordpress.com

praskrishna — 2012-09-03T01:53:47Z

As of yesterday, the Tata Photon service of the Internet service provider (ISP) Tata Teleservices seems to have lifted the block it had put on the Wordpress.com domain for over a week.

The post was published in tech2 on August 30, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted in it.

Tech2 had reported on Saturday that the free platform of Wordpress was put under a blanket ban across India by the ISP following government orders to block around 309 URLs carrying disruptive or inflammatory content. Directives issued by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) to ISPs between August 18 and 21 state that only the URLs mentioned be blocked, not entire domains. Users could neither view Wordpress blogs nor edit or post new content on them, the first instance of which was noticed by us on August 20.

Our repeated efforts to contact Tata Teleservices' officials drew a blank. Numerous users who contacted customer service did not receive any replies or resolution. Through the course of the blockade, the ISP did not even display any message to Wordpress visitors that the domain was blocked, nor did it notify the owners of Wordpress blogs about it. Puzzled users tried resetting their Internet connections, clearing DNS caches, and calling the customer service helpline only to realise that they were experiencing an ISP-level block.

The reactions of Wordpress users ranged from annoyance to distress. Human rights activist and lawyer Kamayani Bali Mahabal commented on Tech2, "Yes, my wordpress blog is blocked and I have 4 blogs...have also written to TATA. I can access through [an] anonymous browser but I cannot log in, edit and do admin functions, I can do about 50 percent work on my blog. Dashboard not accessible[,] barely manage to post, will be suing TATA soon". In a blog post, she has described her experience of the block.

Blogger Shantanu Adhicary who goes by the nom de blog Tantanoo says, "My blogs are self-hosted [on Wordpress] so I was not affected. But it was annoying that I was unable to access, read or comment on other Wordpress blogs, especially in the absence of any message whatsoever that this site has been blocked".

The move by Tata Teleservices is being seen as ham handed; around 25 million Wordpress blogs were made inaccessible to deal with a few rotten eggs. Blogger and social media consultant Prateek Shah opines, "Blanket bans on domains because content on some of their pages is objectionable are akin to jailing a certain section of society just because some people from the community broke the law. Wordpress plays an extremely important role on the Internet and if such a site were to go down even for a few hours, it would mean mayhem for bloggers as well as readers who count on the platform to get the latest updates and information. ISPs need to mature and grow up to the fact that one can't put millions of people in jeopardy when apparently trying to protect the interests of some".

In June, the Madras High Court had granted relief to netizens in India by urging that there be no more John Doe orders. “The order of interim injunction dated 25/04/2012 is hereby clarified that the interim injunction is granted only in respect of a particular URL where the infringing movie is kept and not in respect of the entire website. Further, the applicant is directed to inform about the particulars of URL where the interim movie is kept within 48 hours.”

Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director at Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), agrees the move was wrong but shares insights about the position of the ISPs. He says, "It was obviously wrong. It contravenes the government's orders to not block the base URL but individual pages. Action should be taken against them for causing inconvenience to users. This is not the first time an ISP has gone overboard in implementing censorship, be it copyright issues, piracy or inflammatory content. In 2006, the government had chastised ISPs for over-censoring content and blocking unintended websites and pages. Having said that, ISPs have numerous grouses against the government. They do not possess the technical capabilities to implement the government's orders, at times, whether about surveillance or censorship".

ISPs that are also telecom services providers, find themselves unable to decipher government notifications about shutting off content on the Internet or introducing curbs on mobile communication. Prakash's analysis of the 300-odd URLs blocked by the Indian government reveals glaring mistakes in the government directives "that made blocking pointless and effectual". When asked to opine about what ISPs and telcos should do when the orders from the government were not crystal clear, Prakash said, "They should ask for clarifications from the government. The operators sought clarifications from the Ministry of Telecommunications about the recent orders to ban bulk text messages and MMSes. The ministry was unable to resolve them, and in turn, sought further clarifications from the Home Ministry. The government should coordinate better".

Tata Teleservices was not the only ISP guilty of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Sify too reportedly imposed a blanket block on the Wordpress domain. Airtel went overboard by temporarily blocking Youtu.be URLs last week citing orders by the court or the DoT.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/tech-2-in-com-aug-30-2012-tata-photon-unblocks-wordpress