Centre for Internet and Society

India's Shame: World Reacts to FB Post Arrest

praskrishna — 2012-11-30T05:51:10Z

The arrest of 21 year old Shaheen Dhada for posting anti-Bal Thackeray comments has not only outraged Indians. The story has been picked up and reported across international media as well. Though they may not be aware of the complexities of Indian politics, the fact that young girls were arrested for an FB post has got them questioning the dwindling tolerance for the freedom of speech in India.

This was posted by Sonal Bhadoria in IndiaTimes on November 21, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

The Wall Street Journal warns ,'You better think twice before 'Liking' your friends' comments on Facebook. It may land you in jail.' The article quotes Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society saying “Bal Thackeray had violated the same provisions in his lifetime,” with reference to Mr. Thackeray’s inflammatory speeches against the South Indians and Muslims.

The BBC put a question mark on India's commitment to freedom of speech by citing recent examples of the arrest of a cartoonist like Ravi Srinivasan, a 46-year-old businessman in the southern Indian city of Pondicherry, who was arrested for a tweet criticising Karti Chidambaram, son of Indian Finance Minister P Chidambaram.

UK's Daily Mail, says 'So much for freedom of speech' and questions the IT act which led to the arrest.

In a New York Times article, Pranesh Prakash questioned the arbitrariness in the application of the law saying 'There were thousands of people on Facebook, Twitter and in person who were saying the exact same kinds of things that this girl is alleged to have said'. The article also stated that Shiv Sena has a history of banning books, movies and other popular culture that are critical of the political party.

Mashable noted that several dissenters had taken to Twitter to speak out about the arrest including Milind Deora, the government minister of state, communications and information technology, who showed support for Dhadha and Renu with this tweet:

Milind Deora
@milinddeora

To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize ~ Voltaire
It also asked 'Do you think Facebook is a good place to voice political opinions?'

The Christian Science Monitor calls the incident 'the latest in a string of crackdowns on Internet speech in the world's largest democracy'. It says, 'The other cases have included arrest of a resident of Chandigarh who complained on the Facebook page of Chandigarh police that they were not doing enough to find her stolen car; a cartoonist who posted work online protesting corruption scandals by the central government; and a professor in Kolkata who merely forwarded an email with a cartoon that was critical of West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee.' The article also mentions Shaheen Dhada’s uncle, Dr. Abdullah Ghaffar Dhada stating that he had incurred losses of two million Rupees due to the ransacking of his clinic by angry Shiv Sainiks.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/indiatimes-sonal-bhadoria-nov-21-2012-indias-shame-world-reacts-to-fb-post-arrest

How to Steer Clear of India’s Strict Internet Laws

praskrishna — 2012-11-30T10:13:53Z

The arrest of two women in Mumbai for a Facebook post is the latest heavy-handed move by India’s government to curb what Indian citizens say on the Internet.

The article by Sangeeta Rajesh and Heather Timmons was published in the New York Times on November 20, 2012. Sunil Abraham and Pranesh Prakash are quoted.

The two women were arrested Sunday under a section of the Indian Penal Code that outlaws spreading “statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill- will between classes” after one complained about the citywide strike sparked by the death of the Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray and the second woman “liked” her statement.

But the incident was just the latest in a string of recent arrests, detentions and account suspensions in India over online comments. If you live in India and have an opinion someone might not like, but you don’t want to become a target of the law, there’s one easy rule you need to follow, experts say: stay off social media.

Right now, “there’s nothing one can do but to close up your social media accounts” and stop voicing your opinion on the Internet entirely, if you want to guarantee you won’t be arrested in India, said Sunil Abraham, executive director at the Center for Internet and Society in Bangalore. (To be sure, that’s not what most free speech advocates recommend that you do. India Ink will soon have more on a social media activist who is fighting India’s strict Internet controls.)

Mr. Abraham advises extreme caution because India’s free speech rules have been historically weak (read more about India’s long history of censorship here), a relatively new Internet law is extremely broadly defined and police and lawmakers themselves are sometimes confused about what the actual rules themselves say.

A screenshot of Ravi Srinivasan’s twitter page. Mr. Srinivasan was arrested for a tweet he posted.

Late last month, Ravi Srinivasan, a Puducherry businessman and an India Against Corruption volunteer, was arrested for his Twitter post that alleged Karti Chidambaram, the son of Finance Minister P. Chidambaram, had amassed a large amount of wealth. Mr. Srinivasan was arrested Oct. 30 but was later released on bail.

Earlier in October, an associate professor of the National Institute for Fashion Technology in Chennai was arrested after what the Tamil Nadu singer Chinmayi said was a long period of harassment on the Internet, including negative Twitter messages. In August, the Indian government demanded Internet service providers suspend hundreds of Web pages to curb ethnic tension and asked Twitter to suspend accounts parodying government officials. Last year, the central government asked social media companies to prescreen content about India for objectionable remarks.

The key culprits here are revisions to India’s Information Technology Act made in 2008 and 2011, experts say, that leave nearly everything that is transmitted via the Internet open to interpretation by nearly everyone who reads it on the Internet. Things that are considered “annoying” and “offensive” can, under the law, land their sender in jail for up to three years.

While some of India’s nearly 50 million Facebook users and millions of Twitter users are up in arms about the recent arrests in Mumbai and are sharing the woman’s original post, under the theory that the police can’t arrest everyone, conservative advocates don’t recommend that sort of action on the Internet.

V. Vijaya Baskar, an advocate with Madras High Court practicing civil, criminal and family law for over 10 years, said that there are basic guidelines of free speech behavior that should be followed, even by Internet users. The most important, he said, is to avoid the use of obscene language and pictures, which are considered a direct threat. He also advised against getting into confrontations with people you don’t know or recognize on social media.

“If you have a true and verifiable source or documented evidence, then making a public statement is not defamation, but making passing comments of any person, particularly people in public life, will amount to defaming the person and is punishable,” he said.

While India’s government and law officials sometimes come across as not very tech-savvy, Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Center for Internet and Society, said that lawmakers in many countries with a much higher Internet penetration are just as challenged by the Internet. And in India, while the laws are strict, people seldom land in jail for Internet-related offenses, he said.

“The detention law in India, sensibly, defaults to ‘bail, not jail,’ ” he said.

Mr. Prakash said he could not offer any global guidelines to avoid being arrested, and concluded that “each forum has its own rules of etiquette, which cannot be codified or enforced by legislation.” Online speech can be disagreed upon and opinions should be made known, since it is only the “natural tendency for people with extreme views to be more vocal online.”

Not surprisingly, the authorities in India who have been involved in arrests insist they are just doing their job, and doing it well. The Tamil Nadu police, for example, said they acted appropriately in Mr. Srinivasan’s arrest.

R. S. Krishna, inspector general for law and order, told the media that the Puducherry police could not be faulted for filing a First Investigation Report, the precursor to filing charges, against Mr. Srinivasan.

“I am very clear that we have acted purely on the basis of the merit of the complaint, in accordance with the rule of law,” he said. “We are right on our part.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/india-blogs-nytimes-november-20-2012-how-to-steer-clear-of-indias-strict-internet-laws

What Frameworks for Cross-Border Online Communities and Services

praskrishna — 2012-12-05T00:10:27Z

Chinmayi Arun, Assistant Professor at National Law University India and Fellow at the CIS India, talks about the Internet Governance Forum 2012 Workshop 154 "What Frameworks for Cross-Border Online Communities and Services", which was hosted by the Internet & Jurisdiction Project on November 8, 2012.

Panelists:

Chinmayi Arun, National Law University India and Fellow at CIS India
Brian Cute, CEO at PIR (.org)
Lee Hibbard, Media and Information Society Division at Council of Europe
Konstantinos Komaitis, Policy Advisor at Internet Society
Michael Niebel, Internet Policy Development at European Commission
Patrick Ryan, Policy Councel Open Internet at Google

More information at www.internetjurisdiction.net

Video by the Internet Governance Forum

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/frameworks-for-cross-border-online-communities-and-services

Arrest of girl over Thackeray FB update a clear misuse of Sec 295A

praskrishna — 2012-11-20T12:00:53Z

The arrest of 21-year-old Shaheen Dhada over her Facebook status update questioning the shutdown of Mumbai over Shiv Sena supremo Bal Thackeray‘s death, is a clear misapplication of section 295 A of the Indian Penal Code (“outrage religious feelings of any class”), according to Pranesh Prakash of the Centre for Internet and Society.

The article was published in FirstPost on November 19, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

In comments to Firstpost, Prakash said that this law had been misused numerous times in the state of Maharashtra.

“Even the banning of James Laine’s book Shivaji happened under section 295 A, and the ban was subsequently held to have been unlawful. What makes this seem ironic, and almost a parodic news report, is the fact that Bal Thackeray probably violated this provision more times than most other politicians, but was only charged under it once or twice”, he said.

Dhada’s status update reportedly read, “People like Thackeray are born and die daily and one should not observe a bandh for that.” A friend of hers who ‘liked’ the comment was also arrested.

Prakash said that the arrest called for a discussion on the regulation of speech and expression. “It being a Facebook status update should not grant it any special immunity; the fact of that update not being punishable under s.295 A should! It isn’t regulation of social media that needs to be discussed, but regulation of speech and expression”, he said.

News of the arrest has understandably drawn a lot of attention on social media, and forums like Facebook and Twitter reflected outrage at the news.

The Times of India also reported that a mob of Shiv Sena workers attacked and ransacked the girl’s uncle’s orthopaedic clinic at Palghar, even though she withdrew her comment and apologised.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/first-post-india-nov-19-2012-arrest-of-girl-over-thackeray-fb-update-clear-misuse-of-sec-295a

Arrests over Facebook posts: Why we’re on a dangerous slide

praskrishna — 2012-11-20T11:47:43Z

The most bizarre thing about the arrest of Shaheen Dhada and Renu Srinivasan on Monday over a Facebook post that questioned the wisdom of a bandh to mark Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray‘s death is that no laws were actually violated by the post.

Venky Vembu's article was published in FirstPost on November 20, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

In tone and in content, the post is remarkably restrained, particularly when compared to the rather more incendiary messages that are commonplace on social media platforms. Nor was it even halfways defamatory in the way that many rants on Twitter and Facebook have unfortunately come to be.

Yet, the Mumbai police appear to have cravenly capitulated in the face of some arm-twisting by a local Sena strongman and gone ahead to arrest the two young women on charges that seem laughable even given the extraordinarily sweeping, catch-all clauses of the Information Technology Act.

It is hard to see how Shaheen Dhada violated the two sections of the law under which she has been charged – Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (“outraging religous feelings of any class”) or even the draconian Section 66A of the IT Act (“sending offensive messages through communication service, etc.”) – with her contemplative post, or what crimes Renu Srinivasan committed in merely ‘liking’ the post.

But it is a sign of the disquieting nature of the provision of the law, and the perverse manner in which it is being implemented, that there weren’t adequate checks and balances to inhibit the wilful deployment of the law on such frivolous grounds. Ironically, the goons who actually wrecked the clinic of Dhada’s uncle haven’t been called to account.

If that is bad enough, it is doubly perverse for Kapil Sibal to claim in all innocence that he is “deeply saddened” by the arrest of the two young women and to insinuate that the IT Act, which he was instrumental in passing, was being misused on grounds of improper implementation.

The fact of it is that the IT Act that he fathered, and particularly the notorious Section 66A, was deliberately worded to give maximum potential for mischief. There have been far too many egregious instances of its misuse by discredited governments and politicians for Sibal to claim that these are random incidents of misuse of the law. Just last month, Finance Minister P Chidambaram’s son Karti had a Puducherry businessmen and anti-corruption activist hauled up by the police for a Twitter post in which the businessman alleged that Karti had “amassed more wealth” than Sonia Gandhi‘s son-in-law.

It’s important to get a sense of why the latest arrests take us further on the slippery slope towards curtailing free speech. Justice Markandeya Katju has repeatedly pointed to the egregious encroachment on the freedom of speech by this provision of law, and has been vocal in calling both politicians and policemen to account whenever the law is abused in this manner.

“It is absurd to say that protesting against the bandh hurts religious sentiments,” Katju observed in a letter to the Maharashtra Chief Minister. “Under Article 19 of our Constitution, freedom of speech is guaranteed fundamental right. We are living in a democracy, not a fascist dictatorship.”

If anything, Katju argued, “this arrest itself appears to be a criminal act since under Sections 341 and 342, it is a crime to wrongfully arrest or wrongfully confine someone who has committed no crime.”

As Pranesh Prakash at the Centre for Internet and Society points out, in the context of Monday’s arrests, “This should not be seen merely as ‘social media regulation’, but as a restriction on freedom of speech and expression by both the law and the police.” Section 66A, he says, makes certain kinds of speech-activities (“causing annoyance”) illegal if communicated online, but legal if that same speech-activity is published in a newspaper.

This distinction is important, Prakash notes, since the mere fact that it was a Facebook status update “should not grant Shaheen Dhada any special immunity”. If anything, it is the fact that her update is not punishable under Section 295 of the IPC or of Section 66A of the IT Act that should give her the immunity, he adds.

With each instance in which Section 66A of the IT Act is being invoked, the potential for mischief embedded in the law is being exposed. Monday’s arrests – of two young women for crimes they did not even commit – are the most brazen instance of their abuse.

Of course, the perverse provision of law has been abused in the real world through selective and arbitrary invocation of the law. But the original sin lies in the law itself. It is the most potent threat to free speech online, and if the law isn’t amended to throw out these perverse provisions, India can kiss goodbye to any lingering pretensions to being a democracy of any sort.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/first-post-politics-venky-vembu-nov-20-2012-arrests-over-facebook-posts-why-were-on-a-dangerous-slide

Internet users flay Mumbai girls' arrest over Facebook post

praskrishna — 2012-11-20T11:35:04Z

The arrest of two girls over their Facebook post on shutdown in Mumbai for Bal Thackeray's funeral on Monday again opened a can of worms with netizens calling the move a "social media hijack by the powerful and the fundamentalists". Social media was abuzz with tweets and posts about the arrest, with most referring to the arrest as yet another move to curb freedom of speech on the Internet.

This post was published by IBN Live on November 20, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

Noted journalist Gautam Chikermane tweeted "First Pondicherry businessman, now 21 year old Palghar girl. Next: all of us. Social media hijack by the powerful and the fundamentalists". Minister of State (Communications and IT) Milind Deora tweeted: "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize ~ Voltaire".

Communication specialist Alyque Padamsee expressed shock at the arrest and the vandalism at the clinic of one of the girl's uncle. "I want to know how these girls have broken the law when all they said is that why should Mumbai come to a standstill. There is nothing derogatory against Thackeray. I do not see anything illegal in that," he said. Padamsee further said the Constitution provides everyone free speech and that "no one should be arrested on such flimsy grounds".

Pavan Duggal, Cyber law Expert and an advocate with Supreme Court also voiced similar views. "This is high time for the government for the review of the law. The government should amend the IT Act so as to narrow down its provisions as some of the these violate our constitutional right of free speech."

He added that it would be a bigger challenge for the prosecution to prove that the statement could incite communal disharmony and violence. "This should not be seen merely as "social media regulation", but as a restriction on freedom of speech and expression by both the law and the police," Centre for Internet and Society Policy Director Pranesh Prakash said.

The two girls--Shaheen Dhada and Renu--were sent to 14-day judicial custody by a court before which they were produced today but were granted bail within hours after they furnished personal bonds. There was also an attack on the clinic of an uncle of one of them by Sena activists.

The arrests also sparked an outrage with Press Council of India chief Markandey Katju today demanding "immediate" action against police personnel involved. While Dhada was arrested for the post, Dhada's friend Renu was arrested for 'liking' the post. "Police arrested both of them under section 505(2) (statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes). Today, they were granted bail," their advocate Sudhir Gupta said.

The duo was arrested following a police complaint lodged by a local Sena leader. After the comment was posted, a mob of nearly 40 Shiv Sainiks allegedly barged into Dhada's uncles's orthopaedic hospital at Palghar and vandalised the place on Sunday. However, no arrests were made in connection with the attack.

Some other tweets in support of the girls read: "Hatred of minorities, liberals is an epidemic on Twitter. Law shd be harsh on hatespeak not on democratic rights of 21 year olds!Cheerio" (@sagarikaghose) and "So the girl n frnd got arrested for posting stuff on FB did Shiv sainiks get arrested for destroying the doc's hospital?? #Mumbai #Balasaheb" (@SocoMumbai).

Last month, a businessman from Puducherry was arrested on the charge of posting "offensive" messages on social media targeting Union Finance Minister P Chidambaram's son Karti Chidambaram.

The following image was also being circulated over the Internet and is said to be the Facebook post that led to the girls' arrest:

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/ibnlive-news-nov-20-2012-netizens-flay-mumbai-girls-arrest-over-facebook-post

WHO's WHO LEGAL names Malavika Jayaram as one of the top lawyers for Internet and e-Commerce Issues in India

praskrishna — 2012-11-20T11:22:03Z

Malavika Jayaram was one of 10 Indian lawyers selected for inclusion as the top lawyers for internet and e-commerce issues in India. The new volume for 2012 was recently published following a process of peer reviews and independent research.

WHO'sWHOLEGAL published an online biography of Malavika:

A dual-qualified lawyer, Malavika spent eight years in London - with Allen & Overy as an IP/IT lawyer in the communications, media & technology group; and with Citigroup, first as vice president and counsel in the technology legal team, and later as senior business analyst.

A lawyer for over 15 years, she relocated to India in 2006. She is a partner at Jayaram & Jayaram, focusing on domestic and cross-border corporate and technology intensive transactions. She represents clients in the aerospace, automotive, hydraulics and pharmaceutical sectors, as well as in the information technology, e-commerce and communication spaces. She has a special interest in new media and the arts, and advises start-ups, innovators, educational institutions and artists on digital rights, cultural heritage and the dissemination of creative works. Malavika is a fellow at the Centre for Internet and Society, reviewing and commenting on legislative and policy developments, and will have a monograph on privacy and identity in India published this year.

A graduate of the National Law School of India, she has an LLM from Northwestern University, Chicago. She is working on a PhD on data protection and privacy, with a special focus on India's e-governance schemes and the new biometric ID project. She is on the advisory board of the Indian Journal of Law & Technology, and is the author of the India chapter of Getting the Deal Through - Data Protection & Privacy, which is being launched this year. Malavika will be a visiting scholar during autumn 2012 at the Center for Global Communication Studies at the Annenberg School, University of Pennsylvania.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/whoswholegal-profiles-malavika-jayaram

Girl's arrest draws flak on social media

praskrishna — 2012-11-20T11:04:27Z

The arrest of a 21-year-old girl by Mumbai police for criticizing the shutting down of the city following the death of Bal Thackeray come under fire from netizens.

Arun Dev's article was published in the Times of India on November 20, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

Many tweets and Facebook posts popped up soon after the news of her arrest played on TV and social media networks, some even reposting what she first posted on her page.

Pranesh Prakash, programme manager, Centre for Internet and Society, told TOI this case was a clear case of misapplication of Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code. "This provision has been frivolously used numerous times in Maharashtra. Even the banning of James Laine's book, 'Shivaji: Hindu King in Islamic India', happened this section. The ban was subsequently deemed unlawful by both the Bombay high court and the Supreme Court. Indeed, Section 295A has not been applied in cases where it's more apparent," he said.

On the CIS blog, he commented, "Interestingly, the question arises of the law under which the friend who 'liked' the Facebook status update was arrested. It would take a highly clever lawyer and a highly credulous judge to make 'liking' of a Facebook status update an act capable of being charged with electronically sending ... any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character".

"It is absolutely ridiculous. Regardless of the fact she was given bail, she was sent to 14 days of judicial custody for a mere comment. We have allowed our social media to be free and open but we have laws which are ancient," said Lawrence Liang, a lawyer working on media laws with the Alternative Law Forum in Bangalore. "Such cases don't stand a chance in a court of law. We need procedural safeguards which will ensure cases which are not relevant are not be allowed to be filed," he added.

The open letter to the chief minister of the Maharashtra by Justice Katju, Chairman, Press Council of India, and former Judge, Supreme Court of India too was widely circulated on social media. Some posted this excerpt: "We are living in a democracy, not a fascist dictatorship. In fact this arrest itself appears to be a criminal act since under sections 341 and 342 it is a crime to wrongfully arrest or wrongfully confine someone who has committed no crime."

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/times-of-india-arun-dev-nov-20-2012-girl-arrest-draws-flak-on-social-media

Girls arrested for Facebook post on Thackeray get bail

praskrishna — 2012-11-30T05:18:30Z

Two girls who were arrested for making a Facebook comment protesting the closure of shops in the wake of Shiv Sena supremo Bal Thackeray‘s death, have been released on bail bonds of Rs 15,000 each.

This article was published in the FirstPost on November 19, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

The duo, one of whom had reportedly updated her Facebook status to read “People like Thackeray are born and die daily and one should not observe a bandh for that” and the other one who ‘liked’ it, were initially booked under section 295A (hurting the religious sentiment of others) and were reportedly remanded to judicial custody for 14 days, NDTV reported.

The two girls were arrested after a complaint made to the Palghar police station in neighbouring Thane district by a local Sena leader.

A group of Shiv Sainiks attacked and ransacked the girl’s uncle’s orthopaedic clinic at Palghar, even though she withdrew her comment and apologised.

In comments to Firstpost, Pranesh Prakash of the Centre for Internet and Society, said that the arrest was a gross misapplication of the Indian Penal Code, and said that this particular provision had been misused on multiple occasions by the state of Maharashtra.

“What makes this seem ironic, and almost a parodic news report, is the fact that Bal Thackeray probably violated this provision more times than most other politicians, but was only charged under it once or twice”, he said.

The arrest has predictably elicited outrage from across the spectrum. Many took to social media to express their disgust, while NDTV reported that Maharashtra police HQ in Mumbai was very upset with the action taken by the Palghar police.

Press Council of India Chairman Markandey Katju had also called for the immediate release of the girls and wrote to Maharashtra Chief Minister Prithviraj Chavan asking him to ensure it.

Pointing out that people were not living under a fascist dictatorship, he said that the act of arrest appeared to be a criminal act since it was a violation under sections of the Indian Penal Code to wrongfully arrest or confine anyone.

The PCI chief said that legal consequences would follow if the Chief Minister failed to take action.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/first-post-nov-19-2012-girls-arrested-for-facebook-post-on-thackeray-get-bail

Women arrested for Facebook post: Did cops act under Sena pressure?

praskrishna — 2012-11-21T11:17:37Z

After Bal Thackeray's death, during the Mumbai Bandh, a 21-year-old criticised the shutdown on her Facebook page — her friend approved of it — next thing they know, they are facing a case, and this morning they were arrested.

YP Singh, Alyque Padamsee, Rohan Joshi, Karuna Nundy and Pranesh Prakash took part in a discussion about the arrest of two girls over a Facebook comment. The discussion was aired in NDTV on November 19, 2012.

The anchor asked Pranesh Prakash:

Who are these people scrolling through people's Facebook posts and Twitter accounts, finding these comments and taking action?

Pranesh Prakash said that it could be anyone. The reality is doesn't really matter because the laws are written in such a way that if it is public and stuff that is on Facebook for different purposes can either be public or private, if it is public these laws can very often apply and that is a problem. We haven't quite figured out to what extent these laws apply. The IT Act section 66A for instance, is unconstitutional, section 295 A which has been applied, and section 505 which also seems to have been applied in this case make it a clear case of misappropriation of those provisions. These kind of arrests will happen. It doesn't quite matter if we have right laws at one level and it clearly doesn't help if we have bad laws. What we need to do at least in part to remedy the situation is to amend the IT Act to make it consonant and consistent with civil and political rights and to do so in multi-stakeholder fashion involving civil society, industry and government. Right now it doesn't protect privacy and freedom of speech as much as it should.

Watch the full video aired on NDTV

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/ndtv-video-ndtv-special-ndtv-24x7

Two women arrested over Facebook gripe on Mumbai shutdown

praskrishna — 2013-01-15T09:26:33Z

A woman who complained about the Indian city of Mumbai shutting down for the funeral of divisive Hindu nationalist politician Balasaheb Thackeray was arrested for "hurting religious sentiments," local police told reporters amid public anger over the case.

This article by Emily Alpert appeared in Los Angeles Times on November 19, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

Indian media identified the woman as Shaheen Dhada, 21, who reportedly wrote, "People like Thackeray are born and die daily and one should not observe a bandh [shutdown] for that.”

Police also arrested a friend of hers who "liked" the comment.

The Facebook remark spurred angry backers of Thackeray, a controversial figure who once openly called for attacks on Muslims, to assault a clinic owned by Dhada' uncle. Analysts told the Associated Press that the arrests appeared to be a move by police to head off any further violence from Thackeray supporters.

Free-speech groups were outraged by the ransacking and arrests. In a blistering letter to the chief minister of Maharashtra state, a former Supreme Court justice who now heads the Press Council of India called the charges absurd and unlawful and demanded that the police officers involved be prosecuted.

"We are living in a democracy, not a fascist dictatorship," Markandey Katju wrote.

The Maharashtra director-general of police ordered a probe into the arrests Monday, Indian television station IBN reported. The two women were reportedly released on bail during the day.

The Shiv Sena political party that Thackeray founded has polarized Mumbai over the years with campaigns against Muslims and migrants. His death put the city on high alert over the weekend amid fears of violence. As shops were shuttered and taxis sat idle, some Mumbai residents grew frustrated.

"When tens of thousands were making similar comments ... how did the police single out Shaheen Dhada and her friend for arrest?” wrote Pranesh Prakash of the Center for Internet and Society. He added, "This should not be written off as a harmless case of the police goofing up."

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/la-times-nov-19-2012-emily-alpert-two-women-arrested-over-facebook-gripe-on-mumbai-shutdown

India ranks second globally in accessing private details of users

praskrishna — 2012-11-19T04:49:23Z

According to the latest transparency report released by Google, India ranks second in the world for accessing private details of its citizens, only after the U.S. The Google report lists out requests it received from governments across the world to access details of users of its various services.

Kul Bhushan's blog post was published in thinkdigit on November 15, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

Google's data reveals India had made 2,319 requests involving 3,467 users in the first six months. The U.S. made 7,969 requests, while Brazil, which ranks third, made 1,566 requests during the same period. Worldwide 20,938 requests were made during the January-June period. The report says the information shared included complete Gmail account, chat logs, Orkut profile and search terms among others.

The requests for accessing user data from India had grown two-fold from 1,061 in July-December 2009 to 2,207 in July-December 2011, the report points out.

According to the report, India has been consistently sending requests to remove content which it brands as defamatory and against national security. The court orders, however, to take down content has remained almost stagnant over the years; though requests from the executive and police have grown.

In the first six months this year, there were 20 court orders and 64 requests from executive/police that resulted in 596 items being taken down from the web. During the January-June 2010 period, there were only eight court orders and 22 executive/police requests, resulting in 125 items being taken down. Read about Google's previous transparency report here.

"Though India is a large country with a significant number of internet users, this data is nonetheless an indicator of growing surveillance," Times of India quotes Pranesh Prakash, policy director at Centre for Internet and Society ( CIS), a Bangalore-based organization looking at issues of public accountability, internet freedom and openness, as saying.

"India lacks a general privacy law that helps set guidelines for such user requests, despite privacy being a constitutional right as part of the right to life," added Prakash.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/thinkdigit-internet-kul-bhushan-nov-15-2012-india-ranks-second-globally-in-accessing-private-details-of-users

Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009

smita — 2012-11-21T09:32:36Z

G.S.R.781 (E).-- In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (z) of sub-section (2) of section 87, read with sub-section (2) of section 69A of the Information Technology Act 2000, (21 of 2000), the Central Government hereby makes the following rules, namely:

1. Short title and commencement.--
(1) These rules may be called the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.
(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.

2. Definitions.--
In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(a) "Act" means the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000);
(b) "computer resource" means computer resource as defined in clause (k) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Act;
(c) "Designated Officer" means an officer designated as Designated Officer under rule 3;
(d) "Form" means a form appended to these rules;
(e) "intermediary" means an intermediary as defined in clause (w) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Act;
(f) "nodal officer" means the nodal officer designated as such under rule 4;
(g) "organisation" means -
(i) Ministries or Departments of the Government of ;
(ii) state Governments and Union territories;
(iii) any agency of the Central Government, as may be notified in the Official Gazette, by the Central Government;
(h) "request" means the request for blocking of access by the public any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource;
(i) "Review Committee" means the Review Committee constituted under rule 419A of Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951.

3. Designated Officer.--
The Central Government shall designate by notification in Official Gazette, an officer of the Central Government not below the rank of a Joint Secretary, as the "Designated Officer", for the purpose of issuing direction for blocking for access by the public any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource under sub-section (2) of section 69A of the Act.

4. Nodal officer of organisation.--
Every organisation for the purpose of these rules, shall designate one of its officer as the Nodal Officer and shall intimate the same to the Central Government in the Department of Information Technology under the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Government of India and also publish the name of the said Nodal Officer on their website.

5. Direction by Designated Officer.--
The Designated Officer may, on receipt of any request from the Nodal Officer of an organisation or a competent court, by order direct any Agency of the Government or intermediary to block for access by the public any information or part thereof generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource for any of the reasons specified in sub-section (1) of section 69A of the Act.

6. Forwarding of request by organisation.--
(1) Any person may send their complaint to the Nodal Officer of the concerned organisation for blocking of access by the public any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource:
Provided that any request, other than the one from the Nodal Officer of the organisation, shall be sent with the approval of the Chief Secretary of the concerned State or territory to the Designated Officer:
Provided further that in case a Union territory has no Chief Secretary, then, such request may be approved by the Adviser to the Administrator of that Union territory.
(2) The organisation shall examine the complaint received under sub-rule (1) to satisfy themselves about the need for taking of action in relation to the reasons enumerated in sub-section (1) of section 69A of the Act and after being satisfied, it shall send the request through its Nodal Officer to the Designated Officer in the format specified in the Form appended to these rules.
(3) The Designated Officer shall not entertain any complaint or request for blocking of information directly from any person.
(4) The request shall be in writing on the letter head of the respective organisation, complete in all respects and may be sent either by mail or by fax or by e-mail signed with electronic signature of the Nodal Officer:
Provided that in case the request is sent by fax or by e-mail which is not signed with electronic signature, the Nodal Officer shall provide a signed copy of the request so as to reach the Designated Officer within a period of three days of receipt of the request by such fax or e-mail.
(5) On receipt, each request shall be assigned a number alongwith the date and time of its receipt by the Designated Officer and he shall acknowledge the receipt thereof to the Nodal Officer within a period of twenty four hours of its receipt.

7. Committee for examination of request.--
The request alongwith the printed sample content of the alleged offending information or part thereof shall be examined by a committee consisting of the Designated Officer as its chairperson and representatives, not below the rank of Joint Secretary in Ministries of Law and Justice, Home Affairs, Information and Broadcasting and the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team appointed under sub-section (1) of section 70B of the Act.

8. Examination of request.--
(1) On receipt of request under rule 6, the Designated Officer shall make all reasonable efforts to identify the person or intermediary who has hosted the information or part thereof as well as the computer resource on which such information or part thereof is being hosted and where he is able to identify such person or intermediary and the computer resource hosting the information or part thereof which have been requested to be blocked for public access, he shall issue a notice by way of letters or fax or e-mail signed with electronic signatures to such person or intermediary in control of such computer resource to appear and submit their reply and clarifications, if any, before the committee referred to in rule 7, at a specified date and time, which shall not be less than forty-eight hours from the time of receipt of such notice by such person or intermediary.
(2) In case of non-appearance of such person or intermediary, who has been served with the notice under sub-rule (1), before the committee on such specified date and time, the committee shall give specific recommendation in writing with respect to the request received from the Nodal Officer, based on the information available with the committee.
(3) In case, such a person or intermediary, who has been served with the notice under sub-rule (1), is a foreign entity or body corporate as identified by the Designated Officer, notice shall be sent by way of letters or fax or e-mail signed with electronic signatures to such foreign entity or body corporate and any such foreign entity or body corporate shall respond to such a notice within the time specified therein, failing which the committee shall give specific recommendation in writing with respect to the request received from the Nodal Officer, based on the information available with the committee.
(4) The committee referred to in rule 7 shall examine the request and printed sample information and consider whether the request is covered within the scope of sub-section (1) of section 69A of the Act and that it is justifiable to block such information or part thereof and shall give specific recommendation in writing with respect to the request received from the Nodal Officer.
(5) The designated Officer shall submit the recommendation of the committee, in respect of the request for blocking of information alongwith the details sent by the Nodal Officer, to the Secretary in the Department of Information Technology under the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Government of India (hereinafter referred to as the "Secretary, Department of Information Technology").
(6) The Designated Officer, on approval of the request by the Secretary, Department of Information Technology, shall direct any agency of the Government or the intermediary to block the offending information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in their computer resource for public access within the time limit specified in the direction:
Provided that in case the request of the Nodal Officer is not approved by the Secretary, Department of Information Technology, the Designated Officer shall convey the same to such Nodal Officer.

9. Blocking of information in cases of emergency.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in rules 7 and 8, the Designated Officer, in any case of emergency nature, for which no delay is acceptable, shall examine the request and printed sample information and consider whether the request is within the scope of sub-section (1) of section 69A of the Act and it is necessary or expedient and justifiable to block such information or part thereof and submit the request with specific recommendations in writing to Secretary, Department of Information Technology.
(2) In a case of emergency nature, the Secretary, Department of Information Technology may, if he is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient and justifiable for blocking for public access of any information or part thereof through any computer resource and after recording reasons in writing, as an interim measure issue such directions as he may consider necessary to such identified or identifiable persons or intermediary in control of such computer resource hosting such information or part thereof without giving him an opportunity of hearing.
(3) The Designated Officer, at the earliest but not later than forty-eight hours of issue of direction under sub-rule (2), shall bring the request before the committee referred to in rule 7 for its consideration and recommendation.
(4) On receipt of recommendations of committee, Secretary, Department of Information Technology, shall pass the final order as regard to approval of such request and in case the request for blocking is not approved by the Secretary, Department of Information Technology in his final order, the interim direction issued under sub-rule (2) shall be revoked and the person or intermediary in control of such information shall be accordingly directed to unblock the information for public access.

10. Process of order of court for blocking of information.--
In case of an order from a competent court in India for blocking of any information or part thereof generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in a computer resource, the Designated Officer shall, immediately on receipt of certified copy of the court order, submit it to the Secretary, Department of Information Technology and initiate action as directed by the court.

11. Expeditious disposal of request.--
The request received from the Nodal Officer shall be decided expeditiously which in no case shall be more than seven working days from the date of receipt of the request.

12. Action for non-compliance of direction by intermediary.--
In case the intermediary fails to comply with the direction issued to him under rule 9, the Designated Officer shall, with the prior approval of the Secretary, Department of Information Technology, initiate appropriate action as may be required to comply with the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 69A of the Act.

13. Intermediary to designate one person to receive and handle directions.--
(1) Every intermediary shall designate at feast one person to receive and handle the directions for blocking of access by the public any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource under these rules.
(2) The designated person of the Intermediary shall acknowledge receipt of the directions to the Designated Officer within two hours on receipt of the direction through acknowledgement letter or fax or e-mail signed with electronic signature.

14. Meeting of Review Committee.--
The Review Committee shall meet at least once in two months and record its findings whether the directions issued under these rules are in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 69A of the Act and if is of the opinion that the directions are not in accordance with the provisions referred to above, it may set aside the directions and issue order for unblocking of said information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in a computer resource for public access.

15. Maintenance of records by Designated Officer.--
The Designated Officer shall maintain complete record of the request received and action taken thereof, in electronic database and also in register of the cases of blocking for public access of the information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in a computer resource.

16. Requests and complaints to be confidential.--
Strict confidentiality shall be maintained regarding all the requests and complaints received and actions taken thereof.

FORM
[See rule 6(2)]
A. Complaint
1. Name of the complainant: --___________________________________________
(Person who has sent the complaint to the Govt./Nodal Officer)
2. Address :________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
City :______________________ Pin Code:______________
3. Telephone :______________ (prefix STD code) 4. Fax (if any):__________
5. (if any):_____________________________
6. Email (if any):_____________________________________________
B : Details of website/ computer resource/intermediary/ offending Information hosted on the website
(Please give details wherever known)
7. URL / web address :________________________________
8. IP Address :___________________________
9. Hyperlink:____________________________
10. Server/Proxy Server address :__________________________________
11. Name of the Intermediary :___________________________________
12. URL of the Intermediary :____________________________________
(Please attach screenshot/printout of the offending information)
13. Address or location of intermediary in case the intermediary is telecom service provider, network service provider, internet service provider, web-hosting service provider and cyber cafe or other form of intermediary for which information under points (7), (8), (9), (10), (11) and (12) are not available.
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
C. Details of Request for blocking
14. Recommendation/Comments of the Ministry/State Govt :______________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
15. The level at which the comments/ recommendation have been approved
(Please specify designation):__________________________________________
16. Have the complaint been examined in Ministry/State Government: Y/N
17. If yes, under which of the following reasons it falls (please tick):
(i) Interest of sovereignty or integrity of
(ii) Defence of
(iii) Security of the State
(iv) Friendly relations with foreign States
(v) Public order
(vi) For preventing incitement to the commission of any cognisable offence relating to above
D. Details of the Nodal Officer forwarding the complaint alongwith recommendation of the Ministry/State Govt. and related enclosures
18. Name of the Nodal Officer:_____________________________________________
19. Designation :___________________________________________________
20. organisation :________________________________________________________
21. Address : ______________________________________________________
City :______________________ Pin Code:______________
22. Telephone:________________(prefix STD code) 23. Fax (if any):____________
24. (if any):_____________________________
25. Email (if any):_____________________________________________
E. Any other information :
F. Enclosures :

1.
2.
3
Date: Place: Signature

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/information-technology-procedure-and-safeguards-for-blocking-for-access-of-information-by-public-rules-2009

Post and be Damned

praskrishna — 2012-11-19T03:40:46Z

Your careless comments online could put you in jail, thanks to Section 66A of the Information Technology Act. Kavitha Shanmugam examines a law that some critics say is vague and unconstitutional

Kavita Shanmugham's column was published in the Telegraph on November 14, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

Two weeks ago, S. Ravi, owner of a small plastic packaging unit in Puducherry, was rudely woken up by the police at 5am, manhandled and arrested. Reason: Ravi had posted a couple of unflattering comments about Karti Chidambaram, son of finance minister P. Chidambaram, on Twitter. He had tweeted that Chidambaram Junior "had amassed more wealth than Robert Vadra".

Ravi was arrested under Section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2008, and hauled up before a judicial magistrate who remanded him to nine days in custody. "It was then that I became really scared," says Ravi, who is out on bail.

A casual tweeter with just 16 followers, Ravi believes he did nothing wrong. “I was using a statement that was already there on the Internet. They could have sent me a lawyer’s notice or investigated the complaint before taking action,” argues Ravi, whose Twitter following has now jumped to 2,518.

"My tweet was retweeted by 20,000 people, who dared the authorities to arrest them too," he adds indignantly, terming Section 66A a “draconian law" with "wide scope for misuse".

Ravi is not alone in denouncing Section 66A of the IT Act. Indeed, there is now a huge outcry against the law, with a section of legal and cyber experts saying that it is nothing but a useful tool in the hands of the powers that be to curb freedom of speech and expression online.

At the same time, there are those who believe that online abuse or defamation cannot masquerade as freedom of speech and that the law is necessary to move against those who commit this offence.

Karti Chidambaram, for one, believes that Ravi’s tweet was motivated and defamatory. "The tweeter made one tweet in 78 days. It was about me. It clearly implied that I am corrupt. That is malicious. So I preferred a complaint to the police. The law exists. I didn’t frame the law," he says.

Section 66A of the IT Act lays down that a person can be punished with up to three years’ imprisonment if he or she sends offensive information or messages through a computer resource or communication device. The problem arises because it fails to clarify what can be termed "offensive". For example, information that is "grossly offensive" or has "menacing character” or information disseminated for the “purpose of causing annoyance and inconvenience" are all brought under the ambit of "offensive". This leaves the law wide open for various interpretations and abuse. "It’s too vaguely worded," insists M. Lenin, a lawyer advising volunteers of India Against Corruption in Chennai. “Any online statement can be declared 'offensive' and any tweet may be deemed ‘inconvenient’. The section has become a convenient tool for the police to harass people."

Section 66A of the IT Act lays down that a person can be punished with up to three years’ imprisonment if he or she sends offensive information or messages through a computer resource or communication device. The problem arises because it fails to clarify what can be termed "offensive". For example, information that is "grossly offensive" or has "menacing character” or information disseminated for the “purpose of causing annoyance and inconvenience" are all brought under the ambit of "offensive". This leaves the law wide open for various interpretations and abuse.

"It’s too vaguely worded," insists M. Lenin, a lawyer advising volunteers of India Against Corruption in Chennai. “Any online statement can be declared 'offensive' and any tweet may be deemed ‘inconvenient’. The section has become a convenient tool for the police to harass people."

Earlier this year, Section 66A was also invoked, among other laws, to arrest Jadavpur University professor Ambikesh Mahapatra for forwarding an email cartoon of West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee.

Indeed, some experts go a step further and call Section 66A patently unconstitutional. Says Pranesh Prakash, policy director, Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, "It’s clearly in violation of Article 19(1)(a) of our Constitution that guarantees freedom of speech. The fact that some information is ‘grossly offensive’ (Section 66A) or that it causes ‘annoyance’ or ‘inconvenience’ while being known to be false (Section 66A(c)) cannot be a reason for curbing freedom of speech unless it is directly related to violating decency, morality or public order, or amounts to defamation."

However, apologists for Section 66A argue that the law has its merits too in that it can be used to move against genuine incidents of harassment or defamation online. Take the case of Chinmayee Sripada, a popular Chennai-based playback singer. Chinmayee, who has one lakh followers on Twitter, was targeted by a group of six men who sent her lewd and threatening tweets for a period of time. Apparently, they were upset with her remarks on reservation and for not joining them in a Twitter campaign against the killing of Tamil Nadu fishermen by the Sri Lankan navy.

Recently, Chinmayee complained to the police with “thousands of pages of ugliness and vulgarity” and the trolls, including a professor at the National Institute of Fashion Technology, Chennai, were identified and arrested under Section 66A.

The offending tweeters apologised to her and closed their accounts after the arrest. "I believe Section 66A belled the cat. The arrest made people realise that Twitter also demands self-regulation. In the name of freedom of speech there is zero control on platforms like Twitter. There should be some boundaries," says Chinmayee’s mother T. Padmahasini.

Ramachandra Murthy, Ravi’s lawyer, too believes that Section 66A is a "good tool" for genuine cases of harassment. "Unfortunately, it is being misused by influential people. Still, if you are innocent the case can never hold up in court," he reasons.

Others question the need for a separate law to deal with cases of online defamation or harassment when the Indian Penal Code already has provisions to tackle them. New Delhi-based lawyer Apar Gupta cites the examples of Section 500, 499 and 294 of the IPC which deal with defamation or committing obscene acts in public. "Section 66A only makes the burden on the accused harsher," he adds.

While some IT experts want Section 66A scrapped, others say that it should at least be amended. “Even if the section is not struck off the statute books, the provisions in it may be read down by the courts and safeguards may be prescribed in its application,” says Gupta.

Until that happens, mistaking social media platforms for online drawing rooms where you can indulge in all kinds of freewheeling chat could be fraught with danger.

Justice A.P. Shah, a former chief justice of the Delhi High Court, echoes that view. "Section 66A is very broad and loosely worded. The scope of such a law has to be restricted. Instead, it is vague and clearly violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution that guarantees freedom of speech and expression," he says.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/telegraphindia-opinion-story-kavitha-shanmugham-nov-14-2012-post-and-be-damned

Will The International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs) Impact Internet Governance? A Multistakeholder Perspective

pranesh — 2012-12-10T04:40:11Z

Pranesh Prakash made a presentation at the India Internet Governance Conference (IIGC) held at the FICCI, Federation House, Tansen Marg, New Delhi on October 4 and 5, 2012. The event was organised by the Ministry of Communications & Information Technology, FICCI and Internet Society. CIS was one of the supporting organisations.

Principles

I'll outline some broad principles that should be kept in mind while deciding on proposals for the International Telecommunications Regulations (ITR).

Any proposal should be considered for the ITR if an only if it satisfies all the below criteria:

Only if international regulation is needed

If only national regulation is sufficient, then ITR is not the right place for it.
International roaming price transparency, for instance, is an issue where international cooperation is required.

Only if it is a technical issue limited to telecommunications networks and interoperability

On the issues of 'security', if it is strictly about network security, then it is fine.

ITU already does some standard setting work around this.

If it about security of root server operations, or DNS, etc., that's not around telecommunications, despite being a technical issue.
If it is about criminal activities on telecommunications networks, that is not a technical issue.

Only if it is something that can be decided at the level of states.

Multistakeholder issues should not end up at the ITU, since the ITU is not a multistakeholder body.
This principle has been accepted by the ITU itself in the Geneva Declaration as well as the Tunis Agenda.

Only if it proposes to address a proven harm

The ETNO proposal, for instance, does not make it very clear why they think current interconnection system is a problem.

Though the ETNO proposal says that it is required to enable "fair compensation", "sustainable development of telecom", it does so without showing why the current payment mechanisms are unsustainable, or how telecom industry has changed lately, or even how moving from voice to data (even for voice) is going to affect "sustainable development of telecom".
Geoff Huston provides the wonderful example of how ten years ago, content providers were asking for fair compensation from telecom providers ("content is being provided free, while ISPs charge customers; ISPs are worthless without content, hence ISPs need to share revenue with content providers"). Now the opposite argument is being made by telecom operators.

Airtel in India has publicly asked Google and Facebook for revenue sharing.

Rohan Samarajiva of LIRNEasia

He believes ETNO proposal is bad for developing countries.

Adverse unintended effect of ETNO proposal ("sending-party network pays") is that less traffic will be directed towards poorer regions without the ability (whether through ad sales, or otherwise) to justify that expenditure by the sender.

ISOC paper is one of the most in-depth analysis so far.

They strongly believe it is going to be bad for Internet

Truth is that there has been no clear economic study so far of the potential impact. Hence counting benefits without proper analysis is risky.

Only if there's no better place than ITU

If another existing organization like ICANN or IETF can look at it, then ITU should not take over.

If all the above principles are satisfied, then the question becomes:

Does the proposal further substantive principles, such as:
Development
Competition and prevention of monopolies
Etc.

If the proposal does advance such substantive principles, then we should ask what kind of regulation is needed: Whether mandatory or not whether it is the minimal amount required to achieve the policy objectives.

Conclusion

Indian government's positions on the specific proposals to the ITR haven't yet been made public.

But the India government has taken a public position on the larger issue before: the IBSA statement on Enhanced Cooperation from December 2010. the IBSA reaffirms its commitment to the stability and security of the Internet as a global facility based on the full participation of all stakeholders, from both developed and developing countries, within their respective roles and responsibilities in line with paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda.

"The management of the Internet encompasses both technical and public policy issues and should involve all stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international organizations."

Demonization of the ITU is not good, though some in civil society have engaged in it, and is not the issue here. * After all, ITU was a core part of the WSIS process that led to the multistakeholder system. * ITU does have its own role to play in Internet governance.

Importantly, transparency and public participation is required. * We have signed an international civil society letter asking ITU to be more transparent. This has had a little impact; more documents are now out in the public. And there's now WCITLeaks.org * The Indian government must hold inclusive meetings with all relevant experts and stakeholders, including civil society organizations and academics.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/will-the-international-telecommunication-regulations-itrs-impact-internet-governance-a-multistakeholder-perspective