Centre for Internet and Society

Censorship and sensibility in India

praskrishna — 2013-03-06T04:09:02Z

The past few weeks in India have seen films, an all-girl rock band, a fashion show, a Booker prize-winning novelist and a reputed academic become targets of harassment, legal action or threats of violence.

This article by Samanth Subramanian was published in the National on February 6, 2013. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

The most prominent case involved Vishwaroopam, a Tamil film that will be released in Tamil Nadu on Friday after a two-week delay. The film was blocked by the state government after some Muslim groups protested that it depicted Muslims in poor light. The director, Kamal Haasan, had to agree to cut seven scenes.

"The culture of taking offence has acquired an epidemic proportion, and we are moving in a direction where nothing, it seems, is a safe topic," said Salil Tripathi, who wrote the 2009 book Offence: The Hindu Case, on how Hindu fundamentalists have succeeded in censoring and banning many cultural works and teachings.

"If India doesn't step back from this abyss, it will begin to resemble the dictatorships where people speak in coded language, where real thoughts go underground," Mr Tripathi added.

On Sunday, a fashion show in the southern city of Visakhapatnam was cancelled after the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), a right-wing Hindu group, protested against women modelling dresses bearing images of Hindu deities.

In Delhi, an art gallery had to temporarily shut down on Monday after the VHP called for a ban on a retrospective of the modern nude because the exhibit included "indecent pictures". The VHP's women's wing, the Durga Vahini, harrassed women who were smoking and drinking in a restaurant in Mangalore last week.

Meanwhile, on Sunday, a Muslim cleric in Kashmir a fatwa against Pragaash, an all-girl high school rock band that was deemed "un-Islamic". The band has dissolved, although Omar Abdullah, the chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir, defended them last weekend on Twitter, saying: "I hope these talented young girls will not let a handful of morons silence them."

Last week, the author Salman Rushdie cancelled a visit to a literary festival in Kolkata, citing security concerns after protests by Muslim groups. The fair's organisers subsequently denied having invited him. Yesterday, the Indian Christian Republican Party complained to the police that Kadal, a new movie set in a Tamil Catholic fishing community, shows a framed picture of Jesus Christ being thrown to the floor.

These instances have sparked widespread criticism of what an editorial last week in The Hindu newspaper called India's "flourishing outrage industry". In the International Herald Tribune, the columnist Manu Joseph called modern India "a paradise for those who take offence".

The Indian constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression, but it is not without caveat. The constitution allows for "reasonable restrictions" on this right, in the interests of "public order, decency or morality".

Further, the Indian Penal Code contains two laws that have been invoked repeatedly to cramp free speech.

Section 295A punishes those who "outrage [the] religious feelings of any class" by spoken, written or visual means, with a fine or a prison term of up to three years.

Section 505(2) promises a similar punishment to those who make "statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes" on grounds of religion, caste, language or race.

Nikhil Mehra, a lawyer who practises in the Supreme Court, said both laws are antiquated holdovers from colonial India.

"The problem is that these laws are so broadly worded that cases can be impossible to quash, because it is difficult for a judge to take the view that some piece of speech does not promote enmity between groups," Mr Mehra said.

"I'd say there's no chance that these laws will be struck off the books," he said. "Politically, nobody will do it, because we have such a huge vacuum of leadership that nobody has the guts to step up and suggest such changes."

Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society, has extensively analysed cases where these laws are applied in conjunction with India's information technology act, which governs online speech.

"Given India's history of communal violence, it would be extraordinary for courts to directly criticise such laws," Mr Prakash said. But these laws are two among many "patently unconstitutional laws" in India's statute books, he pointed out.

"How could it be constitutional to prevent the free broadcast of news over radio, for instance, or to prohibit speech online that causes 'annoyance'?" Mr Prakash said. "Not only are antiquated and speech-restricting laws not being struck off, more such laws are being added to the statute books all the time."

An example, he said, was section 66a of the information technology act, which aims to curtail "offensive messages" online but is often used to target dissidents and even posts on social media.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/the-national-feb-6-2013-samanth-subramanian-censorship-and-sensibility-in-india

9th International Asian Conference

praskrishna — 2013-01-25T18:20:22Z

ITechLaw is organizing the 9th Annual Asian ITechLaw Conference on February 14 and 15, 2013 in India's high technology capital - Bangalore, India. Sunil Abraham will be speaking at this event.

This info was published on ITechLaw website on January 22, 2013.

This conference will focus on the latest regulatory, commercial and technology law issues being faced by emerging and growth industries in India and Asia as well as the U.S. and Europe.

Conference Program

Day 1, Thursday, February 14, 2013

07:45 - 08:45	Breakfast
09:00 - 09:10	Plenary Welcome Presidential Welcome John Beardwood, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, Toronto
09:10 - 09:30	Keynote Address (TBD)
09:30 - 11:15	Intellectual Property Moderator: Calab Gabriel, K&S Partners, New Delhi TBD Pravin Anand, Anand & Anand, New Delhi ISP Liability for IP Infringements Paulo Brancher, BKBG Attorneys at Law, Sao Paulo, Brazil John Doe IP Enforcement in India Sundari Pisupati, Tempus Law & Associates, Hyderabad Counterfeiting in the context of the Semiconductor Industry Gaurav Jabulee, Senior Counsel - Asia, Texas Instruments, Bangalore
11:15 - 11:30	Coffee / Tea / Networking Break
11:30 - 13:00	M & A in the Technology Sector Moderator: Manjula Chawla, Phoenix Legal, New Delhi Successor Liability Sadhana Kaul, GC, 3M, Bangalore Tax Planning for Software and Intellectual Property Transactions Roger Royse, Royse Law Firm, Palo Alto, California Post-M & A Integration of a Tech Company Sivaram Nair, General Counsel, Mphasis India, Bangalore
13:00 - 14:00	Buffet Lunch and Networking
14:00 - 15:30	Licensing and Contracting Moderator: Azmul Haque, Shook Lin & Bok LLP, Singapore Software Licensing Stephane Lemarchand, DLA Piper, Paris, France Contract Termination Richard Marke, BWB, London, UK 21st Century Sourcing - Latest Negotiation Trends and Alternative Contracting Models Nick Pantlin, Herbert Smith Freehills LLP, London, UK Internet Gaming and Gambling Moderator: Ananth Padmanabhan, Advocate, Madras High Court Social Gaming Jenna Karadbil, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, New York Indian Issues in Gaming and Gambling Regulations Talha Salaria, Lawyers at Work, Bangalore Amrut Joshi, Gamechanger Sports Ventures, Bangalore
15:30 - 15:45	Coffee / Tea / Networking Break
15:45 - 17:30	Privacy Issues relating to Employee Data Moderator: Poorvi Chothani, LawQuest International, Mumbai Legal Barriers for BYOD Strategies - A Holistic Approach to Legal Compliance and Security Martin Wiechers, Deutsche Telekom, Germany EU Employee Data Protection Roland Falder, Bird & Bird, Munich, Germany TBD Frederique David, Co-founding partner, TLD Legal, Paris, France Miscellaneous Hot Topics Moderator: Vineet Subramani, Versus, Mumbai Creating an Open Source Policy Heather Meeker, Greenberg Traurig, Palo Alto, California Journalism using Social Media - Issues relating to Freedom of Expression, Privacy and Interpretation of India's Information Technology Act. Swati Sukumar, Advocate, New Delhi Estate Planning for Digital Properties Wendy Goffe, Stoel Rives, Seattle, WA, USA
18:00 - 19:00	I-WIN Tea
19:30 - 22:00	Gala Dinner (Ticketed Event)

Day 2, Friday, February 15, 2013

08:00 - 08:45	Breakfast
09:00 - 09:30	Keynote Address (TBD)
09:30 - 11:15	Privacy: Data Protection Issues Across the Globe Moderator: Gabriela Kennedy, Hogan Lovells, Hong Kong Cross Border Transfers of Employee Data Dr. Wolfgang Büchner, Jones Day, Munich, Germany Data Protection Reform in the EU Kristian Foss, Gille advokater DA, Oslo, Norway Addressing the Criminal Aspects of Data Protection Violations Claire Bernier, Altanalaw, Paris, France
11:15 - 11:30	Coffee / Tea / Networking Break
11:30 - 13:00	E-Commerce Moderator: Raji Nagarkar, Cisco, Bangalore Privacy Aspects of E-Commerce in Australia Philip Catania, Corrs Chambers Westgart, Melbourne, Australia Retail Trading and E-Commerce in India Samuel Mani, MCM, Bangalore Commerce in the Social Media TBD
13:00 - 14:00	Buffet Lunch and Networking
14:00 - 15:30	Outsourcing Moderator: Bradley Joslove, Franklin, Paris Current Issues - Customer Perspective Mark Rasdale, A&L Goodbody, Dublin, Ireland Current Issues - Service Provider Perspective Kalpana Muthireddi, CSC India, Bangalore 2nd Generation Outsourcing Transactions Ulrich Baeumer, Osborne Clarke, Cologne, Germany
15:30 - 15:45	Coffee / Tea / Networking Break
15:45 - 17:00	Cloud 2.0 Issues Moderator: Rajesh Narang, VP legal & CS, Mindtree, Bangalore Virtual Offices and Cloud Computing - Legal Issues Genevieve Gill, GenLaw, Auckland, New Zealand Regulating the Cloud S.P. Purwar, J. Sagar Associates, Gurgaon Information Security in the Cloud Nagakumar Somasundaram, Amba Research, Bangalore
17:00 - 18:00	Censorship of Online Content Moderator: Stephen Mathias, Kochhar & Co., Bangalore Panel Discussion with the following Panelist Marc S Friedman, SNR Denton, New York, USA Priti Suri, PSA, New Delhi Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, Centre for Internet and Society
18:00 - 18-30	Closing Remarks Raffle Valedictory John Beardwood, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, Toronto
18:30 - 20:00	Closing Reception

See the speakers list here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/itech-law-india-ninth-intl-asian-conference

Internet Freedom in India – Open to Debate

praskrishna — 2013-01-25T10:45:56Z

In the aftermath of an Index on Censorship debate in New Delhi, Kirsty Hughes says India’s web users are standing at a crossroads

This article by Kirsty Hughes was published in Index on Censorship. CIS's research on censorship is quoted.

If debate is a sign of a positive environment for internet freedom, then India scores highly. From debates in parliament, and panel discussions (including Index’s own recent event) to newspaper editorials, blogs and tweets on the rights and wrongs of internet freedom, controls on the web, and India’s position in the international debate, there is no shortage of voices and views.

India has around 120 million web users — a large number but still only about 10 per cent of the country’s population. As cheaper smart phones enable millions more to access the net on their mobiles, India’s net savvy population is set to soar in the next few years. But what sort of online environment they will find is open to question — and to wide debate.

India has some very broad laws that could apply to a wide range of online speech, comment and criticism. These laws have been so far rather randomly applied. But the cases that have arisen — from individuals criticising politicians by email, Facebook or Twitter to some of the big web companies such as Google and Facebook (both facing numerous takedown requests and court cases in India) — show just why India needs to look at limiting both the range of some of its net laws, and to stop these laws criminalising a range of speech.

In 2012, there was widespread outcry in India when two women were arrested for complaining on Facebook about the disruption caused by the funeral of Bal Thackeray, leader of the right wing Hindu party, Shiv Sena. They were arrested under the infamous section 66A of India’s IT Act (2008) which criminalises “grossly offensive” and “menacing” messages sent by electronic means, but also “false” messages sent to cheat, deceive, mislead or annoy, taking online censorship beyond offline laws.

India’s telecom minister Kapil Sibal spoke out against the arrests. And as part of the fallout, guidelines were announced that in future any such charges could only be brought by senior police. But how effective such a restriction might be was challenged, with aTimes of India editorial suggesting “rampant political interference in law enforcement is itself a burning issue…so to argue that senior police officers will always resist mob pressure or political diktats isn’t persuasive.”

Other parts of the IT Act (2008) are also causing a chilling atmosphere in India’s cyber sphere — with new regulations introduced in 2011 obliging internet service providers to take down content within 36 of a complaint (whether an individual, organisation, government body or anyone else) or face prosecution. The law covers a sweeping range of grounds for complaint, including “grossly harmful”, “harassing, “blasphemous” and more. It also is confused on liability – holding intermediaries large and small responsible for content on websites and platforms.

One of India’s leading policy centres on digital issues, the Centre for Internet and Society, decided to test how this 36-hour takedown rule could result in censorship of innocuous and legal content on web sites. They sent complaints to four main search engines across a range of content — and as a result got thousands of innocuous posts removed; a censor’s dream outcome.

Despite a debate in parliament calling for repeal of the 2011 rules, for now they remain.

Some observers suggest the Indian government is catch-up mode, not fully understanding the reach or nature of social media or how to deal with the international range and speed of the web today — something plenty of other governments around the world are showing some confusion about. Some think the lively debate on net freedom in India reflects the voice and demands of the growing Indian middle class. But whether those demands remain pro-freedom is yet to be seen as internet penetration grows apace.

There are some other encouraging signs. While many in India are not keen at US dominance of key parts of internet regulation, there was concern from business and civil society ahead of the International Telecommunications Union summit in December 2012, when the Indian government looked like it might advocate some form of top down control of the web as an alternative. In the event, India, like the EU and US, did not go along with Russia, China and others keen to include net governance into the ITU’s remit.

India is going to be an increasingly influential voice in global internet debates — with its rapidly growing number of netizens and its increasing clout more widely in a multipolar world.

Its healthy and lively debate about digital freedom stands as a beacon of hope in the face of some of its more disturbing laws. But the laws will need to change, if India is to be a country that stands for internet freedom.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/index-on-censorship-kirsty-hughes-january-22-2013-internet-freedom-in-india

TV versus Social Media: The Rights and Wrongs

sunil — 2013-01-21T03:09:56Z

For most ordinary Netizens, everyday speech on social media has as much impact as graffiti in a toilet, and therefore employing the 'principle of equivalence' will result in overregulation of new media.

Sunil Abraham's guest column was published in the Tribune on January 20, 2013.

Many in traditional media, especially television, look at social media with a mixture of envy and trepidation. They have been at the receiving end of various unsavoury characters online and consequently support regulation of social media. A common question asked by television anchors is "shouldn't they be subject to the same regulation as us?" This is because they employ the 'principle of equivalence', according to which speech that is illegal on broadcast media should also be illegal on social media and vice versa. According to this principle, criticising a bandh on national TV or in a newspaper op-ed or on social media should not result in jail time and, conversely, publishing obscene content, in either new or old media, should render you a guest of the state.

Given that Section 66-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, places more draconian and arguably unconstitutional limits on free speech when compared to the regulation of traditional and broadcast media, those in favour of civil liberties may be tempted to agree with the 'principle of equivalence' since that will mean a great improvement from status quo. However, we must remember that this compromise goes too far since potential for harm through social media is usually very limited when compared to traditional media, especially when it comes to hate speech, defamation and infringement of privacy. A Facebook update or 'like' or a tweet from an ordinary citizen usually passes completely unnoticed. On rare occasion, an expression on social media originating from an ordinary citizen goes viral and then the potential for harm increases dramatically. But since this is the fringe case we cannot design policy based on it. On the other hand, public persons (those occupying public office and those in public life), including television journalists, usually have tens and hundreds of thousands friends and followers on these social networks and, therefore, can more consistently cause harm through their speech online. For most ordinary Netizens, everyday speech on social media has as much impact as graffiti in a public or residential toilet and therefore employing the 'principle of equivalence' will result in overregulation of new media.

Ideally speech regulation should address the asymmetries in the global attention economy by constantly examining the potential for harm. This applies to both 'speech about' public persons and also 'speech by' them. Since 'speech about' public persons is necessary for transparent and accountable governance and public discourse, such speech must be regulated less than 'speech about' ordinary citizens. Let us understand this using two examples: One, a bunch of school kids referring to a classmate as an idiot on a social network is bullying, but citizens using the very same term to criticise a minister or television anchor must be permitted. Two, an ordinary citizen should be allowed to photograph or video-record the acts of a film or sports star at a public location and upload it to a social network, but this exception to the right of privacy based on public interest will not imply that the same ordinary citizen can publish photographs or videos of other ordinary citizens. Public scrutiny and criticism is part of the price to be paid for occupying public office or public life. If speech regulation is configured to prevent damage to the fragile egos of public persons, then it would have a chilling effect on many types of speech that are critical in a democracy and an open society.

When it comes to 'speech by' those in public office or in public life - given the greater potential for harm - they should be held more liable for their actions online. For example, an ordinary citizen with less than 100 followers causes very limited harm to the reputation of a particular person through a defamatory tweet. However, if the very same tweet is retweeted by a television anchor with millions of followers, there can be more severe damage to that particular person's reputation.

Many in television also wish to put an end to anonymous and pseudonymous speech online. They would readily agree with Nandan Nilekani's vision of tagging all - visits to the cyber cafe, purchases of broadband connections and SIM cards and, therefore, all activities from social media accounts with the UID number. I have been following coverage of the Aadhaar project for the past three years. Often I see a 'senior official from the UIDAI' make a controversial point. If anonymous speech is critical to protect India's identity project then surely it is an important form of speech. But, unlike the print media, which more regularly uses anonymous sources for their stories, television doesn't see clearly the connection between anonymous speech and free media. This is because many of the trolls that harass them online often hide behind pseudonymous identities. Television forgets that anonymous speech is at the very foundation of our democracy, i.e., the electoral ballot.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/sunday-tribune-january-20-2013-sunil-abraham-tv-vs-social-media

Web of Sameness

nishant — 2013-01-18T06:17:29Z

The social Web has been an ominous space at the start of 2013. It has been awash with horror, pain and grief. The recent gang rape and death of a medical student in Delhi prevents one from being too optimistic about the year to come. My live feeds on various social networks are filled with rue and rage at the gruesome incident and the seeming depravity of our society.

Nishant Shah's column was published in the Indian Express on January 18, 2013.

As I contemplate the event, I see that the Web has become a space for coping with pain and mitigating the horror of our lives. I feel comforted, when I go online, and see people grieving for a woman they never knew, and demanding better conditions for all. As I look at these resolves for change, battle cries demanding justice, and angry responses directed at imagined and imaginary perpetrators of these crimes, I realise that I have heard it all before, over and over again.

“Not Again!” has been the refrain of the year. If life were a musical, this would have been the persistent chorus line of 2012. From fighting against censorship and violation of privacy by government and corporations to acts of hatred, or from ridiculing the map glitches on the iPhone to seeing the growing stronghold of authoritarian forces over the social Web, we have repeatedly rolled our digital sleeves, gnashed our fingers on the keyboards and shouted in political solidarity, “Not Again!”. While this show of protest, this robust expression of change holds a promise of how things will change for the better, it is also a refrain that has lost its bite. What does it mean, this ability to repeatedly say “Not Again!” only to experience these horrors in despairing cyclic patterns?

I want to see how the social Web and the new public spheres online might offer us outlets for emotions but not necessarily platforms for action. Some of the earliest critiques of the Web expressed the fear that given the extreme customisation of social networks, we might soon reside only in digital echo chambers. In the heavily informatised ages that we live in, it is not uncommon to set up specific groups that we belong to, identify friends that we talk with, mark people we follow, set up circles we share in, and configure filters that help us receive information that is tailor-made to suit our personalised preferences. Unfortunately, this quest for selective information sampling often means that we separate the digital spaces of life from the physical ones, without even realising it. We might be seamlessly navigating these two spaces, not really caring for the distinctions of “virtual reality” and “real life”, but in instances like these, it is easy to see how we shroud ourselves in echo chambers, never allowing voices to translate into the world of action.

You are sure to have been bombarded with tweets that have insightfully analysed the conditions of safety in our public spaces. And in all of this, like me, you must have been comforted thinking that there is still hope. But for every “like” you received on your status update, for every time your tweet got favourited or retweeted, for every time you found yourself agreeing with the social experts, you also separated yourself from the reality. Because the people who gave your opinions the attention, are actually people just like you. They are already on your side of things. Talking to them, exchanging ideas with them, calling for change side-by-side is like preaching to the choir, but it gives us a sense of having reached out. The voices in an echo chamber are not just repeated ad nauseum, but they are also not heard by anybody else on the outside, thus stifling the energy and passions that might have resulted in real change.

The Web also offers an easy separation of us versus them. As coping mechanisms and as a way of distancing ourselves from these events, the Web offers us a clear disavowal of guilt. The young man, who shot those children in the school, was mentally unstable. The laws that allowed him to purchase guns are because of the politicians and the arms industry. The student, who got raped in a bus, is the responsibility of the ‘rape capital’ Delhi. If we were in charge, these things would not have happened this way. But now they have happened, and so we will be angry, we will be shocked, we will tweet “Not Again!” and then quickly shift our ever-expanding attention to the burgeoning space of information online.

And then we will wait, for the next incident to happen — oh, not the same, but similar — and we will go through this process once again.

If I have to look into the future and hope that 2013 shall be the year of change, then I am hoping that the change will be from “Not Again” to a “Never Again”. We will have to learn how to use the energy, the power of the Web, the influence of the digital crowds on the digital commons, to produce a change that goes beyond the social network feeds.

I hope that the social Web matures. We have to make sure that the promise of change that the digital social network offers, does not die as armchair clicktivism that witnesses but does nothing to change the act that affects us.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/indianexpress-nishant-shah-january-12-2013-web-of-sameness

Is freedom of expression under threat in digital age?

praskrishna — 2013-01-17T06:16:09Z

With social networking site Facebook boasting of 1 billion members globally and micro-blogging site Twitter claiming millions, opinion was divided on whether the freedom of expression was under threat in the digital age.

This article was originally published by Indo Asian News Service on January 16, 2013. It was also covered in Business Standard, Vancouver Desi, DNA, and Tech2. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

"Censorship of content should be the last resort as curbing a particular content online actually amplifies its spread over the internet," said Sunil Abraham from Centre for Internet and Society.

He was speaking at a panel discussion organised by London based Index on Censorship and the Editors Guild of India on the issue at the India International Centre Tuesday evening.

"The government has refused to amend Section 66(A) of the IT Act which is used to curb free speech on the net," said Guild chief TN Ninan who moderated the debate. "The law treats digital media differently than the print media," he said.

Director of Free Speech Debate, Oxford University, Timothy Garton Ash said, "There was no threat to the freedom of speech as internet was actually an opportunity for spreading freedom of expression."

India with the large number of net users could act as swing state between two extremes of China which is trying to control the net and the US which champions free speech, he said.

"The question is what are the legitimate limits of free speech rather than asking for unlimited speech," said Ash.

Ajit Balakrishnan, CEO and founder of online portal rediff.com, said "there was a sense of powerlessness among nation states as only local laws applied to any such violations."

He said the internet was not so democratic as it sounded as the actual numbers of users who posted content on Facebook were just 8-9 million while the rest just watched. The same was with Twitter with just 7-8 percent users actually posting messages.

Kirsty Hughes, CEO, Index on Censorship, said "freedom of speech was universal" while noting a "worrying trend that increasingly governments were moving to control the internet."

"The risks of such controls are that we could have a much more controlled, censored and fragmented internet," she said.

Ramanjit Singh Chima of Google India stressed on the need to have laws to protect internet freedom as such curbs affected livelihood of many users and contributed to local economies.

He said the internet allowed people to instantly collaborate and publish critical information during emergency situations.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/ians-news-is-freedomexpression-under-threat-in-digital-age

Clash of the cyberworlds

praskrishna — 2013-01-15T06:57:48Z

In an increasingly digital world, the issue of Internet freedom and governance has become hugely contested. Censorship and denial of access occur across the political spectrum of nations, even in liberal democracies.

The article by Latha Jishnu, Dinsa Sachan and Moyna was published in Down to Earth magazine's January 15, 2013 issue. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

In run-up to the just-concluded World Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai, there was a frenzied campaign to ensure that governments kept their hands off the Internet. It was feared the International Telecommunications Union, a UN body, was aiming to take control of the Internet. That hasn’t happened. But the outcome in Dubai has highlighted once again the double speak on freedom by countries that claim to espouse it and by corporations interested in protecting their interests, says Latha Jishnu, who warns that the major threat to the Internet freedom comes from the wide-ranging surveillance measures that all governments are quietly adopting. Dinsa Sachan speaks to institutions and officials to highlight the primacy of cyber security for nations, while Moyna tracks landmark cases that will have a bearing on how free the Net remains in India.

For months now a little-known UN agency, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), has been looming large in cyberspace, portrayed as an evil force plotting to take over the Internet and threatening to destroy its freedom by rewriting archaic regulations. ITU, set up in 1865, is primarily a technical body that administers a 24-year-old treaty, International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs), which are basic principles that govern the technical architecture of the global communication system.

	How did the 193-nation ITU, which regulates radio spectrum, assigns satellite orbits and generally works to improve telecom infrastructure in the developing world, turn into everyone’s favourite monster in the digital world? The provocation was ITU’s World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai, where ITRs were proposed to be revised. Leaked documents of the proposals made to ITU had shown that statist countries like Russia and China, known for their crackdown on Internet freedom, had put forward proposals to regulate digital “crime” and “security” aspects that are currently not regulated at the global level for want of consensus on balancing enforcement with protection of individual rights.

Other proposals were about technical coordination and the setting up of standards that enable all the devices, networks and software across the Internet to communicate and connect with one another. Although ITU secretary general Hamadoun I Touré had emphasised that the Dubai WCIT was primarily attempting to chart “a globally agreed-upon roadmap that offers future connectivity to all, and ensures sufficient communications capacity to cope with the exponential growth in voice, video and data”, there was widespread scepticism among developed countries.

Online subversion in India AT the seventh annual meeting of the Internet Governance Forum in Baku, Azerbaijan, last November, Minister for Communications and Information Technology Kapil Sibal was a star turn. He made an elevating speech about the need to put in place a “collaborative, consultative, inclusive and consensual” system for dealing with policies involving the Internet. India, with 125 million Internet users—a number that “is likely to grow to about half a billion over the next few years”—would be a key player in the cyberworld of tomorrow, he promised. According to the minister, Internet governance was an oxymoron because the concept of governance was for dealing with the physical world and had no relevance in cyberspace. These were high sounding words that crashed against the reality of India’s paranoia over online subversion. For starters, Sibal flew into a media blitz over Google’s transparency Report which ranked India second globally in accessing private details of its citizens. Even if it was a far second behind the US, it was an embarrassing revelation for the government which appears to have been rather enthusiastic in seeking information on the users of its various services. Such user data would include social networking profiles, complete gmail accounts and search terms used. In the first half of 2012, India made 2,319 requests related to 3,467 users compared with 7,969 requests by the US. Globally, Google clocked a total of 20,938 requests for user data. A few days down the line there was a public explosion over the arrest of two young women in Palghar, near Mumbai, for posting a prosaic comment on Facebook over Bal Thackeray’s death. Thanks to the deliberately vague wording of Section 66A of the IT Act, such arrests have become common and Rajya Sabha devoted a whole afternoon to discuss the impugned legislation and seek its withdrawal. Sibal’s response has been to issue guidelines on the use of this Section which civil society organisations say will do nothing to sort out matters. Then there are the IT (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011, issued under Section 79 of the IT Act, which have been used indiscriminately by business interests to shut down websites, resulting in unbridled censorship of the Internet time and again. Although a motion for its annulment was moved in Parliament by Rajya Sabha member P Rajeeve, it was withdrawn after Sibal promised to talk to all stakeholders. A host of MPs have termed the rules a violation of right to freedom of speech besides going against the laws of natural justice. The promised meeting of stakeholders has not yielded any results and censorship on grounds of possible online piracy continues. In this regard, India is more restrained than the US which has pulled down huge numbers of domains on the ground they were violating intellectual property by selling pirated goods.

Western global powers, behemoth Internet companies, private telecom corporations and almost the entire pack of civil liberties organisations came together in a frenzied campaign to ensure that ITU kept its hands off the Internet. Massive online petitions were launched, backed by Internet companies such as search engine Google and social networking service Facebook. The Internet, they said, should not become an ITU remit because it would change the multi-stakeholder approach, which currently marks the way the Internet is governed, and replace it with government control that would curb digital freedom. Not only did the US administration oppose the revision of ITRs, the US Congress also passed a rare unanimous resolution against the WCIT proposals.

In the end, it was an anti-climax: nothing much came of these proposals. Although WCIT was marked by high drama—a walkout by the US and six European countries, a show of hands on a contested but innocuous resolution and an unexpected vote—the “final acts” (http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Documents/final-acts-wcit-12.pdf) or the changes in ITRs make no mention of the I word. Not once. The 30-page document states at the outset that “these regulations do not address the content-related aspects of telecommunications” —an indirect reference to the Internet.

	Ultimately, it was a triumph of the US-led position even if 89 of the 144 eligible countries signed it. Most of the developed countries refused to sign it. Nor, unexpectedly, did India, and thereby hangs a curious tale. Officials who were privy to the negotiations told Down To Earth that India was all set to sign the new ITRs when its delegation got last-minute instructions from Delhi not to endorse them. “It was unexpected and a let-down for India and our global allies,” confesses an official of the Ministry of Communications & IT. “There was nothing in the final document that we had objections to.” According to the grapevine, Minister for Communications and Information Technology Kapil Sibal was facing pressure from two sides: the US Administration and domestically from civil society, Internet service providers and the private telecom players who had objected to India’s proposals on ITRs. The US is known to be keeping a close eye on what India decides to do on the new treaty which it can still ratify. In the Dubai treaty, the only ITR that does impinge on the Net is (Article 5B) on unsolicited bulk electronic communications or spam. But even here, what it merely states is that member-states should endeavour to take necessary measures to prevent the “propagation of unsolicited bulk electronic communications and minimize its impact on international telecommunication services.”

In many ways, what took place during the hectic days before and during the December 3-14 WCIT was in a broad sense a replay of the Cold War scenario of the good (freedom-loving countries) versus evil (authoritarian or autocratic regimes), although alliance may have shifted in the two blocs. What is clear is that a larger geopolitical fight is playing out with the Internet as disputed terrain. American analysts themselves have pointed out that the “US got most of what it wanted. But then it refused to sign the document and left in a huff.”

Even the innocuous Article 5A, which calls on members “to ensure the security and robustness of international telecommunication networks”, was interpreted by US delegation head Terry Kramer as a means that could be used by some governments to curb free speech!

As an outraged Saudi delegate said, “It is unacceptable that one party to the conference gets everything they want and everybody else must make concessions. And after having made many concessions, we are then asked to suppress the language which was agreed to. I think that that is dangerous. We are on a slippery slope.” The final outcome: all the contentious issues were relegated to resolutions, which have no legal basis.

Indeed, the US has managed to get its way on most issues: protecting the mammoth profits of its Internet companies and ensuring that control of the Internet address system, now done by a group based in the US, will not be shared with other ITU members. And, the likes of Google (2011 profit: $37.9 billion) and Facebook will not have to pay telecom companies for use of their networks to deliver content.

Challenges of securing cyberworld

E-commerce in India, where every tenth person is online, is on the rise—and, consequently, crime on the Internet. In 2011, the country’s nodal agency for handling cyber crime, Indian Computer Emergency Response Team, tackled 13,301 incidences of security breach. The incidents ran the gamut from website intrusions, phishing to network probing and virus attacks. Further, in 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 (until October), there were 201, 303, 308 and 294 cyber attacks respectively on sites owned by the Indian government. Most notably, hacker group Anonymous defaced the website of Union Minister of Communications and Information Technology, Kapil Sibal.

To beef up cyber security, the Union ministry plans to pump in Rs 45 crore in 2012-13. It also put up a draft cyber security policy for public comments in 2011. Currently, cases involving cyber security and crime are handled under the IT Act of 2000 (Amendment 2008) and the Indian Penal Code.

But will the government go about its business of securing the Net in a responsible manner? There is scepticism. Section 69 of the Act gives any government agency the right to “intercept, monitor or decrypt” information online. Chinmayi Arun, assistant professor of law at National Law University in Delhi, said at the Internet Governance Conference held at FICCI in October that crimes like defamation are not on the same page as cyber terrorism, and “we have to question whether they warranty invasion of privacy”. She added that the workings of the surveillance system has to be made more open to build public trust.

Pranesh Prakash, policy director at Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) in Bengaluru, draws attention to a fundamental flaw in the section. “Government is allowed to wire tap under the Telegraph Act, 1885. But the Act lays out specific guidelines for such an action. For example, you can only tap phones in the case of a ‘public emergency’ or ‘public safety’ situation. The IT Act does not put such limitations on interception of information,” he says.

Cyber security and ITU

A few months prior to the controversial World Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai, countries, including Russia and Arab states, had proposed measures that would, through International Telecommunication Union (ITU), grant disproportional power to countries to control the Internet in the name of security measures. Several proposals, most notably those of India and Arab States, explicitly stated in the proposed Article 5A that countries should be able to “undertake appropriate measures, individually or in cooperation with other Member States” to tackle issues relating to “confidence and security of telecommunications/ICTs”. It raised alarm among civil society. US-based think tank Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) said in its report dated September, 2012, that cyber security does not fall under the ambit of International Telecom Regulations, and some countries would misuse such privileges for “intrusive or repressive measures”.

The proposal by African member states recommended that nations should “harmonise their laws” on data retention. In other words, intermediaries would have to retain public data for a long period so that governments can access it whenever they please. With regard to this, CDT noted, “Not only do national laws on data retention vary greatly, but there is ongoing controversy about whether governments should impose data retention mandates at all.”

A clause in the Arab proposal on routing said, “A Member State has the right to know how its traffic is routed.” Currently, the way Internet works, senders and recipients do not know how data between their computers travels or is routed. However, enabling countries to have control over routing has its dangers. CDT notes, “(This) would simply not work and could fundamentally disrupt the operation of the Internet.” Internet traffic travels over an IP network. While travelling, it is fragmented into small packets. Packets generally take a different path across interconnected networks in many different countries before reaching the recipient’s computer. CDT notes providing routing information to countries would require “extensive network engineering changes, not only creating huge new costs, but also threatening the performance benefits and network efficiency of the current system”. Although routing was not part of India’s proposal, Ram Narain, deputy director general at the department of telecommunications, told Down To Earth it was one of the country’s concerns.

However, to civil society’s partial relief, such draconian cyber security clauses were not adopted in the new itr treaty. Two clauses added to the treaty, Article 5A and 5B, address some cyber security concerns. Titled “Security and robustness of networks”, Article 5A urges countries to “individually and collectively endeavour to ensure the security and robustness of international telecommunication networks”. Article 5B talks about keeping tabs on spam.

Prasanth Sugathan, senior advocate with Software Freedom Law Centre, an international network of lawyers, says while he would have preferred that the two clauses were kept out of the new treaty, they do not seem harmful. “They are a much toned down version of what Arab states and Russia had suggested,” he says.

This is one reason India, Brazil and other democracies from the developing world also want a change in ITRs. They want the Internet behemoths to pay for access to their markets so that such revenues can be used to build their own Internet infrastructure.

In the furious debate on keeping the Net free of international control even hawk-eyed civil society organisations prefer to ignore the monetary aspects of Net control. Some analysts believe that maintaining the status quo is not so much about protecting the values of the Internet as about safeguarding interests, both monetary and hegemonistic. Such an assessment may not be wide of the mark if one joins the dots. Google, says a Bloomberg report of December 10, “avoided about $2 billion in worldwide income taxes in 2011 by shifting $9.8 billion in revenues into a Bermuda shell company, almost double the total from three years before”. It also said that the French, Italian, British and Australian governments are probing Google’s tax avoidance in its borderless operations.

	What is clear, however, is that a number of countries for reasons springing from different motivations, appear determined to undermine America’s control of the outfits that now define how the Internet works. Although the US maintains that ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) is a private, non-profit corporation, it is overseen by the US Commerce Department. According to People’s Daily, what the US spouts about Net freedom is so much humbug. In an August 2012 report, the leading Chinese daily claimed the US “controls and owns all cyberspaces in the world, and other countries can only lease Internet addresses and domain names from the US, leading to American hegemonic monopoly over the world’s Internet”. It also highlighted a fact that has slipped below the radar. During the Iraq invasion, the US government asked ICANN to terminate services to Iraq’s top-level domain name “.iq” and thereafter all websites with the domain name “.iq” disappeared overnight. It charges the US with having “taken advantage of its control over the Internet to launch an invisible war against disobedient countries and to intimidate and threaten other countries”. While this may be true, the irony is that China, with its great firewall of censorship, is in no shape to position itself as a champion of freedom. Like other authoritarian countries, it will do everything to police the Net and control it.

The right of countries and peoples to access the Net was highlighted in Dubai when some African countries raised the issue of US control of the global Internet. Some of these, such as Sudan, have long been complaining about Washington’s sanctions that entail denial of Internet services. ITU officials point out that Resolution 69, first passed in the 2008 meeting, invoked again in 2010 and dusted off once again for the WCIT negotiations, invoked “human rights” to argue for “non-discriminatory access to modern telecom/ ICT facilities, services and applications”. Says Paul Conneally, head of Communications & Partnership Promotion at ITU, “The real target of these resolutions are US sanctions imposed on nations that are deemed bad actors. These sanctions mean that people in those countries—not just the government, mind you, but everyone, innocent and guilty alike—are denied access to Internet services such as Google, Sourceforge, domain name registrars such as GoDaddy, software and services from Oracle, Windows Live Messenger, etc.”

The catalogue of Sudan’s complaints shows at least 27 instances in 2012 when companies from Google to Microsoft and Paypal to Oracle cut off their services to the African country. This might explain why major companies would be opposed to the resolution on a right to access Internet services. Such a right would allow countries to use ITRs to compel them to provide services they might otherwise have preferred not to. But so far all such sanctions appear to have been a decision of the US Administration.

The problem of the digital divide, in fact, did not get the headlines it should have. Africa accounts for just 7 per cent of the 2.4 billion people who use the Net worldwide and penetration in the region is just 15.6 per cent of the population. Compare this with North America where over 78 per cent are linked to the digital world and Touré’s logic about the ITU’s mandate appears reasonable.

When Apple censors the drone war NETIZENS know that the Internet suffers from the depredations of government, hackers and viruses. But not many are aware that companies are as prone to taking legitimate stuff off the Net on the flimsiest grounds. In the case of Apple it could have been misplaced patriotism or plain business sense that prompted it to block an app which monitors drone strike locations in November last year. The App Store rejected the product, calling it “objectionable and crude”. Drones+ (see photo) is an application that simply adds a location to a map every time a drone strike is reported in the media and added to a database maintained by the UK’s Bureau of Investigative Journalism. Josh Begley, a graduate student at New York University, who developed the app, says it shows no visuals of war or classified information. All it does is to keep its users informed about when and where drone attacks are taking place in Pakistan and Afghanistan. “This is behavior I would expect of a company in a repressive country like China, not an iconic American company in the heart of Silicon Valley,” says a petition to the company CEO. Did Apple’s censorship have anything to do with the fact that it received huge contracts from the Pentagon? US legislators have joined the protests against Apple. The most brazen act of corporate censorship occurred in August 2012 with NASA’s livestream coverage of the Curiosity rover’s landing on Mars in the space agency’s $2.5 billion mission. A news agency, Scripps, coolly claimed as its own the public domain video posted on NASA’s official YouTube channel that documented the epic landing (see our opening visuals). “This video contains content from Scripps Local News, who has blocked it on copyright grounds. Sorry about that,” said a message on NASA’s blackened screen. So much for the strict US laws aimed at curbing online piracy!

Touré noted that the revised ITRs would see greater transparency in global roaming charges, lead to “more investment in broadband infrastructure” and help those with disabilities. But he was hopeful that the new treaty signed in Dubai would make it possible for the 4.5 billion people still offline to be connected. “When all these people come online, we hope they will have enough infrastructure and connectivity so that traffic will continue to flow freely,” Touré said.

But should ITU govern the Net? Not in its entirety, according to experts. For one, ITU until the Dubai meeting was far from being transparent and does not allow participation of civil society or other stakeholders in its negotiations unless they are part of the official delegation of the member-states. In fact, even critics of the current system, who think the system is lopsided and hypocritical, believe ITU needs to reform itself and confine to the carrier/infrastructure layer of the Internet. Nor should it get into laying down standards which is done by Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the naming and numbering that is managed by ICANN.

But Conneally counters this by asking what would happen if the US decided to deny domain name root zone to Iran because of its bad human rights record. “Suppose it ordered Verisign to remove .IR from the DNS root and make it non-functional. Would we want ICANN/the Internet governance regime to be used as a political/strategic tool to reform Iran? What happens to global interoperability when the core infrastructure gets used in that way?”

Who then should ensure that the Internet is run in a free and open manner? Should it be the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)? But IGF is to be an open consultative forum that cannot by itself govern. It brings in participation for any or all Internet-related policy processes but it by itself was never supposed to do policy or governance.

Parminder Jeet Singh, executive director of ItforChange, says whoever governs is the government for that purpose. “This truism is significant in the present context, because there is an attempt by those who really control/ govern the Internet at present, largely through illegitimate and often surreptitious ways, to confuse issues around Internet governance in all ways possible, including through abuse of established language and political principles and concepts.”

ITforChange is a Bengaluru institution working on information society theory and practice, especially from the standpoint of equity, social justice and gender equality, and it is that perspective which informs Singh’s suggestions. “What we need are safeguards as, for instance, with media regulation. The Internet, of course, is much more than media. It is today one of the most important factors that can and will influence distribution of economic, social and political power. Without regulation it will always be that those who currently dominate it will take away the biggest pie.

Surveillance club

Eight Indian companies are among the 700 members of European Telecommunications Standards Institute. The group works with government and law enforcement agencies to integrate surveillance capabilities into communications infrastructure. It also hosts regular meetings on lawful interception

Wipro Technologies	Associate Service Providers
• HCL Technologies Limited	• Associate Consultancy for Co./Partnership
• Accenture Services Pvt Ltd	• Observers
• CEWiT	• Associate Research Body
• Saankhya Labs Pvt Ltd	• Associate Manufacturers
• Sasken Communication	• Associate Manufacturers
• Technologies
• SmartPlay Technologies	Associate Consultancy for Co./Partnership
• TEJAS NETWORKS LTD	• Associate Manufacturers

Other critics of the current system concede that bringing governments on board, especially authoritarian and statist powers which the digital world threatens, would give them perverse incentives to control it. But this threat should be met not by insisting that the Internet needs no governance or regulation, but by safeguards that ensure equitable access and benefits, Singh stresses.

While the jury is out on the question whether the new ITRs will make any material difference to the way, and if at all, the Net will come under added government oversight and intervention, developments elsewhere show that ITU is not the main threat to digital freedom.

The irony is that while cyber security is contentious in ITU, other international organisations, such as the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and a clutch of influential telecom industry associations, are pushing for surveillance programmes that ensure policing of a high order with sophisticated infrastructure to monitor online communications. A host of countries already have such systems in place and are pressuring countries like India to fall in line.

A UNODC report, titled ‘The use of the Internet for terrorist purposes’, has detailed how countries can and should use new technology for online surveillance—all in the name of anti-terrorism. The report discusses sensitive issues such as blocking websites and using spyware to bypass encryption and also urges countries to cooperate on an agreed framework for data retention.

At the same time, powerful industry bodies, such as ATIS (Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions) and the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), are reported to be working with government and law enforcement agencies to integrate surveillance capabilities into communications infrastructure, according to Future Tense, a project which looks at emerging technologies and how these affect society, policy and culture. It says India is under pressure from another industry organisation, the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA), “to adopt global standards for surveillance”, calling on the country’s government to create a “centralized monitoring system” and “install state-of-the-art legal intercept equipment”.

TIA is a Washington-based trade group which brings together companies such as Nokia, Siemens Networks and Verizon Wireless, and is focused on issues related to electronic surveillance and is developing standards for intercepting VOIP and data retention alongside with ETSI and ATIS. At least seven Indian companies are members of ETSI, which is said to hold international meetings on data interception thrice a year.

Add to this chilling list the International Chamber of Commerce. It is reported to be seeking the establishment of surveillance centre hubs of several countries to help governments intercept communications and obtain data that is stored in cloud servers in foreign jurisdictions. Given this backdrop why are the US and its cohorts creating a ruckus on ITRs?

It would also mean that by focusing on ITRs and ITU as a major threat to Internet freedom civil society may be jousting at windmills.

Malice and freedom of speech

Two suits highlight the challenge of treading between the two

Among the many legal cases in India related to the use and misuse of the world wide web, two stand out for involving web giants and provoking sharp reaction. These are the cases registered in Delhi district courts in December 2011, objecting to chunks of content—portraying prominent political figures and religious places among others in a certain light—hosted on websites. One was filed by a Delhi journalist, Vinai Rai, requesting the court to press criminal charges against 21 web agencies, including Google, Facebook and Yahoo! India. The other, filed by a social activist, M A A Qasmi, was a civil suit requesting action against 22 web agencies. Both mentioned that the content on the websites was inflammatory, threat to national integrity, unacceptable, and created enmity, hatred and communal discord.

A year on, tangible impact has not been much. The number of accused in the civil case has come down to seven web agencies and in the criminal case the government is yet to issue summons to the companies concerned (see ‘The case so far’). However, these litigations are seen as landmarks in the recent history of the Internet and its interaction with societies and governments. The cases—especially off-the-record comments by the judiciary suggesting blanket ban and pre-screening of all content—provoked a debate on the freedom of expression and Indian cyber laws.

The case so far

JANUARY 13, 2012: Delhi High Court dismisses petition by Google and Facebook asking to be absolved of criminal charges filed in district court

JANUARY 20: High Court asks for reply from Delhi Police in response to plea by Yahoo! India challenging district court summons

FEBRUARY 16: Court refuses to stay proceedings against Facebook and Google but allows them to be represented by counsel

MARCH: Court dismisses criminal charges against Yahoo! India and Microsoft but says the charges can be revived if new evidence comes to light. Sets aside summons

Malicious content exists on the web and may even need to be taken down, but the laws used to remove malicious content can also be used to curb political speech, thus, infringing on the right to freedom of expression, says Prasanth Sugathan, senior advocate with Software Freedom Law Centre, an international network of lawyers.

Some like Pranesh Prakash of non-profit Centre for Internet and Society believe the IT Rules are at odds with the IT Act and give powers for censorship. He explains that the IT Act, 2000, provides for protection of intermediaries; web browsers, social networking sites and websites cannot be held responsible for what a third party publishes on their forums—“similar to the way in which we cannot sue a telephone agency or a post office for someone else making use of these platforms to harass or defame another person”. But the IT rules of 2011 watered down this protection.

Supreme Court advocate and cyber law expert Pavan Duggal explains how. The Act states once a complaint is made against certain content, the web agency hosting it must notify the person who put up the content, verify the content and judge whether it needs to be removed. But the rules state that once the web agency is notified it must remove the content within 36 hours or it could be prosecuted for not acting on the complaint. The rules have gone beyond the Act’s scope, especially vis-a-vis privacy and data protection, leaving no scope for hearing out the accused, he says.

The disjunct between the Act and the rules is being contested in various spheres, including Parliament. But there is a bright side too. Duggal believes the cases have brought pertinent issues, like free speech and privacy concerns, into the public domain. Ramanjeet Chima, policy adviser for Google, says freedom of expression is paramount for Google but the recognition of local sentiments is also being given equal weightage.

Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra, who was representing Facebook in the Delhi High Court, wonders whether the existing Indian laws are in tune with the ever-changing online world. Unwilling to comment on the case, he says the law is limited in its scope, while technology is not. Refusing to comment on the cases, the Google adviser emphasised the need to use the existing provisions of big web agencies to address grievances regarding content.

The Internet “is not the wild wild west”; all content, users and viewers can be traced, Duggal cautions. Since the Internet can impact political issues government is increasingly looking for ways to control it. “There is no ideal solution but it is evident that some monitoring and regulation are required, and in all parts of the world all regimes are in the process of addressing this,” he says.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/down-to-earth-latha-jishnu-dinsa-sachan-moyna-january-15-2013-clash-of-the-cyber-worlds

UN agrees to review agencies governing Internet

praskrishna — 2012-12-31T02:40:20Z

Although India’s proposal has been criticized as an effort to control the Net, govt says this will ensure it has more say in policymaking.

The article by Surabhi Agarwal was published in Livemint on December 27, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

In the fierce debate on who governs the Internet, the Indian government can claim a small victory of sorts after the UN decided to establish a working group to review the mandate of agencies administering the worldwide network of computers.

India last year proposed creating an UN agency, dubbed the Committee on Internet-Related Policies (CIRP), that would decide on issues related to the Internet, including control of resources such as domain names and Internet Protocol (IP) addresses. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann), a non-governmental organization based in the US, currently administers these.

The US, the UK and Canada refused to sign a new communications treaty proposed at the 3-14 December Dubai conference of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), which sets global telecom technical standards, on fears that it will give national governments greater control over the Internet and may restrict free speech. India, too, hasn’t signed the pact.

“Even though the United Nations has not yet accepted India’s proposal for constituting CIRP, it (the formation of a working group) is a step forward, as now the working group on enhanced cooperation will deliberate on the need for CIRP,” a government official said, requesting anonymity.

Although India’s proposal has been criticized as an effort to control the Internet, the government has said this will ensure it has a greater say in Internet policymaking.

The Commission on Science and Technology for Development, a UN body, has been asked to establish a working group on enhanced cooperation to examine the mandate of the World Summit on the Information Society, which issues non-binding guidelines on the Internet, “through seeking, compiling and reviewing inputs from all member states and all other stakeholders,” according to a 12 December letter from the UN to the Indian government. The working group has been asked to submit its report to the commission in 2014.

Mint has reviewed a copy of the letter and also India’s response to the UN welcoming the move.

The UN’s move reflected India’s growing influence in multilateral policymaking bodies, according to Rajat Kathuria, chief executive and director of Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, a think tank.

“India’s increasing clout not only in the WTO (World Trade Organisation) but also in these kinds of forums is fairly obvious,” he said. The country should be able to stand its ground and use its negotiating powers well, he added. “Everybody is looking at India now and it should not be forced into getting into things it doesn’t want to.” Kathuria also agreed with India’s decision to consider in detail the new global telecom pact, which contains a resolution on the Internet, before signing it.

“We don’t have enough information on the impact of signing this treaty,” Kathuria said. “I agree with what India has done. We need to do our homework and understand clearly what it means.”

Although the treaty is restricted to telecom standards, it contained a non-binding resolution on the Internet. The treaty stated that its purview doesn’t include content over telecommunications networks or the Internet.

However, there have been divergent views on its implications. While some have argued that signing it would mean giving the ITU dominance over Internet governance, others dismiss it as harmless.

“This wasn’t an ITU takeover of the Internet and India’s signing of the treaty will not make it one,” said Pranesh Prakash, policy director at Centre for Internet Studies, a Bangalore-based think tank.

However, India’s cautious approach is a good sign, he said. “I hope civil society is consulted before the decision is taken whether to support ITR (International Telecommunication Regulations) and the resolutions which were passed in Dubai.”

Critical Internet resources such as domain names and IP addresses are like natural resources and no one country should monetize them or have control over them, said another government official.

“It is of utmost importance for India to have a say in the matters of the Internet as the country has huge untapped potential in the area of Internet and technology,” said the official, who too declined to be named.

A white paper on Internet governance by Research and Information System for Developing Countries, chaired by Shyam Saran, former Indian diplomat, has said the Internet continues to be managed by private entities such as Icann “under contractual arrangements with the US government”.

Icann is not controlled by the US government, an official of the Internet administrator said on condition of anonymity. It follows a multi-stakeholder model.

The paper on Internet governance argued against the allegation that India’s proposal of CIRP will lead to government’s control of the Internet.

“India’s proposal for CIRP, a multilateral and multi-stakeholder mechanism, is not intended to control content,” it said. “It does not insist that the governments have the last word in regulating the Internet.”

The paper had argued that India should pursue the establishment of a working group on enhanced cooperation, which will pave the way for further consideration of India’s proposal for the establishment of CIRP.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/livemint-december-27-2012-surabhi-agarwal-un-agrees-to-review-agencies-governing-internet

The freedom of expression debate: The State must mend fences with The Web

praskrishna — 2013-01-07T10:30:21Z

A fortnight after her arrest, Renu Srinivasan spends her free time singing Ashley Tisdale's number Suddenly. The lyrics - Suddenly people know my name, suddenly, everything has changed - resonate with the story of her life ever since she 'liked' and 'shared' her friend, Shaheen Dhada's, 21, controversial post regarding Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray's funeral on Facebook on November 18 and got arrested for it.

The article by Rahul Jayaram was published in India Today on December 18, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

She's now flooded with "hundreds" of messages on FB; some congratulatory, others abusive and gets at least a dozen friend requests on the social networking site. When Renu went to the doctor last week, two constables accompanied her.

"All of a sudden, there's too much attention on me," says the Botany graduate from Dandekar College and a budding singer who is making new friends in the virtual world. There's, however, a word from caution from her father P.A. Srinivasan: "Don't comment on controversial issues you don't understand."

Bloggers are careful. Krish Ashok, a well-known blogger is disappointed with the government's lack of engagement with India's surging online community. In a blog post in August 2010, he made fun of the Ramayana and the fact that women couldn't enter the Sabarimala temple in Kerala. A group called Hindu Janajagruti Samiti threatened to take him to court. Ashok spoke to his lawyer.

"I was amazed. She said no individual could take action against me. But a group or organisation could," he says. Since then, he has become more aware of his Internet rights.

Gursimran Khamba, who has over 30,000 followers on Twitter, kept his cool during Thackeray's death and funeral. When all the media went gaga over him, televising his family photo albums, Khamba, re-tweeted reports and accounts of the Shiv Sena's role during the Mumbai riots of 1992-93. "In my head, I am not courageous to say anything about it myself," he says. He didn't want to incite. He'd rather help his followers get a more nuanced picture of a venerated leader.

Palghar and after, has made Ashok think. "I would reduce the number of provocative posts I might make," he says. Khamba says he will stick to comedy and doesn't believe in offence for the sake of offending although "taking offence is our national sport."

It is a shame, for the Internet is growing in India like nobody's business. It's the medium of the age.

According to comScore, a company that measures Internet trends, India is the fastest growing online market in the last 12 months among BRIC nations. There were 44.5 million unique visitors in July 2011 and in July 2012 there were 62.6 million unique visitors. That is, a growth of 44 per cent in one year. The total Internet usage of 124.7 million users in July 2012, that is, a 41 per cent growth from last year (July 2011).

With 124 million users as of July 2012, India has an Internet penetration of 10 per cent. 75 per cent of India's online users are below the age of 35 making it one of the youngest Net-connected populations. 39.3 per cent of India's Internet population consists of females. It has the highest growth seen among 15 to 24 male and female segments. India has 56.2 million Facebook users and 4.1 million Twitter users. Facebook had 35.3 million users in July 2011 and it jumped to 52.1 million in July 2012. That's a growth of 47% in just one year!

Growth of the Internet is one thing. Freedom of the Internet is another. Freedom House, an American organisation that tracks political and civil liberties worldwide, is blunt in its assessment. India is third in terms of Internet penetration, after the United States and China. Before November 2008, government control over the Internet was limited. All that changed after the November 2008 Mumbai attacks.

Since then it says, "The need, desire, and ability of the Indian government to monitor, censor, and control the communication sector have grown. Given the range of security threats facing the country, many Indians feel that the government should be allowed to monitor personal communications such as telephone calls, email messages, and financial transactions. It is in this context that Parliament passed amendments to the Information Technology Act (ITA) in 2008, expanding censorship and monitoring capabilities. This trend continued in 2011 with the adoption of regulations increasing surveillance in cyber cafes. Meanwhile, the government and non-state actors have intensified pressure on intermediaries, including social media applications, to remove upon request a wide range of content vaguely defined as "offensive" and potentially pre-screen user-generated content. Despite new comprehensive data protection regulations adopted in 2011, the legal framework and oversight surrounding surveillance and interception remains weak, and several instances of abuse have emerged in recent years."

Over this year we have had the cases of cartoonist Aseem Trivedi being put in jail and later released in September. In April, Ambikesh Mahaptra of Jadavpur University in Kolkata was arrested for a cartoon poking fun at West Bengal chief minister Mamta Banerjee and Railway Minister Mukul Roy. In October, Ravi, owner of plastic packaging material factory was arrested and let off on bail for joking about Finance Minister P. Chidambaram's son, Karti. The list gets longer. The Web and the State are at loggerheads. Why?

Lawyers and bloggers haul up Internet laws. And for such a community, we have laws like Section 66 (A) of the Information Technology Act of 2000. The law states that "any person who sends by means of a computer resource or a communication device, any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character," can be booked for online crime.

Legal experts think Section 66 (A) and the whole of the IT Act of 2000, needs revisiting. According to cyber lawyer Pavan Duggal, Section 66 (A) "is a vanilla provision that can be used for anything online."

Section 66(A) seeks to empower the police and the complainant. "The words 'grossly offensive' and 'menacing character' of Section 66 (A) have no definition given. Normal, legitimate bona fide conversation between boyfriend and girlfriend at noble times online is fine. Once relationship sours, and they are gone."

"It's not clear what the purpose of Section 66A is. It's like having a single provision covering murder, assault, intimidation, and nuisance, and prescribing the same penalty for all of them," says Pranesh Prakash of the Center for Internet and Society, Bangalore. Terminology and the law's purpose are massive concerns.

"The extent of the ambiguity of Section 66A is worrying. Laws need to be very clear about what they want to achieve. If it is murder, then it must say murder. If its attempted murder, it must be clear it is attempted murder. Section 66 A is trying to do too many things at the same time. Its canvas is too vast," says Rajeev Chandrasekar.

As a country, we look to imitate the West, and often copy it badly. Some wonder if we need to mime the West. Pranesh Prakash thinks the Indian Constitution is stronger on free speech grounds than the (unwritten) UK Constitution, and the judiciary has wide powers of judicial review of statutes (i.e., the ability of a court to strike down a law passed by Parliament as 'unconstitutional').

Judicial review of statutes does not exist in the UK (with review under its EU obligations being the exception) as they believe that Parliament is supreme, unlike India. Putting those two aspects together, a law that is valid in the UK might well be unconstitutional in India for failing to fall within the eight octagonal walls of the reasonable restrictions allowed under Article 19(2).

Rajeev Chandrasekar thinks the Brits got it right. During the London riots of June 2011, "the UK government kept a tab on social media networking sites so as to check incitement, he says. It was a good example of clear legislation and effective execution, in an extreme scenario." To defuse online paranoia he wants the government to have a multi-stakeholder arrangement in fixing IT laws. This must involve users, IT companies, cyber cafe owners and the government. The State must mend fences with the Web.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/india-today-rahul-jayaram-december-18-2012-the-freedom-of-expression-debate

Hacktivists deface BSNL website

praskrishna — 2012-12-14T05:20:56Z

The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) website, www.bsnl.co.in, was hacked and defaced on Thursday afternoon.

The article by Kim Arora was published in the Times of India on December 13, 2012. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

A message on the home page said the attack was carried out by the hacktivist group, Anonymous India, as a protest against section 66 A of the IT Act and in support of cartoonist Aseem Trivedi, on an indefinite hunger strike at Jantar Mantar since Dec 8 for the same. The website was restored around 7 pm.

Trivedi said he had received a call from Anonymous around 1.30 in the afternoon informing him that the website has been defaced. On being asked if such a form of protest was valid, Trivedi said, "When the government doesn't pay heed to people's protests against its laws and arrests innocent people for Facebook posts, then such a protest is absolutely valid."

For most of the afternoon and early evening, the BSNL website wasn't available directly. A cached version of the BSNL home page showed an image of cartoonist Trivedi with text that read "Hacked by Anonymous India. support Aseem trivedi (cartoonist) and alok dixit on the hunger strike. remove IT Act 66a databases of all 250 bsnl site has been d Hacked by Anonymous India (sic)". While this message was repeated over and over on the page, it ended with the line "Proof are (sic) here" followed by a link to a page containing the passwords to BSNL databases. BSNL officials were unaware of the attack until Thursday evening.

Late in the evening, Anonymous India tweeted from their account @opindia_revenge: "BSNL Websites hacked, passwords and database leaked... Anonymous India demands withdrawal of Sec 66A of IT Act."

In an open letter to the Government of India posted on alternate media website Kafila in June this year, Anonymous had explained they only carried out Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks on Indian government websites, which is different from the act of hacking per se.

Contrary views too exist. Sunil Abraham, executive director, Centre for Internet and Society, says the attack was unwarranted. "Speech regulation in India is not a lost cause, the Minister is holding consultations, MPs are raising the issue in Parliament, courts have been approached and there is massive public outcry on social media. Therefore I would request Anonymous India to desist from defacing websites," said Abraham. A group of MPs, including Baijayant Jay Panda from Odisha, are scheduled to present a motion in Parliament on Friday morning for the amendment of section 66A of the IT Act.

Last month, two young girls were arrested in Palghar, Maharashtra, for criticizing on Facebook the bandh that followed the death of Shiv Sena supremo Balasaheb Thackeray. Before that, Karti Chidambaram, son of finance minister P Chidambaram, took a man to court for commenting on his financial assets on Twitter. In both cases, the complainant 'used' section 66 A of the IT Act. The section and the Act have since come in for wide debate regarding freedom of speech.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/times-of-india-india-times-december-13-2012-kim-arora-hacktivists-deface-bsnl-website

Online Censorship: How Government should Approach Regulation of Speech

sunil — 2012-12-05T07:06:52Z

Why is there a constant brouhaha in India about online censorship? What must be done to address this?

Sunil Abraham's article was published in the Economic Times on December 2, 2012.

Of course, we must get the basics right â€” bad law has to be amended, read down by courts or repealed, and bad implementation of law should be addressed via reform and capacity building for the police. But most importantly those in power must understand how to approach the regulation of speech.

To begin with, speech is regulated across the world. Even in the US â€” contrary to popular impression in India â€” speech is regulated both online and offline.

However, law is not the basis of most of this regulation. Speech is largely regulated by social norms. Different corners of our online and offline society have quite complex forms of self-regulation.

The harm caused by speech is often proportionate to the power of the person speaking â€” it maybe unacceptable for a politician or a filmstar to make an inflammatory remark but that very same utterance from an ordinary citizen may be totally fine.

To complicate matters, the very same speech by the very same person could be harmful or harmless based on context. A newspaper editor may share obscene jokes with friends in a bar, but may not take similar liberties in an editorial.

The legal scholar Alan Dershowitz tells us, "The best answer to bad speech is good speech." More recently the quote has been amended, with "more speech" replacing "good speech".

Censorship by the state has to be reserved for the rarest of rare circumstances. This is because censorship usually results in unintended consequences.

The "Streisand Effect", named after the singer-actor Barbra Streisand, is one of these consequences wherein attempts to hide or censor information only result in wider circulation and greater publicity.

The Maharashtra police's attempt to censor the voices of two women has resulted in their speech being broadcast across the nation on social and mainstream media. If the state had instead focused on producing good speech and more speech, nobody would have even heard of these women.

Circumventing Censorship

Peer-to-peer technologies on the internet mimic the topology of human networks and can also precipitate unintended consequences when subject to regulation. John Gilmore, a respected free software developer, puts it succinctly: "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."

Most of the internet censorship in the US is due to IPR-enforcement activities. This is why Christopher Soghoian, a leading privacy activist, attributes the massive adoption of privacy-enhancing technologies such as proxies and VPNs (virtual private networks) by American consumers to the crackdown on online piracy.

In India, and even when the government has had legitimate reasons to regulate speech, there have been unintended consequences.

During the exodus of people from the North-east, the five SMS per day restriction imposed by the government resulted in another exodus from SMS to alternative messaging platforms such as BlackBerry Messenger (BBM), WhatsApp and Twitter.

In both cases the circumvention of censorship by the users has resulted in a worsening situation for law-enforcement organisations â€” VPNs and applications like WhatsApp are much more difficult to monitor and regulate.

Mixed Memes

Regulation of speech also cannot be confused with cyber war or security. Speech can occasionally have security implications but that cannot be the basis for enlightened regulation.

A cyber war expert may be tempted to think of censored content as weapons, but unlike weapons that usually remain lethal, content that can cause harm today may become completely harmless tomorrow. This is unlike a computer virus or malware. For example, during the exodus, the online edition of ET featured the complete list of 309 URLs that were in the four block orders issued by the government to ISPs.

However, this did not result in fresh harm, demonstrating the fallacy of cyber war analogies. A cyber security expert, on the other hand, may be tempted to implement a 360Â° blanket surveillance to regulate speech, but as Gilmore again puts it, "If you're watching everybody, you're watching nobody."

In short, if your answer to bad speech is more censorship, more surveillance and more regulation, then as the internet meme goes, "You're Doing It Wrong".

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/economic-times-december-2-2012-sunil-abraham-online-censorship

So Much to Lose

nishant — 2012-12-07T16:39:09Z

Unless you have been hiding under a rock, you have been a witness to the maelstrom of events that accompanied the death of the political leader Bal Thackeray.

Nishant Shah's column was published in the Indian Express on December 2, 2012.

Unless you have been hiding under a rock, you have been a witness to the maelstrom of events that accompanied the death of the political leader Bal Thackeray. For me, the brouhaha was elbowed out by the case of the police arresting two women for critiquing the events on Facebook. The person who wondered about the nature of the enforced mourning and the state of our public life, and her friend who “liked” the comment on Facebook, were booked and arrested under charges that can only be considered preposterous.

I will not repeat these arguments because it is needless to say that I am on the side of the women and think of this as yet another manifestation of the stringent measures which are being evolved as an older broadcast way of thinking meets the decentralised realities of digital technologies.

In the midst of this the idea of internet freedom needs to be revisited. The global Press Freedom Index 2011-12 report compiled by Reporters Without Borders, ranks India at 131, or as a “partly free” country, marking us as a country where the notion of internet freedom is not to be taken for granted, and possibly also one where the concept is not properly understood.

Citing various instances from the central government’s plans to censor the social web to the authoritarian crackdown on activists and cultural producers involved in online civic protests, from the traditional media industry’s stronghold over intellectual property regimes to the arrest of individuals for voicing their independent critiques online, the report shows that we not only have an infrastructure deficit (with only 10 per cent of the people in the country connected), but also a huge social and political deficit, which is being exposed by our actions and reactions to the Web.

Take the case of professor Ambikesh Mahapatra dean of the chemistry department of Jadavpur University, who was picked up by the police and lodged in the lock up for almost 40 hours for forwarding an e-mail that contained a cartoon of Trinamool Congress leaders Mamata Banerjee, Mukul Roy and Dinesh Trivedi. He and his housing society co-resident Subrata Sengupta were charged with defamation and outraging the modesty of a woman. While the proceedings are underway with the next date of hearing slated in February, 2013, the Jadavpur university professor says, “Section, 66A of the IT Act is being used for suppression of the freedom of speech. In my opinion, it is being misused by the state government, repeatedly. The section does not empower anyone to arrest those who voice their opinion and never meant to harm anybody’s image. Prompt action is needed to check the misuse of law.”

Likewise, Ravi Srinivasan, a 46-year-old a businessman from Pondicherry, was arrested for tweeting against Karti Chidambaram, son of Union Finance Minister P Chidambaram. His arrest and consequent release has not blunted his spirit. He says, “At the time (of the arrest) I had not heard of Section 66(A). I still cannot fathom why and how a tweet sent out to just 12 people — half of them family and friends — caught the eye of the police. By evening, when I had come home from the police station, my Twitter following had gone up to 1,700. About 15,000 people re-tweeted the statement that got me arrested.”

Given the series of incidents that have marked the last year and the whimsical nature of regulatory injunctions on internet freedom in the country, it might be a good idea for us to reflect on democracy and freedom.

We need to examine the fundamental nature of freedom, and how these attempts at regulating the internet are only a symptom of the systemic failures of enshrining freedom of speech, information, identity and dignity in India. However, internet freedom is often a difficult concept to engage with, because it is one of those phrases that seem to be self-explanatory but without a straightforward explanation. There are three axes which might be useful to unpack the baggage that comes with internet freedom, both for our everyday practices, and our imagined future:

Freedom of: The freedom of the internet is something that is new and needs more attention. We have to stop thinking of the internet as merely a medium or a conduit of information. As the Web becomes inextricably linked with our everyday lives, the internet is no longer just an appendage or an externality. It becomes a reference point through which our social, political and economic practices are shaped. It becomes a defining point through which we draw our meanings of what it is to be a part of the society, to have rights, to be politically aware, to be culturally engaged — to be a human. The freedom of the Net is important because the crackdowns on the Net are an attack on our rights and freedoms. The silencing of a voice on Facebook, might soon gag the voices of people on the streets, creating conditions of silence in the face of violence perpetuated by the powerful.

Freedom to: Freedom to the internet is often confused with access to the internet. While, of course, access is important in our imagination of a just society where everybody is equally connected, freedom is also about creating open and fair societies. If the power of the internet is in creating alternative spaces of expression, deliberation and opinion-making, then the freedom to the internet is about being safe and responsible in these spaces. A society that controls these spaces of public discussion, under the guise of security and public safety, is a society that has given up its faith in freedom.

Freedom for: It is often not clear that when popular technologies of information and communication are regulated and censored, it is not merely the technology that is being controlled. What is being shaped and contained is the way people use them. The freedom for the internet is about the freedom for people. The possibility that Internet Service Providers are being coerced into revealing personal information of users to police states, that intermediaries are being equipped to remove content that they find offensive from the web, and that views expressed on the social media can lead to legal battles by those who have the power but not the acumen to exercise it, all have alarming consequences. There is a need to fight for freedom, not only for the defence of technology but also for the defence of the rights that we cherish that risk being eroded.

The case of these Facebook arrests is not new. It has happened before and it will continue happening as immature governments are unable to cope with the real voices of representational democracy. These cases sometimes get naturalised because they get repeated, and even without our knowledge, can start creating a life of fear, where we internalise the regulatory system, not voicing our opinions and ideas for fear of persecution. And so, whether you agree with their politics or not, whether you endorse the viewpoints of the people who are under arrest, whether you feel implicated or not in this case, we have to realise that even if we might not agree with somebody’s viewpoint, we must defend their right to have that particular viewpoint. Anything else, and tomorrow, when you want to say something against powers of oppression, you might find yourself alone, as your voice gets heard only by those who will find creative ways of silencing you.

— With inputs from Gopu Mohan, Madhuparna Das and V Shoba

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/indian-express-dec-2-2012-nishant-shah-so-much-to-lose

Govt tweaks enforcement of IT Act after spate of arrests

praskrishna — 2012-11-30T08:27:01Z

The government on Thursday tweaked the law to make it tougher for citizens to be arrested for online comments that are deemed offensive after recent arrests came in for heavy criticism by Internet activists, the media and other groups.

Surabhi Agarwal's article was published in LiveMint on November 29, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

This took place just before the Supreme Court was to hear a public interest litigation seeking an amendment to the Information Technology (IT) Act.

Complaints under the controversial Section 66A of the IT Act, which criminalizes “causing annoyance or inconvenience” online or electronically, can be registered only with the permission of an officer of or above the rank of deputy commissioner of police, and inspector general in metro cities, said a senior government official.

The government, however, has not amended the terms in the section that are said to be vague and subject to interpretation.

The public interest litigation against Section 66A filed by student Shreya Singhal came up in chief justice Altamas Kabir’s court on Thursday. The matter will be heard on Friday.

Two girls near Mumbai were arrested last week for criticizing on Facebook the shutdown in the city for Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray’s funeral. Earlier in November, a businessman in Puducherry was arrested for comments made on Twitter against finance minister P. Chidambaram’s son Karti Chidambaram.

According to people present at the meeting of the cyber regulatory advisory committee on Thursday, the Union government will issue guidelines to states with respect to the compliance of the new enforcement rules soon. The people didn’t want to be named. An official said the move was not related to the case.

Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society think tank, said that while the change in the law is a step in the right direction and will eliminate a lot of frivolous complaints, more needs to be done to make the legislation specific.

Chief justice Kabir said the apex court was considering taking suo motu cognisance of recent incidents.

Singhal contended in her plea that “the phraseology of section 66A of the IT Act, 2000, is so wide and vague and incapable of being judged on objective standards, that it is susceptible to wanton abuse and, hence, falls foul of Article 14, 19 (1)(a) and Article 21 of the Constitution.”

She submitted that “unless there is judicial sanction as a prerequisite to the setting into motion the criminal law with respect to freedom of speech and expression, the law as it stands is highly susceptible to abuse and for muzzling free speech in the country.”

The PIL was argued by Mukul Rohatgi, who said in his opening remarks that Section 66A was vague. Terms such as “offensive” and “annoyance” should be clearly defined as the section is part of criminal law, he said.

Senior advocate Harish Salve, who was also present during the hearing, said India guaranteed the right to “annoy” and there was no need to have a separate law.

Salve, who is in the process of filing an intervention on behalf of some technology companies, added that the section needed to be narrowed to specifically cater to private messages sent electronically and not social media communications.

He said the existing law of defamation should suffice and could be extended to include electronic communications. According to a lawyer who is part of the team representing Singhal, the petition also demanded that the law be made non-cognisable so that the police can’t make an arrest without an order from a magistrate.

“There has been a lot of misuse and abuse of the law recently and we want it to be struck down absolutely and also the court to issue guidelines,” he said.

Apart from the incident at Palghar in Thane district involving the two girls, Singhal’s PIL referred to an April incident in which a professor of chemistry from Jadavpur University in West Bengal, Ambikesh Mahapatra, was arrested for posting a cartoon concerning chief minister Mamata Banerjee on a social networking site.

She also referred to the Puducherry case as well as the May arrests of two Air India Ltd employees, V. Jaganatharao and Mayank Sharma, by the Mumbai Police under the IT Act for posting content on Facebook and Orkut against a trade union leader and some politicians.

Singhal has sought guidelines from the apex court to “reconcile Section 41 and 156 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) with Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution” and that offences under the Indian Penal Code and any other legislation, if they involve the freedom of speech and expression, be treated as a non-cognizable offences for the purposes of Sections 41 and 156 (1).

Section 41 of CPC empowers the police to arrest any person without an order from a magistrate and without a warrant in the event that the offence involved is a cognizable offence. Section 156 (1) empowers the investigation by the police into a cognizable offence without an order from a magistrate.

The government official present at the cyber regulatory advisory committee said the expressions used in Section 66A had been taken from different statutes around the world, including the UK and the US.

“There has been a broad consensus that the parameters of the law concerned might be in order but from a procedural standpoint there might be difficulty,” the official said.

Prakash said that while some of the terms in the section may be taken from legislation overseas, the penalty imposed under the Indian law is far more stringent at three years of imprisonment than, for instance, six months under the UK law. “Criminal offences can’t be put at the same level as something which causes insult.”

The cyber regulatory advisory committee meeting was attended by minister for communications and information technolgy Kapil Sibal, and secretaries of the department of telecommunications and information technology, besides representatives of technology companies such as Google and Facebook, industry associations and civil society.

The official also said that the situation will be reviewed every three to four months based on “ground realities”.

A government official said on condition of anonymity that the decision to revive the cyber regulatory advisory committee had been taken at a meeting in August. Section 66A was put on the agenda since it was the subject of much debate, he said. The meeting, however, was not a pre-emptive measure ahead of the PIL that was taken up in the Supreme Court. The official also said that the government will spell out its position in court in favour of the legislation.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/livemint-politics-november-29-2012-surabhi-agarwal-govt-tweaks-enforcement-of-it-act-after-spate-of-arrests

Yes, You Can Get Arrested for a Facebook Status Update Now

praskrishna — 2012-11-30T08:16:20Z

A 21-year-old Indian woman thought Mumbai shouldn't have been shutdown for the funeral of an Islamophobic leader. Broadcasting such opinions on Facebook was apparently grounds for arrest.

The article by David Wagner was published in the Atlantic Wire on November 29, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

A Muslim graduate student, Shaheen Dhada posted a note (of her iPhone message) on her timeline November 18th, writing, "Every day thousands of people die, but still the world moves on ... Today, Mumbai shuts down out of fear, not out of respect." Her status was written in reference to the death of Bal Thackeray, the late leader of Hindu extremist group Shiv Sena, responsible for repeated waves violence against Muslims in the Maharashtra state, according to the BBC. Another 21-year-old woman, Rinu Shrinivasan, was also arrested by Indian police for stoking "religious enmity." She'd simply clicked "like" on Dhada's post.

A mob of angry Thackeray supporters thronged around the police station Dhada's house. Others vandalized her uncle's clinic two days after her arrest. Mumbai newspaper The Hindu reports today that charges have been dropped against the two arrested women, but those observing the case are worried about the precedent this sets for free speech in India. "I have 3,500 followers on Twitter, and I'm pretty sure I annoy 100 of them on a daily basis," says Centre for Internet and Society director Pranesh Prakash. But should that mean he and others in India should picture themselves in handcuffs every time they type a potentially controversial status update? Retired Supreme Court Justice Markandey Katju tells NPR's Julie McCarthy that, at least in this case, the arrest was totally inappropriate:

You can mourn a death in whichever way you want, but you can't bring a whole city to a stoppage. So what this girl wrote was in consonance with the verdict of the Supreme Court—nothing illegal.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/the-atlantic-wire-november-29-2012-david-wagner-you-can-get-arrested-for-facebook-status-update-now

Interview with Pranesh Prakash

praskrishna — 2012-11-30T06:58:39Z

Pranesh Prakash of the Centre for Internet and Society talks to Mint’s Surabhi Agarwal about the controversial Section 66A of the IT Act and the government’s decision to tweak it.

This video was published in LiveMint on November 30, 2012:

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/livemint-november-30-2012-video-interview-with-pranesh-prakash