Centre for Internet and Society

Role of the US Tech Companies in Government Surveillance: A Lecture by Christopher Soghoian

praskrishna — 2012-08-26T11:03:19Z

Christopher Soghoian will deliver a lecture on the role US tech companies play in assisting government surveillance at the Centre for Internet & Society office in Bangalore on August 27, 2012, from 5.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m.

Your internet, phone and web application providers are all, for the most part, in bed with US and other foreign government agencies. They all routinely disclose their customers' communications and other private data to law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Worse, firms like Google and Microsoft specifically log data in order to assist the government. How many government requests does your ISP get for its customers' communications each year? How many do they comply with? How many do they fight? How much do they charge for the surveillance assistance they provide? Who knows? Most companies have a strict policy of not discussing such topics.

The differences in the privacy practices of the major players in the telecommunications and internet applications market are significant. Some firms retain identifying data for years, while others retain no data at all; some voluntarily provide the government access to user data, while other companies refuse to voluntarily disclose data without a court order; some companies charge government agencies when they request user data, while others disclose it for free. For an individual, later investigated by the police or intelligence services, the data retention practices adopted by their phone company or email provider can significantly impact their freedom.

Unfortunately, although many companies claim to care about end-user privacy, and some even that they compete on their privacy features, none seem to be willing to compete on the extent to which they assist or resist the government in its surveillance activities. Because information about each firms' practices is not publicly known, consumers cannot vote with their wallets, and pick service providers that best protect their privacy.

This talk will pierce the veil of secrecy surrounding these practices. Based upon a combination of Freedom of Information Act requests, off the record conversations with industry lawyers, and investigative journalism, the practices of many of these firms will be revealed.

Christopher's Personal Experience

In the year 2006, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) raided Christopher’s home at 2.00 a.m. seizing his personal documents and computers. Two attorneys, Stephen Braga and Jennifer Granick came to his defence. With their expert assistance, Christopher was able to get back his possessions within three weeks, and FBI’s criminal and TSA’s civil investigations were closed without any charges being filed.

Jennifer Granick came to Christopher’s assistance once again (joined by Steve Leckar) in 2010 after the Federal Trade Commission’s Inspector General investigated Christopher for using his government badge to attend a closed-door surveillance industry conference. It was at that event that Christopher recorded an executive from wireless carrier ‘Sprint’ bragging about the eight million times his company had obtained GPS data on its customers for law enforcement agencies in the previous years.

To know more, read Christopher Soghoian’s dissertation titled "The Spies We Trust: Third Party Service Providers and Law Enforcement Surveillance". [PDF, 1056 Kb]

About Christopher Soghoian

Christopher Soghoian is a privacy researcher and activist, working at the intersection of technology, law and policy. He is a Principal Technologist and Senior Policy Analyst at the American Civil Liberties Union and is based in Washington, D.C.

Soghoian completed his Ph.D. at Indiana University in 2012, which focused on the role that third party service providers play in facilitating law enforcement surveillance of their customers. In order to gather data, he has made extensive use of the Freedom of Information Act, sued the Department of Justice pro se, and used several other investigative research methods. His research has appeared in publications including the Berkeley Technology Law Journal and been cited by several federal courts, including the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Between the years, 2009-2010, he was the first ever in-house technologist at the Federal Trade Commission's Division of Privacy and Identity Protection, where he worked on investigations of Facebook, Twitter, MySpace and Netflix. Prior to joining the FTC, he co-created the Do Not Track privacy anti-tracking mechanism now adopted by all of the major web browsers.

He is a TEDGlobal 2012 Fellow, was an Open Society Foundations Fellow between the years, 2011-2012, and was a Student Fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society, Harvard University between 2008 and 2009.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/role-of-us-tech-companies-in-govt-surveillance

The Spies We Trust: Third Party Service Providers and Law Enforcement Surveillance

praskrishna — 2012-07-31T04:47:48Z

Christopher Soghoian's dissertation was submitted to the faculty of the Graduate School in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree "Doctor of Philosophy" in the School of Informatics, Department of Computer Science, Indiana University

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/spies-we-trust

Citizen Activism the Past Decade

Nilofar Ansher — 2015-04-24T11:52:44Z

Call for Contributions to the ‘Digital Natives with a Cause?’ newsletter, ‘Citizen Activism the Past Decade’. Deadline: August 15, 2012.

The past decade (2001 – 2011) has been marked by unprecedented democratic protests across the globe. Not only have citizens risen against autocratic regimes or systemic corruption, which is not unprecedented in itself, but also, a spark in one region inflamed solidarity among neighbouring nations to pick up the placards and march for change. Plenty has been written about the strategic deployment of social media, Web 2.0 platforms and Smart-gadgets by the digital natives (the youth and the old alike) to rewrite the rules of citizen activism.

In this issue of the newsletter, we explore the mechanics of activism aided by media: web, social, digital, and traditional. What do we understand by a cause and how does it find resonance at the local and global platforms? Is the digital native a community player or a global citizen? How do digital natives connect, collaborate, mobilize and bring about their visions of change? The aim is to not establish or reinforce these dichotomies, if indeed they exist, but to understand the dimensions of the stage the digital natives operate on and if that stage is a synecdoche for global youth-led civic action. A case in point: ‘Slut Walk’ moved from being a one-off march in Toronto to becoming a global movement and came full circle when small towns and cities across the world organized protest marches with a local ‘twist’.

Topics that contributors can explore:

What do we understand by citizen activism? How has citizen activism changed over the last 10 years with the advent of new media tools?
Youth as 'change agents'. Are protest movements youth oriented today? How are civil rights movements of the past decade different from the wave of movements that marked the 60s? (women's lib, LGBT rights, civil rights, disability rights). Explore the mechanics of organizing, mobilizing and measuring the success of a campaign in both the cases.
Participatory Politics and Web 2.0 | Value and power of the Network in effecting change | Mobilizing support and consensus within the network |studies on politically active youth using social media | digital natives as apathetic citizens | Is Slacktivism still a misunderstood term?
Kony 2012 video campaign | interviews | what went wrong and what did they do right? | Rise of DIY activism | mechanics of digital activism | resources, tools and strategies
Rise of the ‘Glocal’ (global with local resonance) cause | Slut Walk and Co – global protests inspiring local campaigns | Children of globalization with global stakes supporting local causes – how does this work?
Role of new media as a vehicle for civic engagement | Are new media and traditional media mutually exclusive in influencing citizen action? | How are new media strategies deployed by citizens in comparison with traditional media engagement?
Learning from past campaigns: citizen activism initiates and strategies in history that inspire modern campaigns (The ‘Walk to Work’ protest in Uganda protesting against fuel price hike and removal of subsidies is similar to Mahatma Gandhi’s Dandi March in pre-independence India to protest against Salt Tax).
Finding commonalities in citizen activism across Asia, Africa and Middle East | Explore the citizen action campaigns that have shaped political discourse in the past decade | Explore some of the most successful youth action campaigns of the past decade
How do we measure value, quality and success of campaigns? When does a protest officially end? Studies that explore the life-cycle of a protest or movement
The future of activism: new technologies, new demography, new forms of engagement | art and activism | Gamification
Role of non-governmental organizations and civil society networks in fostering political change | collaboration between NGOs and social media activists / independent protesters
State and the empowered citizen | State response to protest | surveillance and censorship
Technologies of protest
Studying citizen activism | digital native research methodology to study citizen activism

To know more about the topics you can write about, please write to: nilofar.ansh@gmail.com (Nilofar Ansher, Community Manager). Contributions can be in the form of essays, notes, commentaries, reviews (book or paper), dialogues and chat transcript, poems, sketches / graphics. Essay word count between 800-1,600 words. Send your entries along with a brief bio and a profile picture by August 15, 2012.

View previous issues of the 'Digital Natives with a Cause?' newsletter here: http://cis-india.org/digital-natives/newsletter

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/digital-natives/citizen-activism-the-past-decade

Open letter to Hillary Clinton on Internet Freedom

sunil — 2012-09-04T08:28:02Z

Last month I wrote an open letter to Hillary Clinton. It was based on a presentation I that I made during a panel discussion at a Google sponsored conference titled Internet at Liberty 2012 in Washington DC on May 24, 2012.

Sunil Abraham's article was published in Thinking Aloud on July 17, 2012

The question that my panel tried to grapple with was "In a world where nearly nine out of ten Internet users are not American, what is the responsibility of United States institutions in promoting internet freedom?" My co-panelists were Cynthia Wong who is with the Centre for Democracy and Technology, Mohamed El Dahshan a writer and journalist, Dunja Mijatovic the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media.

Internet freedom is a curious subject. It is a technology specific liberty - for a moment consider television freedom. The US has more Muslims than India has Christians. But Indian television in the average hotel comes in hundreds and there are at least 3 channels of Christian preaching. But US television in hotels is usually less than 50 channels with no channels of Islamic preaching. In fact even the reception of secular channels from the Islamic World like Al Jazeera is still difficult in America. Can we accuse the US of not having television freedom since their television features Christian evangelists but not Muslim evangelists? Should it be part of India's foreign policy to evangelize television freedom given that there is a large domestic industry with clear international potential?

In an ideal world - citizens will possess technology-neutral freedom to communication and expression. But nothing can be farther from the truth. Communication technologies are regulated using a plethora of policies and practices and very often these have a chilling effect on freedoms.

The following is my response to the technology-specific demands for deregulation from the US Government.

Text of the Open Letter[2]

Recognise Access to Knowledge (A2K) as pre-condition for freedom of expression: There is no difference between aggressive enforcement of imbalanced and obsolete intellectual property laws and censorship. The need of the moment is not more enforcement to protect obsolete business models against the everyday practices of ordinary netizens but rather the reform of intellectual property law (levies, broader exceptions and limitations, pools, statutory and compulsory licenses, prizes etc.) to keep pace with innovations in technology and the production of knowledge and culture.

Recognise privacy as pre-condition for security: The alleged tension between privacy and security is a false dichotomy. Blanket surveillance by design compromises security. Surveillance is like salt in cooking — essential in very small quantities but dangerous even if slightly in excess. Blanket surveillance technologies are only going make things easier for — and will only serve as targets for — current and future online villains.

Don't lose the moral high-ground: Remember, with great power comes great responsibility. Other countries are waiting to cherry pick from your worst practices. Also don't use trade agreements to selectively export components of US policy without the accompanying safeguards for civil liberties and rights. Citizens in oppressive and authoritarian states are depending on the US government, courts and civil society to protect their rights online. Don't undermine their capacity to shame their governments by holding up the US as the example of 'how to get things right'. They urgently need the US government to lead by example.

Recognise that freedom of expression has become a trade issue: This is unfortunate but this is true — thanks to the precedent set by the developed world when it came to asymmetric trade negotiations. Just as the US is interested in protecting the interests of its corporations in global markets — other governments are keen protect the interests of their own corporations. The optimal solution in this case is where all countries and corporations are equally unsatisfied. This will remain a continuing discussion.

Address developing country anxieties around critical internet infrastructure: Security by obscurity will no longer do — security by transparency through open standards, technologies and governance is the only way to fears and build a trust-worthy and secure Internet for all of us. For example, there is urgent need to develop standards for supply chain audits of information infrastructure. The US has dealt with the fear of back doors by banning the use of hardware and software from countries it does not trust. The developing world is not sure if there are back-doors in hardware and software manufactured by US corporations.

Time has comes to address this and other related anxieties.

Appreciate diversity in nomenclature: 'Freedom' and 'liberty' may be appropriate terms to use in the United States of America. But openness may be more in countries that are not yet full and robust liberal democracies. The Internet Governance Forum for example uses 'openness' instead of 'freedom'. Openness is also preferred because it includes 'freedom of expression', 'freedom of information' (also known as right to information, access to information or public and 'free knowledge' (free software, open standards, open content, open access, open data, open educational resources, etc.)

Don't be too instrumental in your interventions: Don't undermine the local credibility of like-minded civil society, think-tanks and research organisations by being too directive in your support. Managerialism will undermine reform of policies and practices in information societies and so does inappropriate/premature monitoring and evaluation (for example, looking for explicit attribution in terms of casual connections between your actions and outcomes). There is a need to support greater reflexivity in the global information society by developing institutional capacity in developing countries through unrestricted funding. True critical thinking is the foundation of both scientific progress and open societies. Go out of your way to find and support those who disagree with you. Protect the plural foundation of our networked society!

Video

Sunil Abraham was a speaker along with Cynthia Wong, Mohamed El Dahshan and Dunja Mijatovic in Plenary IV Debate 3 at the Internet at Liberty 2012 event organised by Google on May 24, 2012.

View the video on YouTube

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/open-letter-to-hillary-clinton

Constitutional Analysis of the Information Technology (Intermediaries' Guidelines) Rules, 2011

ujwala — 2012-10-31T08:44:41Z

Ujwala Uppaluri provides a constitutional analysis of the Information Technology (Intermediaries' Guidelines) Rules notified in April 2011, and examines its compatibility with Articles 14, 19, 21 of the Constitution of India.

Summary of Salient Provisions

The Information Technology (Intermediaries’ Guidelines) Rules, 2011 (‘the Intermediary Guidelines’) were notified in April, 2011 as rules enacted in exercise of powers conferred under section 87(2)(zg) read with Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (as amended) (‘the IT Act’).

Rule 2 of the Intermediary Guidelines imports definitions for key terms from the IT Act. Notably, this includes an importation of Section 2 (w) by Rule 2 (i), which defines “intermediary” broadly in the following terms:

“ “intermediary”, with respect to any particular electronic records, means any person who on behalf of another person receives, stores or transmits that record or provides any service with respect to that record and includes telecom service providers, network service providers, internet service providers, web-hosting service providers, search engines, online payment sites, online-auction sites, online-market places and cyber cafes;”

Rule 3 whose margin note indicates that it is limited to due diligence measures to be adhered to by intermediaries nevertheless also raises other liabilities by creating a regime to censor content, pre-publication as well as once content has been made publically available online.

Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 inventories the classes of content which are deemed actionable, with only clause (i), clause (c), clause (e) and, arguably clause (h), of that rule addressing the national interest, public order and security restrictions cognizable under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The remainder of grounds includes private claims such as content which “belongs to another person”[1], or otherwise infringes proprietary rights[2], or is “defamatory”[3]. Still others are terminologically indeterminate and purely subjective, with the terms “grossly harmful”, “harassing” and “disparaging” being examples.

This sub-rule also includes a number of redundancies. While there is reference to libelous as well as defamatory content in clause (b), it is well established that Indian law does not admit of the former concept, instead dissolving the common law distinction between the two to treat them alike.[4] There is also clause (e), which prohibits content which is all ready illegal for violating the provisions of an existing statute and the residuary phrasing of the clause (b)’s reference to content which is “otherwise unlawful in any manner whatever”.

The sub-rules immediately following the list in Rule 3(2) address the consequences of users publishing content listed in that rule:

Sub-rule (3) of rule 3 provides that intermediaries will not knowingly deal in any manner whatsoever, whether by hosting, publication, transmission or otherwise, with any content of the types that are listed in the previous clause.

Sub-rule (4) of rule 3 creates a complaints mechanism in respect of content incompatible with Rule 3 (2) by requiring intermediaries to disable access to offending content within 36 hours of obtaining knowledge themselves or on being brought to “actual knowledge” by an “affected person”. The Intermediaries Guidelines do nothing to clarify what would amount to “actual knowledge”, to indicate in unambiguous terms, which parties would have sufficient locus to bring complaints in order to be deemed an “affected person” for the purposes of these provisions or to suggest that there is a procedure or timeline for action by the intermediary, such that requirements such notice to the author of the content and time for the preparation of a defence by the author and/or the intermediary are accounted for. Rule 3 (4) also requires that all information which is taken down be preserved, along with “associated records” for a duration of atleast ninety days for investigative purposes.

Sub-rule (5) of rule 3 mandates that intermediaries inform users that non-compliance with the Intermediary Guidelines, inter alia, is a ground for the exercise of their right to terminate access or usage rights and remove non-compliant content.

Finally, sub-rule (11) of rule 3 requires intermediaries to name Grievance Officers to receive complaints on any matters relating to the computer resources made available by the intermediary, including for non-compliance or harm in terms of Rule 3 (2). This officer is bound to respond to the complaint within one month from the date of receipt of the complaint.

In the result, the Intermediary Guidelines create a two-track system by which private censorship is legitimized online. In the first place, intermediaries can take down content on their own motion where they are of the opinion that the content falls under any of the grounds enumerated in Rule 3 (2) or, alternatively, do so in response to a complaint, in terms of Rule 3 (4).

In addition to the provisions relating to censorship, the Intermediary Guidelines also provide for information to be given over to government agencies making a request with lawful authority and in writing under sub-rule (7) of rule 3, for data protection measures in accordance with the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Information) Rules, 2011 notified under Section 43A of the IT Act to be adhered to (sub-rule (8) of rule 3) and for intermediaries to report and share information realting to cyber security with CERT-In (sub-rule (9) of rule 3).

Areas of Infirmity

It is doubtful whether the Intermediary Guidelines could pass constitutional muster, on several grounds:

Compatibility with Article 19 (1) (a) and (2)

(a) Applicability of Article 19 (2) to Rule 3 (2) Grounds

In Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras[5] the Supreme Court held that the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) includes the freedom to propogate and disseminate ideas. It also held that very narrow and stringent limits govern the permissibility of legislative abridgment of the right of free speech. Ordinarily, any abridgement of free speech by means of censorship must be compatible with one or more of the grounds provided for under Article 19 (2), and the Supreme Court held in Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd. v. Union of India[6]that limitations on the exercise of the Article 19(1)(a) right which do not fall within Article 19(2) cannot be upheld.

Further, the right to free speech applies across all media, and the internet is no exception. In Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal[7], the Supreme Court reflected the understanding that where media are different, such that the treatment accorded to them must be different in accordance with that indicia of difference, it will treat them as such in order to uphold fundamental rights. More specifically, in Ajay Goswami v. Union of India[8], the Supreme Court opined (in obiter) that the internet, as a unique medium of expression, deserved a different standard of protection than other mediums that have preceded it.

Rule 3 (2) of the Intermediary Guidelines, which lists the grounds for censorship, is not complaint with Article 19 (2) for two reasons:

First, many of the grounds mentioned have no constitutional basis whatsoever. Rule 3 (2) prohibits, inter alia, content which “grossly harmful”, “harassing”, “invasive of another’s privacy”, “hateful”, “disparaging”, “grossly offensive” or “menacing”, in addition to content which is simply illegal, and should be actionable ex post rather than prohibited ex ante (content infringing intellectual property under Rule 3 (2) (d), for example). Most of the terms employed are not legal standards, but merely subjective indicators of personal sensitivities, while still others though legal do not figure in Article 19 (2). Since the whole scheme of the Intermediary Guidelines is premised on these extra-constitutional grounds, they are, as a whole, subject to being to being struck down.

Second, the restriction is unreasonable because instead of preserving rights online in accordance with Ajay Goswami, the Intermediary Guidelines unjustifiably abridge the right to speak and receive information on the internet. The Intermediary Guidelines overreach in their scope, by including as actionable content which is not itself punishable when communicated via any other medium. For example, disparaging speech, as long as it is not defamatory, is not criminalised in India, and cannot be because the Constitution does not allow for it. Similarly, content about gambling in print is not unlawful, but now all Internet intermediaries are required to remove any content that promotes gambling.

(b) Nature of Censorship: Directness of Censorship and Legitimacy of Private and Prior Censorship

In judging whether a statute is constitutional, the effect that the statute will have on the fundamental rights of citizens must be examined. The Supreme Court held in Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India[9] that the test was to examine whether the effect of an impugned action was to abridge a fundamental right, notwithstanding its object.

Further, while it is true in light of the Supreme Court’s holdings in Prakash Jha Productions v. Union of India[10] that pre-censorship is permissible within the Indian constitutional scheme, this permissibility is qualified. Prior censorship may be undertaken only within closely regulated circumstances, such as under the grounds in the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and even then, only by an appropriately empowered governmental entity.

The Intermediary Guidelines create mechanisms for the abridgement of the freedom of speech which amount to indirect and unjustifiable prior censorship, contrary to Article 19 (2):

Firstly, while the state does not itself censor under these rules, it has empowered private, commercial entities to do so vide the Intermediary Guidelines. These rules thus transfer the executive power of censorship to private intermediaries. This amounts to an indirect form of censorship for the purposes of the Bennett Coleman test and has the result of increased censorship on the Internet because the state granted legislative sanction to such a system, although it does not censor by itself or through a state agency. The Intermediary Guidelines, and specifically Rule 3 (4) read with Rule 3 (2), place a burden on intermediaries to decide on the lawfulness of content as a pre-condition for their statutory exemption from liability. An intermediary, on receiving a complaint, to ensure that it continues to receive the protection offered by Section 79 of the IT Act, will be forced to disable access to the content posted by a user. Thus, the direct effect of the rules will be strict censoring of content posted on-line by users. The rules will have a direct effect on the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1) of the Constitution unreasonable restrictions on fundamental rights, that are imposed by a statute or executive orders are liable to be struck down as unconstitutional.

Secondly, while prior censorship is permissible only in a strictly limited range of cases, the Intermediary Guidelines allow for an unrestrained and unlimited degree of prior and arguably invisible censorship. Rule 3 of the Intermediary Guidelines clearly envisages such a system of prior censorship. Whereas the consequences for passively displaying content incompatible with Rule 3(2) would be a complete waiver and dissolution of the Section 79 immunity that would ordinary accrue to neutral intermediaries, intermediaries or complainants have no obligation in respect of ensuring the tenability of complaints and the grounds cited in them. The Intermediary Guidelines do not draw a distinction between arbitrary actions of an intermediary and take-downs subsequent to a request. Further, the inclusion of a residuary clause in Rule 3 (2) (b) allowing pre-censorship of content which is “unlawful in any manner whatever”, also indicates that the Intermediary Guidelines allow the use of the exceptional instrument of not only allows private censorship, but that they actively encourage it as the default rule rather than the exception without any justification whatsoever.

(c) Vagueness and Overbreadth: Possibility for Over-Censorship

Vagueness in the terms of a restriction to free speech is grounds for it to be struck down, even where the ground is apparently broadly constitutional. The Supreme Court held in Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India[11] that the Constitution must be interpreted in order to enable citizens to enjoy their rights to fullest measure, subject to limited permissible restrictions. In Romesh Thapar[12] the Supreme Court also held that a legislation authorizing the imposition of restrictions on free speech in language wide enough to cover restrictions which are permissible as well as extra-constitutional will be held to be wholly unconstitutional.

The grounds listed in Rule 3 (2) of the Intermediary Guidelines are highly subjective, private interest grounds which are not defined either in the Intermediary Guidelines or in the IT Act itself. These include terms such as “grossly harmful”, “harassing”, “invasive of another’s privacy”, “hateful”, “disparaging”, “grossly offensive” or “menacing”. Consequently, the Intermediary Guidelines constitute unreasonable restrictions on freedom of speech, with Rule 3 (2) containing vague terms which, in addition to falling beyond the purview of Article 19(2), cover only private and subjective grounds, incapable of objective definition or application.

Further, the Intermediary Guidelines do no precisely define the term “affected person” employed in Rule 3 (4). Thus, complaints from any party, including those uninvolved or unaffected by content must all be complied with, without qualification.

In the result, the vagueness of the grounds in Rule 3 (2) and the diffuse terminology of “affected person” leaves Rule 3 (2) grounds serving as placeholders for whatever claim a complainant, having no locus whatsoever, chooses to bring, without regard for whether it is constitutional or even legal. Online content is thus treated as presumptively illegal and take down of content as the presumptive course of action. Additionally, there is a further consequence to the vagueness and overbreadth of the terms in Rule 3 (2): because of the indeterminacy in the grounds listed thereunder, intermediaries tasked with enforcing the law will tend to err on the side of caution and censor, rather than keep speech accessible online. There is empirical evidence to show that cautious intermediaries will over-censor and over comply with complaints in order to avoid liability under Section 79 of the IT Act.[13]

(d) Contravention of International Human Rights Norms & Horizontal Application

The censorship regime constructed by the Intermediary Guidelines is non-compliant not only with domestic requirements under the Constitution, but also with India’s obligations under international human rights law under Articles 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (‘UDHR’) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (‘ICCPR’), under the UN Human Rights Council’s Report of the Special Rapporteur Frank La Rue on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression (2011)[14](‘Special Rapporteur’s Report’) and the UN Human Rights Council Resolution on Internet Freedom (2012)[15] (‘UN Internet Freedom Resolution’).

While the ICCPR as well as the UDHR guarantee a right to free speech “through any…media of…choice” in their respective Articles 19, the Special Rapporteur’s Report and the UN Internet Freedom Resolution recognize the need for special efforts to be undertaken by states to preserve free speech on the internet. The former document justifies censorship only in the most limited circumstances and makes specific mention of the commercial interests that may be implicated in delivering free speech.

Through the Intermediary Guidelines, the Indian state creates a system by which the right to free speech can be systematically violated by private and undisclosed entities and even empowers them to do so, without imposing any constitutional safeguards whatsoever. Thus, egregious violations of the right to free speech and expression are a direct and inevitable consequence of the Intermediary Guidelines. To the degree that the Indian Supreme Court has enagaged with free speech online, it appears from Ajay Goswami that it would apply standards consistent with international law obligations to rectify the Intermediary Guidelines to meet them.

Further, the Indian Supreme Court has held, where necessary for their true enjoyement, that fundamental rights may involve a degree of horizontality in their application. In other words, private action could be guided by fundamental rights, such as in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan[16] which evidences the Supreme Court’s willingness to hold that private entities could be held to constitutional and international human rights law standards where that is necessary for the real rather than illusory enjoyment of fundamental rights.

As a result, the Intermediary Guidelines are also liable to be struck down for their failure to recognize and account for the role of private interests while empowering them with the right to curtail fundamental rights.

Compatibility with Article 21

(a) Adverse Impact on Privacy (and consequently on Free Speech)

A constitutional right to privacy has been read into Article 21’s guarantee of life and personal liberty in several instances by the Supreme Court. The State is consequently under an obligation to refrain from interfering, whether by itself or through any of its agencies, with private lives and spaces. By the same coin, laws which encourage unwarranted state or societal intrusions into private life will contravene the victim’s Article 21 right. In People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India,[17] the Supreme Court held that Article 21 privacy protected individuals against the interception and monitoring of private communications by the state in the absence of sufficient safeguards.

Also, an individual’s privacy interests in information relating to him are not dissolved merely because information is not confidential or because another entity has some property interest in that information. In District Registrar and Collector, Hyderabad v. Canara Bank[18], the Supreme Court recognized that even where the search of private documents was concerned, Article 21 protected “persons not places”, i.e., that the privacy interest did not vest in property or communications but, rather, in the rightsholder himself.

The Intermediary Guidelines include no limits whatsoever on the scope of disclosures that government agencies can demand or expect to retain, in contravention of Article 21.

Specifically, Rule 3 (4), which requires data retention for a statutory minimum of ninety days of content taken down as well as “associated records”, violates users’ rights to privacy. In addition to the financial and technical burden (in storing and securing data) imposed by the Intermediary Guidelines in requiring potentially unlimited data retention by intermediaries, there is no clarity as to what or how much information precisely must be held in the form of “associated records”. Instead of subjecting data to limited and closely qualified retention by private intermediaries, and thus limiting the impairment of the fundamental right to privacy to the minimum possible degree necessary, Rule 3 (4) imposes blanket data retention requirements.

Further, Rule 3 (7), which makes any information held by an intermediary subject to being disclosed to the government upon request is also inconsistent with the requirement that the right to life and personal liberty be violated only in accordance with fair, just and reasonable procedures. Notwithstanding that Rule 3 (7) is consistent with Section 67C of the IT Act and specific rules framed in regard to the surveillance of communications, it is also unconstitutional because it fails to include any safeguards whatsoever in the process of surveillance. These would include, as minimum obligatory conditions in light of PUCL, the requirement that the surveilled be informed of the surveillance and be allowed to challenge its propriety ex ante or its procedural regularity ex post, or atleast administrative or judicial review ex parte.

(b) Non-compliance with Due Process and Natural Justice Requirements

Article 21 explicitly includes a due process guarantee. This means that the right to life and personal liberty, and its constituent rights, can be interfered with only through constitutionally consistent procedures. A cornerstone of fair procedure, compliant with the rule of law, is the notion of natural justice. Consequently, Article 21 contemplates that the procedure by which fundamental rights are curtailed will satisfy natural justice principles.

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India,[19] the Supreme Court held that natural justice was not a rigid or mechanical term, but one that referred to those practices and principles that would ensure “fair play in action”. In addition the Court held that all deviations from natural justice requirements must be supported by a sufficiently justificatory “compelling state interest”. Specifically, in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel[20], the Supreme Court held that the principle of natural justice required the satisfaction of the audi alteram partem rule, which consisted of several requirements, including the requirement that a person against whose detriment an action is taken be informed of the case against him and be afforded a full and fair opportunity to respond. Finally, in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India[21] the Supreme Court held that the absence of due notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond would vitiate any holding to the rightsholder’s detriment.

The Intermediary Guidelines fail to satisfy the requirement of natural justice, and particularly the rights to prior notice as well as that of the affected party to a hearing:

By requiring that content be taken down swiftly (within 36 hours of complaint, under Rule 3 (4)) and by failing to require the author of the content to be informed of the complaint and its contents, the Intermediary Guidelines violate the author’s right to notice and consequently affect his/her right to prepare and present a defence at all. In practice, authors of content which is the subject of a complaint may never know of the complaint or even of the fact of the take down, given the absence of any mechanism under the rules by which they could have been informed. In a scheme for silent, invisible censorship, authors are never afforded an opportunity to challenge the take down, just as they have no opportunity to rebut the initial complaint. In addition, at any event, it is the intermediary, a biased private entity whose immunity under Section 79 of the IT Act could be called into question based on the outcome, who must make the determination as to the legality of the content.

While there is nothing to prohibit intermediaries from informing authors on the receipt of a complaint, the limited time within which action must be taken means that such intermediaries would risk liability for non-compliance with the compliant and a waiver of their Section 79 immunity, where the content is not taken down, whether because communication does not occur within the 36 hour timeframe or because an author elects to resist takedown. By creating a system in which takedowns necessarily occur in response to complaints, irrespective of their legitimacy, the Intermediary Guidelines presume and rule in favour of the complainants and in favour of (private) censorship instead of presuming in favour of the preservation of the fundamental right to free speech, or even maintaining neutrality between the two ends.

Compatibility with Article 14

The guarantee of “equal protection of laws” requires equality of treatment of persons who are similarly situated, without discrimination inter se. It is a corollary that that persons differently situated cannot be treated alike. In E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu[22] the Supreme Court held that arbitrary or unfair actions necessarily run counter to Article 14. The Supreme Court explained in M/S Sharma Transport v. Government of Andhra Pradesh[23] that arbitrary actions are actions which are unreasonable, non-rational done capriciously or without adequate determining principle, reason or in accordance with due judgment. In addition, Article 14 also requires that state action be reasonable. In Mahesh Chandra v. Regional Manager, U.P. Financial Corporation[24] it was held that discretion must be exercised objectively, and that what is not fair or just will be unreasonable, and subject to being struck down as unconstitutional.Additionally, Article 14 also requires that the basis upon which classifications are undertaken for the purposes of same or differential treatment be reasoned and fair. The Supreme Court held in Sube Singh v. State of Haryana[25] that the state’s failure to support a classification on the touchstone of reasonability, with the existence of intelligible differentia or the rational basis of achieving a stated object, will be ground for it to be held arbitrary and unreasonable. Finally, all state action having the potential to curtail Article 14 must be reasonable, justifiable, undertaken in exercise of constitutional powers and be informed and guided by public interest. The Supreme Court held to this effect in Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kashmir[26].

The Intermediary Guidelines contravene Article 14 on the following grounds:

First, intermediaries who are not similarly situated are treated alike. Rule 2 (i) imports the IT Act’s omnibus definition of the term “intermediary”, such that all classes of intermediaries, ranging from intermediaries which control the architecture of the internet and the hardware which enables it to run (such as ISPs and DNS providers) to intermediaries that enable content creation, sharing and communications online (such as email clients, content aggregators, social networking services and content hosts), are empowered to censor and are required to comply with complaints regarding content. Intermediaries, for the purposes of the IT Act and the Intermediary Guidelines, thus refer to a large and disparate group of providers of services enabling access to as well as use of the Internet. Reasoned state action must recognize that their liabilities must necessarily vary with the specific type of service that each provides. The Intermediary Guidelines fail to do so, and are consequently incompatible with Article 14.

Second, the Intermediary Guidelines treat the same or similar content across media differently, without apparent justification. More specifically, users of the internet are unfairly discriminated against. All of the Rule 3 (2) grounds which are not explicitly mentioned in Article 19 (2) in particular reflect this discriminatory, unreasoned treatment. To illustrate, the prohibition under Rule 3 (2) on the display of any content online when it relates to gambling treats speakers using the internet differently from speakers communicating this content via any other medium of communication. Given that nothing in the nature of the medium itself attaches a new or different character to the content, criminality or liability must attach to such content in a medium-neutral fashion. So, while content qualifying as seditious under law remains so across media, whether it be print, audio or video broadcast or online, the same as not the case for communications on the internet. In other words, while gambling itself may be prohibited under law, speech or expression involving it is nowhere prohibited under law. While such content is legal and protected across print and broadcasting media, the same content is liable to take down online. This would amount to discriminatory treatment of equal content merely because speakers choose the internet, and the speech occurred online.

Third, the Intermediary Guidelines accord unrestrained discretion in the curtailment of fundamental rights to private functionaries, without any guidance whatsoever. This should have been the sole reserve of the state. In addition to the lack of guidance, the breadth of the grounds for censorship in Rule 3 (2), some of which are themselves incapable of precise and non-subjective application, means that private censorship can occur to an arguably unlimited degree. Expecting compliance with such terms, and attaching liability (for intermediaries) or a curtailment of fundamental rights (for generators of content), without the provision of a right to challenge or even, more fundamentally, be informed is both unreasonable and arbitrary.

Similarly, Rules 3 (4) and 3 (5) empower intermediaries to take down content without providing any realistic opportunity of hearing to its author. Intermediaries are accorded an adjudicatory role to the intermediary in deciding questions whether or not authors can access their fundamental right to free speech in the process. This role is ordinarily reserved for competent courts or administrative authorities, which are subject to constitutional checks and balances and a general obligation to preserve and promote fundamental rights. Assigning such functions to a self-interested private entity without any accountability whatsoever is both unreasonable as well as arbitrary.

Finally, the Intermediary Guidelines fail to account for the public interest because they directly restrict the public’s freedom of speech and expression, without any justifiable reason, and privilege the personal and not necessarily constitutional sensitivities of private complainants instead. Rule 3(3) in effect vests an extraordinary power of censorship in intermediaries, entities which operate on the basis of private interest and outside the limits of administrative or even the most basic human rights control. Safeguards must apply to power-bearers to the degree and in the manner required in relation to the nature of the power, rather than its holder, if fundamental rights are to be legislatively preserved. While the Supreme Court in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India[27] extended the applicability of natural justice principles from judicial bodies alone and quasi-judicial bodies to administrative bodies as well, the applicability of such principles still remains limited to state entities. In other words, there is an acknowledged difficulty in applying public law standards to private, commercial entities.

The Intermediary Guidelines thus vest the right to abridge core fundamental rights (under Articles 14, 19 and 21) in private delegates operating outside public law controls that constrain the scope in which the power can be exercised and ensure that citizen interest can be preserved. In the alternative, they also failed to provide for other safeguards to prevent abuse to the detriment of fundamental rights private delegates of governmental power, even as they granted such powers in unlimited terms. As a result, the Intermediary Guidelines evidence thoughtless, arbitrary, unreasoned and unjust state action.

Vires vis á vis the Parent Act

While it is permissible within the constitutional scheme for legislative functions of the Parliament to be delegated to a degree, they may be struck down on several grounds. In general, per Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India,[28] subordinate legislation can be challenged not only on any of grounds on which the parent legislation is vulnerable to challenge, but also on the grounds that it does not conform to parent statute, that it is contrary to other statutes or that it is unreasonable, in the sense that it is manifestly arbitrary. Notably, the Court also held here that subordinate legislation is liable to being struck down where it fails to conform to constitutional requirements, or, specifically that “it offends Article 14 or Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution”.

It is a well-accepted proposition that delegated legislation which travels outside the scope of its enabling law will not stand as valid. It was held in Agricultural Market Committee v. Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd [29] that a delegate cannot alter the scope of the act under which it has been it has been empowered to make rules, or even of a provision or principle included there under. In State of Karnataka v. Ganesh Kamath[30] the Supreme Court held that “it is a well settled principle of interpretation of statutes that the conferment of rule-making power by an Act does not enable the rule-making authority to make a rule which travels beyond the scope of the enabling Act or which is inconsistent there with or repugnant thereto”. Similarly, in KSEB v. Indian Aluminium Company[31], it held that“subordinate legislation cannot be said to be valid unless it is within the scope of the rule making power provided in the statute”.

The Intermediary Guidelines were enacted under Sections 79(2) and 87(2)(zg) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (as amended). While the latter provision explicitly grants the Central Government rule-making powers by which it can lay out guidelines to be followed by intermediaries in order to comply with Section 79(2), it appears that the rules in their current form appear to have been drafted based on a misunderstanding of Section 79.

Section 79(2) itself merely clarifies the circumstances in which intermediaries can claim that intermediaries are not liable for content where they do not initiate the transmission of potentially actionable content or select its recipient, modify its contents and observe all necessary “due diligence” requirements under the IT Act and rules.

The extent to which the Intermediary Guidelines alter the intent and scope of section 79 (or other provisions of the IT Act, in some cases) clearly leaves them ultra vires the parent statute. The specific instances of deviation by the Intermediary Guidelines from the IT Act are listed below:

First, Rule 3 (3) is ultra vires section 79 of the IT Act. Where this rule expressly prohibits the hosting, publication or initiation of transmission of content described in Rule 3 (2), section 79 does not intend any prohibition. All that it does is to waive the immunity otherwise accorded to intermediaries where the conditions specified are not satisfied. In other words, the section is optional, rather than mandatory and punitive: whether or not an intermediary can claim immunity will depend on whether it chooses to comply with section 79 (2).

Second, Rule 3 (4) requires intermediaries to take steps to disable access to within 36 hours of receiving a complaint in relation thereto. This is inconsistent with section 69B of the IT Act, which lays down in detail, the procedure to be followed to disable access to information. Since section 69B is statutory law, Rule 3 (4), being mere delegated legislation, will have to yield in its favour.

Third, Rule 3 (7) is ultra vires sections 69 and 69B, and falls outside the scope of section 79 (2). Rule 3 (7) provides that intermediaries must comply with requests for information or assistance when required to do so by appropriate authorities. This provision has no relation to the contents of section 79, which regulates intermediaries’ liability for content, and under which these rules were notified. In addition, rules have already been issued under the properly relevant sections, namely sections 69 and 69B, to provide a procedure to be followed by the government for the interception, monitoring, and decryption of information held by intermediaries. Rule 3 (7) is not consistent with the rules under sections 69 and 69B, as it removes all safeguards that those rules included. Under the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring, and Decryption) Rules 2009, for instance, permission must be obtained from the competent authority before an intermediary can be directed to provide access to its records and facilities while Rule 3 (7) makes intermediaries answerable to virtually any request from any government agency.

[1]. Rule 3 (2) (a).

[2]. Rule 3 (2) (d).

[3]. Rule 3 (2) (b)

[4]. Section 499, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“Defamation” is defined to include both written and spoken words).

[5]. AIR 1950 SC 124.

[6]. AIR 1958 SC 578.

[7]. AIR 1995 SC 1236.

[8].(2007) 1 SCC 170.

[9]. AIR 1973 SC 106.

[10]. (2011) 8 SCC 372.

[11]. AIR 1962 SC 305, ¶31.

[12]. Supra, n.5.

[13]. Centre for Internet & Society, Intermediary Liability in India: Chilling Effects on Free Expression on the Internet 2011 available at cis-india.org/internet-governance/chilling-effects-on-free-expression-on-internet/intermediary-liability-in-india.pdf.

[14]. UN Document no. A/HRC/17/27.

[15]. UN Document no. A/HRC/20/.13.

[16]. AIR 1997 SC 3011.

[17]. AIR 1997 SC 568.

[18]. (2005) 1 SCC 496.

[19]. 1978 SCR (2) 621.

[20]. AIR 1985 SC 1416.

[21]. AIR 1999 SC 2583.

[22]. AIR 1974 SC 555.

[23]. AIR 2002 SC 322.

[24]. AIR 1993 SC 935.

[25]. (2001) 7 SCC 545, 548, ¶10.

[26].1980 AIR 1992.

[27]. AIR 1970 SC 150.

[28]. AIR 1986 SC 515.

[29]. AIR 1997 SC 2502.

[30]. (1983) 2 SCC 40.

[31]. AIR 1976 SC 1031.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/constitutional-analysis-of-intermediaries-guidelines-rules

June 2012 Bulletin

praskrishna — 2012-07-25T04:56:23Z

Welcome to the newsletter issue of June 2012. The present issue features an updated version of the Unlicensed Spectrum Policy brief for Government of India and a report of the Privacy Matters series organised in Ahmedabad on June 16, 2012.

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:

New Blog Entries

The Bots That Got Some Votes Home by Nilofar Ansher: The author gives us some startling updates on the "Digital Natives Video Contest" voting results declared in May 2012.
Hyper-connected, Hyper-lonely? by Nilofar Ansher.

Digital Natives Newsletter

Home Alone: Volume 10, Issue 1, April 2012 of the Digital Natives with a Cause newsletter features Hyper-connected, yet Hyper-lonely. It puts the spotlight on an emerging trope in society and media: the more connected we are to our gadgets, peer network and social media, the lonelier we feel.

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:

Op-ed in the Hindu

The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Injunctions (Lawrence Liang, The Hindu, May 23, 2012): “The same ‘Ashok Kumar,' now restrained from infringing the copyright of the film, ‘3,' helped its signature song, ‘Kolaveri,’ go viral by downloading and copying it without any restraints.”

Columns / Articles

ಡಿಜಿಟಲ್ ನಿರ್ಬಂಧಗಳ ನಿರ್ವಹಣೆ (Sunil Abraham, Prajavani, June 9, 2012): Read the English translation here.

ಸೃಜನಶೀಲತೆಗೆ ಸಂದ ಗೌರವ (Lawrence Liang, Prajavani, June 9, 2012): Read the English translation here.
Copyright Amendment: Bad, but Could Have Been Much Worse (Sunil Abraham, Business Standard, June 10, 2012): The changes to the Copyright Act protect the disabled — but are restrictive about cover versions and web freedom.
A Ludicrous Ban (Achal Prabhala and Lawrence Liang, Open Magazine, June 2, 2012): Our courts cannot be used as quack-houses to buy pills for imaginary problems. The copyright industry is not a sick patient; it’s just a hypochondriac. Films don’t fail because of piracy; they fail because they’re not worth watching. The most popular films in this country are also the most pirated, and yet they remain money-spinners. The real problem is the unbending inability of this industry to adjust to the world; to the Internet; to the life-changing technologies that human beings have witnessed and embraced and prospered by over the past two decades.

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 Content, Open Standards, Open Access to Law, and Free/Libre/Open Source Software:

Media Coverage

Wiki goes the oral citation way (Cyber Media, Chokkapan S, June 11, 2012): Achal Prabhala who serves on the board of CIS speaks about the Oral Citations Project.

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:

Announcements

Window on the World: Subsequent to the publishing of a peer reviewed essay titled Resisting Revolutions: Questioning the Radical Potential of Citizen Action, CIS has been listed as one of the global organisations working on issues of participation, citizenship and new technologies along with a list of partner organisations. This was published by Palgrave Macmillan.
2012 Internet Freedom Fellows: The names of the 2012 Internet Freedom Fellows were announced on June 19, 2012. This was published by the US Department of State. Pranesh Prakash was selected as a Fellow.

Press Coverage of the Internet Freedom Fellows Event

Internet Freedom Fellows Program Emphasizes Defense of Fundamental Freedoms Online (by Ambassador Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe in DipNote, June 25, 2012).
Internet Freedom At Home: Governments, Companies Need Accountability, Speakers Say (by Catherine Saez, Intellectual Property Watch, June 22, 2012).

Peer Forum

Global Networks, Individual Freedoms: A Peer Forum on Internet Freedom and Human Rights: In Connection with the 2012 Internet Freedom Fellows Program, the United States Mission to the United Nations in Geneva invited Pranesh Prakash to a peer forum. The event was held on June 21, 2012, from 9.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m.

Upcoming & Ongoing Events

Privacy Matters — Consumer Privacy (India International Centre, New Delhi, July 7, 2012): Privacy India, in partnership with the Centre for Internet & Society, International Development Research Centre, Society in Action Group and Privacy International, invite you to a public conference focused on discussing the challenges and concerns to consumer privacy in India.
The Fifth Elephant (NIMHANS Convention Centre, Bangalore, July 27 and 28, 2012): The event was organised by HasGeek and CIS. The first day covered the technology track and talks from business and industry were held on the following day.

Events Organised

Privacy Mattes — Medical Privacy (Yashwantrao Chavan Academy of Development Administration, Rajbhavan Complex, Baner Road, Pune, June 30, 2012): Privacy India in partnership with the Indian Network for People living with HIV/AIDS, Centre for Internet & Society, IDRC, Society in Action Group and Privacy International organised this event. The discussions explored the various types of medical privacy including informational privacy, physical privacy, proprietary privacy and decisional privacy.
GeekUp with Alan Knott-Craig (CIS, Bangalore, June 30, 2012): Alan Knott-Craig, founder of World of Avatar and CEO of Mxit, Africa’s largest social network gave a lecture.
Freedom of Expression & Privacy Roundtable Discussion (University of Goa, June 2, 2012): Lawrence Liang and Chinmayi Arun were participants in the discussion.

Connecting People Apart - Events Series

Post-Media Lab organised this events series at Lüneburg/Berlin from June 20 to June 23, 2012. Nishant Shah participated in the event series as a speaker:

Opening presentation – ‘Talk to Me’ (Halle für Kunst, Lüneburg, June 20, 2012): Nishant Shah along with Rasa Smite & Raitis Smits made a presentation.
‘What Would the Community Say?’ (Freiraum, Lüneburg, June 21, 2012): Nishant Shah in cooperation with DialogN reflected on the experiences about the changing face of citizen action in a post-mediatised world.
The Community Complex, A Post-Media Lab conference (Denkerei, Berlin, June 22, 2012): Nishant Shah was one of the participants.

Other Events Participated

India Privacy Meet (Hotel LeMeridien, New Delhi, June 29, 2012): The event was organised by Microsoft, DSCI and Greyhead. Sunil Abraham was a panelist in the session on Citizen Privacy.
Meeting of the two Sub-Groups on Privacy Issues under the Chairmanship of Justice AP Shah (Yojana Bhawan, Planning Commission, June 27, 2012). Sunil Abraham participated in this meeting. The report of the committee will be used in drafting of the new privacy bill.
CENSORSHIP 2020: The Future of Free Speech Online (Communication, Culture and Technology Program of Georgetown University 2nd Floor, Car Barn, 3520 Prospect St., N.W., Washington, DC, June 25, 2012): Pranesh Prakash participated in this event organised by the Internet Society. See the original published by Communication, Culture & Technology here.
Multi-Stakeholder Consultation on ‘Internet Rights, Accessibility, Regulation & Ethics’ (Mirza Ghalib Hall, SCOPE Complex, New Delhi, May 3, 2012): Pranesh Prakash was a speaker in this event organised by Digital Empowerment Foundation, Association for Progressive Communications, Department of Information Technology and National Internet Exchange of India. Watch the video here.
Internet at Liberty 2012 (Washington D.C., May 23 and 24, 2012): Sunil Abraham was a speaker in Plenary IV along with Cynthia Wong, Mohamed El Dahshan and Dunja Mijatović. Watch the video here. The event was organised by Google.
Google Hangout with Ashoka Fellow Sunil Abraham: Ashoka Fellows are leading social entrepreneurs who have innovative solutions to social problems and the potential to change patterns across society. Sunil became an Ashoka Fellow in 1999. Watch the video.
Clear and Present Danger: Attempts to Change Internet Governance and Implications for Press Freedom (National Endowment for Democracy, Washington D.C., June 26, 2012): The event was organised by National Endowment for Democracy. Pranesh Prakash participated in it.
Overview of Google’s efforts to promote Internet Freedom and freedom of expression online, including its work on the following reports: “Google Transparency” and “Enabling Trade in the Era of Information Technologies: Breaking Down Barriers to the Free Flow of Information (California, June 28, 2012): The event was organised by Google. Pranesh Prakash participated in a meeting with Derek Slater from Google.
Stanford University Roundtable Discussion (California, June 28, 2012): IFF Fellows introduced themselves and briefly talked about their background and work in internet freedom and human rights issues. Pranesh Prakash was one of the participants.
EFF’s legislative efforts to defend free speech, privacy, innovation, and consumer rights (California, June 29, 2012): Pranesh Prakash participated in a meeting with Katitza Rodriguez, International Rights Director.
Overview of Twitter’s new censorship policies and its impact on human rights activists around the world (California, June 29, 2012): Pranesh Prakash participated in a meeting with Carolina Janssen, Localization Content Coordinator. This was organised by Twitter.
Best practices in utilizing Ustream’s live interactive broadcast platform to showcase human rights issues (June 29, 2012): Pranesh Prakash participated in this meeting organised by Ustream.

Event Report

Securing e-Governance: Ensuring Data Protection and Privacy (Ahmedabad, Management Association, Ahmedabad, June 16, 2012): Privacy India in partnership with the Centre for Internet & Society, Bangalore, International Development Research Centre, Canada, Privacy International, UK and the Society in Action Group, Gurgaon organised a public discussion. Prashant Iyengar and Nisha Thompson spoke at the event. A total of 30 people participated in the event.

Columns in FirstPost

How Facebook is Blatantly Abusing our Trust (Nishant Shah, FirstPost, June 27, 2012): ‘Don’t fix it, if it ain’t broken’ is not an adage Facebook seems to subscribe to... The million dollar question – or maybe a slightly reduced price, given its public listing status on the stock-exchange right now – is that while Facebook might keep us safe from other people using our data, will it also be able to keep us safe from itself?
Beyond Anonymous: Shit people say on Internet piracy (Nishant Shah, FirstPost, June 7, 2012): FirstPost published Nishant Shah's column along with the video that CIS and ALF had made on 'shit people say about piracy' as a lead story. The post is a series of provocations around piracy, censorship and the state of Internet in India. Like all good tasting things, these observations need to be taken with a pinch of salt. But it is the hope of the author that this serves as a response to otherwise very persistent voices that have been demonizing file-sharing online.

Article in the Times of India

The Web of Our Strife (Pranesh Prakash, The Times of India, June 2, 2012): Given the current trend of states individually wielding excessive powers over various aspects of how their citizens access and use the internet, a Committee on Internet-Related Policies may well be what is needed to safeguard democratic principles and innovation on the internet.

Podcast

An Interview with Nishant Shah by Jamillah Knowles (Outriders, BBC Radio 5): “I think what we need to do is perhaps say that there is something happening with the internet in India and then maybe we can move on to figuring out what is happening to Anonymous because we had a series of challenges on freedom of speech and expression and online space in the country.”

New Fellow at CIS

Chinmayi Arun, former Assistant Professor of Law at the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences joined CIS as a Fellow. Chinmayi’s research focus will include privacy, free speech and access to information.

New Blog Entries

CIS entered into a small collaboration with Tata Telecommunications in India to celebrate the IPv6 day on June 6. CIS agreed to write 5500 word vignettes which were sent to their global database consisting of more than 900,000 users in the Asia-Pacific:

News & Media Coverage (International)

India's struggle for online freedom (by Rebecca MacKinnon, Sydney Morning Herald, June 9, 2012): “If you start the drenching early on, by the time you get to 50 per cent [internet penetration], everyone will be well-behaved monkeys.”—Sunil Abraham.

Hackers Take Protest to Indian Streets and Cyberspace (by Shreya Shah, Wall Street Journal, June 8, 2012): “The group attacked the Web site of India’s Supreme Court even when it says it does not attack Web sites used by the common man.” — Pranesh Prakash.
The War for India's Internet (by Rebecca Mackinnon, Foreign Policy, June 6, 2012): “"On free speech I have high faith in the Indian judiciary...There is a good chance to launch a constitutional challenge.” — Sunil Abraham.

News & Media Coverage (National)

No more blocking of entire websites? (by Danish Sheikh, Business Standard, June 24, 2012): CIS research on Intermediary Liability in India is referred to in this article.
UID: Are your biometric I-cards stacked against you? (by M Rajashekhar, Economic Times, June 24, 2012): "If biometrics is used as authentication factor then it would be possible for a criminal to harvest your biometrics — such as using a glass to collect fingerprints — without your conscious cooperation. Or the registrar can cache your biometrics and duplicate transactions." — Sunil Abraham.
Net Loss (Abimanyu Nagarajan, The Telegraph, June 20, 2012): “We sent takedown notices to e-commerce, content hosting, and news media sites...in most cases, we found the intermediaries were very risk averse." — Sunil Abraham.
Cos spying on competitors, staff: Study (The Statesman, June 19, 2012): “Whether or not surveillance is legal, depends on the type... There is some private information a person will expect to remain private, and some information that is expected to be public — like Twitter feeds.” — Sunil Abraham.
Recruitment Tracker: 21 students placed out of the 49 who sat for recruitment in Christ University’s School of Law, Class of 2012 (Bar and Bench News Network, June 11, 2012): CIS recruited Snehashish Ghosh.
PPOs save placement-record as Christ Law’s 2nd graduating batch hosts fewer law firms (by Prachi Shrivastava in Legally India, June 10, 2012).
India: The New Front Line in the Global Struggle for Internet Freedom (Atlantic, June 7, 2012): CIS report on Intermediary Liability in India is quoted.

'Anonymous' hackers to protest Indian Internet laws (AFP, June 8, 2012): The news was also published in NDTV, Jagran Post, The Times of India, LiveMint, and Economic Times on June 9, 2012.
The new Internet watchdogs (Ronendra Singh, Hindu Business Line, June 12, 2012): “The Indian Government is not following the letter of the law and bypassing judicial safeguards in its crackdown on political speech...This aggressive enforcement is also having a chilling effect on access to knowledge and freedom of expression.” — Sunil Abraham.
Concerns raised ahead of proposed India-US trade treaty (Hindu Business Line, June 13, 2012).
Attempts to censor the web ill-advised (by Krishs Fernandes, The Times of India, June 3, 2012).
Poor Guarantee of Online Freedom in India (by Geeta Seshu, Economic & Political Weekly, Vol XLVII No. 24, June 2012).
Tata Communications embraces the change to IPv6 (tech 2, June 7, 2012).
Internet opens doors to trillions more Net addresses with IPv6 (by Aaron Tan, techgoondu): “Despite the larger load of information, IPv6 packets are easier to handle and route, just like postcards with pin codes in their addresses are easier to deliver than those without.” — Nishant Shah.
Biz moving to IPv6 but lower costs, support needed (intellasia.net, June 8, 2012).
Govt websites to get new addresses (The Telegraph, June 7, 2012): “The future of our connected networks is IPv6. Not only is it more efficient and faster than IPv4, which we are currently working with, it is also more reliable and secure.” —Nishant Shah.
Anonymous India’s Takedowns Could Be Counterproductive (by Nikhil Pahwa, Medianama, June 6, 2012).
Watch out for cyber bullies (by KV Kurmanath, Hindu Business Line, June 4, 2012): “It would be very useful if both the government and civil society was more aggressive in awareness raising and triggering change in behaviour. Unfortunately this is a bit like smoking — even though people are aware of the issues — they engage in risky behaviour online.” — Sunil Abraham.
Scared by a spoof? You’ve got to be kidding me! (by Dhamini Ratnam, June 3, 2012). Pranesh Prakash is quoted in this article.
Protest@ censorship.com (by Sandhya Soman, The Times of India, June 5, 2012): “There is corporate and private censorship of internet and it is being done without enough proof of who is violating the copyrights of moviemakers. If these protests create awareness about the larger issues and developments in the areas of e-governance, IT Act and copyright law, then they could be helpful.” — Pranesh Prakash.

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:

Telecom Knowledge Repository

Ford Foundation has given CIS a grant of USD 200,000 to build expertise in the area of Telecommunications in India over a period of two years. The programme outline, the modules covered and the profiles and bios of our expert reviewers can be found here:

Broadcasting

Module 7.2.3 (Mobile Television) by Tina Mani
Module 7.2.3 (FAQs)

Emerging Topics

Module 8.3 (Mobile Television) by Tina Mani
Module 8.3 (Mobile Television FAQs)

Featured Research

Unlicensed Spectrum Policy Brief for Government of India (Satya N Gupta, Sunil Abraham and Yelena Gyulkhandanyan): CIS and the Ford Foundation bring you the Unlicensed Spectrum Policy brief for Government of India. The research recommends unlicensed spectrum to the Government of India based on recent developments in wireless technology, community needs and international best practices. (The present report is an updated version of the draft circulated earlier).

Column in Business Standard

Growth, India's Highest Priority (Shyam Ponappa, Business Standard, June 8, 2012): Telecom and spectrum reforms are overdue, as are energy reforms addressing the fuel supply-power generation and distribution-sustainable tariffs chain. In terms of sequence, the next significant effort could focus on the… telecom sector. The empowered group of ministers can decisively abandon short-term government revenues in favour of user benefits, leading in time to even more government revenues.

New Blog Entry

National Telecom Policy 2012 — Issues and Concerns by Snehashish Ghosh: The author throws light on some of the issues and concerns surrounding the recently passed National Telecom Policy 2012.

Event Report

3^rd IJLT-CIS Lecture Series (National Law School of India University, Nagarbhavi, Bangalore, May 27, 2012): Prof. Rohan Samarajiva, Chairman and CEO, LIRNEasia gave the inaugural lecture on “Tariff Regulation in South Asia”. The presentation slides can be accessed here.

Foreign Press Coverage

India’s telecom success story turns sour (by Simon Denyer, Washington Post, June 1, 2012): “"There are very strong economic reasons for not auctioning spectrum in developing countries.” — Shyam Ponappa.

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 foreign governments we worked on National Enterprise Architecture and Government Interoperability Framework for Govt. of Iraq; Open Standards Policy for Govt. of Moldova; Free and Open Software Centre of Excellence project plan for Saudi Arabia; eGovernance Strategy Document for Govt. of Tajikistan. 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, Interoperability Framework in eGovernance, Privacy Bill, NIA Bill, National Policy on Electronics and IT Act.

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 our website here

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/june-2012-bulletin

February 2012 Bulletin

praskrishna — 2012-07-09T07:48:11Z

Welcome to the Centre for Internet and Society newsletter! In this issue we bring you the updates of our research, events, media coverage and videos of the events organized by us during the month of February 2012!

Accessibility

Around 70 million disabled persons in India are unable to participate in information societies as lack of compliance with accessibility standards make interfaces impossible to use, and retrograde copyright and patent policies make it impossible to access knowledge. Accessibility is denied in banking services, web and mobile interfaces, etc. Material for the disabled therefore needs to be converted into accessible formats. The programme has resulted in outputs such as Web Accessibility Policy Making, Making Mobile Phones and Services Accessible for Persons with Disabilities, Accessibility Policy Making: An International Perspective, e-Accessibility Policy Handbook for Persons with Disabilities, Universal Service for Persons with Disabilities: A Global Survey of Policy Interventions and Good Practices, etc.

Featured Research

Web Accessibility Policy Making: An International Perspective: G3ict and the Centre for Internet and Society are pleased to announce the publication of a new, improved edition of the Web Accessibility Policy Making: An International Perspective. The report published in cooperation with the Hans Foundation provides an updated synopsis of the many policies that governments have implemented around the world to ensure that the Internet and websites are accessible to persons with disabilities.

Event

ITU Tutorial on Audiovisual Media Accessibility (India International Centre,New Delhi, March 14 to 15, 2012): At the invitation of the Centre for Internet and Society, in cooperation with the ITU-APT Foundation of India, International Telecommunication Union is organizing a two-day Tutorial on Audio Visual Media Accessibility. The Tutorial will be preceded by the fourth meeting of the Focus Group on Audio Visual Media Accessibility on March 13, 2012. The meeting will take place in the same venue and will be hosted by the Centre for Internet and Society in cooperation with the ITU-APT Foundation of India.

Access to Knowledge

With the emergence of digital technologies and the unprecedented growth of the Internet and other related technologies, intellectual property rights (IPRs) the questions of ownership and control of information have become crucial. The programme focuses on the inequitable distribution of IPR, royalty, outflows, and beneficiaries of intellectual property regimes, the lack of balance in current IPR regimes [local, national and international] between consumer rights and IPR-owners’/corporation’s rights. The programme has produced analyses such as WIPO Treaty for the Print Disabled, WIPO Broadcast Treaty, Copyright Amendment Bill and Parallel Importation of Books.

Blog Entry

Analysis of Copyright Expansion in the India-EU FTA (July 2010) by Snehashish Ghosh.

Video

Recently, the Centre for Internet and Society organised a public lecture in its office, the video is now online.

Gandhi, Freedom, and the Dilemmas of Copyright: (Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, January 30, 2012). Prof. Shyamkrishna Balganesh from the University of Pennsylvania gave a lecture on Gandhi, Freedom, and the Dilemmas of Copyright.

Openness

The advent of the Internet has radically defined what it means to be open and collaborative. Even the Internet is built upon open standards and free/libre/open source software. The broad rubric of the ‘Openness’ programme focuses to provide evidence based research that will help inform policy and practice of the local, national, regional, bilateral and international policies and practices around Open Government Data, Open Access to Scholarly Literature, Open Access to Law, Open Content, Open Video, Open Standards and Free/Libre/Open Source Software. The programme has resulted in reports such as Open Government Data Study, Online Video Environment in India, a reader on the Wikipedia titled Critical Point of View: A Wikipedia Reader and a film titled People are Knowledge – Experimenting with Oral Citations on Wikipedia.

Comments

Comments on Technical Standards for Interoperability Framework for E-Governance in India (Phase II), submitted to the e-Governance Standards Division.

Event Report

Francis Bags EPT Award for Open Access in Developing World, (Sambasivan Auditorium, MS Swaminathan Research Foundation, Chennai, February 14, 2012). The award function was organized by the Electronic Publishing Trust for Development and the Centre for Internet and Society. Prof. Subbiah Arunachalam gave the welcome address. View the video of the award function.

Interview

An Interview with Dr. Francis Jayakanth: The Centre for Internet and Society conducted an email interview with Dr. Francis Jayakanth, recipient of the inaugural EPT Award for Open Access in Developing World.

Events

Free Arduino Workshop (For Beginners): (Centre for Internet and Society,Bangalore, March 3, 2012). The Centre for Internet and Society organised the Arduino workshop in Bangalore.

Internet Governance

Governments and private corporations are engaging in human rights violations online. Many different rights are impacted by internet governance policy changes. The growing phenomenon of illegal electronic surveillance by state and non-state actors and censorship of speech online are some specific problems that the Internet Governance programme seeks to address by providing evidence based research that will help inform policy and practice of the local, national, regional, bilateral and international privacy regime in the interests of the public in sectors key to information societies with a particular focus on information technology, privacy and freedom of expression. The programme has resulted in outputs such as Banking, Telecommunications, Consumer Protection, IT Act, Limitations, Copyright, Internet Protocol, Media, Sexual Minorities, UID and policy submissions such as, NIA Bill, IT Act, National Policy on Electronics, Cyber Café Rules, Security Practices Rules, and Intermediary Due Diligence Rules.

Featured Research

Privacy India in partnership with Privacy International, UK, the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, and Society in Action Group, Gurgaon is pleased to bring you the draft chapters of its book on Privacy in India. These include the Country Report, Telecommunication and Internet Privacy, E-Governance Identity and Privacy, Finance and Privacy, Health and Privacy, Transparency and Privacy. The chapters are an early draft which is in the process of being reviewed and updated. We greatly appreciate your comments and feedback:

Privacy in India — An Early Draft.

Media Coverage

Personal Data, Public Profile: “Whether we like it or not, we live in a world that is rapidly being Googlised”, writes Nishant Shah in the Financial Express, February 13, 2012.
Do we need the Aadhar scheme?: “Decentralisation and privacy are preconditions for security. Digital signatures don’t require centralised storage and are much more resilient in terms of security”, writes Sunil Abraham in the Business Standard, February 1, 2012.

Event Reports

The High Level Privacy Conclave (Paharpur Business Centre, Nehru Place Greens, New Delhi, February 3, 2012): India is in dire need of privacy law; experts say government is ironically creating huge national security risks in attempts to prevent crime and terrorism. The event was organized by Privacy India in partnership with the International Development Research Centre, Canada, Privacy International, UK and Society in Action Group, Gurgaon. Sunil Abraham was a Conclave Advisor and the moderator for the session on Internet and Privacy, Malavika Jayaram moderated in the panel on National Security and Privacy, and Elonnai Hickok spoke in the session "The Way Forward".

All India Privacy Symposium: (India International Centre, New Delhi, February 4, 2012): Experts gathered in Delhi for a public symposium on privacy, transparency, e-governance and national security in India. The event was organized by Privacy India in partnership with the International Development Research Centre, Canada, Privacy International, UK, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative and Society in Action Group, Gurgaon. The webcast of the event is online. Sunil Abraham was a Symposium Advisor and moderated in the panel on Privacy and Transparency. Elonnai Hickok gave the welcome address and spoke in the session, “The Way Forward”. Prashant Iyengar was the moderator for the panel on Privacy and Banking. Malavika Jayaram spoke in this panel.

Event Hosted

GeekUp with Erica Hagen (Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, March 1, 2012). HasGeek organized a GeekUp with Erica Hagen of the GroundTruth Initiative. Erica gave a lecture on the theme: "From Information to Empowerment: Unpacking the Equation.

Blog Entry

Unique ID System: Pros and Cons, by Natasha Vaz.

Other Events

Cartonama Workshop (Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, March 2 and 3, 2012). HasGeek organized a hands-on training for managing and building location based services. The Centre for Internet and Society was a partner for this event.

Climate Change and Controversy Mapping (Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, March 19 to 21, 2012). The workshop is being organised in collaboration with the Devechia Centre for Climate Change, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore. Bruno Latour, Dean for Research at Sciences Po, Paris will speak in this event.

Videos

View the videos of some of the recent events organised by us:

All India Privacy Symposium, (India International Centre, New Delhi, February 4, 2012). Privacy India in partnership with the International Development Research Centre, Canada, Privacy International, UK, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, and Society in Action Group, Gurgaon, organized the event.

Whose Data is it Anyway?, (Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, January 24, 2012). Centre for Internet and Society and Tactical Tech co-organised the second round of discussions of the Exposing Data series. Siddharth Hande and Hapee de Groot spoke in the event.

Privacy Matters — Analyzing the "Right to Privacy Bill", (Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay). Privacy India in partnership with International Development Research Centre, Canada, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, the Godrej Culture Lab, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai and the Centre for Internet and Society organised this event.

Free Speech Online in India under Attack?, (Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, December 22, 2011). The event was co-organised with the Internet Democracy Project. Achal Prabhala, Lawrence Liang and Anja Kovacs gave a lecture on freedom of expression online in India.

Telecom

The growth in telecommunications in India has been impressive. While the potential for growth and returns exist, a range of issues need to be addressed for this potential to be realized. One aspect is more extensive rural coverage and the second aspect is a countrywide access to broadband which is low at about eight million subscriptions. Both require effective and efficient use of networks and resources, including spectrum. The programme has resulted in reports such as India's untapped potential: Are a billion people losing out because of spectrum?, India Study Tour - Report: The South African Telecommunications Sector: Poised for Change and the Unlicensed Spectrum-Policy Brief for Government of India NTP '11.

Featured Research

Unlicensed Spectrum-Policy Brief for Government of India NTP '11 by Satyen Gupta, Sunil Abraham and Yelena Gyulkhandanyan: The research paper aims to recommend unlicensed spectrum policy to the Government of India based on recent developments in wireless technology, community needs and international best practices, and seeks to demonstrate the need for and importance of unlicensed spectrum as a medium for inexpensive connectivity in rural/remote areas, as well as catalyzing innovation by being a barrier-free and cost-effective platform for the testing and implementing of new technologies.

Interview

An Interview with Stephen Song: Yelena Gyulkhandanyan interviewed Stephen Song, the founder of Village Telco, an initiative to bring practical and inexpensive communication network infrastructure to rural and remote areas. He spoke about factors that catalyzed the initiative, the benefits of the network, some challenges, and the Mesh Potato.

Job Announcement

Content Developers/Trainers: The Centre for Internet and Society is looking for a content developer/trainer to work on an upcoming project Building Knowledge and Capacity around Telecommunication Policies in India. This is a full-time position. To apply, please email your curriculum vitae along with three writing samples to yelena@cis-india.org.

Digital Natives with a Cause?

Digital Natives with a Cause? is a knowledge programme initiated by the Centre for Internet and Society, India and Hivos, Netherlands. It is a research inquiry that seeks to look at the changing landscape of social change and political participation and the role that young people play through digital and internet technologies, in emerging information societies. The programme has resulted in a four-book collective titled Digital AlterNatives with a Cause? and reports such as Digital Natives with a Cause? A Report and Digital Natives with a Cause? Thinkathon: Position Papers.

Events

Digital Natives Video Contest: Twenty-one candidates have been shortlisted, videos will be online soon. Voting begins from March 10, 2012. The Centre for Internet and Society is co-organising the video contest with Hivos, Netherlands.

Essay Review: Digital AlterNatives with a Cause: The monthly essay review for the four book collective of Digital AlterNatives with a Cause? was held from February 17 to February 26, 2012. The Centre for Internet and Society co-organized the “Essay Review” with Hivos, Netherlands.

Book Review

How to Put Up a Facebook Resistance: “The current discussion about Facebook's timeline is only the tip of the iceberg, a symptom of a larger conflict that lurks behind it: how much direct marketing are Facebook users willing to take? How many drastic top-down changes of the user's Facebook experience are possible unless they understand that their presence on this site and what they do there is in tension with the company's goals that provides this digital environment?”, Oliver Leistert reviews Marc Stumpel’s essay, "Mapping the Politics of Web 2.0: Facebook Resistance", in Digital Alternatives with a Cause Book 2: To Think, pp.24-31.

Privacy, Piracy and the Wiki Way of Web: “Privacy is about having more control over the personal information that we have disclosed. As we disclose more information online, we must ask who might access it and why.” Nishant Shah in the Digital Natives Newsletter, volume 9, issue 2.

News and Media Coverage

What is Stewardship in Cyberspace?: The second annual Cyber Dialogue forum takes place March 18-19, 2012 in Toronto, Canada. Sunil Abraham is a panelist in the session on Plenary Panel and Discussions.

Secure IT 2012 — Securing Citizens through Technology: The event was co-organised by DST and NSDI, Govt. of India in partnership with Elets Technomedia Pvt. Ltd. on March 1, 2012 at Claridges in New Delhi. Sunil Abraham was a panelist in the event.

Digitisation is making e-learning simple: “Learning should not be restricted to the Internet and interactive classroom sessions but should be made available on mobile phones through audio files as mobile penetration is much higher compared to Internet reach”, Sunil Abraham in Deccan Herald, February 13, 2012. The article was written by Shayan Ghosh.

India debates limits to freedom of expression: “The government’s proposals on Web censorship would kill the vibrancy of the Internet in India”, Sunil Abraham in the Washington Post, February 13, 2012. The article was written by Simon Denyer.

Developing location-based services, Hindu, February 26, 2012.

Grooming the geek: “Children have to learn fine motor and social skills; tablets and other technology hinder the development of these skills”, Sunil Abraham in LiveMint, February 24, 2012. The article was written by Gopal Sathe.

FUEL Kannada - Workshop on Kannada Computing Terminology: A two days workshop on the standardization of Kannada computing terminologies was organized on January 28 and 29, 2012 at the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore under the FUEL project. The workshop was organised by Sanchaya and sponsored by Red Hat.

Will open access replace costly commercial publishing models?: “Most scientists in India are forced to work in a situation of information poverty. Others are unable to access what Indian researchers are doing, leading to low visibility and low use of their work. Thus, Indian work is hardly cited. Both these handicaps can be overcome to a considerable extent if open access is adopted widely, both within and outside the country”, Subbiah Arunachalam in the Hindu, February 19, 2012. The article was written by Vasudha Venugopal.

Research papers will be available in public domain: “A research produced by the Tuberculosis Research Centre in Chennai which would be of great relevance to researchers, say in a university in Maharashtra, may not be even noticed by the scientists there. Both groups receive funds from the same source - Government of India - and yet what one does is not easily accessible to the other. Open Access would bridge that gap and make information available to everyone”, Subbiah Arunachalam in the Hindu, February 15, 2012. The article was written by Vasudha Venugopal.

OurSay: how India’s technology is cutting into corruption: “Print and cinema reflected the views of citizens and informed them of the visions and changes that the country was going through”, Nishant Shah in Crikey, February 17, 2012. The blog post was written by Gautam Raju, co-founder and creative director, OurSayAustralia.

India won't censor social media: Telecom Minister: “Glad that Sibal does not believe in censorship and that companies operating in India should follow local laws.” “But on the other hand he has asked them to evolve new guidelines and actively monitor user content which is not legally sanctioned. This makes him look two-faced”, Pranesh Prakash in the Tribune. The article written by Salil Panchal was originally published by AFP and reproduced in the Tribune on February 14, 2012.

Govt set to gain ‘back-door’ access to corporate email: “There are no allegations of terrorists using BES or any indication that any of the 5,000 enterprises have any links to terrorists or other banned outfits in India”, Pranesh Prakash in LiveMint, February 14, 2012. The article was written by Shauvik Ghosh.

Indian law caught in web: “The Internet needs regulation but it cannot be treated as a gigantic newspaper or media channel”, Pranesh Prakash; “In liberal democracies like India and the US, information was taken for granted and not perceived as central to the understanding of society”, Nishant Shah. Nishant and Pranesh are quoted in an article by Moyna published by Down to Earth magazine.

Prometheus bound and gagged: The article by Adarsh Matham was published in the New Indian Express on 20 January 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted in this article.

Internet Curbs: Sunil Abraham’s article “The Quixotic Fight to Clean Up the Web” which was published in Tehelka is referred to by Rishi Majumder in this article also published in Tehelka, Vol. 9, Issue 07, February 18, 2012.

Tweeple say it pithily with hash tags: “Our social networking sites and writing platforms are performances of a certain kind... they allow us to convert our everyday lives into games — with rewards, actions, punishments or rules”, Nishant Shah in the Hindu, February 11, 2012. The article was written by Deepa Kurup.

New Bill to decide on individual’s right to privacy: “Tesco, a major retail chain in England, is now into E-banking… There are numerous examples of such private banking entities sharing customer information with insurance policy firms. These details are often used as markers for the kind of premium that will be set for a person”, Malavika Jayaram in Tehelka, February 6, 2012.

A new domain name, but concerns remain the same: “The rhetoric is that the Internet is global, but we've been seeing [governments say] how this information has to be regulated”, Nishant Shah in the Hindu, February 5, 2012. The article was written by Karunya Keshav.

Common man as crusader: “The movement targeted at the middle-class for whom corruption is a big issue was also the first middle-class movement in a long time.” Nishant Shah in the Hindustan Times, February 4, 2012.

5 things you need to know about online privacy policies: “India needs to have a broad and horizontal law that establishes online privacy as a right. Unlike in European countries, India doesn't have a privacy commissioner who can state the principles, interpret the data and question the online providers”, Sunil Abraham in the Economic Times on February 6, 2012. The article was written by Indu Nandakumar.

India needs an independent privacy law, says NGO Privacy India: “India doesn't have a privacy law, but there are provisions for it in different laws. During the course of the research, we found that the Indian judiciary has not been very strict in overseeing the implementation of the privacy clauses in various laws,”, Prashant Iyengar in the Economic Times, February 2, 2012.

Privacy, speech at stake in cyberspace: “The clampdown on online free speech and the roll-out of a multi-tiered blanket surveillance regime via the draconian IT Act and its associated rules in India is part of a global trend”, Sunil Abraham in LiveMint, February 3, 2012. The article was written by Leslie D’Monte.

Freedom of Expression in Community Media and on the Internet Understanding Connections, Finding Common Ground: A meeting co-organised by the Internet Democracy Project (Delhi) and Maraa (Bangalore) with the support of the Community Radio Forum in New Delhi on 3 February 2012. Pranesh Prakash participated in this event. Anja Kovacs gave the welcome address and spoke in the session on “The Internet and Freedom of Expression.”

Google move is not good for netizens, say experts: “Google is doing what is good for shareholders. This is not positive for netizens,” Sunil Abraham in the Hindu Business Line, January 31, 2012.

Follow us elsewhere

Get short, timely messages from us on Twitter

Join the CIS group on Facebook

Visit us at www.cis-india.org

CIS is grateful to 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/feb-2012-bulletin

January 2012 Bulletin

praskrishna — 2012-07-09T09:36:46Z

Welcome to the Centre for Internet and Society newsletter! In this issue we bring you the updates of our research, events, media coverage and videos of events organized by us during the month of January 2012!

Digital Natives with a Cause?

Digital Natives with a Cause? is a knowledge programme initiated by CIS, India and Hivos, Netherlands. It is a research inquiry that seeks to look at the changing landscape of social change and political participation and the role that young people play through digital and internet technologies, in emerging information societies. The major outputs have been a four book collective asking questions about theory and practice around 'digital revolutions' in a post MENA (Middle East - North Africa) world, a position paper, a scouting study and three international workshops.

Events Organised

Digital AlterNatives Video Contest: The Everyday Digital Native — To Be, To Think, To Act, To Connect

Digital AlterNatives Tweet-a-Review

'Digital Natives with a Cause?' project invites readers to review essays from the 'Digital AlterNatives with a Cause', a four-book collective published by Centre for Internet & Society and Hivos.

Digital AlterNatives: Book Reviews

Alternative Approaches to Social Change

“Observations about intangible aspects of a movement will keep a research from clinging to activism with a capital A, and start seeing a gradation in the social movement practices. It is constructive and opens the door to analyses of multi-dimensional movements such as the Blank Noise initiative (India). Drawing on methods of identifying new developments to the field of social movement, Maesy examines some aspects of it: the issue, strategy, site of action, and internal mode of organization.”
Nuraini Juliastuti, Co-founder, KUNCI Cultural Studies Center

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. This includes persons with blindness, learning disabilities such as dyslexia, cerebral palsy and persons who do not have full control over their limbs. For these people, the material needs to be converted into alternate formats such as Braille, audio or video or electronic formats (text document, word document or PDF) which they can access using assistive technologies. Our key research has focused on a submission to amend the Indian Copyright to the HRD Ministry, publishing a policy handbook on e-accessibility, research on accessible mobile handsets in India and an analysis of the Working Draft of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2010.

Journal Article

Technology for Accessibility in Higher Education, published in the Journal: Enabling Access for Persons with Disabilities to Higher Education and Workplace. Nirmita Narasimhan wrote an article.

Featured Research

Making Mobile Phones and Services Accessible. CIS researched, edited and published this report in partnership with G3ict and ITU. The report contains a foreword, eleven chapters, a bibliography and glossary with contributions from Deepti Bharthur, Nirmita Narasimhan and Axel Leblois.

Upcoming Event

ITU Tutorial on Audiovisual Media Accessibility, organized by the International Telecommunication Union, India International Centre, 14-15 March 2012. CIS is hosting the meeting. The Tutorial will be preceded by the fourth meeting of the Focus Group on Audio Visual Media Accessibility (FG AVA) on 13 March 2012. This meeting will take place at the same venue and will also be hosted by CIS, in cooperation with the ITU-APT Foundation of India.

Access to Knowledge

Access to Knowledge is a campaign to promote the fundamental principles of justice, freedom, and economic development. It deals with issues like copyrights, patents and trademarks, which are an important part of the digital landscape. We prepared the India report for the Consumers International IP Watchlist, made submission to the HRD Ministry on WIPO Broadcast Treaty, questioned the demonization of pirates, and advocated against laws (such as PUPFIP Bill) that privatize public funded knowledge.

Event Organised

Gandhi, Freedom, and the Dilemmas of Copyright: To commemorate Mahatma Gandhi's death anniversary, CIS organised a public lecture. Prof. Shyamkrishna Balganesh of the University of Pennsylvania gave a lecture.

Openness

The advent of the Internet has radically defined what it means to be open and collaborative. Even the Internet is built upon open standards and free/libre/open source software. CIS has been committed and actively campaigned for promotion of open standards, open access and free/libre/open source software.

Workshop Reports

Summary of the Minutes of the Workshop on Biodiversity Informatics, organized by the Western Ghats Portal team to explore the contemporary state of biodiversity informatics at Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and Environment (ATREE), Bangalore on 25 November 2011.
Design!PubliC — Innovation and the Public Interest: On the 14th of October, 2011, the Center for Knowledge Societies organized the second edition of the Design Public Conclave, a conversation on how innovation can serve the Public Interest. The conclave was held at the National Gallery of Modern Art in Bangalore.
Report on the 'Open Access to Academic Knowledge' workshop: On Wednesday the 2nd of November, during Open Access Week, the Indian Institute of Science in conjunction with the Centre for Internet and Society held a workshop on Open Access at the National Centre for Science Information, in Bangalore. We recorded the meeting and published it online.

Event Organised

Geekup on Open Data in Bangalore: Hapee de Groot, Hivos, Netherlands gave a talk on Open Data and its use for citizen engagement.

Media Coverage

Wikipedia turns 11 today: The Bangalore event, open to all Wikipedia users, contributors and enthusiasts, is being held at the Centre for Internet and Society at Domlur.
The Hindu, 15 January 2012

Internet Governance

The Tunis Agenda of the second World Summit on the Information Society has defined internet governance as the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the internet. CIS partnered with Privacy International and Society in Action Group which has produced outputs in banking, telecommunications, consumer rights, etc., submitted open letters to Parliamentary Committee on UID, feedbacks on NIA Bill, and IT Rules.

Newspaper / Magazine Articles

Keeping it Private
As we disclose more information online, we must ask who might access it and why, writes Nishant Shah in the Indian Express, 15 January 2012.

Click to Change
From organising political protests and flash mobs to uploading their versions of Kolaveri Di, people brought about change with the help of the internet, Nishant Shah, Indian Express, 1 January 2012.

The Quixotic Fight to Clean up the Web
The ongoing attempt to pre-screen online content won’t change anything. It will only drive netizens into the arms of criminals, writes Sunil Abraham, Tehelka Magazine, Vol 9, Issue 04, 28 January 2012.

Sense and Censorship
The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA) bills, at the US House of Representatives and Senate, respectively, appear to enforce property rights, but are, in fact, trade bills, Sunil Abraham in the Indian Express, 20 January 2012.

Interview

Our Internet and the Law
Nishant Shah was interviewed by the BBC Channel 5 (Radio) for its Outriders section. Jamillah Knowles reports this. Listen to the podcast online, BBC Radio, 24 January 2012.

Event Reports

Privacy Matters — Analyzing the Right to "Privacy Bill"
On January 21, 2012 a public conference “Privacy Matters” was held at the Indian Institute of Technology in Mumbai. It was the sixth conference organised in the series of regional consultations held as “Privacy Matters”. The present conference analyzed the Draft Privacy Bill and the participants discussed the challenges and concerns of privacy in India.

Future of Integrated Science Education in Higher Education in India
The Higher Education Innovation and Research Application (HEIRA) at the Centre for the Study of Culture and Society (CSCS) and the Centre for Contemporary Studies (CCS) at the Indian Institute of Sciences (IISc) hosted a two day workshop on 2 and 3 January 2012 on the Future of Integrated Science Education in Higher Education in India at the Centre for Contemporary Studies, IISc. Nishant Shah participated in the workshop.

Media Coverage

Twitter’s Censorship Move Aimed at Regaining China?
"The region-specific blocking was already being used on video hosting websites like YouTube and Hulu, where due to the wishes of copyright owners many videos are not available in India. Twitter is extending this technology to its tweets.”
Pranesh Prakash in International Business Times, 28 January 2012.

Google's privacy policy raises hackles (Times of India, January 26, 2012)
“Storing data makes it prone to misuse by authorities as well as corporations... I don't want my bakery shop owner to know what kind of medicines I buy from the nearby medical store.”
Sunil Abraham in the Times of India, 26 January 2012.

Google to change privacy policy to use personal info of users
“New changes are not good for a consumer's privacy.”
Sunil Abraham in Punjab Newsline, 27 January 2012.

Tangled Web
“We did a policy sting operation wherein we sent fraudulent notices to big web sites...in one case where we asked for the removal of three comments, they removed all 13. So there is already a private censorship underway.”
Sunil Abraham in the Week, 21 January 2012.

POV: Should user-generated content be monitored?
“We should not fool ourselves into thinking that private sector companies like Google will defend our fundamental rights. The next Parliament session is the last opportunity for parliamentarians to ask for the revocation of the rules for intermediaries, cyber-cafes and reasonable security practices.”
Sunil Abraham in afaqs, 19 January 2012.

Indian Internet Lawsuit Puts Spotlight on Freedom of Expression
“These rules have the potential to curtail debate and discussion on the net... They allow for all sorts of subjective tests by private parties and we predicted they would have a chilling effect on freedom of expression online.”
Sunil Abraham in the Voice of America, 19 January 2012.

India: obscene pics of gods require massive human censorship of Google, Facebook
“It’s difficult to establish exactly what is anti-religious: for example, the Hindu profession of belief in multiple gods is blasphemous to Muslims, Christians and Jews.”
Sunil Abraham in ars technica, 14 January 2012.
Is India Ignoring its own Internet Protections?
“The I.T. Act provides immunity to (Internet companies) and that should be the default starting position.”
Sunil Abraham in the Wall Street, 16 January 2012.

India internet: clean-up or censorship?
Sunil Abraham was quoted in Financial Time’s beyondbrics, 13 January 2012.

Twists and turns of the SOPA opera
“In terms of infrastructure, the U.S. controls critical web resources. Contrasting this to the Chinese firewall that blocks content for users within its jurisdiction, the U.S. decision to redirect a link can act as a ‘global block’.”
Sunil Abraham in the Hindu, 15 January 2012.

Activists cry foul against Aadhaar
Sunil Abraham participated in the meet on Aadhaar convened by the Indian Social Action Forum.
The Telegraph, 12 January 2012.

NGO questions people's privacy in UID scheme
“The UID project was allowed to march on without any protection being put in place.”
Sunil Abraham in the Times of India, 11 January 2012.

Revealed: Bangalore’s Basic Instincts
“If you look at the Google trend or any other website, Bangalore does not figure among the top 10 cities that surfs for porn. But that does not mean that Bangalore does not surf porn. It only means that we have a very sophisticated surfer with a very specific type. They don’t go through Google or other websites. They know how to go about it. But whether it affects their personal lives is lot more complicated.”
Sunil Abraham in the Bangalore Mirror, 8 January 2012.

Facebook, Google face censorship in India
“Traditional intellectual property rights holders like movie studios, music companies and software vendors are trying to protect their obsolete business models by pushing for the adoption of blanket surveillance and filtering technologies.”
Sunil Abraham in SmartPlanet, 5 January 2012.

Trail of the Trolls
“Trolling provokes a non-productive argument and as of now it is not considered a criminal offence anywhere in the world.”
The Telegraph, 4 January 2012.

Constitution of Group of Experts to Deliberate on Privacy Issues
It has been decided to constitute a Small Group of Experts under the Chairmanship of Justice A.P. Shah, Former Chief Justice, Delhi High Court, to identify the privacy issues and prepare a paper to facilitate authoring the Privacy Bill. Pranesh Prakash is one of the members.
Published by the Planning Commission, New Delhi.

2011: The year India began to harness social media
“We saw an increased sharing of digital content whether photos, videos, songs, news or blogs pointing to the Why This Kolaveri Di video, which went viral on YouTube with over 1.3 million views within a week of its release.”
Nishant Shah in the Sunday Guardian, 1 January 2012.

Blog Posts

Section 79 of the Information Technology Act by Pranesh Prakash
How India Makes E-books Easier to Ban than Books (And How We Can Change That) by Pranesh Prakash. This was reproduced in Medianama.

Upcoming Events

The High Level Privacy Conclave
Privacy India in partnership with the International Development Research Centre, Canada, Society in Action Group, Gurgaon and Privacy International, UK is organizing the High Level Privacy Conclave at the Paharpur Business Centre, Nehru Place Greens in New Delhi on Friday, 3 February 2012.

All India Privacy Symposium
Privacy India in partnership with the International Development Research Centre, Canada, and Society in Action Group, Gurgaon, Privacy International, UK and Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative is organizing the All India Privacy Symposium at the India International Centre, New Delhi on Saturday, 4 February 2012.

Events Organised

Workshop on the Standardization of Kannada Computing Terminology, 28-29 January 2012, Centre for Internet & Society, Bangalore.
The Curious Case of Whose Data is it Anyway? The second round of discussions of the Exposing Data Series was co-organized by Tactical Tech and CIS. Siddharth Hande and Hapee de Groot gave lectures.
"ಕನ್ನಡ ಮತ್ತು ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನದ ಜೊತೆ ಜೊತೆಗೆ..." organised in TERI, Bangalore, 22 January 2012.

Telecom

The growth in telecommunications in India has been impressive. While the potential for growth and returns exist, a range of issues need to be addressed for this potential to be realized. One aspect is more extensive rural coverage and the second aspect is a countrywide access to broadband which is low at about eight million subscriptions. Both require effective and efficient use of networks and resources, including spectrum. In this connection, Shyam Ponappa continues to write his monthly column for the Business Standard.

Article by Shyam Ponappa

Reversing India's Downward Trajectory
The country can regain growth momentum with rate cuts and telecom reforms, writes Shyam Ponappa in this column published in the Business Standard on 5 January 2012.

Follow us elsewhere

Get short, timely messages from us on Twitter
Follow CIS on identi.ca
Join the CIS group on Facebook\
Visit us at www.cis-india.org

CIS is grateful to 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-2012-bulletin

Digital Natives Newsletter (May 2012)

praskrishna — 2012-07-06T08:51:23Z

Digital Natives newsletter of May 2012.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/digital-natives/dn-newsletter-may-2012.pdf

Internet Freedom Fellows Program Emphasizes Defense of Fundamental Freedoms Online

praskrishna — 2012-07-02T06:47:31Z

At the Human Rights Council (HRC), the United States has consistently placed special emphasis on the protection and promotion of the freedoms of expression, peaceful assembly and association, because we understand that these fundamental freedoms are essential to facilitating the exercise of other universal rights.

Published on DipNote, the US Department of State Official Blog

Ambassador Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe serves as the U.S. Representative to the Human Rights Council. His blog post was published on DipNote on June 25, 2012.

As activity in the economic, social, and the political realms gravitates from the offline world to the online world, we have an additional responsibility to ensure that human rights and fundamental freedoms are not eroded simply because they are being exercised in the digital realm. The United States is committed to the principle that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected in the online world.

Last week, I had the chance to spend time with the Internet Freedom Fellows, six young human rights activists, each of whom is working in his or her own way to promote and defend freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and association, and all other human rights on the Internet. The Internet Freedom Fellows (IFF) program is funded by the State Department's Innovation Fund and the U.S. Mission in Geneva, and was designed to follow up on Secretary Clinton's pledge to find innovative ways to promote the use of the Internet in support of human rights. The 2012 Fellows are: Dlshad Othman (Syria), Pranesh Prakash (India), Koundjoro Gabriel Kambou (Burkina Faso), Sopheap Chak (Cambodia), Andres Azpurua (Venezuela), and Emin Milli (Azerbaijan).

The fellows' visit to Geneva coincided with a moment when the Human Rights Council is seized with these issues: The United States and a cross regional group of countries consisting of Brazil, Nigeria, Tunisia, and Turkey have joined with Sweden to present a resolution on the Promotion, Protection and Enjoyment of Human Rights on the Internet. If adopted later this session, this landmark text will mark the first time the Council has substantively addressed the issue of human rights online in a resolution.

As the global community has watched during the past 18 months, individuals across the Middle East, North Africa and beyond have taken to both physical town squares and virtual spaces to express their legitimate aspirations and demand democracy. The Internet has become an essential medium through which journalists, activists, and citizens connect and share information in ways that are changing their societies.

One of this year's fellows is Dlshad Othman, a Syrian activist and IT engineer who has put his own life in danger to assist his fellow Syrian citizen journalists. Sitting next to me at a UN press conference, Dlshad explained how he helps provide Syrians with digital security resources so that they can communicate online freely and securely despite Assad's "electronic army," with its active online censorship and surveillance. Although he cannot currently return to his country, Dlshad is focused on making it possible for the world to hear the voices of people inside Syria. "This is actually the only way that we have at this time, since there isn't any media on the ground."

As the Representative of the United States to the Human Rights Council, I am inspired by these fellows and the courage they've displayed in using the digital realm to advocate for the human rights of their fellow citizens. I will recall their stories and experiences as I work to promote these fundamental freedoms in the Human Rights Council.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/defense-of-fundamental-freedoms-online

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

praskrishna — 2012-06-28T05:27:43Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strong Global Standard Needed, Democracies also Concerned

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Securing e-Governance

natasha — 2012-06-26T06:45:26Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The ITA lacks the following:

The definition and classification of data types.

The nature and protection of the categories of data.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About Privacy India

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

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

Click below to download the following resources:

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

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

CENSORSHIP 2020: The Future of Free Speech Online

praskrishna — 2012-06-28T10:01:00Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read Our Annual Reports and Audit Reports

Admin — 2025-12-29T14:02:33Z

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

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

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

Annual Report (2009-10)

praskrishna — 2012-06-20T11:54:08Z

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