Centre for Internet and Society

Freedom of Expression Scholars Conference 2

praskrishna — 2014-06-04T04:48:22Z

Yale Law School organized the Freedom of Expression Scholars Conference 2 from May 2 to 4, 2014. Pranesh Prakash participated as a discussant in the session "Speech and Safety Laboratories".

Click to see the agenda here.

List of Participants

A
Tabatha Abu El-Haj - Associate Professor of Law, Drexel University School of Law
BJ Ard - Thomson Reuters Resident Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
Enrique Armijo - Associate Professor of Law, Elon University School of Law

B
Jack Balkin - Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment, Yale Law School; Director, Yale Information Society Project
Derek Bambauer - Associate Professor of Law, University of Arizona College of Law
Jane Bambauer - Associate Professor of Law, University of Arizona College of Law
Vincent Blasi - Corliss Lamont Professor of Civil Liberties, Columbia Law School
Joseph Blocher - Associate Professor, Duke Law School
Nicholas Bramble - Senior Policy Fellow, Google
Kiel Brennan-Marquez - Resident Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School

C
Alan Chen - Professor of Law, University of Denver College of Law
Danielle Citron - Professor of Law, University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law

D
Deven Desai - Associate Professor of Law, Thomas Jefferson School of Law

F
Stephen Feldman - Jerry W. Housel / Carl F. Arnold Distinguished Professor of Law and Adjunct Professor of Political Science, University of Wyoming College of Law

G
Hillary Greene - Professor of Law, University of Connecticut School of Law
James Grimmelmann - Professor of Law, University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law

H
David Han - Associate Professor of Law, Pepperdine University School of Law
Thomas Healy - Professor of Law, Seton Hall University School of Law

I
John Inazu - Associate Professor of Law and Political Science, Washington University School of Law

K
Margot Kaminski - Executive Director, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
Leslie Kendrick - Associate Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Jeremy Kessler - David Berg Foundation Fellow, Tikvah Center for Law & Jewish Civilization, New York University
Randy Kozel -Associate Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School

L
Laura Little - Charles Klein Professor of Law, Temple University Beasley School of Law

M
Greg Magarian - Professor of Law, Washington University Law School
Jonathan Manes -Associate Research Scholar in Law and Abrams Clinical Fellow, Informaiton Society Project, Yale Law School
Toni Massaro - Regents' Professor, University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law
Kerry Monroe - Law Ph.D. Candidate, Yale Law School

N
Helen Norton - Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Associate Professor of Law, University of Colorado School of Law

P
Mary-Rose Papandrea - Professor, Boston College Law School
Pranesh Prakash - Postgraduate Associate in Law and Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
Tamara Piety - Professor of Law, University of Tulsa College of Law

R
Neil Richards - Professor of Law, Washington University School of Law
Lee Rowland -Staff Attorney, ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project

S
Esteve Sanz - Resident Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School

T
David Thaw - Visiting Assistant Professor, University of Connecticut School of Law
Alexander Tsesis - Professor of Law, Loyola University School of Law
Andrew Tutt - Law Clerk and Visiting Fellow, Yale Information Society Project

W
Felix Wu - Associate Professor of Law, Cardozo School of Law

Z
Tim Zick - Mills E. Godwin, Jr. Professor of Law, Willian & Mary Law School

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/freedom-of-expression-scholars-conference-2

Net Neutrality, Free Speech and the Indian Constitution - II

gautam — 2014-04-29T07:42:40Z

In this 3 part series, Gautam Bhatia explores the concept of net neutrality in the context of Indian law and the Indian Constitution.

To sum up the previous post: under Article 12 of the Constitution, fundamental rights can be enforced only against the State, or State-like entities that are under the functional, financial and administrative control of the State. In the context of net neutrality, it is clear that privately-owned ISPs do not meet the exacting standards of Article 12. Nonetheless, we also found that the Indian Supreme Court has held private entities, which do not fall within the contours of Article 12, to an effectively similar standard of obligations under Part III as State organizations in certain cases. Most prominent among these is the case of education: private educational institutions have been required to adhere to standards of equal treatment which are identical in content to Article 14, even though their source lies elsewhere. If, therefore, we are to impose obligations of net neutrality upon private ISPs, a similar argument must be found.

I will suggest that the best hope is by invoking the free speech guarantee of Article 19(1)(a). To understand how an obligation of free speech might operate in this case, let us turn to the case of Marsh v. Alabama, an American Supreme Court case from 1946.

Marsh v. Alabama involved a “company town”. The “town” of Chickasaw was owned by a private company, the Gulf Shipbuilding Corporation. In its structure it resembled a regular township: it had building, streets, a sewage system, and a “business block”, where stores and business places had been rented out to merchants and other service providers. The residents of the “town” used the business block as their shopping center, to get to which they used the company-owned pavement and street. Highway traffic regularly came in through the town, and its facilities were used by wayfarers. As the Court noted:

“In short the town and its shopping district are accessible to and freely used by the public in general and there is nothing to distinguish them from any other town and shopping center except the fact that the title to the property belongs to a private corporation.”

Marsh, who was a Jehovah’s Witness, arrived in Chickasaw with the intention of distributing religious literature on the streets. She was asked to leave the sidewalk, and on declining, she was arrested by the police, and charged under an anti-trespassing statute. She argued that if the statute was applied to her, it would violate her free speech and freedom of religion rights under the American First Amendment. The lower Courts rejected her argument, holding that since the street was owned by a private corporation, she had no constitutional free speech rights, and the situation was analogous to being invited into a person’s private house. The Supreme Court, however, reversed the lower Courts, and found for Marsh.

Four (connected) strands of reasoning run through the Supreme Court’s (brief) opinion. First, it found that streets, sidewalks and public places have historically been critically important sites for dissemination and reception of news, information and opinions, whether it is through distribution of literature, street-corner oratory, or whatever else. Secondly, it found that private ownership did not carry with it a right to exclusive dominion. Rather, “the owners of privately held bridges, ferries, turnpikes and railroads may not operate them as freely as a farmer does his farm. Since these facilities are built and operated primarily to benefit the public and since their operation is essentially a public function, it is subject to state regulation.” Thirdly, it noted that a large number of Americans throughout the United States lived in company towns, and acted just as other American citizens did, in their duties as residents of a community. It would therefore be perverse to deny them rights enjoyed by those who lived in State-municipality run towns. And fourthly, on balance, it held that the private rights of property-owners was subordinate to the right of the people to “enjoy freedom of press and religion.”

No one factor, then, but a combination of factors underlie the Court’s decision to impose constitutional obligations upon a private party. It mattered that, historically, there have been a number of spaces traditionally dedicated to public speech: parks, squares and streets – whose public character remained unchanged despite the nature of ownership. It mattered that individuals had no feasible exit option – that is, no other place they could go to in order to exercise their free speech rights. And it mattered that free speech occupied a significant enough place in the Constitutional scheme so as to override the exclusionary rights that normally tend to go with private property.

The case of the privately-owned street in the privately-owned town presents a striking analogy when we start thinking seriously about net neutrality. First of all, in the digital age, the traditional sites of public discourse – parks, town squares, streets – have been replaced by their digital equivalents. The lonely orator standing on the soap-box in the street corner now tweets his opinions and instagrams his photographs. The street-pamphleteer of yesteryear now updates his Facebook status to reflect his political opinions. Specialty and general-interest blogs constitute a multiplicity of town-squares where a speaker makes his point, and his hearers gather in the comments section to discuss and debate the issue. While these examples may seem frivolous at first blush, the basic point is a serious one: the role of opinion formation and transmission that once served by open, publicly accessible physical infrastructure, held – in a manner of speaking – in public trust by the government, is now served in the digital world, under the control of private gatekeepers. To that extent, it is a public function, undertaken in public interest, as the Court held in Marsh v. Alabama.

The absence of an exit option is equally important. The internet has become not only a space of exchanging information, but it has become a primary – non-replaceable source – of the same. Like the citizens of Chickasaw lacked a feasible alternative space to exercise their public free speech rights (and we operate on the assumption that it would be unreasonably expensive and disruptive for them to move to a different town), there is now no feasible alternative space to the internet, as it exists today, where the main online spaces are owned by private parties, and access to those spaces is determined by gatekeepers – which are the ISPs.

The analogy is not perfect, of course, but there is a case to be made that in acting as the gatekeepers of the internet, privately-owned ISPs are in a position quite similar to the corporate owners of they public streets Company Town.

In the last post, we saw how it is possible – constitutionally – to impose public obligations upon private parties, although the Court has never made its jurisprudential foundation clear. Here, then, is a thought: public obligations ought to be imposed when the private entity is providing a public function and/or when the private entity is in effectively exclusive control of a public good. There is an argument that ISPs satisfy both conditions. Of course, we need to examine in detail how precisely the rights of free expression are implicated in the ISP context. That is the subject for the next post.

Gautam Bhatia — @gautambhatia88 on Twitter — is a graduate of the National Law School of India University (2011), and presently an LLM student at the Yale Law School. He blogs about the Indian Constitution at http://indconlawphil.wordpress.com. Here at CIS, he will be blogging on issues of online freedom of speech and expression.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/-neutrality-free-speech-and-the-indian-constitution-part-2

Net Neutrality, Free Speech and the Indian Constitution - I

gautam — 2014-04-29T08:03:57Z

In this post, I will explore net neutrality in the context of Indian law and the Indian Constitution.

Let us take, for the purposes of this post, the following definition:

“The idea that all Internet traffic should be treated equally is known as network neutrality. In other words, no matter who uploads or downloads data, or what kind of data is involved, networks should treat all of those packets in the same manner.”

In other words, put simply, net neutrality in its broadest form requires the extant gatekeepers of the internet – such as, for instance, broadband companies – to accord a form of equal and non-discriminatory treatment to all those who want to access the internet. Examples of possible discrimination – as the quote above illustrates – include, for instance, blocking content or providing differential internet speed (perhaps on the basis of a tiered system of payment for access).

Net neutrality has its proponents and opponents, and I do not have space here to address that dispute. In its broadest and absolutist form, net neutrality is highly controversial (including arguments that existing status quo is not neutral in any genuine sense). I take as given, however, that some form of net neutrality is both an important and a desirable goal. In particular, intentional manipulation of information that is available to internet users – especially for political purposes – is, I assume, an undesirable outcome, as are anti-competitive practices, as well as price-discrimination for the most basic access to the internet (this brief article in the Times of India provides a decent, basic primer on the stakes involved).

An example of net neutrality in practice is the American Federal Communications Commission’s Open Internet Order of 2010, which was the subject of litigation in the recently concluded Verizon v. FCC. The Open Internet order imposed obligations of transparency, no blocking, and no unreasonable discrimination, upon internet service providers. The second and third requirements were vacated by a United States Court of Appeals. The rationale for the Court’s decision was that ISPs could not be equated, in law, to “common carriers”. A common carrier is an entity that offers to transport persons and/or goods in exchange for a fee (for example, shipping companies, or bus companies). A common carrier is licensed to be one, and often, one of the conditions for license is an obligation not to discriminate. That is, the common carrier cannot refuse to carry an individual who is willing and able to pay the requisite fees, in the absence of a compelling reason (for example, if the individual wishes the carrier to transport contraband). Proponents of net neutrality have long called for treating ISPs as common carriers, a proposition – as observed above – was rejected by the Court.

With this background, let us turn to India. In India, internet service providers are both state-owned (BSNL and MTNL), and privately-owned (Airtel, Spectranet, Reliance, Sify etc). Unlike many other countries, however, India has no network-neutrality laws. As this informative article observes:

“The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), in its guidelines for issuing licences for providing Unified Access Service, promotes the principle of non-discrimination but does not enforce it… the Information Technology Act does not provide regulatory provisions relating to Internet access, and does not expressly prohibit an ISP from controlling the Internet to suit their business interests.”

In the absence of either legislation or regulation, there are two options. One, of course, is to invoke the rule of common carriers as a common law rule in court, should an ISP violate the principles of net neutrality. In this post (and the next), however, I would like to analyze net neutrality within a constitutional framework – in particular, within the framework of the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and expression.

In order to do so, two questions become important, and I shall address them in turn. First, given that most of the ISPs are privately owned, how does the Constitution even come into the picture? Our fundamental rights are enforceable vertically, that is, between individuals and the State, and not horizontally – that is, between two individuals, or two private parties. Where the Constitution intends to depart from this principle (for instance, Article 15(2)), it specifically and expressly states so. As far as Article 19 and the fundamental freedoms are concerned, however, it is clear that they do not admit of horizontal application.

Yet what, precisely, are we to understand by the term “State”? Consider Article 12:

“In this part, unless the context otherwise requires, the State includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.”

The key question is what, precisely, falls within the meaning of “other authorities”. The paradigmatic example – and this is something Ambedkar had in mind, as is evidenced by the Constituent Assembly Debates – is the statutory corporation – i.e., a company established under a statute. There are, however, more difficult cases, for instance, public-private partnerships of varying types. For the last fifty years, the Supreme Court has struggled with the issue of defining “other authorities” for the purposes of Part III of the Constitution, with the pendulum swinging wildly at times. In the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, a 2002 judgment by a Constitution bench, the Court settled upon the following definition:

“The question in each case would be whether in the light of the cumulative facts as established, the body is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government. Such control must be particular to the body in question and must be pervasive. If this is found then the body is a State within Article 12. On the other hand, when the control is merely regulatory whether under statute or otherwise, it would not serve to make the body a State.”

Very obviously, this dooms the ISP argument. There is no way to argue that ISPs are under the pervasive financial, functional and administrative domination or control of the State. If we step back for a moment, though, the Pradeep Kumar Biswas test seems to be radically under-inclusive. Consider the following hypothetical: tomorrow, the government decides to privatize the nation’s water supply to private company X. Company X is the sole distributor of water in the country. On gaining control, it decides to cut off the water supply to all households populated by members of a certain religion. There seems something deeply wrong in the argument that there is no remedy under discrimination law against the conduct of the company.

The argument could take two forms. One could argue that there is a certain minimum baseline of State functions (ensuring reasonable access to public utilities, overall maintenance of communications, defence and so on). The baseline may vary depending on your personal political philosophy (education? Health? Infrastructure?), but within the baseline, as established, if a private entity performs a State function, it is assimilated to the State. One could also argue, however, that even if Part III isn’t directly applicable, certain functions are of a public nature, and attract public law obligations that are identical in content to fundamental rights obligations under Part III, although their source is not Part III.

To unpack this idea, consider Justice Mohan’s concurring opinion in Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, a case that involved the constitutionality of high capitation fees charged by private educational institutions. One of the arguments raised against the educational institutions turned upon the applicability of Article 14’s guarantee of equality. The bench avoided the issue of whether Article 14 directly applied to private educational institutions by framing the issue as a question of the constitutionality of the legislation that regulated capitation fees. Justice Mohan, however, observed:

“What is the nature of functions discharged by these institutions? They discharge a public duty. If a student desires to acquire a degree, for example, in medicine, he will have to route through a medical college. These medical colleges are the instruments to attain the qualification. If, therefore, what is discharged by the educational institution, is a public duty that requires… [it to] act fairly. In such a case, it will be subject to Article 14.”

In light of Pradeep Kumar Biswas, it is obviously difficult to hold the direct application of the Constitution to private entities. We can take Justice Mohan, however, to be making a slightly different point: performing what are quintessentially public duties attract certain obligations that circumscribe the otherwise free action of private entities. The nature of the obligation itself depends upon the nature of the public act. Education, it would seem, is an activity that is characterized by open and non-discriminatory access. Consequently, even private educational institutions are required to abide by the norms of fairness articulated by Article 14, even though they may not, as a matter of constitutional law, be held in violation of the Article 14 that is found in the constitutional text. Again, the content of the obligation is the same, but its source (the constitutional text, as opposed to norms of public law) is different.

We have therefore established that in certain cases, it is possible to subject private entities performing public functions to constitutional norms without bringing them under Article 12’s definition of the State, and without the need for an enacted statute, or a set of regulations. In the next post, we shall explore in greater detail what this means, and how it might be relevant to ISPs and net neutrality.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-neutrality-free-speech-and-the-indian-constitution-part-1

Marco Civil da Internet: Brazil’s ‘Internet Constitution’

geetha — 2014-06-19T10:38:10Z

On March 25, 2014, Brazil's lower house of parliament passed bill no. 2126/2011, popularly known as Marco Civil da Internet. The Marco Civil is a charter of Internet user-rights and service provider responsibilities, committed to freedom of speech and expression, privacy, and accessibility and openness of the Internet. In this post, the author looks at the pros and cons of the bill.

Introduction:

Ten months ago, Edward Snowden’s revelations of the U.S. National Security Agency’s extensive, warrantless spying dawned on us. Citizens and presidents alike expressed their outrage at this sweeping violation of their privacy. While India’s position remained carefully neutral, or indeed, supportive of NSA’s surveillance, Germany, France and Brazil cut the U.S. no slack. Indeed, at the 68th session of the United Nations General Assembly, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff (whose office the NSA had placed under surveillance) stated, “Tampering in such a manner in the affairs of other countries is a breach of International Law and is an affront to the principles that must guide the relations among them, especially among friendly nations.” Brazil, she said, would “redouble its efforts to adopt legislation, technologies and mechanisms to protect us from the illegal interception of communications and data.”

Some may say that Brazil has lived up to its word. Later this month, Brazil will be host to NETmundial, the Global Multi-stakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance, jointly organized by the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br) and the organization /1Net. The elephantine invisible presence of Snowden vests NETmundial with the hope and responsibility of laying the ground for a truly multi-stakeholder model for governing various aspects of the Internet; a model where governments are an integral part, but not the only decision-makers. The global Internet community, comprising users, corporations, governments, the technical community, and NGOs and think-tanks, is hoping devise a workable method to divest the U.S. Government of its de facto control over the Internet, which it wields through its contracts to manage the domain name system and the root zone.

But as Internet governance expert Dr. Jeremy Malcolm put it, these technical aspects do not make or break the Internet. The real questions in Internet governance underpin the rights of users, corporations and netizens worldwide. Sir Tim Berners-Lee, when he called for an Internet Bill of Rights, meant much the same. For Sir Tim, an open, neutral Internet is imperative if we are to keep our governments open, and foster “good democracy, healthcare, connected communities and diversity of culture”. Some countries agree. The Philippines envisaged a Magna Carta for Internet Freedom, though the Bill is pending in the Philippine parliament.

Marco Civil da Internet:

Last week, on March 25, 2014, the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies (the lower house of parliament) passed the Marco Civil da Internet, bill 2126/2011, a charter of Internet rights. The Marco Civil is considered by the global Internet community as a one-of-a-kind bill, with Sir Tim Berners-Lee hailing the “groundbreaking, inclusive and participatory process has resulted in a policy that balances the rights and responsibilities of the individuals, governments and corporations who use the Internet”.

The Marco Civil’s journey began with a two-stage public consultation process in October 2009, under the aegis of the Brazilian Ministry of Justice’s Department of Legislative Affairs, jointly with the Getulio Vargas Foundation’s Center for Technology and Society of the Law School of Rio de Janeiro (CTS-FGV). The collaborative process involved a 45-day consultation process in which over 800 comments were received, following which a second consultation in May 2010 received over 1200 comments from individuals, civil society organizations and corporations involved in the telecom and technology industries. Based on comments, the initial draft of the bill was revamped to include issues of popular, public importance, such as intermediary liability and online freedom of speech.

An official English translation of the Marco Civil is as yet unavailable. But an unofficial translation (please note that the file is uploaded on Google Drive), triangulated against online commentary on the bill, reveals that the following issues were of primary importance:

The fundamentals:

The fundamental principles of the Marco Civil reveal a commitment to openness, accessibility neutrality and democratic collaboration on the Internet. Art. 2 (see unofficial translation) sets out the fundamental principles that form the basis of the law. It pledges to adhere to freedom of speech and expression, along with an acknowledgement of the global scale of the network, its openness and collaborative nature, its plurality and diversity. It aims to foster free enterprise and competition on the Internet, while ensuring consumer protection and upholding human rights, personality development and citizenship exercise in the digital media in line with the network’s social purposes. Not only this, but Art. 4 of the bill pledges to promote universal access to the Internet, as well as “to information, knowledge and participation in cultural life and public affairs”. It aims to promote innovation and open technology standards, while ensuring interoperability.

The Marco Civil expands on its commitment to human rights and accessibility by laying down a “discipline of Internet use in Brazil”. Art. 3 of the bill guarantees freedom of expression, communication and expression of thoughts, under the terms of the Federal Constitution of Brazil, while at the same time guaranteeing privacy and protection of personal data, and preserving network neutrality. It also focuses on preserving network stability and security, by emphasizing accountability and adopting “technical measures consistent with international standards and by encouraging the implementation of best practices”.

These principles, however, are buttressed by rights assured to Internet users and responsibilities of and exceptions provided to service providers.

Rights and responsibilities of users and service providers:

Net neutrality:

Brazil becomes one of the few countries in the world (joining the likes of the Netherlands, Chile and Israel in part) to preserve network neutrality by legislation. Art. 9 of the Marco Civil requires all Internet providers to “to treat any data package with isonomy, regardless of content, origin and destination, service, terminal or application”. Not only this, but Internet providers are enjoined from blocking, monitoring or filtering content during any stage of transmission or routing of data. Deep packet inspection is also forbidden. Exceptions may be made to discriminate among network traffic only on the basis of essential technical requirements for services-provision, and for emergency services prioritization. Even this requires the Internet provider to inform users in advance of such traffic discrimination, and to act proportionately, transparently and with equal protection.

Data retention, privacy and data protection:

The Marco Civil includes provisions for the retention of personal data and communications by service providers, and access to the same by law enforcement authorities. However, record, retention and access to Internet connection records and applications access-logs, as well as any personal data and communication, are required to meet the standards for “the conservation of intimacy, private life, honor and image of the parties directly or indirectly involved” (Art. 10). Specifically, access to identifying information and contents of personal communication may be obtained only upon judicial authorization.

Moreover, where data is collected within Brazilian territory, processes of collection, storage, custody and treatment of the abovementioned data are required to comply with Brazilian laws, especially the right to privacy and confidentiality of personal data and private communications and records (Art. 11). Interestingly, this compliance requirement is applicable also to entities incorporated in foreign jurisdictions, which offer services to Brazilians, or where a subsidiary or associate entity of the corporation in question has establishments in Brazil. While this is undoubtedly a laudable protection for Brazilians or service providers located in Brazil, it is possible that conflicts may arise (with penal consequences) between standards and terms of data retention and access by authorities in other jurisdictions. In the predictable absence of harmonization of such laws, perhaps rules of conflicts of law may prove helpful.

While data retention remained a point of contention (Brazil initially sought to ensure a 5-year data retention period), under the Marco Civil, Internet providers are required to retain connection records for 1 year under rules of strict confidentiality; this responsibility cannot be delegated to third parties (Art. 13). Providers providing the Internet connection (such as Reliance or Airtel in India) are forbidden from retaining records of access to applications on the Internet (Art. 14). While law enforcement authorities may request a longer retention period, a court order (filed for by the authority within 60 days from the date of such request) is required to access the records themselves. In the event the authority fails to file for such court order within the stipulated period, or if court order is denied, the service provider must protect the confidentiality of the connection records.

Though initially excluded from the Marco Civil, the current draft passed by the Chamber of Deputies requires Internet application providers (such as Google or Facebook) to retain access-logs for their applications for 6 months (Art. 15). Logs for other applications may not be retained without previous consent of the owner, and in any case, the provider cannot retain personal data that is in excess of the purpose for which consent was given by the owner. As for connection records, law enforcement authorities may request a greater retention period, but require a court order to access the data itself.

These requirements must be understood in light of the rights that the Marco Civil guarantees to users. Art. 7, which enumerates these user-rights, does not however set forth their content; this is probably left to judicial interpretation of rights enshrined in the Federal Constitution. In any event, Art. 7 guarantees to all Internet users the “inviolability of intimacy and privacy”, including the confidentiality of all Internet communications, along with “compensation for material or moral damages resulting from violation”. In this regard, it assures that users are entitled to a guarantee that no personal data or communication shall be shared with third parties in the absence of express consent, and to “clear and complete information on the collection, use, storage, treatment and protection of their personal data”. Indeed, where contracts violate the requirements of inviolability and secrecy of private communications, or where a dispute resolution clause does not permit the user to approach Brazilian courts as an alternative, Art. 8 renders such contracts null and void.

Most importantly, Art. 7 states that users are entitled to clear and complete information about how connection records and access logs shall be stored and protected, and to publicity of terms/policies of use of service providers. Additionally, Art. 7 emphasizes quality of service and accessibility to the Internet, and forbids suspension of Internet connections except for failure of payments. Read comprehensively, therefore, Arts. 7-15 of the Marco Civil prima facie set down robust protections for private and personal data and communications.

An initial draft of the Marco Civil sought to mandate local storage of all Brazilians’ data within Brazilian territory. This came in response to Snowden’s revelations of NSA surveillance, and President Rousseff, in her statement to the United Nations, declared that Brazil sought to protect itself from “illegal interception of communications and data”. However, the implications of this local storage requirement was the creation of a geographically isolated Brazilian Internet, with repercussions for the Internet’s openness and interoperability that the Marco Civil itself sought to protect. Moreover, there are implications for efficiency and business; for instance, small businesses may be unable to source the money or capacity to comply with local storage requirements. Also, they lead to mandating storage on political grounds, and not on the basis of effective storage. Amid widespread protest from corporations and civil society, this requirement was then withdrawn which, some say, propelled the quick passage of the bill in the Chamber of Deputies.

Intermediary liability:

Laws of many countries make service providers liable for third party content that infringes copyright or that is otherwise against the law (such as pornography or other offensive content). For instance, Section 79 of the Indian Information Technology Act, 2000 (as amended in 2008) is such a provision where intermediaries (i.e., those who host user-generated content, but do not create the content themselves) may be held liable. However, stringent intermediary liability regimes create the possibility of private censorship, where intermediaries resort to blocking or filtering user-generated content that they fear may violate laws, sometimes even without intimating the creator of the infringing content. The Marco Civil addresses this possibility of censorship by creating a restricted intermediary liability provision. Please note, however, that the bill expressly excludes from its ambit copyright violations, which a copyright reforms bill seeks to address.

At first instance, the Marco Civil exempts service providers from civil liability for third party content (Art. 18). Moreover, intermediaries are liable for damages arising out of third party content only where such intermediaries do not comply with court orders (which may require removal of content, etc.) (Art. 19). This leaves questions of infringement and censorship to the judiciary, which the author believes is the right forum to adjudicate such issues. Moreover, wherever identifying information is available, Art. 20 mandates the intermediary to appraise the creator of infringing content of the reasons for removal of his/her content, with information that enables the creator to defend him- or herself in court. This measure of transparency is particularly laudable; for instance, in India, no such intimation is required by law, and you or I as journalists, bloggers or other creators of content may never know why our content is taken down, or be equipped to defend ourselves in court against the plaintiff or petitioner who sought removal of our content. Finally, a due diligence requirement is placed on the intermediary in circumstances where third party content discloses, “without consent of its participants, of photos, videos or other materials containing nudity or sexual acts of private character”. As per Art. 21, where the intermediary does not take down such content upon being intimated by the concerned participant, it may be held secondarily liable for infringement of privacy.

This restricted intermediary liability regime is further strengthened by a requirement of specific identification of infringing content, which both the court order issued under Art. 20 and the take-down request under Art. 21 must fulfill. This requirement is missing, for instance, under Section 79 of the Indian Information Technology Act, which creates a diligence and liability regime without requiring idenfiability of infringing content.

Conclusion:

Brazil’s ‘Internet Constitution’ has done much to add to the ongoing discussion on the rights and responsibilities of users and providers. By expressly adopting protections for net neutrality and online privacy and freedom of expression, the Marco Civil may be considered to set itself up as a model for Internet rights at the municipal level, barring a Utopian bill of rights. Indeed, in an effusive statement of support for the bill, Sir Tim Berners-Lee stated: “If Marco Civil is passed, without further delay or amendment, this would be the best possible birthday gift for Brazilian and global Web users.”

Of course, the Marco Civil is not without its failings. Authors say that the data retention requirements by connection and application providers, with leeway provided for law enforcement authorities to lengthen retention periods, is problematic. Moreover, the discussions surrounding data localization and a ‘walled-off’ Internet that protects against surveillance ignores the interoperability and openness that forms the core of the Internet.

On the whole, though, the Marco Civil may be considered a victory, on many counts. It is possibly the first successful example of a national legislation that is the outcome of a broad, consultative process with civil society and other affected entities. It expressly affirms Brazil’s commitment to the protection of privacy and freedom of expression, as well as to Internet accessibility and the openness of the network. It aims to eliminate the possibility of private censorship online, while upholding privacy rights of users. It seeks to reduce the potential for abuse of personal data and communication by government authorities, by requiring judicial authorization for the same. In a world where warrantless government spying extends across national border, such a provision is novel and desirable. One hopes that, when the global Internet community sits down at its various fora to identify and enumerate principles for Internet governance, it will look to the Marco Civil as an example of standards that governments may adhere to, and not necessarily resort to the lowest common denominator standards of international rights and protections.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/marco-civil-da-internet

Intermediary Liability Resources

elonnai — 2014-07-03T06:45:48Z

We bring you a list of intermediary resources as part of research on internet governance. This blog post will be updated on an ongoing basis.

Shielding the Messengers: Protecting Platforms for Expression and Innovation. The Centre for Democracy and Technology. December 2012, available at: https://www.cdt.org/files/pdfs/CDT-Intermediary-Liability-2012.pdf: This paper analyses the impact that intermediary liability regimes have on freedom of expression, privacy, and innovation. In doing so, the paper highlights different models of intermediary liability regimes, reviews different technological means of restricting access to content, and provides recommendations for intermediary liability regimes and provides alternative ways of addressing illegal content online.
Internet Intermediaries: Dilemma of Liability: Article 19. 2013, available at: http://www.article19.org/data/files/Intermediaries_ENGLISH.pdf:This Policy Document reviews different components of intermediary liability and highlights the challenges and risks that current models of liability have to online freedom of expression. Relying on international standards for freedom of expression and comparative law, the document includes recommendations and alternative models that provide stronger protection for freedom of expression. The key recommendation in the document include: web hosting providers or hosts should be immune from liability to third party content if they have not modified the content, privatised enforcement should not be a model and removal orders should come only from courts or adjudicatory bodies, the model of notice to notice should replace notice and takedown regimes, in cases of alleged serious criminality clear conditions should be in place and defined.
Comparative Analysis of the National Approaches to the Liability of Internet Intermediaries: Prepared by Daniel Seng for WIPO, available at http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/copyright/en/doc/liability_of_internet_intermediaries.pdf:This Report reviews the intermediary liability regimes and associated laws in place across fifteen different contexts with a focus on civil copyright liability for internet intermediaries. The Report seeks to find similarities and differences across the regimes studied and highlight principles and components in different that can be used in international treaties and instruments, upcoming policies, and court decisions.
Freedom of Expression, Indirect Censorship, & Liability for Internet Intermediaries. The Electronic Frontier Foundation. February 2011, available at: http://infojustice.org/download/tpp/tpp-civil-society/EFF%20presentation%20ISPs%20and%20Freedom%20of%20Expression.pdf:This presentation was created for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Stakeholder Forum in Chile and highlights that for freedom of expression to be protected, clear legal protections for internet intermediaries are needed and advocates for a regime that provides blanket immunity to intermediaries or is based on judicial takedown notices.
Study on the Liability of Internet Intermediaries. Contracted by the European Commission. 2007, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/e-commerce/docs/study/liability/final_report_en.pdf. This Report provides insight on the application of the intermediary liability sections of the EU e-commerce directive and studies the impact of the regulations under the Directive on the functioning of intermediary information society services. To achieve this objective, the study identifies relavant case law across member states, calls out and evaluates developing trends across Member States, and draws conclusions.
Internet Intermediary Liability: Identifying Best Practices for Africa. Nicolo Zingales for the Association for Progressive Communications, available at: https://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APCInternetIntermediaryLiability_BestPracticesAfrica_20131125.pdf: This background paper seeks to identify challenges and opportunities in addressing intermediary liability for countries in the African Union and recommend safeguards that can be included in emerging intermediary liability regimes in the context of human rights. The paper also reviews different models of intermediary liability and discusses the limitations, scope, and modes of operation of each model.
The Liability of Internet Intermediaries in Nigeria, Kenya, South Africa, and Uganda: An uncertain terrain. Association for Progressive Communications. October 2012, available at: http://www.academia.edu/2484536/The_liability_of_internet_intermediaries_in_Nigeria_Kenya_South_Africa_and_Uganda_An_uncertain_terrain:This Report reviews intermediary liability in Nigeria, Kenya, South Africa and Uganda – providing background to the political context, relevant legislation, and present challenges . In doing so, the Report provides insight into how intermediary liability has changed in recent years in these contexts and explores past and present debates on intermediary liability. The Report concludes with recommendations for stakeholders affected by intermediary liability.
The Fragmentation of intermediary liability in the UK. Daithi Mac Sithigh. 2013, available at: http://jiplp.oxfordjournals.org/content/8/7/521.full.pdf?keytype=ref&ijkey=zuL8aFSzKJqkozT. This article looks at the application of the Electronic Commerce Directive across Europe and argues that it is being intermixed and subsequently replaced with provisions from national legislation and provisions of law from area specific legislation. Thus, the article argues that systems for intermediary liability are diving into multiple systems – for example for content related to copyright intermediaries are being placed with new responsibilities while for content related to defamation, there is a reducing in the liability that intermediaries are held to.
Regimes of Legal Liability for Online Intermediaries: an Overview. OECD, available at: http://www.oecd.org/sti/ieconomy/45509050.pdf. This article provides an overview of different intermediary liability regimes including EU and US.
Closing the Gap: Indian Online Intermediaries and a Liability System Not Yet Fit for Purpose. GNI. 2014, available at: http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/sites/default/files/Closing%20the%20Gap%20-%20Copenhagen%20Economics_March%202014_0.pdf. This Report argues that the provisions of the Information Technology Act 2000 are not adequate to deal with ICT innovations , and argues that the current liability regime in India is hurting the Indian internet economy.
Intermediary Liability in India. Centre for Internet and Society. 2011, available at: http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/intermediary-liability-in-india.pdf. This report reviews and ‘tests’ the effect of the Indian intermediary liability on freedom of expression. The report concludes that the present regime in India has a chilling effect on free expression and offers recommendations on how the Indian regime can be amended to protect this right.
The Liability of Internet Service providers and the exercise of the freedom of expression in Latin America have been explored in detail through the course of this research paper by Claudio Ruiz Gallardo and J. Carlos Lara Galvez. The paper explores the efficacy and the implementation of proposals to put digital communication channels under the oversight of certain State sponsored institutions in varying degrees. The potential consequence of legal intervention in media and digital platforms, on the development of individual rights and freedoms has been addressed through the course of this study. The paper tries to arrive at relevant conclusions with respect to the enforcement of penalties that seek to redress the liability of communication intermediaries and the mechanism that may be used to oversee the balance between the interests at stake as well as take comparative experiences into account. The paper also analyses the liability of technical facilitators of communications while at the same time attempting to define a threshold beyond which the interference into the working of these intermediaries may constitute an offence of the infringement of the privacy of users. Ultimately, it aims to derive a balance between the necessity for intervention, the right of the users who communicate via the internet and interests of the economic actors who may be responsible for the service: http://www.palermo.edu/cele/pdf/english/Internet-Free-of-Censorship/02-Liability_Internet_Service_Providers_exercise_freedom_expression_Latin_America_Ruiz_Gallardo_Lara_Galvez.pdf

Click to read the newsletter from the Association of Progressive Communications. The summaries for the reports can be found below:

Internet Intermediaries: The Dilemma of Liability in Africa. APC News, May 2014, available at: http://www.apc.org/en/node/19279/. This report summarizes the challenges facing internet content regulators in Africa, and the effects of these regulations on the state of the internet in Africa. Many African countries do not protect intermediaries from potential liability, so some intermediaries are too afraid to transmit or host content on the internet in those countries. The report calls for a universal rights protection for internet intermediaries.

APC’s Frequently Asked Questions on Internet Intermediary Liability: APC, May 2014, available at: http://www.apc.org/en/node/19291/. This report addresses common questions pertaining to internet intermediaries, which are entities which provide services that enable people to use the internet, from network providers to search engines to comments sections on blogs. Specifically, the report outlines different models of intermediary liability, defining two main models. The “Generalist” model intermediary liability is judged according to the general rules of civil and criminal law, while the “Safe Harbour” model protects intermediaries with a legal safe zone.

New Developments in South Africa: APC News, May 2014, available at: http://www.apc.org/en/news/intermediary-liability-new-developments-south-afri. This interview with researchers Alex Comninos and Andrew Rens goes into detail about the challenges of intermediary in South Africa. The researchers discuss the balance that needs to be struck between insulating intermediaries from a fear of liability and protecting women’s rights in an environment that is having trouble dealing with violence against women. They also discuss South Africa’s three strikes policy for those who pirate material.

Preventing Hate Speech Online In Kenya: APCNews, May 2014, available at: http://www.apc.org/en/news/intermediary-liability-preventing-hate-speech-onli. This interview with Grace Githaiga investigates the uncertain fate of internet intermediaries under Kenya’s new regime. The new government has mandated everyone to register their SIM cards, and indicated that it was monitoring text messages and flagging those that were deemed risky. This has led to a reduction in the amount of hate speech via text messages. Many intermediaries, such as newspaper comments sections, have established rules on how readers should post on their platforms. Githaiga goes on to discuss the issue of surveillance and the lack of a data protection law in Kenya, which she sees as the most pressing internet issue in Kenya.

New Laws in Uganda Make Internet Providers More Vulnerable to Liability and State Intervention: APCNews, May 2014, available at: http://www.apc.org/en/news/new-laws-uganda-make-internet-providers-more-vulne. In an interview, Lilian Nalwoga discusses Uganda’s recent anti-pornography law that can send intermediaries to prison. The Anti-Pornography Act of 2014 criminalizes any sort of association with any form of pornography, and targets ISPs, content providers, and developers, making them liable for content that goes through their systems. This makes being an intermediary extremely risky in Uganda. The other issue with the law is a vague definition of pornography. Nalwoga also explains the Anti-Homosexuality Act of 2014 bans any promotion or recognition of homosexual relations, and the monitoring technology the government is using to enforce these laws.

New Laws Affecting Intermediary Liability in Nigeria: APCNews, May 2014, available at: http://www.apc.org/en/news/new-laws-affecting-intermediary-liability-nigeria. Gbenga Sesan, executive director of Paradigm Initiative Nigeria, expounds on the latest trends in Nigerian intermediary liability. The Nigerian Communications Commission has a new law that mandates ISPs store users data for at least here years, and wants to make content hosts responsible for what users do on their networks. Additionally, in Nigeria, internet users register with their real name and prove that you are the person who is registration. Sesan goes on to discuss the lack of safe harbor provisions for intermediaries and the remaining freedom of anonymity on social networks in Nigeria.

Internet Policies That Affect Africans: APC News, May 2014, available at: http://www.apc.org/en/news/intermediary-liability-internet-policies-affect-af. The Associsation for Progressive Communcations interviews researcher Nicolo Zingales about the trend among African governments establishing further regulations to control the flow of information on the internet and hold intermediaries liable for content they circulate. Zingales criticizes intermediary liability for “creating a system of adverse incentives for free speech.” He goes on to offer examples of intermediaries and explain the concept of “safe harbor” legislative frameworks. Asked to identify best and worst practices in Africa, he highlights South Africa’s safe harbor as a good practice, and mentions the registration of users via ID cards as a worst practice.

Towards Internet Intermediary Responsibility: Carly Nyst, November 2013, available at: http://www.genderit.org/feminist-talk/towards-internet-intermediary-responsibility. Nyst argues for a middle ground between competing goals in internet regulation in Africa. Achieving one goal, of protecting free speech through internet intermediaries seems at odds with the goal of protecting women’s rights and limiting hate speech, because one demands intermediaries be protected in a legal safe harbor and the other requires intermediaries be vigilant and police their content. Nyst’s solution is not intermediary liability but responsibility, a role defined by empowerment, and establishing an intermediary responsibility to promote positive gender attitudes.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/intermediary-liability-resources

Cyber Dialogue Conference 2014

praskrishna — 2014-04-08T05:09:54Z

The Cyber Dialogue conference, presented by the Canada Centre for Global Security Studies at the Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto, will convene an influential mix of global leaders from government, civil society, academia and private enterprise to participate in a series of facilitated public plenary conversations and working groups around cyberspace security and governance.

Malavika Jayaram is participating in this event being held on March 30 and 31, 2014. Full event details here.

After Snowden, Whither Internet Freedom?

A recent stream of documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden has shed light on an otherwise highly secretive world of cyber surveillance. Among the revelations — which include details on mass domestic intercepts and covert efforts to shape and weaken global encryption standards — perhaps the most important for the future of global cyberspace are those concerning the way the U.S. government compelled the secret cooperation of American telecommunications, Internet, and social media companies with signals intelligence programs.

For American citizens, the NSA story has touched off soul-searching discussions about the legality of mass surveillance programs, whether they violate the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, and whether proper oversight and accountability exist to protect American citizens' rights. But for the rest of the world, they lay bare an enormous “homefield advantage” enjoyed by the United States — a function of the fact that AT&T, Verizon, Google, Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo!, and many other brand name giants are headquartered in the United States.

Prior to the Snowden revelations, global governance of cyberspace was already at a breaking point. The vast majority of Internet users — now and into the future — are coming from the world’s global South, from regions like Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East. Of the six billion mobile phones on the planet, four billion of them are already located in the developing world. Notably, many of the fastest rates of connectivity to cyberspace are among the world’s most fragile states and/or autocratic regimes, or in countries where religion plays a major role in public life. Meanwhile, countries like Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, India, and others have been pushing for greater sovereign controls in cyberspace. While a US-led alliance of countries, known as the Freedom Online Coalition, was able to resist these pressures at the Dubai ITU summit and other forums like it, the Snowden revelations will certainly call into question the sincerity of this coalition. Already some world leaders, such as Brazil’s President Rousseff, have argued for a reordering of governance of global cyberspace away from U.S. controls.

For the fourth annual Cyber Dialogue, we are inviting a selected group of participants to address the question, “After Snowden, Whither Internet Freedom?” What are the likely reactions to the Snowden revelations going to be among countries of the global South? How will the Freedom Online Coalition respond? What is the future of the “multi-stakeholder” model of Internet governance? Does the “Internet Freedom” agenda still carry any legitimacy? What do we know about “other NSA’s” out there? What are the likely implications for rights, security, and openness in cyberspace of post-Snowden nationalization efforts, like those of Brazil’s?

As in previous Cyber Dialogues, participants will be drawn from a cross-section of government (including law enforcement, defence, and intelligence), the private sector, and civil society. In order to canvass worldwide reaction to the Snowden revelations, this year’s Cyber Dialogue will include an emphasis on thought leaders from the global South, including Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/cyber-dialogue-conference-2014

Panel Discussion – Intermediary Liability & Freedom of Expression in India

praskrishna — 2014-04-04T10:10:32Z

Bhairav Acharya will participate in a panel discussion on ‘Intermediary Liability & Freedom of Expression’ on Wednesday evening (26th March 2014) from 6:00 pm onwards at the India International Centre Annex. The event is organized by the Centre for Communication Governance at NLU Delhi in association with the Global Network Initiative, Washington D.C.

The panel comprises of three eminent personalities: Shyam Divan, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India; Siddharth Varadarajan, Journalist and Senior Fellow, Centre for Public Affairs and Critical Theory, New Delhi and; Jermyn Brooks, Independent Chair, Global Network Initiative, Washington D.C.

The objective of the panel was to focus on the Indian legal framework governing Internet platforms and explore questions related to Internet intermediaries and the balance that should be involved in regulations affecting user-generated content, in the context of the civil liberties that are key to democracy, in particular free expression and privacy. The discussion was aimed at drawing connections between this ostensibly Internet-related issue and the traditional media, to highlight recurring issues and useful perspectives.

For more details, click here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/panel-discussion-intermediary-liability-and-freedom-of-expression-in-india

ICANN and Global Internet Governance: The Road to São Paulo, and Beyond

praskrishna — 2014-04-03T09:54:08Z

A conference to be held on Friday 21 March 2014 at the ICANN 49 meeting venue, the Raffles City Convention Centre, Singapore, in the Olivia Room, from 10:00 to 18:00. Organized by the NonCommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) of the Generic Names Supporting Organization, with the generous support of ICANN. Geetha Hariharan participated in this event.

Click to read more on the conference here.

The NETMundial Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of the Internet Governance will be held in São Paulo, Brazil on 23-24 April 2014.

Initiated by Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff and ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé, and co-organized by the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee and /1Net, the meeting will bring together a wide range of government, business, technical community, civil society and academic participants from around the world. The organizers describe its objectives as, “crafting Internet governance principles and proposing a roadmap for the further evolution of the Internet governance ecosystem.”

The purpose of this NCUC conference is to provide a first opportunity for intensive, F2F cross-community dialogue on the main substantive topics likely to be addressed in São Paulo. Stakeholders from across the ICANN community have expressed a range of views and uncertainties about the meeting’s precise substantive focus, expected outcomes, and potential significance in the continuing evolution of the global Internet governance ecosystem. It is hoped that the NCUC conference will help the community to work through the issues at stake and to prepare for its participation in the NETMundial.

On Site Participation
The meeting is free of charge and open to all members of the ICANN community. People wishing to attend must register for the conference and indicate whether they wish to be included in the lunch and/or the reception. Attendees must also register for the ICANN meeting in order to access the conference venue.

Remote Participation
ICANN will provide live remote participation via Adobe Connect, audiocast, and telephone dial-in. They also will videotape the conference for subsequent web access. For access please visit http://singapore49.icann.org/en/schedule/fri-ncuc-ig

Written Inputs
Members of the ICANN community are invited to provide personal or organizational written inputs related to the four panel topics indicated on the conference program. These will be added to the online repository associated with each of the sessions. If interested, please send your inputs to ncuc@ncuc.org.

Programme details here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/non-commercial-users-constituency-icann-and-global-internet-governance

Workshop on Media Law & Policy Curriculum Development

praskrishna — 2014-02-17T10:25:54Z

Centre for Communication Governance, National Law University, Delhi and University of Oxford in support with the International Higher Education-Knowledge Economy Partnerships Programme of the British Council is organizing this workshop on February 16 at National Law University in Delhi.

Chinmayi Arun is a speaker and Bhairav Acharya will be speaking at this event.

Timing	Programme
10.00 10.10	Welcome Address Prof. (Dr.) Srikrishna Deva Rao, Registrar & Professor of Law, National Law University, Delhi
10.10 10.15	Introduction to the Project Chinmayi Arun, Research Director, Centre for Communication Governance at National Law University, Delhi
10.15 10.45	Session 1: Introductory Material The Media Landscape, Media & Democracy Lead discussants: Aloke Thakore, Kanamma Raman, Sukumar Muralidharan and Vibodh Parthasarathi Freedom of Expression & Freedom of Press Lead discussants: Arudra Burra, Bhairav Acharya, Manav Kapur and Sukumar Muralidharan
10.45 11.30	Session 2: Media Law The State and the Media (Sedition, Contempt of Court, Parliamentary Privilege and Reporting Court Proceedings) Geeta Seshu, Jawahar Raja, Manav Kapur, Praveen and Sukumar Muralidharan Citizen, Society and the Media (Defamation, Obscenity, Public Order & Communal Harmony and Privacy) Arudra Burra, Bhairav Acharya, Jawahar Raja, Praveen and Saurav Datta
11.30 11.45	Tea
11.45 12.15	Session 3: Media Content & Regulatory Mechanism and Public Service Broadcasting Media Carriage, Pluralism, Ownership & Cross Ownership Lead discussants: Aloke Thakore, Geeta Seshu, Saurav Datta and Vibodh Parthasarathi
12.15 12.45	Session 4: Converged Media, Globalised Media and the Internet Lead discussants: Aloke Thakore, Abhinav Srivastava, Geeta Seshu Kanamma Raman and Sukumar Muralidharan
12.45 13.30	General Feedback about accessibility, structure and other miscellaneous factors

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/workshop-media-law-and-policy-curriculum-development

The Changing Role of the Media in India: Constitutional Perspectives

praskrishna — 2014-02-04T06:05:31Z

The School of Law, Christ University is conducting National Conference on The Changing Role of the Media in India: Constitutional Perspectives from 28 February – 1 March 2014. Snehashish Ghosh will be moderating a session at this conference.

Christ University is one of India’s premier universities, offering a wide range of undergraduate, postgraduate and doctoral programmes. The School of Law was introduced in 2006 and is presently offering competitive law programmes, including the 5-Year integrated B.A., LL.B and B.B.A., LL.B (Hons.), as well as LL.M, M.Phil and Ph.D. The School of Law, is in pursuit of a dynamic environment that promotes holistic development of our students, through various co-curricular and extra-curricular activities. In this regard, it organizes a national conference every year. The theme for this year is ‘The Changing Role of the Media in India: Constitutional Perspectives’. The conference is planned to deliberate on the following sub-themes:

The Impact of the Press as the Fourth Estate on Constitution & Democracy
Independence of the Judiciary vis-a-vis Media Activism
Right to Information and the Freedom of the Press
Social Media and its Impact on Free Speech

For more info see the event details posted on Christ University website.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/changing-role-of-media-in-india-constitutional-perspectives

Making the Powerful Accountable

chinmayi — 2014-01-30T06:43:41Z

If powerful figures are not subjected to transparent court proceedings, the opacity in the face of a critical issue is likely to undermine public faith in the judiciary.

Chinmayi Arun's Op-ed was published in the Hindu on January 29, 2014.

It is odd indeed that the Delhi High Court seems to believe that sensational media coverage can sway the Supreme Court into prejudice against one of its own retired judges. Justice Manmohan Singh of the Delhi High Court has said in Swatanter Kumar v. Indian Express and others that the pervasive sensational media coverage of the sexual harassment allegations against the retired Supreme Court judge 'may also result in creating an atmosphere in the form of public opinion wherein a person may not be able to put forward his defence properly and his likelihood of getting fair trial would be seriously impaired.' This Delhi High court judgment has drawn upon the controversial 2011 Supreme Court judgment in Sahara India Real Estate Corp. Ltd v. SEBI (referred to as the Gag Order case here) to prohibit the media from publishing headlines connecting retired Justice Swatanter Kumar with the intern's allegations, and from publishing his photograph in connection with the allegations.

Although the Gag Order judgment was criticised at the time that it was delivered Swatanter Kumar v. Indian Express illustrates its detractors' argument more vividly that anyone could have imagined.

Sukumar Muralidharan wrote of Gag Order case that the postponement (of media coverage) order remedy that it created, could become an "instrument in the hands of wealthy and influential litigants, to subvert the course of open justice".

Here we find that although a former Supreme Court judge is pitted against a very young former intern within a system over which he once presided, Justice Manmohan Singh seems to think that it is the judge who is danger of being victimised.

The Swatanter Kumar judgment was enabled by both the Gag Order case as well as the 1966 Supreme Court judgment in Naresh Sridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, which in combination created a process for veiling court proceedings. Naresh Mirajkar stated that courts' inherent powers extend to barring media reports and comments on ongoing trials in the interests of justice, and that such powers do not violate the right to freedom of speech; and the Gag Order case created an instrument - the 'postponement order' - for litigants, such that they can have media reports of a pending case restricted. The manner in which this is used in the Swatanter Kumar judgment raises very worrying questions about how the judiciary views the boundaries of the right to freedom of expression, particularly in the context of reporting court proceedings.

Broad power to restrict reporting

The Gag Order case was problematic: it used arguments for legitimate restraints on media reporting in exceptional circumstances, to permit restrictions on media reporting of court proceedings under circumstances 'where there is a real and substantial risk of prejudice to fairness of the trial or to proper administration of justice'. The Supreme Court refused to narrow this or clarify what publications would fall within this category. It merely stated that this would depend on the content and context of the offending publication, and that no 'straightjacket formula' could be created to enumerate these categories. This leaves higher judiciary with a broad discretionary power to decide what amounts to
legitimate restraints on media reporting, using an ambiguous standard. Exercise of this power to veil proceedings involving powerful public figures whose actions have public implications, imperils openness and transparency when they are most critical.

Court proceedings are usually open to the public. This openness serves as a check on the judiciary, and ensures public faith in the judiciary. In countries as large as ours, media coverage of important cases ensures actual openness of court proceedings - we are able to follow the arguments made by petitioners who ask that homosexuality be decriminalised, the trial of suspected terrorists and alleged murderers, and the manner in which our legal system handles sexual harassment complaints filed by young women.

When court proceedings are closed to the public (known as 'in-camera' trials) or when media dissemination of information about them is restricted, the openness and transparency of court proceedings is compromised. Such compromise of transparency does take place in many countries, to protect the rights of the parties involved, or prevent miscarriage of justice. For example, child-participants are protected by holding trials in-camera; names of parties to court proceedings are withheld to protect their privacy sometimes; and in countries where juries determine guilt, news coverage that may prejudice the jury is also restricted.

The damage done

Although the Supreme Court stated in principle that the openness of court proceedings should only be restricted where strictly necessary, this appears to lend itself to very varied interpretation. For example, it is very difficult for some of us to understand why it was strictly necessary to restrict media coverage of sexual harassment proceedings in the Swatanter Kumar case. J. Manmohan Singh on the other hand seems to believe that the adverse public opinion will affect the retired judge's chance of getting a fair trial. His judgment also seems to indicate his concern that the sensational headlines will impact the public confidence in the Supreme Court.

The Delhi High Court's apprehension about the effects of the newspaper coverage on the reputation of the judge did not need to translate into a prior restraint on media coverage. They may better have been addressed later, by evaluating a defamation claim pertaining to published material. The larger concerns about the reputation of the judiciary are better addressed by openness: if powerful public figures, especially those with as much influence as a former Supreme Court judge are not subjected to transparent court proceedings, the opacity in the face of such a critical issue is likely to undermine public faith in the judiciary as an institution.Such opacity undermines the purpose of open courts. It is much worse for the reputation of the judiciary than publicised complaints about individual judges.

Since the Delhi High Court ruling, there has been little media coverage of the sexual harassment case. Suppression of media coverage leaves the young woman comparatively isolated. Wide coverage of the harassment complaint involving Justice Ganguly, helped the intern in that case find support. The circulation of information enabled other former interns as well as a larger network of lawyers and activists, reach out to her. This is apart from the general pressure to be fair that arises when a case is being followed closely by the public. Media coverage is often critical to whether someone relatively powerless is able to assert her rights against a very powerful person. This is why media freedom is sacred to democracies.

If the Supreme Court was confident that the high courts in India would use their broad discretionary power under the Gag Order case sparingly and only in the interests of justice, the Swatanter Kumar case should offer it grounds to reconsider. Openness and freedom of expression are not meant to be diluted to protect the powerful - they exist precisely to ensure that even the powerful are held accountable by state systems that they might otherwise be able to sway.

(Chinmayi Arun is research director, Centre for Communication Governance, National Law University, Delhi, and fellow, Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore.)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-hindu-january-29-2014-chinmayi-arun-making-the-powerful-accountable

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

praskrishna — 2014-02-12T11:12:54Z

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

Snehashish Ghosh will participate in the event as a speaker.

Schedule

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GNI Assessment Finds ICT Companies Protect User Privacy and Freedom of Expression

elonnai — 2014-01-20T06:17:46Z

Elonnai Hickok analyses a public report recently published by GNI on the independent assessment process for Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo. The report finds Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo to be in compliance with the GNI principles on privacy and freedom of expression.

Introduction

In January 2014, the Global Network Initiative (GNI) published the Public Report on the Independent Assessment Process for Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo. GNI is an industry consortium that was started in 2008 with the objective of protecting user’s right to privacy and freedom of expression globally. The main objectives of GNI are to provide a framework for companies that is based on international standards, ensure accountability of ICT companies through independent assessments, create opportunities for policy engagement, and create opportunities for stakeholders from multiple jurisdictions to engage in dialogue with each other. The Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, is a member of GNI. Companies based in India have yet to join as members to the GNI network.

Overview of the Public Report

The Public Report provides an overview of assessments completed on the practices and policies of Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft from 2011 - 2013 to measure company compliance with the GNI principles on freedom of expression and privacy. The principles lay out broad guidelines that member companies should seek to incorporate in their internal and external practices and speak to freedom of expression, privacy, responsible company decision making, multi – stakeholder collaboration, and organizational governance, accountability, and transparency. The GNI principles have also been developed with Implementation Guidelines to provide companies with a framework for companies to respond to government requests. The assessment carried out by GNI reviewed cases in each company pertaining to governmental: blocking and filtering, takedown requests, criminalization of speech, intermediary liability, selective enforcement, content surveillance, and requests for user information.

Importantly, the assessment undertaken by GNI finds Yahoo, Microsoft, and Google to be in compliance with the GNI principles on freedom of expression and privacy. The Report highlights practices by the companies that work to protect freedom of expression and privacy such as conducting human rights impact assessments, issuing transparency reports, and notifying affected users when content is removed, have been, adopted by these companies. For example, Google conducts Human Rights Impact Assessments to assess potential threats to freedom of expression and privacy. Google also has in place internal processes to review governmental requests impacting freedom of expression and privacy, and the legal team at Google prepares a “global removal report” to provide a bird’s eye view of trends emerging from content removal requests. If Google has the email address of a user who’s posted content is removed, Google will often notify the user and directs the user to the Chilling Effects website. Google has also published a transparency report since 2010. Like Google, Microsoft conducts Human Rights Impact Assessments before making decisions on whether to incorporate certain features into its platforms when operating in high risk markets. Microsoft has also issued two global law enforcement requests reports in 2013. Yahoo has established a Business and Human Rights Program to ensure responsible actions are taken by the company with regards to freedom of expression and privacy, and now issues transparency reports about government requests. Yahoo’s Public Policy team also engages in dialogue with governments on an international level about existing and proposed legislation impacting and implicating privacy and freedom of expression.

The Report highlights challenges to compliance with the GNI principles that companies face – namely legal restraints and mandates that they are faced with. On the issue of transparency, the assessment found that companies do not disclose information when there are legal prohibitions on such disclosure, when users privacy would be implicated, when companies choose to assert attorney client privilege, and when trade secrets are involved. Despite this, the assessment found that companies do deny and push back on governmental requests impacting freedom of expression and privacy for reasons such as the request needed clarification and modification, or that the request needed to follow established procedure.

A number of findings came out of the assessments undertaken for the Report including:

As demonstrated by the lack of ability to access information about secret national security requests, and the lack of ability for companies to disclose information on this topic there is a dire need for governments to reform surveillance policy and law impacting freedom of expression and privacy.
The implementation of the GNI Principles is challenging when a company is undergoing an acquisition. In this scenario, contractual provisions limiting third party disclosure are critical in ensuring protection of privacy and free expression rights.
Companies need to pro-actively and on an ongoing basis internally review governmental restrictions on content to determine if it is in compliance with the commitment made by that company to the GNI Principles.

The assessment resulted in GNI defining a number of actionable (non-binding) recommendations for companies such as:

Improving the integration of human rights considerations in the due diligence process with respect to the acquiring and selling companies.
Consider the impact of hardware on freedom of expression and privacy.
Improve external and internal reporting.
Review employee access to user data to ensure that employee access rights are restricted by both policy and technical measures on a ‘need to know’ basis across global operations.
Review executive management training.
Improve stakeholder engagement.
Improve communication with users.
Increase sharing of best practices.
The GNI principles are focused on freedom of expression and privacy and are based on internationally recognized laws and standards for human rights.

NSA leaks, global push for governmental surveillance reform, and the Public Report

With special attention given to the various companies responses to the NSA leaks, the Report notes that in response to the NSA leaks the assessed companies have issued public statements and filed legal challenges with the US government and filed suit with the FISA Court seeking the right to disclose data relating to the number of FISA requests received with the public. All three companies have also supported legislation and policy that would allow for such transparency. Furthermore in December 2014, the companies , along with other internet companies, developed and issued the five Principles on Global Government Surveillance Reform. Similar to other efforts to end mass and disproportionate surveillance, such as the Necessary and Proportionate principles, the Principles on Global Government Surveillance Reform address: Limiting Governments’ Authority to Collect Users’ Information, Oversight and Accountability, Transparency about Government Demands, Respecting the Free Flow of Information, Avoiding Conflicts Among Governments. Other companies that signed these principles include AOL, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter.

Along these lines, on January 14^th, GNI released the statement “Surveillance Reforms to Protect Rights and Restore Trust”, urging the U.S Government to review and enact surveillance legislation that incorporate a ‘rights based’ approach to issues involving national security. In the statement, GNI specifically recommends the Government to action and: end mass collection of communications metadata, protect and uphold the rights of non-Americans, continue to increase transparency of surveillance practices, support the use of strong encryption standards.

Conclusion and way forward

Looking ahead, GNI is planning on developing and implementing a mechanism to address effectively address consumer engagement and complaints issued by individuals who feel that GNI member companies have not acted consistently with the commitments made as a GNI member. GNI is also looking to expand work around public policy and surveillance.

The Public Report on the Independent Assessment Process for Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo is an important step towards ensuring ICT sector companies are accountable to the public in their practices impacting freedom of expression and privacy. The assessment comes at a time when ICT companies often find themselves stuck between a rock and a hard place – with Governments issuing surveillance and censorship demands with mandates for non-disclosure, and the public demanding transparency, company resistance to such demands from the Government, and a strong commitment to users freedom of expression and privacy. Hopefully, the GNI assessment is and will evolve into a middle ground for ICT companies – where they can be accountable to the public and their customers and compliant with Governmental mandates in all jurisdictions that they operate in. It will be interesting to see if in the future Indian companies join GNI as members and being to adopt the GNI principles and undergo GNI assessments.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/gni-assessment-finds-ict-companies-protect-user-privacy-and-freedom-of-expression

Seminar on "Hate Speech and Social Media"

praskrishna — 2014-02-13T06:22:41Z

NALSAR University of Law, in collaboration with the British Deputy High Commission organized a seminar on Hate Speech and Social Media in Hyderabad on January 4 and 5, 2014. Chinmayi Arun was one of the speakers at the seminar.

Richa Kaul Padte was a keynote speaker on the panel on ‘Marginalised Communities and the Experience of Social Media’, while Anja Kovacs was the keynote speaker on the panel on ‘Internet - A Democratic Space?’.

This seminar focused on emerging debates on free speech, marginalisation and radicalisation in the context of the internet. Long hailed as a great democratiser, the internet has been instrumental in granting a voice to millions of people, and yet, in permitting anonymity it raises important questions of liability and responsibility. Over the course of two days, the seminar explored issues through conversations between people who have worked on various aspects of this issue, including leading jurists, lawyers, bloggers and activists who have embraced new technologies. Some of the prominent speakers at the seminar included Hon’ble Justice Madan B Lokur, Hon’ble Dr. Justice S Muralidhar, Teesta Setalvad, Geeta Seshu, Chinmayi Arun, Anja Kovacs and Apar Gupta.

Click to read the details posted on Internet Democracy Project website.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/nalsar-seminar-hate-speech-social-media

India believes in Complete Freedom of Cyber Space: Kapil Sibal

praskrishna — 2013-10-25T07:13:44Z

The site of the impact of a cyber crime should determine jurisdiction, says information technology minister Kapil Sibal.

This article by Elizabeth Roche was published in Livemint on October 14, 2013. Moulishree Srivastava also contributed to this story. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

Minister for communications and information technology Kapil Sibal said on Monday that if a cyber crime had an impact on India or the subject matter was Indian, India should have the jurisdiction to investigate the crime and mete out justice.

India “believes in complete freedom of cyber space”, Sibal said, adding that the international community should arrive at a consensus on rules of jurisdiction and enforceability where cyber crimes are concerned. He was speaking at a conference on cyber security and cyber governance in New Delhi.

“Freedom of expression is central to our ideological stand on cyber space but at the same time there must be a de facto recognition of threats that are out there in cyber space and that we need to deal with those threats locally, nationally and globally and what we need is a consensus on those,” the minister said.

He was asked specifically about the need for changes in the global Internet governance structure following a US admission that its National Security Agency listened in on communications from the embassies of allies such as France, Italy and Greece, as well as Japan, Mexico, South Korea, India and Turkey.

The site of the impact of a cyber crime should determine jurisdiction, the minister said.

He gave an example: if anything happens in an Indian mission located in New York, it should be governed by Indian law because the mission would be considered Indian territory.

“So as long as the source of the data is Indian and the impact is on India then the jurisdiction must be Indian and that should apply across the world,” he said.

“If the harm has been caused to Indian citizens or Indian property then jurisdiction should be Indian,” said Sunil Abraham, executive director at Centre for Internet and Society. “This principle has already been developed by Justice Murlidhar in Banyan Tree case. So this principle already has legal precedent.”

But Abraham added that “even if Indian courts believe that it is their jurisdiction, foreign law enforcement agencies may not co-operate. This may be one of the biggest challenges in implementing this principle”.

“This move could be seen as one enhancing cyber security, but since there is no universally accepted definition to cyber security and some government include speech regulation, surveillance, cyber crime and hacktivism a part of cyber security—there can be damaging consequences for human rights online,” Abraham said.

The minister’s statement assumes significance against the backdrop of a number of countries including India protesting the spying by the US National Security Agency (NSA) on their missions in Washington and New York.

According to many news reports, India was among the top five countries whose missions in the US were targeted by the NSA as part of a clandestine effort to mine electronic data. Reports of the US snooping has caused unease world wide.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel raised the issue with US President Barack Obama in June while Brazil’s President Dilma Rouseff reportedly cancelled a summit with the US President in protest last month.

According to the ministry of external affairs in New Delhi, India raised the issue with the US embassy in New Delhi besides taking up the issue with the US state department in Washington. Both sides agreed to discuss the subject during their cyber security dialogue.

“That’s the law in the country...if anything happens there (in Indian embassies) that is part of Indian jurisdiction and similarly if you apply the same example and establish jurisdiction then anything that relates to Indian data and the impact on Indian data, it’s the courts in India that should have jurisdiction,” Sibal added later.

“We are talking about a principle and the principle is wherever there is Indian data wherever anything is done to impact on Indian data, the source of which is Indian then the jurisdiction must be of Indian courts,” the minister said adding that he was putting this view out as something the cyber security seminar should discuss.

India’s national security adviser Shiv Shankar Menon added that what the minister had voiced was India’s view but it was not a settled matter and that it had to be discussed at global forums.

With around 40% of the 120 million smartphone users in India accessing the Internet through mobile phones, network protection was an imperative. “The consequences of manipulation or distortion...can be potentially disastrous.” Menon said recalling how morphed pictures of violence seemingly targeting a particular ethnic group, circulated on the Internet and via cell phones, had resulted in thousands of people fleeing home from their places of work last year.

On certification of hardware security, Menon said: “India has recently received authorizing nation status for IT products and testing labs in the country will now gain global recognition,” adding that this was an opportunity for Indian industry.

Sibal, in his address, said the Internet had become a means of empowerment of people and most of this was due to the enormous freedom provided by the Internet. But “there can be no concept of sovereignty in cyber space because there are no territorial issues involved”, he said.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/livemint-october-14-2013-elizabeth-roche-moulishree-srivastava-india-believes-in-complete-freedom-of-cyber-space