Centre for Internet and Society

No, India did NOT oppose the United Nations move to “make internet access a human right”

Pranesh Prakash and Japreet Grewal — 2016-07-13T16:09:31Z

Last Friday, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) passed a resolution titled “The promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet.”

The article by Pranesh Prakash and Japreet Grewal was published in Factordaily on July 13, 2016.

Several media outlets, including T he Verge, India Today, and BuzzFeed, reported that the resolution was ‘opposed’ by China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and India. The Verge, for instance, reported that these countries “specifically opposed” a clause of the resolution that “condemns unequivocally measures to intentionally prevent or disrupt access to or dissemination of information online and calls for all countries to refrain from such measures”. This is pure bunkum. Some media organisations have also been reporting that the UNHRC resolution “declares that access to the Internet is a human right”. This too is fiction.

What’s the truth? The UNHRC resolution covers wide ground, including the reaffirmations of two previous resolutions, which stated that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online as well. As ARTICLE19, an international free speech NGO, notes: “The draft resolution goes further than its predecessors, including by stressing the importance of an accessible and open Internet to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals, as well as in calling for accountability for extrajudicial killings, arbitrary detentions and other violations against people for expressing themselves online.” Importantly, the resolution “unequivocally condemns” internet shutdowns, such as the one that happened in Kashmir just last week after security forces killed guerrilla Burhan Wani.

This resolution was, in fact, adopted without any opposition. So why the brouhaha over countries like India?

Here are the facts

There were four separate amendments, two of which were proposed by Belarus, China and Russia (referred as L85, L86 in this article) and the other two were proposed by Belarus, China, Russia and Iran (referred as L87 and L88). None of these amendments comment on the paragraph in the resolution that condemns intentional disruption of access or dissemination of internet services. So the headlines in most of the reports are just plain wrong. Let’s examine each of these four amendments one by one

In L85, an amendment was suggested to a paragraph that refers to past resolutions by the UNHRC and the UN General Assembly relating to freedom of expression and the right to privacy online. The amendment, which proposed including a reference to a previous UNHRC resolution on the rights of children online, was later withdrawn.

In L86 the proposed amendments both added and removed some text, and was hotly opposed by organisations like ARTICLE19. The proposed amendment said that the same rights people have offline must also be protected online, in particular, freedom of expression and the right to privacy, in accordance with articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), a multilateral treaty adopted by the United National General Assembly to respect civil and political rights of individuals. Major additions: Some text on right to privacy and a reference to Article 17 of the ICCPR, which is about privacy. Major deletions: a reference to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and language stating that that freedom of expression is “applicable regardless of frontiers and through any media of one’s choice”, which is present in article 19 of the ICCPR. However, article 19 of the ICCPR is incorporated by reference even in the proposed amendment! So is there a real loss in purely legal terms? Not really.

The amendments in L87 sought to replace the term “human rights based approach” that stressed on the need to provide and expand access to the internet, and to replace it with the term “comprehensive and integrated approach.” The problem is that there is no clarity about what a “human rights based approach” to providing and expanding access to the internet is. What does it even mean? Is there a “human rights based approach” to spectrum auctions and spectrum sharing? Or the laying of fibre optic cables? Or anything else associated with internet access? If there is, indeed, a human rights based approach to providing and expanding access to the internet, it should be spelt out, rather than simply calling it that. Similarly, the term “comprehensive and integrated approach” is equally vague.

Even if one harbours reservations about these amendments, none of these amendments could be reasonably be characterised as “opposing” the condemnation of Internet shutdowns or “opposing” online freedoms.

Finally, in L88, the amendments proposed that the UN resolution should acknowledge concerns about using the internet and information technology for spreading ideas about “racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.” In the light of this, it is difficult to understand how adding concerns relating to hate speech to the resolution is seen as “being opposed” to online freedoms, especially when there is no direct action contemplated in the proposed amendment.

Indeed, in Paragraph 9, gender violence is mentioned, and in Paragraph 11, incitement to hatred is mentioned. Adding an additional, more specific reference can hardly be construed as being opposed to online freedoms. After all, states have a positive obligation to enact laws to prohibit hate speech under Article 20 (2) of the ICCPR, which is a centrepiece of international human rights law.

Even if one harbours reservations about these amendments, none of these amendments could be reasonably be characterised as “opposing” the condemnation of Internet shutdowns or “opposing” online freedoms. And factually, no states (including India, China, South Africa, Russia, and more) voted against the resolution.

A game of Chinese whispers

So why did so many prominent news organisations around the world get it so wrong? My theory is that it happened because organisation like ARTICLE19 put out press releases on what they perceived as the ‘weakening’ of the resolutions by the amendments examined above, and their regret that even democratic states like India and South Africa voted for these amendments. This was wrongly portrayed in much of the media as opposition by these countries to the resolution itself, to online freedoms, and particularly as opposition to the idea of condemning internet shutdowns. Thanks to the Chinese whispers nature of news reporting, this mistaken idea spread far and wide without any of the reporters bothering to check the original UN documents.

It is shameful if India condemns internet shutdowns at the UNHRC while deploying them for purposes such as preventing cheating during an examinations, during Ganesha visarjan, during Eid, during wrestling matches, and during protests.

However, regardless of the faulty reportage, there is a real crisis in India, with organisations like Medianama and the Software Freedom Law Centre having counted at least nine internet shutdowns this year alone, and at least 30 since 2013. It is shameful if India condemns internet shutdowns at the UNHRC while deploying them for purposes such as preventing cheating during an examinations, during Ganesha visarjan, during Eid, during wrestling matches, and during protests.

We at the Centre for Internet and Society have previously explained why a Gujarat High Court order allowing for an internet shutdown during riots was wrong in law, and violated our Constitution as well as our international human rights obligations. That is something the India media ought to be focussing far more on, but aren’t.

Lastly, it would also be welcome for the individual civil society organisations that signed an open letter to UNHRC members to explain why they too believed that these amendments would have significantly harmed our freedoms online. We see it instead as a case of ‘human rights politics’ being played out, when none of the proposed amendments would have had much of a negative legal impact, but only a political impact.

Should civil society organisations really get worked up about these?

Edited by: Pranav Dixit

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/factordaily-pranesh-prakash-and-japreet-grewal-july-13-2016-no-india-did-not-oppose-un-move-to-make-internet-access-a-human-right

India may not be guilty of opposing UN move to save internet rights

praskrishna — 2016-07-09T02:58:53Z

India is a democratic country, but the standards for freedom of expression promised to us—online and offline—are highly questionable, especially with online content being censured and comedians being threatened to be arrested for sedition.

This was published by Ciol on July 7, 2016.

So the media criticism came as no surprise when India supported the amendments proposed by countries like China and Russia last week when the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) passed a resolution on the “promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet”.

According to some media reports, countries like Russia, China, and Saudi Arabia, as well as democracies like South Africa and India, called for the UN to delete a passage in the resolution that ‘condemns unequivocally measures to intentionally prevent or disrupt access to our dissemination of information online’.”

India has also been struggling to draft a comprehensive privacy bill, and most recently came out with a geospatial information regulation bill that would establish ownership over all forms of location data.

However, the fact that the resolution was adopted without a vote (with oral revision)—as noted by the UNHRC—puts these news reports on a faulty ground. So technically, India did not ‘vote against’ the resolution. Moreover, none of the four amendments supported by India called for the deletion of a passage that condemned the prevention or disruption of Internet access and online information dissemination, as noted by the Centre for Internet and Society. Although, India flouts the said clause in spirit, back at home.

Out of the four amendments—L85-88 in the UNHRC resolution–the first amendment (L85) sought to include a reference to fighting against the exploitation of children online. This was withdrawn by Russia before it was considered by member states. L86 can truly be described as diluting language regarding freedom of expression online. L88 includes reference to hate speech, asks to introduce a new paragraph that states “Expresses its concern at the use of the Internet and information and communications technology to disseminate ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, and incitement to racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance.” This amendment was proposed by Belarus, China, Iran and the Russian Federation.

Considering that the Internet and other online media technologies are increasingly used for incitement and as a means of propagating intolerance and xenophobia in India and other Asian countries, the resolution does touch on an important issue. But it doesn’t seek to limit internet freedom particularly.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/ciol-july-7-2016-india-may-not-be-guilty-of-opposing-un-move-to-save-internet-rights

Why Geospatial Bill is draconian and how it will hurt startups

praskrishna — 2016-07-02T04:57:35Z

Last week, the Indian government rejected Google’s plans to map Indian cities, tourist spots and mountain ranges, using the 360-degree panoramic Google Street View feature.

The article was published in Indian Express on June 13, 2016

Last week, the Indian government rejected Google’s plans to map Indian cities, tourist spots and mountain ranges, using the 360-degree panoramic Google Street View feature. The government officials cited “national security” as a reason for not granting permission to Google. It is expected that the Google’s Street View permission would be relooked at, once the draft Geospatial Information Regulation Bill, 2016, is enforced as law. Many however feel that this draft bill is draconian and will have serious repercussions on the startup ecosystem.

The Geospatial Bill seeks to make creating, accessing and distribution or sharing of map related information, illegal and that every company will have to take prior permission and license from the government for the same. Wayback in 2011, Google had announced the introduction of Street View for Bangalore, on Google Maps. But the project ran into trouble with Bangalore Police stopping Street View cars from plying in the city, citing security reasons.

Google Street View, launched in 2007, is popular in San Francisco, Las Vegas, Denver, New York and Miami, which allows users to navigate virtual streets from photographs gathered from directional cameras on special vehicles. While the service has been hugely successful it has caused problems of privacy in some countries.

In 2010 almost 250,000 Germans told Google to blur pictures of their homes on the Street View service, while Czech government also banned Google from taking any new photos for the service. In Switzerland, the matter went to the court and it was accepted that Google would be obliged to pixelate 99% of images to blur faces, vehicle registrations and that it would not be filming certain sensitive places such as schools, prisons and shelter homes.

This adds to the list of recent controversies on Google Earth, and the draft Geospatial Information Regulation Bill, on adoption of mapping technology in India. Commenting on the development, Sumandro Chattapadhyay, research director at the Centre for Internet and Society said, the key country where the Google Street View faced legal challenge, and was fined too, is Germany. This legal challenge, however, was not based on the concern for national security but on that for the privacy of the citizens. However, it was eventually allowed to roll out Street View in Germany provided that it asks for consent from the house owners before images of any house.”

“One of the crucial concerns with the draft Geospatial Information Regulation Bill remains its vast scope of application. Not only initiatives like Google Street View may be regulated under it (for capturing geo-referenced imagery from the street level) but absolutely any mobile application that requires the user’s geo-location (either automatically detected, or manually entered by the user) would be within the purview of this Bill. This evidently creates a great pressure upon the entire ICT-enable product and service sector in India,” Chattapadhyay added.

This would mean that, any company, particularly the new age startups, those in the food tech, fintech and e-commerce space, which uses geo-location to identify the customer location to either deliver goods, food products, or the likes of Ola and Uber which uses maps to pickup and drop customers, will have to obtain license from the government.

Raman Shukla, director—strategy and product, Medikoe, said, “At Medikoe we are helping users to locate the nearest healthcare service provider with the available technologies. Google Maps is one of key feature our company banks on. Though we understand the country’s security concerns, the draft bill, if implemented, would be a violation of independent internet. We believe that a much better solution can be identified to solve security concerns.”

Venu Kondur, founder of LOBB, the online truck booking platform said, “Geostatial data is a very important data for our business. Customers booking truck through LOBB platform get real-time track & trace facility. Our customers rely heavily on this data for their day-day activity. Startups like us depend largely on maps data for real-time tracking of consignment. Lot of our business intelligence data is drawn out of it.”

In case, if the draft gets implemented, many startups will be forced to change the business model and while it will also increase the product delivery time. A group of 15 volunteers created a SaveTheMap.in portal to educate the readers about the draft bill and also give complete information on how the bill have an impact on the citizen and users of certain application. Sajjad Anwar one of the volunteer, said, through the portal about 1700 mails have been sent to the ministry of home affairs airing their view on why they do not support the draft Bill.

Comparing with other countries, Chattapadhyay further said, “At first, other countries deal with the question of display of security establishments in publicly available maps through direct interactions with large mapping companies, and does not turn this into a financial and political burden for the entire economy. Secondly, it is the concern about privacy of the citizens that should frame the Indian government’s response to products and services like Google Street View, and not concerns regarding national security.”

What the draft bill says

No person shall, in any manner, make use of, disseminate, publish or distribute any geospatial information of India, outside India, without prior permission from the security vetting authority under the Central government.

Penalty

Whoever acquires any geospatial information of India in contravention to the rules, shall be punished with a fine ranging from Rs 1 crore to Rs 100 crore and /or imprisonment for a period upto seven years.

Application for license

Every person who has already acquired any geospatial imagery or data of any part of India either through space or aerial platforms such as satellite, aircrafts, airships, balloons, unmanned aerial vehicles or terrestrial vehicles shall within one year from the commencement of this Act, make an application along with requisite fees to the security vetting authority.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/financial-express-prabhu-mallikarjunan-june-13-2016-why-geospatial-bill-is-draconian-and-how-it-will-hurt-startups

Here is the entire list of 'escorts service' websites that the government has banned

praskrishna — 2016-07-02T04:51:30Z

Another day and another opaque order asking Indian service providers to block websites that allegedly offer or advertise escort services in India. In total, the government has ordered ban on 237 websites. But as it happens whenever the Indian government bans website, there has been no public communication about the same.

The article was published in India Today on June 16, 2016

Also, it has not been explained what, if any, process was followed before these websites were banned and what norms were applied for the order that the internet service providers have received.

However, now Centre for Internet and Society has caught hold of the list of the websites that have been banned. Here is what the organisation says, "Unfortunately, the government does not make available publicly the list of websites they have ordered ISPs to block. Given that knowledge of what is censored by the government is crucial in a democracy, we are publishing the entire list of blocked websites."

As for the websites and URLs here they are:

www.sterlingbioscience.com
rawpoint.biz
www.onemillionbabes.com
www.mumbaihotcollection.in
simranoberoi.in
rubinakapoor.biz
talita.biz
www.mumbaiescortsagency.net
www.mumbaifunclubs.com
www.alishajain.co.in
www.ankitatalwar.co.in
https://www.jennyarora.ind.in
www.riya-kapoor.com
shneha.in
missinimi.in
www.mumbaiglamour.in
kalyn.in
www.saumyagiri.co.in/city/mumbai/
bookerotic.com
www.divyamalik.in
www.suhanisharma.co.in
www.ruhi.biz
umbaiqueens.in
www.aliyaghosh.com
priyasen.in
www.highprofilemumbaiescorts.co.in
charmingmumbai.com
www.poojamehata.in
kiiran.in/
mansikher.in
www.newmumbaiescorts.in
www.mumbaifunclubs.com
www.punarbas.in
www.discreetbabes.in
www.alisharoy.in
www.arpitarai.in
www.nidhipatel.in
navimumbailescort.com
www.zoyaescorts.com
www.juhioberoi.in
shoniya.in
panchibora.in
rehu.in
www.nehaanand.com
www.aditiray.co.in
www.rakhibajaj.in
www.alianoidaescorts.in
www.sobiya.in
www.alishaparul.in
mumbai-escorts.leathercurrency.com
ankita-ahuja.in
www.yamika.in
mumbailescort.co
www.ranjika.in
www.aditiray.com
www.alinamumbailescort.in
www.sonikaa.com/services/
riyamodel.in
soonam.in
www.sejalthakkar.com
www.yomika-tandon.in
www.asika.in
www.siyasharma.org/
www.rubikamathur.in
www.mumbaiescortslady.com
www.sexyshe.in
www.indepandentescorts.com
www.saanvichopra.co.in
www.goswamipatel.in
ojaloberoi.in
www.naincy.in
www.sonyamehra.com
www.pinkgrapes.in
anjalitomar.in/
www.nishakohli.com/
sagentia.co.in
mumbai.vivastreet.co.in/escort+mumbai
www.deseescortgirls.in
guides.wonobo.com/mumbai/mumbai-escorts-service/.4299
jasmineescorts.com
www.shalinisethi.com
www.highclassmumbailescort.com
www.vipescortsinmumbai.com
www.mumbaiescorts69.co.in
monikabas.co.in
www.riyasehgal.com
onlycelebrity.in
www.greatmumbaiescorts.com/escort-service-mumbai.html
www.aishamumbailescort.com
www.jennydsouzaescort.com
www.desifun.in
www.siyaescort.co.in
masti-escort.in
www.sofya.in
www.mumbaiwali.in/navi-mumbai-escort-service.php
www.mumbaiwali.in
www.calldaina.com
www.mumbaiescortsservice.co.in
www.escortsgirlsinmumbai.com
www.passionmumbai.escorts.com
www.nehakapoor.in
meerakapoor.com
www.dianamumbaiescorts.net .in
www.allmumbailescort.in
www.rakhiarora.in
www.ritikasingh.com
www.rekhapatil.com
www.mumbaidolls.com
www.piapandey.com
www.mumbaicuteescorts.in
www.mumbaiescortssevice.com
www.onlycelebrity.com
www.meetescortservice.com
onlyoneescorts.com
simirai.org
www.riyamumbaiescorts.in
www.neharana.in
www.mumbaihiprofilegirls.in
www.sexyescortsmumbai.in
www.sexymumbai.escorts.com
www.four-seasons-escort.in
www.mumbaiescortsgirl.com
www.vdreamescorts.com
www.passionatemumbaiescorts.in
www.payalmalhotra.in
www.shrutisinha.com
www.juliemumbaiescorts.com
www.indiasexservices.com/mumbai.html
www.mumbai-escorts.co.in
www.aliyamumbaiescorts.net.in
shivaniarora.co.in/escort-service-mumbai.html
www.pinkisingh.com
soyam.in
www.arpitaray.com
www.localescorts.in
www.jennifermumbaiescorts.com
www.yanaroy.com
escorts18.in/mumbai-escorts.html
www.tinamumbaiescorts.com
www.mumbaijannatescorts.com
www.deepikaroy.com
www.nancy.co.in
www.pearlpatel.in
30minsmumbaiescorts.in
www.datinghopes.com
https://www.riyaroy.com/services.html
www.sonalikajain.com
www.zainakapoor.co.in
kavyajain.in
www.kinnu.co.in
exmumbai.in/
www.mansimathur.in/pinkyagarwal
exmumbai.in
www.mansimathur.in/pinkyagarwal
www.devikabatra.in
katlin.in
riyaverma.in
escortsinindia.co/
www.snehamumbaiescorts.in
shimi.in
www.mumbaiescortsforu.com/about
www.chetnagaur.co.in/chetna-gaur.html
www.escortspoint.in
www.rupalikakkar.in
www.hemangisinha.co.in
1escorts.in/location/mumbai.html
www.salini.in/navi-mumbai-independent-escort-service.php
www.salini.in/navi-mumbai-independent-escort-service.php
www.mumbaibella.in
mohitescortservicesmumbai.com
www.anchu.in
www.aliyaroy.co.in
jaanu.co.in/mumbai-escorts-service-call-girls.html
www.andyverma.com
dreams-come-true.biz
feel-better.biz
jellyroll.biz
dreamgirlmumbai.com
role-play.biz
mansi-mathur.com
www.zarinmumbaiescorts.com
mymumbai.escortss.com
www.goldentouchescorts.com
www.mumbaipassion.biz
ishitamalhotra.com
happy-ending.biz
juicylips.biz
www.escortsmumbai.name
www.kirstygbasai.net
www.hiremumbaiescorts.com
www.meeraescorts.com/mumbai-escorts.php
3-5-7star.biz
www.pranjaltiwari.com
www.richagupta.biz
way2heaven.biz
piya.co/
pinkflowers.info
www.beautifulmumbaiescorts.com
www.bestescortsinmumbai.com/charges-html
www.mumbaiescorts.me
www.tanikatondon.com
www.escortsinmumbai.biz
www.escortgirlmumbai.com
www.mumbaicallgrils.com
www.quickescort4u.com
www.mayamalhotra.com
www.legal-escort.com
escortsbaba.com/mumbai-escorts.html
rupa.biz
www.mumbaiescorts.agency/erotic-service-mumbai.html
www.escortscelebrity.com
www.independentescortservicemumbai.com/mumbai%20escort%20servi..
garimachopra.com
kajalgupta.biz
lipkiss.site
aanu.in
bombayescort.in
hotkiran.co.in
khushikapoor.in
joyapatel.in
rici.in
aaditi.in
andheriescorts.org.in
www.jiyapatel.in
spicymumbai.in
rimpyarora.in
lovemaking.co.in
riyadubey.co.in
escortservicesmumbai.in
mumbaiescorts.co.in
midnightprincess.in/
vashiescorts.co.in/
angee.in/
www.rozakhan.in/
www.mumbaiescortsvilla.in/
kylie.co.in/
escortservicemumbai.co.in

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/india-today-june-16-2016-here-is-the-entire-list-of-escorts-service-websites-that-govt-has-banned

ISPs start blocking escort websites following govt order

praskrishna — 2016-07-02T04:17:25Z

DoT on Monday ordered blocking of 240 URLs; blocking of websites takes place under Section 69A of the IT Act, and Information Technology Rules.

The article by Moulishree Srivastava was published in the Business Standard on June 14, 2016.

The Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have started blocking websites allegedly offering escort services after an order from the Department of Telecommunication (DoT).

The DoT on Monday asked ISPs to immediately block around 240 such URLs (Uniform Resource Locator) offering escort services, to filter out obscene content on the internet. Speaking to Business Standard, Internet Service Providers Association of India’s (ISPAI) President Rajesh Chharia said the ISPs were in process of shutting down these websites. ISPAI represents 60 ISPs including Bharti Airtel, Tata Teleservices, Reliance Communication, Vodafone and Idea Cellular.

“We received the order yesterday, and it entails a list of about 240 websites that the government wants us to block,” said Chharia. “CERT-In, which works under the Department of Electronics and Information Technology (Deity), advised the department on certain websites that it feels could be a national or social threat. Deity then reached out to DoT, which is our licensor. We are the licensee, and as per the licensing agreement, we have to comply with the order.”

While declining to comment on whether this is the first such order the association had received this year, Chharia said, “Since last few years, we have been receiving orders to block websites which hosts content that may be a threat to social order or national security.” Blocking of websites takes place under Section 69A of the IT Act, and a 2009 secondary legislation called the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules (“Blocking Rules”).

The rules empower the central government to direct any agency or intermediary to block access to information when satisfied that it is “necessary or expedient so to do” in the interest of the “sovereignty and integrity of India, defense of India, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognisable offence relating to above. Intermediaries failing to comply are punishable with fines and prison terms up to seven years.”

In December 2014, around six months after the Modi-led BJP government came into power, the DoT ordered ISPs to block 32 websites, including Vimeo, Dailymotion, GitHub and Pastebin.

According to an RTI filed by no-for-profit organisation Software Freedom Law Centre in March last year, Deity said 2341 URLs were blocked in 2014, adding that “barring few numbers, all URLs were blocked on the orders of the Court”.

Another RTI filed by Bangalore based think tank Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) found that 143 URLs were blocked in first three months of 2015 in order to comply with the directions of the competent courts. Later that year, the government attempted to block about 857 porn websites, but it had to revoke the order following the backlash online and offline.

The recent notice named a number of websites that need to be banned, including pinkysingh.com, jasmineescorts.com, onlyoneescorts.com, payalmalhotra.in, localescorts.in, pearlpatel.in, kavyajain.in, xmumbai.in, shimi.in and anchu.in.

According to Freedom on the Net 2015 report by Freedom House, which termed India as a “partly free” country on the internet, there were 129 operational ISPs in India as of May 2015.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-moulishree-srivastava-june-14-2016-isps-start-blocking-escort-websites-following-govt-order

List of Blocked 'Escort Service' Websites

pranesh — 2016-06-15T08:33:31Z

Here is the full list of URLs that Indian ISPs were asked to block on Monday, June 13, 2016.

On April 20, 2016, DNA carried a report on a PIL seeking action against advertisements for prostitution in newspapers and on websites. That report noted that the Mumbai Police had obtained an order from a magistrates court to block 174 objectionable websites, and had sent a list to the "Group Coordinator (Cyber Laws)" within the Department of Electronics and IT. On June 13, 2016, some news agencies carried reports about the Ministry of Communications and IT having ordered ISPs to block 240 websites.

As far as we know, the Mumbai Police has not proceeded against any of the people who run these websites, whose phone numbers are available, and whose names and addresses are also available in many cases through WHOIS queries on the domain names.

Unfortunately, the government does not make available publicly the list of websites they have ordered ISPs to block. Given that knowledge of what is censored by the government is crucial in a democracy, we are publishing the entire list of blocked websites.

Those of these websites that use TLS (i.e., those with 'https'), still appear to be available on multiple Indian ISPs, and others can be accessed by using a proxy VPN from outside India or by using Tor.

Notes:

The list circulated to ISPs has two sub-lists, numbered from 1-174 (but containing 175 entries, with a numbering mistake), and 1-64, for a total of 239 URLs.
4 URLs are repeated in the list ("www.salini.in/navi-mumbai-independent-escort-service.php", "exmumbai.in", "www.mansimathur.in/pinkyagarwal", "www.mumbaifunclubs.com")
For one website, both the domain name and a specific web page within it are listed (""www.mumbaiwali.in" and "www.mumbaiwali.in/navi-mumbai-escort-service.php")
One URL is incomplete (No. 214: "www.independentescortservicemumbai.com/mumbai%20escort%20servi..")
There are thus 235 unique URLs, targetting 234 websites and web pages.

Full List of Blocked URLs

www.sterlingbioscience.com
rawpoint.biz
www.onemillionbabes.com
www.mumbaihotcollection.in
simranoberoi.in
rubinakapoor.biz
talita.biz
www.mumbaiescortsagency.net
www.mumbaifunclubs.com
www.alishajain.co.in
www.ankitatalwar.co.in
https://www.jennyarora.ind.in
www.riya-kapoor.com
shneha.in
missinimi.in
www.mumbaiglamour.in
kalyn.in
www.saumyagiri.co.in/city/mumbai/
bookerotic.com
www.divyamalik.in
www.suhanisharma.co.in
www.ruhi.biz
umbaiqueens.in
www.aliyaghosh.com
priyasen.in
www.highprofilemumbaiescorts.co.in
charmingmumbai.com
www.poojamehata.in
kiiran.in/
mansikher.in
www.newmumbaiescorts.in
www.mumbaifunclubs.com
www.punarbas.in
www.discreetbabes.in
www.alisharoy.in
www.arpitarai.in
www.nidhipatel.in
navimumbailescort.com
www.zoyaescorts.com
www.juhioberoi.in
shoniya.in
panchibora.in
rehu.in
www.nehaanand.com
www.aditiray.co.in
www.rakhibajaj.in
www.alianoidaescorts.in
www.sobiya.in
www.alishaparul.in
mumbai-escorts.leathercurrency.com
ankita-ahuja.in
www.yamika.in
mumbailescort.co
www.ranjika.in
www.aditiray.com
www.alinamumbailescort.in
www.sonikaa.com/services/
riyamodel.in
mumbai-escorts.info
soonam.in
www.sejalthakkar.com
www.yomika-tandon.in
www.asika.in
www.siyasharma.org/
www.rubikamathur.in
www.mumbaiescortslady.com
www.sexyshe.in
www.indepandentescorts.com
www.saanvichopra.co.in
www.goswamipatel.in
ojaloberoi.in
www.naincy.in
www.sonyamehra.com
www.pinkgrapes.in
anjalitomar.in/
www.nishakohli.com/
sagentia.co.in
mumbai.vivastreet.co.in/escort+mumbai
www.deseescortgirls.in
guides.wonobo.com/mumbai/mumbai-escorts-service/.4299
jasmineescorts.com
www.shalinisethi.com
www.highclassmumbailescort.com
www.vipescortsinmumbai.com
www.mumbaiescorts69.co.in
monikabas.co.in
www.riyasehgal.com
onlycelebrity.in
www.greatmumbaiescorts.com/escort-service-mumbai.html
www.aishamumbailescort.com
www.jennydsouzaescort.com
www.desifun.in
www.siyaescort.co.in
masti—escort.in
www.sofya.in
www.mumbaiwali.in/navi-mumbai-escort-service.php
www.mumbaiwali.in
www.calldaina.com
www.mumbaiescortsservice.co.in
www.escortsgirlsinmumbai.com
www.passionmumbai.escorts.com
www.nehakapoor.in
meerakapoor.com
www.dianamumbaiescorts.net .in
www.allmumbailescort.in
www.rakhiarora.in
www.ritikasingh.com
www.rekhapatil.com
www.mumbaidolls.com
www.piapandey.com
www.mumbaicuteescorts.in
www.mumbaiescortssevice.com
www.onlycelebrity.com
www.meetescortservice.com
onlyoneescorts.com
simirai.org
www.riyamumbaiescorts.in
www.neharana.in
www.tanyaroy.com
www.mumbaihiprofilegirls.in
www.sexyescortsmumbai.in
www.sexymumbai.escorts.com
www.four-seasons—escort.in
www.mumbaiescortsgirl.com
www.vdreamescorts.com
www.passionatemumbaiescorts.in
www.payalmalhotra.in
www.shrutisinha.com
www.juliemumbaiescorts.com
www.indiasexservices.com/mumbai.html
www.mumbai-escorts.co.in
www.aliyamumbaiescorts.net.in
shivaniarora.co.in/escort–service-mumbai.html
www.pinkisingh.com
soyam.in
www.arpitaray.com
www.localescorts.in
www.jennifermumbaiescorts.com
www.yanaroy.com
escorts18.in/mumbai—escorts.html
www.tinamumbaiescorts.com
www.mumbaijannatescorts.com
www.deepikaroy.com
www.nancy.co.in
www.pearlpatel.in
30minsmumbaiescorts.in
www.datinghopes.com
https://www.riyaroy.com/services.html
www.sonalikajain.com
www.zainakapoor.co.in
kavyajain.in
www.kinnu.co.in
exmumbai.in/
www.mansimathur.in/pinkyagarwal
exmumbai.in
www.mansimathur.in/pinkyagarwal
www.devikabatra.in
katlin.in
riyaverma.in
escortsinindia.co/
www.snehamumbaiescorts.in
shimi.in
www.mumbaiescortsforu.com/about
www.chetnagaur.co.in/chetna-gaur.html
www.escortspoint.in
www.rupalikakkar.in
www.hemangisinha.co.in
1escorts.in/location/mumbai.html
www.salini.in/navi-mumbai-independent—escort-service.php
www.salini.in/navi-mumbai-independent-escort-service.php
www.mumbaibella.in
mohitescortservicesmumbai.com
www.anchu.in
www.aliyaroy.co.in
jaanu.co.in/mumbai-escorts-service-call-girls.html
www.andyverma.com
dreams-come-true.biz
feel–better.biz
jellyroll.biz
dreamgirlmumbai.com
role-play.biz
mansi—mathur.com
www.zarinmumbaiescorts.com
mymumbai.escortss.com
www.goldentouchescorts.com
www.mumbaipassion.biz
ishitamalhotra.com
happy-ending.biz
juicylips.biz
www.escortsmumbai.name
www.kirstygbasai.net
www.hiremumbaiescorts.com
www.meeraescorts.com/mumbai-escorts.php
3–5–7star.biz
www.pranjaltiwari.com
www.richagupta.biz
way2heaven.biz
piya.co/
pinkflowers.info
www.beautifulmumbaiescorts.com
www.bestescortsinmumbai.com/charges-html
www.mumbaiescorts.me
www.tanikatondon.com
www.escortsinmumbai.biz
www.escortgirlmumbai.com
www.mumbaicallgrils.com
www.quickescort4u.com
www.mayamalhotra.com
www.legal-escort.com
escortsbaba.com/mumbai-escorts.html
rupa.biz
www.mumbaiescorts.agency/erotic-service-mumbai.html
www.escortscelebrity.com
www.independentescortservicemumbai.com/mumbai%20escort%20servi..
garimachopra.com
kajalgupta.biz
lipkiss.site
aanu.in
bombayescort.in
hotkiran.co.in
khushikapoor.in
joyapatel.in
rici.in
aaditi.in
andheriescorts.org.in
www.jiyapatel.in
spicymumbai.in
rimpyarora.in
lovemaking.co.in
riyadubey.co.in
escortservicesmumbai.in
mumbaiescorts.co.in
midnightprincess.in/
vashiescorts.co.in/
angee.in/
www.rozakhan.in/
www.mumbaiescortsvilla.in/
kylie.co.in/
escortservicemumbai.co.in

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/list-of-blocked-escort-service-websites

UN Special Rapporteur Report on Freedom of Expression and the Private Sector: A Significant Step Forward

vidushi — 2016-06-08T17:27:22Z

On 6 June 2016, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, David Kaye, released a report on the Information and Communications Technology (“ICT”) sector and freedom of expression in the digital age. Vidushi Marda and Pranesh Prakash highlight the most important aspects of the report.

Background

Today, the private sector is more closely linked to the freedom of expression than it has ever been before. The ability to speak to a mass audience was at one time a privilege restricted to those who had access to mass media. However, with digital technologies, that privilege is available to far more people than was ever possible in the pre-digital era. As private content created on these digital networks is becoming increasingly subject to state regulation, it is crucial to examine the role of the private sector in respect of the freedom of speech and expression.

The first foray by the Special Rapporteur into this broad area has resulted in a sweeping report, that covers almost every aspect of freedom of expression within the ICT sector, except competition which we will elaborate on later in this post.

Introduction

The report aims to “provide guidance on how private actors should protect and promote freedom of expression in a digital age”. It identifies the relevant international legal framework as Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The UN “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework and Guiding Principles, also known as the Ruggie Principles provide the framework for private sector responsibilities on business and human rights.

The report categorises different roles of the private sector in organising, accessing, regulating and populating the internet. This is important because the manner in which the ICT sector affects the freedom of expression is far more complicated than traditional communication industries. The report identifies the distinct impact of internet service providers, hardware and software companies, domain name registries and registrars, search engines, platforms, web hosting services, platforms, data brokers and e-commerce facilities on the freedom of expression.

Legal and Policy Issues

The Special Rapporteur discusses four distinct legal and policy issues that find relevance in respect of this problem statement: Content Regulation, Surveillance and Digital Security, Transparency and Remedies.

Content Regulation

The report identifies two main channels through which content regulation takes place: the state, and internal processes.

Noting that digital content made on private networks is increasingly subject to State regulation, the report highlights the competing interests of intermediaries who manage platforms and States which demand for regulation of this content on grounds of defamation, blasphemy, protection of national security etc. This tension is demonstrated through vague laws that compel individuals and private corporations to over-comply and err on the side of caution “in order to avoid onerous penalties, filtering content of uncertain legal status and engaging in other modes of censorship and self-censorship.” Excessive intermediary liability forces intermediaries to over-comply with requests in order to ensure that local access to their platforms are not blocked. States attempt at regulating content outside the law through extra legal restrictions, and push private actors to take down content on their own initiative. Filtering content is another method, wherein States block and filter content through the private sector. Government blacklists, illegal content and suspended accounts are methods employed, and these have sometimes raised concerns of necessity and proportionality. Network or service shutdowns are classified as a “particularly pernicious” method of content regulation. Non neutral networks also are a method of content regulation with the possibilities of internet service providers throttling traffic. Zero rating is a potential issue, although the report acknowledges that “it remains a subject of debate whether they may be permissible in areas genuinely lacking Internet access”.

The other node of content regulation has been identified as internal policies and practices of the private sector. Terms of service restrictions are often tailored to the jurisdiction’s laws and policies and don’t always address the needs and interests of vulnerable groups. Further, the report notes, design and engineering choices of how private players choose to curate content are algorithmically determined and increasingly control the information that we consume.

Transparency

The report notes that transparency enables those entities subject to internet regulation to take informed decisions about their responsibilities and liabilities in a digital sphere and points out, that there is a severe lack of transparency about government requests to restrict or remove content. Some states even prohibit the publication of such information, with India being one example. In respect of the private sector, content hosting platforms sometimes at least reveal the circumstances under which content is removed due to a government request, although this is rather erratic. The report recognises the need to balance transparency with competing concerns like security and trade secrecy, and this is a matter of continued debate.

Surveillance and Digital Security

Freedom of expression concerns arise as data transmitted on private networks is gradually being subjected to surveillance and interference from the State and private actors. The report finds that several internet companies have reported an increase in government requests for customer data and user information. According to the Special Rapporteur, effective resistance strategies include inclusion of human rights guarantees, restrictively interpreting government requests negotiations. Private players also make surveillance and censorship equipment that enable States to intercept communications. Covert surveillance has been previously reported, with States tapping into communications as and when necessary. When private entities become aware of interception and covert surveillance, their human rights responsibilities arise. As private entities work towards enhancing encryption, anonymity and user security, states respond by compelling companies to create loopholes for them to circumvent such privacy and security enhancing technology.

Remedies

Unlawful content removal, opaque suspensions, data security breaches are commonplace occurrences in the digital sphere. The ICCPR guarantees that all people whose rights have been violated must have an effective remedy, and similarly, the Ruggie principles require that remedial and grievance mechanisms must be provided by corporations. There is some ambiguity on how these complaint or appeal mechanisms should be designed and implemented, and the nature and structure of these mechanisms is also unclear. The report states that it is necessary to investigate the role of the state in supplementing/regulating corporate mechanisms, its role in ensuring that there is a mechanism for remedies, and its responsibility to make sure that more easily and financially accessible alternatives exist for remedial measures.

Special Rapporteur’s priorities for future work and thematic developments

Investigating laws, policies and extralegal measures that equip governments to impose restrictions on the provision of telecommunications and internet services. Examining the responsibility of companies to respond in a way that respects human rights, mitigates harm, and provides avenues for redress.
Evaluating content restrictions under terms of service and community standards. Private actors face substantial pressure from governments and individuals to restrict expression, and a priority is to evaluate the interplay of private and state actions on freedom of expression in light of human rights obligations and responsibilities.
Focusing on the legitimacy of rationales for intermediary liability for content hosting, restrictions, conditions for removing third party content.
Exploring censorship and surveillance within the human rights framework, and encouraging greater scrutiny before using these technologies for purposes that undermine the freedom of expression.
Identifying ways to balance an increasing scope of freedom of expression with the need to address governmental interests in national security and public order.
Internet access - Future work will explore issues around access and private sector engagement and investment in ensuring affordability and accessibility, particularly considering marginalized groups.
Internet governance - Internet governance frameworks and reform efforts are sensitive to the needs of women, sexual minorities and other vulnerable communities. Throughout this future work, the Special Rapporteur will pay particular attention to legal developments (legislative, regulatory, and judicial) at national and regional levels.

Conclusions and Recommendations

States: The report recommends that states should not pressurise the private sector to interfere with the freedom of speech and expression in a manner that does not meet the condition of necessary and proportionate principles. Any request to take down content or access customer information must be based on validly enacted law, subject to oversight, and demonstrate necessary and proportionate means of achieving the aims laid down in Article 19(3) of the ICCPR.
Private Actors: The Special Rapporteur recommends that private actors develop and implement transparent human rights assessment procedures, and develop policies keeping in mind their human rights impact. Apart from this, private entities should integrate commitments to the freedom of expression into internal processes and ensure the “greatest possible transparency”.
International Organisations: The report recommends that organisations make resources and educational material on internet governance publicly accessible. The Special Rapporteur also recommends encouraging meaningful civil society participation in multi-stakeholder policy making and standard setting processes, with an increased focus on sensitivity to human rights.

CIS Comments

CIS strongly agrees with the expansion of the Special Rapporteur’s scope that this report represents. He is no longer looking solely at states but at the private sector too.
CIS also notes that competition is an important aspect of the freedom of expression, but has not been discussed in this report. Viable alternatives to platforms, networks, internet service providers etc., will ensure a healthy, competitive marketplace, and will have a positive impact in resolving the issues identified above.
Our work has called for maintaining a balanced approach to liability of intermediaries for their users’ actions, since excessive liability or strict liability would lead to over-caution and removal of legitimate speech, while having no liability at all would make it difficult to act effectively against harmful speech, e.g., revenge porn.
CIS’ work on network neutrality has highlighted the importance of neutrality for freedom of speech, and has advocated for an evidence-based approach that ensures there is neither under-regulation, nor over-regulation. The Special Rapporteur suggests that ‘Zero-Rating’ practices always violate Net Neutrality, but the majority of the definitions of Net Neutrality proposed by academics and followed by regulators across the world often do not include Zero-Rating. Similarly, he suggests that the main exception for Zero-Rating is for areas genuinely lacking access to the Internet, whereas the potential for some forms of Zero-Rating to further freedom of expression, especially of minorities, even in areas with access to the Internet, provides sufficient reason for the issue to merit greater debate.

(Pranesh Prakash was invited by the Special Rapporteur to provide his views and took part in a meeting that contributed to this report)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/un-special-rapporteur-report-on-freedom-of-expression-and-the-private-sector-a-significant-step-forward

CIS's Comments on the Draft Geospatial Information Regulation Bill, 2016

pranesh — 2016-06-05T15:06:09Z

The Centre for Internet and Society is alarmed by the Draft Geospatial Information Regulation Bill, 2016, and has recommended that the proposed law be withdrawn in its entirety. It offered the following detailed comments as its submission.

Comments on the Draft Geospatial Information Regulation Bill, 2016

by the Centre for Internet and Society

1. Preliminary

1.1. This submission presents comments and recommendations by the Centre for Internet and Society (“CIS”) on the draft Geospatial Information Regulation Bill, 2016 (“the draft bill” / “the proposed bill” / “the bill”).

2. Centre for Internet and Society

2.1. The Centre for Internet and Society is a non-profit organisation that undertakes interdisciplinary research on internet and digital technologies from the perspectives of policy and academic research. The areas of focus include accessibility for persons with disabilities, access to knowledge, intellectual property rights, openness (including open data, free and open source software, open standards, open access, open educational resources, and open video), internet governance, telecommunication reform, digital privacy, and cyber-security. The academic research at CIS seeks to understand the reconfiguration of social processes and structures through the internet and digital media technologies, and vice versa.

2.2. This submission is consistent with CIS’ commitment to safeguarding the public interest, and particularly the representing the interests of ordinary citizens and consumers. The comments in this submission aim to further the principles of people’s right to information regarding their own country, openness-by-default in governmental activities, freedom of speech and expression, and the various forms of public good that can emerge from greater availability of open (geospatial) data created by both public and private agencies, and the innovations made possible as a result.

3. Comments

3.1. General Remarks

3.1.1. While CIS welcomes the intentions of the government to prevent use of geospatial information to undermine national security, the proposed bill completely fails to do so, infringes upon Constitutional rights, harms innovation, undermines the national initiatives of Digital India and Startup India, is completely impractical and unworkable, and it will lead to a range of substantial harms if the government actually seeks to enforce it.

3.1.2. There are already laws in place that prevent the use of geospatial information to undermine national security. For instance, the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (“OSA”) already contains provisions — sections 3(2)(a), (b), and (c) — all of which would prevent a person from creating maps that undermine national security and would penalise their doing so. Section 5 of the OSA contains multiple provisions that penalise the possession and communication of maps that undermine “national security.” The penalties under the OSA range from imprisonment of up to 3 years all the way to imprisonment up to 14 years. Given this, there is absolutely no need to create yet another law to deal with maps that undermine “national security.” Indeed, it is the government’s stated policy to reduce the number of laws in India, whereas the proposed bill introduces a redundant new law that adds multiple layers of bureaucracy.

3.1.3. The National Mapping Policy, 2005, already puts in place restrictions on wrongful depictions of India’s international boundaries, and as we explain below in section 3.4 of this document, even the National Mapping Policy is over-broad. Even if the government wishes to provide statutory backing to the policy, it should be a very different law that is far more limited in scope, and restricts itself to criminalising those who misrepresent India’s international boundary with an intention to mislead people into thinking that that is the official boundary of India as recognised by the Survey of India. CIS would support a law of such limited scope and mandate, provided it has an appropriate penalty.

3.1.4. There would be much utility in a law that creates a duty on the Survey of India to make available, in the form of an open standard, an official electronic version of the maps that it creates, and expressly allows and encourages citizens and startups to reuse such official maps, however the Ministry of Home Affairs would not be the nodal ministry for such a law.

3.1.5. We recommend that the proposed law be scrapped in its entirety.

3.1.6. We additionally provide an alternative manner of reducing the harms caused by this bill, in our comments below. By no means should these further comments be seen as a repudiation of our above position, since we do not feel the proposed bill, even with the inclusion of all of our recommendations, would truly further its stated aims. All our below recommendations would do is to reduce the bill’s harmful, and often unintended, consequences.

3.2. Definition of “Geospatial Information” is over-broad, all- encompassing

3.2.1. The second part of the definition of “geospatial information” refers to all “graphic or digital data depicting natural or man-made physical features, phenomenon or boundaries of the earth or any information related thereto” that are “referenced to a co-ordinate system and having attributes.” (Section 2(1)(e)) As per the definition, this will include all geo-referenced information, and data, that is produced by everyday users as an integral part of various everyday uses of digital technologies. This will also include geo-referenced tweets and messages, location of public and private vehicles shared in the real-time with agencies tracking their location (from public transport authorities, to insurance agencies, etc.), location data of mobile phones collected and used by telecommunication service providers, location of mobile phones shared by the user with various kinds of service providers (from taxi companies to delivery agencies), etc.

3.2.2. We recommend that instead of regulating all kinds of geospatial information, and giving rise to a range of possible harms, the draft bill be revised to specifically address “sensitive geospatial information,” defined as geospatial information related to the “Prohibited Places” as defined in the Official Secrets Act 1923 (section 2(8)) which will allow the bill to effectively respond to its key stated concerns of ensuring “security, sovereignty and integrity of India.” Since the National Map Policy defines “Vulnerable Points” and “Vulnerable Areas” (para 3(b)) as the two main types of geospatial units associated with “Prohibited Places”, these terms should also be referred to in the revised version of the draft bill.

3.3. Unreasonable regulation of acquiring and end-use of geospatial information

3.3.1. Section 3 of the draft bill states that “[s]ave as otherwise provided in this Act, rules or regulations made thereunder, or with the general or special permission of the Security Vetting Authority, no person shall acquire geospatial imagery or data including value addition” and “[e]very person who has already acquired any geospatial imagery or data ... including value addition prior to coming of this Act into effect, shall within one year from the commencement of this Act, make an application alongwith requisite fees to the Security Vetting Authority.” This effectively makes it illegal to acquire and maintain ownership of geospatial information that has not been subjected to security vetting.

3.3.2. This draft bill doesn’t apply just to geospatial information that may undermine national security but covers all manners of geospatial information and modern geospatial technologies embedded in everyday digital devices and intimately connected to various electronic products and services, from cars to mobile phones, result in the creation and acquiring of various kinds of geo-referenced information, ranging from the geo-referenced photographs to locations shared with friends. Even ordinary users who are unknowingly looking at maps that contain sensitive geospatial information, which are illegal under the Official Secrets Act, are committing an illegal act under the draft bill, because the users temporarily acquires such sensitive geospatial information in her/his digital device, as part of the very act of browsing the map concerned. This clearly cannot be the intention of the bill. Thus we recommend deletion of the word “acquire.”

3.3.3. Further, the insertion of the phrase “including value addition” in both Section 3(1) and 3(2) appears to suggest that all users who have created derivative products using geospatial information that includes sensitive data (that is data related to Prohibited Places) may be held liable under this draft bill, even if these users have not themselves collected or created such sensitive geospatial information, which was part of the original geospatial information published by the source map agency. This too cannot be the intention of the bill. Thus, we recommend deletion of the phrase “including value addition.”

3.3.4. In the definition of the “Security Vetting of Geospatial Information” itself, it is mentioned that the process will include “screening of the credentials of the end-users and end-use applications, with the sole objective of protecting national security, sovereignty, safety and integrity.” (Section 2(1)(o)) This appears to indicate that all end-users of all electronic and analog services and products using geospatial information will have to be individually vetted before such services and products are used, which would cover a large proportion of the Indian population. This imposes an enormous and impractical burden on the Indian digital economy in particular, and the entire national economy in general, without improving national security. This too cannot be the intention of the draft bill. Thus, we recommend deletion of this phrase, and ensure that end users are not covered by the law.

3.3.5. Given these specific characteristics of how modern geospatial technologies work, and how they provide a basis for various kinds of everyday use of electronic products and services, we would like to submit that the regulatory focus should be on large-scale and/or commercial dissemination, publication, or distribution of geospatial information, and not on the acts of acquiring, possessing, sharing, and using geospatial information. Further, the regulation in general should be aimed at the party owning the geospatial information in question, and not at the parties involved in its dissemination (say, Internet Service Providers) or in its generation or use (say, end-users).

3.4. Removal of journalistic, political, artistic, creative, and speculative depictions of India from the scope of Section 6

3.4.1. Section 6 of the draft bill states that “[n]o person shall depict, disseminate, publish or distribute any wrong or false topographic information of India including international boundaries through internet platforms or online services or in any electronic or physical form.” Section 15 imposes a penalty for such wrong depiction of maps of India.

3.4.2. Depictions of India, which do not purport to accurately represent the international boundaries as recognised by the Indian government should not be penalised. For instance, a map published in a newspaper article about India’s border disputes that shows the incorrect claims that the Chinese government has made over Indian territory would also be penalised as “wrong or false topographic information of India”, since there is a clear intention to depict the boundary as claimed by China. Criminalising such journalism cannot be the legitimate intent of such a provision.

3.4.3. There are numerous instances which have been willfully depicting inaccurate and inauthentic maps of India with international borders for political ends. For instance, there are often depictions of India which show territories within present day Pakistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal and Sri Lanka as part of an “Akhand Bharat.” Depictions of this sort should not be penalised. In doing so, would contradict the freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) without being a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2).

3.4.4. Even depictions of India for purposes of speculative fiction would be penalised under this proposed bill unless they depict the official borders. This is clearly undesirable and would not be allowed as a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2).

*3.4.5.* Even geography students in schools and colleges who mis-draw the official map of India would be liable to penalties under the draft bill. This plainly, cannot be the intention of the drafters of this bill. The creator of a rough and inaccurate tourist map of an Indian city can also be identified as committing a criminal act under the proposed bill as she would be depicting “… wrong or false topographic information of India …”

3.4.6. In brief: Merely depicting, disseminating, publishing or distributing any “wrong or false topographic information of India” should not be penalised. unless a person publishes and widely circulates an incorrect map of India while claiming that that represents the official international boundaries of India, such should not be penalised.

3.4.7. CIS recommends that the bill should instead state: “No person shall depict, disseminate, publish, or distribute any topographic information purporting to accurately depict the international boundaries of India as recognised by the Survey of India unless he is authorised to do so by the Surveyor General of India; provided that usage by any person of the international boundaries as is electronically and in print made available by the Survey of India shall deemed to be usage that is authorised by the Surveyor General of India.”

3.5. Absence of Publicly Available and Openly Reusable Standardised National Boundary of India

3.5.1. Given the lack of an reusable versions of maps of India, including of India’s official boundary as recognised by the Survey of India, it becomes impossible for people to accurately depict the boundary of India. We recommend that the bill requires the Survey of India to publish all “Open Series Maps,”as defined in the National Mapping Policy, 2005, including maps depicting the official international and subnational political and administrative boundaries of India, using open geospatial standards and under an open licence allowing such geospatial data to be used by citizens and all companies.

3.6. Remove Requirement for Prior License for Acquire, Dissemination, Publication, or Distribution of Geospatial Information

3.6.1. Section 9 of the draft bill refers to “any person who wants to acquire, disseminate, publish, or distribute any geospatial information of India” (emphasis added), which can be interpreted as the need for a prior license before any person decides to acquire (including creation, collection, generation, and buying) geospatial information. This creates at least two problems:

modern digital geospatial technologies have enabled everyday digital devices (like smartphones) to instantaneously acquire, disseminate, publish, and distribute geospatial information all the time when the person holding that device is looking at online digital maps, say Google Maps, or sharing location with their friends, online platforms and services and service providers (both local and foreign); and
the requirement of prior license involves payment of a “requisite fees” to the Security Vetting Authority, which may act as an arbitrary (since the fee might be based upon the volume of geospatial information to be acquired that one may not know fully determine before acquiring) and effective barrier to acquiring, dissemination, publication, or distribution of geospatial information even if it does not violate the concerns of “security, sovereignty, and integrity” in any manner. This requirement also impedes competition in the market, because new entrants to the geospatial industry may not have enough upfront capital to procure licenses.

3.6.2. Further, the requirement of necessary prior license for acquiring geospatial information does not seem to be a crucial component of the security vetting process, since the geospatial information, once acquired by the agency concerned, is in any case directed to be shared with the Security Vetting Authority for undertaking necessary expunging of sensitive or incorrect information.

3.6.3. We recommend revision of this section so that no prior license and/or permission is required for collection, acquiring, distribution, and/or use of geospatial information; instead, a framework may be established for monitoring of published geospatial information for purposes of ensuring geospatial information pertaining to “Prohibited Places,” as defined under the Official Secrets Act, is not made available to the general public by any person or entity under Indian jurisdiction, including, for instance, Indian subsidiaries and branches of foreign corporations.. Such a framework must not address the end-user of such geospatial information, but its publishers.

3.7. Unenforceable jurisdictional scope

3.7.1. Section 5 of the draft bill states “[s]ave as otherwise provided in any international convention, treaty or agreement of which India is signatory or as provided in this Act, rules or regulations made thereunder, or with the general or special permission of the Security Vetting Authority, no person shall, in any manner, make use of, disseminate, publish or distribute any geospatial information of India, outside India, without prior permission from the Security Vetting Authority.”

3.7.2. In compliance with this section, domestic and foreign companies and platforms will be required to obtain permission from the Security Vetting Authority of India prior to publishing, distributing etc. geospatial information. Similarly in the preliminary, the draft bill holds in person who commits an offence beyond India under the scope of the bill. The bill is thus proposing extraterritorial applicability of its provisions, yet the extent and method of enforcement of the same on other jurisdictions are kept unclear.

3.8. Negative implications for rights of citizens

3.8.1. There are a number of sections in the draft bill which have negative implications for the rights of all users and potentially impinge on the constitutional rights of Indian citizens. These include:

a. Section 18(2) which empowers the Enforcement Authority to conduct a search without a judicial search order;

b. Section 17(3) which empowers the Enforcement Authority to conduct undefined surveillance and monitoring to enforce the Act;

c. Chapter (V) which penalises individuals with Rs. 1-100 Crores and/or seven years in prison for an offence under the act;

d. Section 22 which allows the government to take ownership of a person’s land if a financial penalty has not been paid;

e. Section 30(1) which holds, in the case of the offense being committed by a company, every person in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business of the company, guilty and liable.

3.9. Overly broad powers and responsibilities of the Apex Committee and Enforcement Authority, and lack of adequate oversight

3.9.1. Section 7(2) states that “[t]he Apex Committee shall do all such acts and deeds that may be necessary or otherwise desirable to achieve the objectives of the Act, including the following functions:...” The wording in this section is broad and open ended, and allows for the responsibilities of the Apex Committee to be expanded without clear oversight of such expansion.

3.9.2. Similarly, section 17 established an “Enforcement Authority” for the purpose of carrying out surveillance and monitoring for enforcement of the draft bill. The Authority has been given a number of powers including the power of inquiry, the power to adjudicate, and the power to give directions. These powers have direct implications on the rights of individuals, yet the Authority is not subject to oversight or accountability requirements.

3.9.3. We recommend that the powers and responsibilities of the Apex Committee and Enforcement Authority are narrowly defined in the draft bill itself, limited by the principle of necessity, and subject to independent oversight and accountability requirements.

3.10. Remove the Security Vetting Authority’s power of delegation

3.10.1. Section 8(3) allows the Security Vetting Authority to delegate to any constituent member of the Authority, other subordinate committee, or officer powers and functions as it may deem necessary except the power to grant a licence. In practice, this will allow security vetting to be done by another institution and risks potential involvement of private agencies and/or quasi-governmental bodies.

3.10.2. We recommend that the power of delegation should not be granted to the Security Vetting Authority.

3.11. Negative implications for innovation and India’s digital economy

3.11.1. Section 3 of the draft bill states “[s]ave as otherwise provided in this Act, rules or regulations made thereunder, or with the general or special permission of the Security Vetting Authority, no person shall acquire geospatial imagery or data including value addition of any part of India either through any space or aerial platforms such as satellite, aircrafts, airships, balloons, unmanned aerial vehicles or terrestrial vehicles, or any other means whatsoever”. This effectively ensures that each and every user of geospatial data, products, services, and solutions — since all of these either include or are derivatives of geospatial information — would require prior permission from the Security Vetting Authority. This will substantially affect the existing and emerging digital economy in particular, and the entire economy in general.

3.11.2. Further, Section 9 of the draft bill mandates that any person submitting an application for geospatial information to be vetted must pay a fee. As the provisions of the bill mandate that users approach the Security Vetting Authority for license to use geospatial information, this will impose an immense burden on all users of digital devices in and outside of India. CIS submits that imposition of this fee for security vetting be removed.

3.12. Disproportionate penalty for acquisition of geospatial information

3.12.1. Section 12 states that “[p]enalty for illegal acquisition of geospatial information of India.- Whoever acquires any geospatial information of India in contravention of section 3, shall be punished with a fine ranging from Rupees one crore to Rupees one hundred crore and/or imprisonment for a period upto seven years.” Seven years in prison is disproportionate to the offense of acquiring geospatial information without vetting by the authority concerned. This is particularly true given the broad and all-encompassing definition of “geospatial information” in the draft bill, and the fact that the bill applies to individuals and companies both within and outside of India.

3.13. Improper and inconsistent usage of terms in the draft bill

3.13.1. Section 4 of the draft bill regulates the visualization, publication, dissemination and distribution of geospatial information of India, while section 5 regulates use, dissemination, publication, and distribution of geospatial information outside of India. The definition of “visualization” remains unclear, and the act is only regulated in section 4. The section 6 of the draft bill uses the term ‘depict’, which is undefined as well. We submit that in this context terms are interchangeable, and the draft bill should either define them expressly to avoid ambiguity in interpretations, or consistently use only one throughout the draft bill.

3.13.2. Section 11 (3) of the draft bill requires licensees to “[d]isplay the insignia of the clearance of the Security Vetting Authority on the security-vetted geospatial information by appropriate means such as water-marking or licence as relevant, while disseminating or distributing of such geospatial information.” We observe that geospatial information includes graphical representation, location coordinates, inter alia. While the former may be represented visually on an “as is” basis after the completion of the vetting, the latter may be used to perform other complex functions at the “back-end” (i.e., vendor-facing side) in various technologies. Water-marking and/or displaying of insignia would place undue burden on the licensee, depending on the kind of platform, service, or individual.

3.14. Lack of reference to technical implementation guidance

3.14.1. The regulation, harmonisation, and standardisation of the collection, generation, dissemination etc. of geospatial information is a complex process that goes beyond a process of security vetting and that will require extensive technical implementation guidance from the government. At a minimum this could include quality assurance considerations and standard operating procedures, yet the draft bill makes no reference to the need for technical standards or guidance.

Comments prepared by Sumandro Chattapadhyay, Adya Garg, Pranesh Prakash, Anubha Sinha, and Elonnai Hickok. Submitted by the Centre for Internet and Society, on June 3, 2016.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/comments-draft-geospatial-information-regulation-bill-2016

Criminal defamation remains and so does the debate

Japreet Grewal — 2016-05-23T06:05:17Z

The judgment on the plea to de-criminalise defamation is out and despite its verbosity and rich vocabulary is an embarrassment to our recent judicial milestone of constitutional challenges. In the case of Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India, a two judge bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra, has upheld the constitutionality of Section 499 and Section 500 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section199 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) that criminalise defamation.

The judgment has not satisfactorily answered several pertinent questions. Various significant issues relating to the existing regime of defamation have been touched upon in the judgment but the bench has skipped the part where it is required to analyse and give its own reasoning for upholding or reading down the law. This post points out what should have been looked at.

A. Whether defamation is a public or a private wrong? What is the State’s interest in protecting the reputation of an individual against other private individuals? Is criminal penalty for defamatory statements an appropriate, adequate or disproportionate remedy for loss of reputation?

At the core of the debate to decriminalise defamation lies the question, whether defamation is a public or a private wrong. The question was raised in the Subramanian Swamy case and the court held that defamation is a public wrong. Our problem with the court’s decision lies in its failure to provide a sound and comprehensive analysis of the issue. In order to understand whether defamation is a public or a private wrong, it is necessary that we look at what reputation means, what happens when reputation is harmed and whose interests are affected by such harm.

Reputation is not defined in law, however the Supreme Court has held that reputation is a right to enjoy the good opinion of others and the good name, the credit, honour or character which is derived from such favourable public opinion. The definition reflects several elements that constitute reputation which when harmed have different bearing on the reputation of an individual. Academic Robert C Post in his paper, The Social Foundations on Defamation Law: Reputation and Constitution, says that reputation can be understood as a form of intangible property akin to goodwill or as dignity (the respect including self-respect that arises from observance of rules of the society). While reputation when seen as property can be estimated in money and thus adequately compensated through a civil action for damages, loss of dignity is not a materially quantifiable loss, and thus, monetary compensation appears irrelevant. The purpose of the defamation law could either be to ensure that reputation is not wrongfully deprived of its proper market value or the respect/acceptance of the society. Explanation 4 to Section 499 of the IPC accommodates both such situations and provides that reputation is harmed if it directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful.

Post adds that an individual’s reputation is a product of his interaction with the society by following the norms of conduct (which he calls rules of civility) created by the society, thus the society has an interest in enforcing its rules of civility through defamation law by policing breaches of these rules. Criminal defamation acknowledges that loss of reputation is a wrong to the societal interests; however these interests have not been deliberated upon by the courts in India.

The Subramanian Swamy case was an occasion where, it was imperative that the court took up this exercise and explained what interest the society had in protecting the reputation of an individual for it to be classified as a public wrong. The court stated, “the law relating to defamation protects the reputation of each individual in the perception of the public at large. It matters to an individual in the eyes of the society. There is a link and connect between individual rights and the society; and this connection gives rise to community interest at large. Therefore, when harm is caused to an individual, the society as a whole is affected and the danger is perceived” With this reasoning it can be inferred that the society has an interest in all private wrongs. Where would that inference land us? This reasoning is ambiguous and inadequate.

On the other hand, criminal penalty for perfectly private wrongs such as copyright infringement and dishonour of cheques urges us to ask if there is a problem with the rigid distinction of public and private wrongs. Should we be asking the question differently?

The judgment has provided extremely inadequate answers to this question and has left matters ambiguous.

B. Can the right to reputation under Article 21 be enforced against another individual’s freedom of expression and are safeguards already built in law so as not to unreasonably restrict and stifle free expression in this regard?

Defamation finds a place in the list of constitutionally allowed restrictions on freedom of speech under Article 19 (2). Defamation protects the right to reputation of an individual thus free expression by this reason is subject to the right to reputation of an individual. The court had repeatedly observed that right to reputation is a part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The question of enforceability of right to reputation under Article 21 against freedom of expression under Article 19 (1) (a) came into question in the instant case; it was contended that a fundamental right is enforceable against the State but cannot be invoked to serve a private interest of an individual. Thus, the right to reputation as manifested in defamation being a wrong committed against a private person by another person is unconnected and falls outside the scope of Article 19 (2). It is pertinent to note that Article 21 (which includes right to reputation) is enforceable not only against the state but also against private individuals. What is relevant here is an understanding of horizontal enforceability of fundamental rights (certain fundamental rights can be enforced against private individuals and non-state actors). This would help explain the dilemma in enforcing the right to reputation of an individual against free speech of another individual. It is vaguely mentioned in the judgment (see para 88) but has not been deliberated upon.

What follows from the discussion of enforceability of right to reputation, is the discussion on how reasonably it restricts speech. The Supreme Court has previously held that while determining reasonableness, the underlying purpose of the restrictions imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby, the disproportion of the imposition, the prevailing conditions at the time, should all enter into the judicial verdict. We briefly analyse the critical aspects of the regime of criminal defamation on these parameters.

Underlying purpose

At the heart of the defamation law is the need to find the most suitable remedy for loss of reputation of an individual. How does one restore reputation of an individual in the society and whether criminal penalty an appropriate remedy?

Extent of restriction

The extent to which defamation law restricts free speech could be analysed by looking at various aspects such as what kind of speech is considered defamatory, what procedure is followed to bring action against the alleged wrong doer and scope of abuse of the law. Explanation 1 to Section 499 of IPC provides that a statement or imputation is defamatory if it is not made in public good. It is not sufficient to prove that such statement or imputation is in fact true. The idea of public good is at best vague without any means to evaluate it. Further, under Section 199 of CrPC allows multiple complaints to be filed in different jurisdictions for a single offensive publication. Besides, usage of terms like “some person aggrieved” leaves room for parties other than the person in respect of whom defamatory material is published to bring action and the provision also allows the privilege of two sets of procedures for prosecution (in official capacity and in private capacity) to public servants without satisfactory reasoning provided for such discrimination. These provisions have the potential to be used to file frivolous complaints and could be a handy tool for harassment of journalists or activists among others.

Proportionality

Does the publication or imputation of defamatory material warrant payment of fine and imprisonment? Earlier in the post, we brought up the question of relevance of such measures to the act of defamation. Assuming that it is relevant, do we think it is harsh or commensurate to the wrongful act. It is necessary to look at the process of prosecution before we determine the proportionality of the restriction. Criminal law assumes that the accused is innocent until he is proven guilty. Therefore until the judiciary determines that the act of defamation was committed, how does the process help the accused in maintaining status quo. It is also pertinent to look at the threshold for civil defamation. Under the civil wrong of defamation, truth works as a complete defence while under criminal defamation, a statement despite being true could invite penalty if it is not published in public good. Thus a lower threshold for criminal liability would upset the balance of proportionality. These aspects are critical to determine the reasonableness of criminal defamation and it is unfortunate that the judgment that runs into hundreds of pages has not evaluated them.

Conclusion

The convoluted debate on criminal defamation remains intact post the pronouncement of this judgment. Questions of competing interests of society and individuals or individuals per se, and ambiguous rationale behind imposition of liability, arbitrariness of procedure for prosecution have not been examined. Further, the hardship in compartmentalising free speech, the right to reputation and the right to privacy remains unanswered.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/criminal-defamation-remains-and-so-does-the-debate

You will need a license to create a WhatsApp group in Kashmir

praskrishna — 2016-04-21T02:34:46Z

The internet rights activists have criticised the move stating it as unconstitutional.

The article was published by Governance Now on April 19, 2016. Pranesh Prakash tweeted on this.

Moving beyond internet ban, Kashmir’s Kupwara district issued a notice asking all admins of WhatsApp news groups to register their groups with the district authority within ten days.

With this move, the authorities are taking power in their hands to monitor WhatsApp news groups owned by private individuals. However, internet rights activists criticised it saying the move is unconstitutional as it breaches freedom of speech.

The circular is issued under the subject of ‘registering of WhatsApp news group and restrictions for spreading rumours thereof’. The district magistrate said that any spread of information by these WhatsApp news groups, “leading to untoward incidents will be dealt under the law”.

You may need a license in Kashmir to run a WhatsApp group

The valley witnessed five-day internet shutdown following the Handwara firing incident. Internet ban is a common phenomenon in Kashmir.

“For how long will the government decide whether we can communicate with each other or not? Actually, the authorities do not want us to spread the truth about the army’s atrocities far and wide,” said a resident of Handwara as quoted in Kashmir Reader.

Earlier, parts of Haryan and Gujarat also witnessed internet ban during Jat and Patidar agitation, respectively.

Blocking all internet access is clearly an unnecessary and disproportionate measure that cannot be countenanced as a ‘reasonable restriction’ on freedom of expression and the right to seek and receive information, which is an integral part of the freedom of expression,” said Pranesh Prakash.

For instance, he adds, a riot-affected woman seeking to find out the address of the nearest hospital cannot do so on her phone. “Instead of blocking access to the internet, the government should seek to quell rumours by using social networks to spread the truth, and by using social networks to warn potential rioters of the consequences,” he said.

Former Mumbai police commissioner Rakesh Maria used WhatsApp to counter rumours spread after circulation of a fake photo in January 2015.

“The way in which the ban is imposed is unreasonable. Problem is in the method that is being used in absence of guidelines, defining circumstances under which they can impose a restriction on internet sites,” says Arun Kumar, head of cyber initiatives at Observer Research Foundation (ORF).

If government formulates these rules or guidelines it will set a threshold for state or central authorities, which will define the urgency of imposing ban on internet services.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/governance-now-april-19-2016-you-will-need-a-license-to-create-whatsapp-group-in-kashmir

CIS Submission to TRAI Consultation on Regulatory Framework for Over-the-Top Services

pranesh — 2016-03-25T17:59:56Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/net-neutrality/2015-03-27_cis_trai-submission_regulation-OTTs

Hard to broad ban!

praskrishna — 2016-03-22T17:00:07Z

The provisions under the Telegraph Act are wispy and can’t be convincingly invoked to exercise a jurisdiction on the internet world.

The article by Taru Bhatia was published by Governance Now on March 9, 2016. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

The Haryana government on February 19 suspended mobile internet services in the districts affected by the agitation caused by the Jat community over reservation. The ban was imposed under section 144 of criminal procedure code (CrPC) to control the situation from being fanned by rumours or inflammatory messages.Similar ban was imposed in Gujarat last year during violent protests stirred by Hardik Patel over reservation of Patel community. In a similar manner internet connectivity was snapped in Nagaland, Rajasthan and Jammu and Kashmir last year under section 144 in order to contain law and order situation.

The CrPC section allows an official authorised by the state government to “direct any person to abstain from a certain act or to take certain order” which is “likely to prevent, or tends to prevent, obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed or danger to human life, health or safety, or a disturbance of the public tranquility, or a riot, of an affray”. “An order under this section may, in cases of emergency or in cases where the circumstances do not admit of the serving in due time of a notice upon the person against whom the order is directed, be passed ex parte,” the section states.

However, the civil rights lawyers claim that section 144 is a general law. “Section 144 is a means to curb apprehended danger and nuisance in emergencies, but its use to ban internet access for a region is an excessive and arbitrary use of powers granted to the state government under this provision,” says Mishi Choudhary, legal director, software freedom law centre (SFLC).

They, moreover, believe that the above section is not specific and contextual in cases of communication ban. So what is the correct law that comes in disposal of state authorities during emergencies that call for an urgent step? It’s section 5 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The act specifically deals with blocking web domains or web pages or blanket ban. Section 5(2) says that states or central government can prevent transmission of any message(s) that cause incitement to unlawful situation. Looking carefully, this section focuses only on blocking of inflammatory message(s), not a blanket ban.

In the case of Gujarat, for example, Hardik Patel, leading the agitation, used WhatsApp to spread the word for Bharat bandh, which consequently caused a blanket ban on data services by the state authorities. Under section 5(2), the authorities could have gone ahead only with banning social media websites and messaging application, instead of a blanket ban.

Section 5(2) of the telegraph Act also allows the authorities to lawfully intercept messages during public emergency. The central government has laid out clear guidelines in 2014, defining circumstances that demands phone tapping and in what manner. Similar guidelines are not there for suspending internet services under same law, however.

“The way in which the ban is imposed is unreasonable. Problem is in the method that is being used in absence of guidelines, defining circumstances under which they can impose a restriction on internet sites,” says Arun Kumar, head of cyber initiatives at Observer Research Foundation (ORF).

If government formulates these rules or guidelines it will set a threshold for state or central authorities, which will define the urgency of imposing ban on internet services. It will also make authorities answerable, limiting the misuse of power under the section 144 of the CrPC.

The civil rights lawyers cite example of section 69 A of the IT Act, 2000, which grants power to the central government to direct notice to intermediaries (for example, Facebook and Twitter), to block public access to any information that could stir violence in the country. In this case the government formulated blocking rules in 2009, providing for examination of complaints. The authority to employ this power however lies with the central government, and so, a state not using this law for taking down any message or domain from public view is understandable, during riot-like situation.

For states to legitimately use their power, it is essential to have similar blocking rules for section 5(2) of telegraph act.

Is blanket ban needed, anyway?

“Blocking all internet access is clearly an unnecessary and disproportionate measure that cannot be countenanced as a ‘reasonable restriction’ on freedom of expression and the right to seek and receive information, which is an integral part of the freedom of expression,” says Pranesh Prakash, policy director, Centre for Internet and Society (CIS).

For instance, he adds, a riot-affected woman seeking to find out the address of the nearest hospital cannot do so on her phone. “Instead of blocking access to the internet, the government should seek to quell rumours by using social networks to spread the truth, and by using social networks to warn potential rioters of the consequences,” he says.

Former Mumbai police commissioner Rakesh Maria used WhatsApp to counter rumours spread after circulation of a fake photo in January 2015. A similar approach could have been taken by state authorities in the case of Gujarat or Haryana; countering miscreants, informing public about the truth and emergency help details.

“Instead of doing that, we saw that in Gujarat, the police themselves engaged in acts of violent vandalism (caught on CCTV cameras), and in Manipur the police shot dead nine Manipuri tribals, including a 11-year-old child,” retorts Pranesh.

Blocking internet should be used as a last resort, and taking a balanced approach that considers interest of every stakeholder in a society is essential, argue civil rights lawyers. It is also imperative on the part of the government to formulate guidelines or a rule book to tackle the arbitrariness exercised by the states and security forces.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/governance-now-march-9-2016-taru-bhatia-hard-to-broad-ban

Are we Losing the Right to Privacy and Freedom of Speech on Indian Internet?

Amber Sinha — 2016-03-16T14:44:19Z

The article was published in DNA on March 10, 2016.

Last month, it was reported that National Security Council Secretariat (NSCS) had proposed the setting up of a National Media Analytics Centre (NMAC). This centre’s mandate would be to monitor blogs, media channels, news outlets and social media platforms. Sources were quoted as stating that the centre would rely upon a tracking software built by Ponnurangam Kumaraguru, an Assistant Professor at the Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology in Delhi. The NMAC seems to mirror other similar efforts in countries such as US, Canada, Australia and UK, to monitor online content for the reasons as varied as prevention of terrorist activities, disaster relief and criminal investigation.

The NSCS, the parent body that this centre will fall under, is a part of the National Security Council, India’s highest agency looking to integrate policy-making and intelligence analysis, and advising the Prime Minister’s Office on strategic issues as well as domestic and international threats. The NSCS represents the Joint Intelligence Committee and its duties include the assessment of intelligence from the Intelligence Bureau, Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW) and Directorates of Military, Air and Naval Intelligence, and the coordination of the functioning of intelligence agencies.

From limited reports available, it appears that the tracking software used by NMAC will generate tags to classify post and comments on social media into negative, positive and neutral categories, paying special attention to “belligerent” comments. The reports say that the software will also try to determine if the comments are factually correct or not. The idea of a government agency systematically tracking social media, blogs and news outlets and categorising content as desirable and undesirable is bound to create a chilling effect on free speech online. The most disturbing part of the report suggested that the past pattern of writers’ posts would be analysed to see how often her posts fell under the negative category, and whether she was attempting to create trouble or disturbance, and appropriate feedback would be sent to security agencies based on it. Viewed alongside the recent events where actors critical of the government and holding divergent views have expressed concerns about attempts to suppress dissenting opinions, this initiative sounds even more dangerous, putting at risk individuals categorised as “negative” or “belligerent”, for exercising their constitutionally protected right to free speech.

Getty Images

It has been argued that the Internet is a public space, and should be treated as subject to monitoring by the government as any other space. Further, this kind of analysis does not concern itself with private communication between two or more parties but only with publicly available information. Why must we raise eyebrows if the government is accessing and analysing it for the purposes of legitimate state interests? There are two problems with this argument. First, any surveillance of communication must always be limited in scope, specific to individuals, necessary and proportionate, and subject to oversight. There are no laws passed by the Parliament in India which allow for mass surveillance measures. Such activities are being conducted through bodies like NSC which came into existence through an Executive Order and have no clear oversight mechanisms built into its functioning. A quick look at the history of intelligence and surveillance agencies in India will show that none of them have been created through a legislation. A host of surveillance agencies have come up in the last few years including the Central Monitoring System, which was set up to monitor telecommunications, and the absence of legislative pedigree translates into lack of appropriate controls and safeguards, and zero public accountability.

The second and the larger issue is that the scale and level of granularity of personal information available now is unprecedented. Earlier, our communications with friends and acquaintances, our movements, our association, political or otherwise, were not observable in the manner it is today. It would be remiss to underestimate the importance of personal information merely because it exists in the public domain. The ability to act without being subject to monitoring and surveillance is key to the right to free speech and expression. While we accept the importance of free speech and the value of an open internet and newer technologies to enable it, we do not give sufficient importance to how these technologies are affecting the right to privacy.

Getty Images

In the last few years, the social media scene in India has been characterised by extreme polemic with epithets such as ‘bhakt’, ‘sanghi’, ‘sickular’ and ‘presstitutes’ thrown around liberally, turning political discussions into a mess of ugliness. It remains to be seen whether the NMAC intends to deal with the professional trolls who rely on a barrage of abuse to disrupt public conversations online. However, the appropriate response would not be greater surveillance, let alone a body like NMAC, with a sweeping mandate and little accountability.

Link to the original here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/dna-amber-sinha-march-10-2016-are-we-losing-right-to-privacy-and-freedom-of-speech-on-indian-internet

India's ‘Facebook ruling’ is another nail in the coffin of the MNO model

praskrishna — 2016-02-28T03:44:34Z

Ability to access 'net from mobe no longer considered a miracle.

The article was published in the Register on February 15, 2016. Pranesh Prakash gave inputs.

Nobody could accuse India’s telecoms regulator, TRAI, of being in the operators’ pockets. This month it has, once again, set eye-watering reserve prices for the upcoming 700 MHz spectrum auction (see separate item), and now it has taken one of the toughest stances in the world on net neutrality, in effect banning zero rated or discounted content deals like Reliance Communications’ Facebook Basics, or Bharti Airtel’s Zero.

In a ruling last Monday, TRAI said telecoms providers are banned from offering discriminatory tariffs for data services based on content, and from entering deals to subsidize access to certain websites. They have six months to wind down any existing arrangements which contravene the new rules. Its stance is even stricter than in other countries with strong pro-neutrality laws, such as Brazil and The Netherlands.

“This is the most extensive and stringent regulation on differential pricing anywhere in the world,” Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society, said. “Those who suggested regulation in place of complete ban have clearly lost.”

Such decisions, combined with high spectrum costs, will quickly make the traditional cellular business model unworkable in India, and the more that happens, the more wireless internet innovation will switch to open networks running on Wi-Fi and unlicensed spectrum. R.S. Sharma, chairman of TRAI, was careful to tell reporters that the zero rating ruling would not affect any plans to offer free Wi-Fi services, like those planned by Google in a venture with Indian Railways.

A disaster for MNOs, not Facebook

Facebook pronounced itself “disappointed” at TRAI’s ruling, having lobbied aggressively for a more flexible approach since RCOM was forced to suspend the Basics offering in December while the consultation process took place. But while the ruling bars the Basics offering – which provided free, low speed access, on RCOM’s network, to a selection of websites, curated by Facebook – it does not stop the social media giant pursuing other initiatives within its internet.org umbrella. These include projects to extend access using its own networks, powered by drones and unlicensed spectrum, to the unserved of India and other emerging economies.

So while the TRAI decision may be a setback for Facebook, it is not the body blow that it represents for the MNOs with their huge debt loads and infrastructure costs, and low ARPUs. Facebook, with 130m users in India, has a comparable reach to the Indian MNOs (only three, Bharti Airtel, Vodafone and Idea, have more subscribers than Facebook has users), and is better skilled at monetizing those consumers.

The challenge for companies like Facebook is that strict neutrality rules reduce their ability to harness others’ networks in order to reach out to new users. There are about 240m people in India who are online, but don’t use Facebook, and about 800m who are not connected, so the growth potential is far larger than in the other 37 countries where Basics is offered, such as Kenya or Zambia (Facebook is blocked in China). Using RCOM’s network and marketing activities was a far cheaper way to reach some of those people than launching drones, but Facebook has other options too, including its existing efforts to make its services more usable on very basic handsets and connections; the ability to leverage the WhatsApp brand; and partnerships with Wi-Fi providers.

The drones may have less immediate results than Basics, but they are a high profile example of an ongoing shift towards open networks, which has been going on for years, driven more by Wi-Fi proliferation than neutrality laws. The latter will be an accelerant, however.

All internet will be free, not zero rated

Currently, zero rating is an increasingly popular tactic to lure users with an apparently cheap deal and then, hopefully, see them upgrade to richer data plans, or spend money on m-commerce and premium content, in future. Zero rating involves allowing users access to selected websites and services without it affecting their data caps or allowances.

The US regulator has so far tolerated the practice, but the debate is raging, there and elsewhere, over whether it infringes neutrality laws, by offering different pricing for different internet services. If other authorities take the stance adopted by TRAI in India, operators will have to find new ways to attract customers and differentiate themselves.

Increasingly, access to a truly open internet will be the baseline, and priced extremely low. That low pricing will be made commercially viable by rising use of Wi-Fi to reduce cost of data delivery, whether for MNOs, wireline providers or web players like Google and Facebook, which are moving into access provision. Providers, whether traditional or new, will have to stop regarding access to the internet as a premium service or a privilege – it will be more akin to connecting someone to the electricity grid, just the base enabler of the real revenue model.

Just as it’s only when users plug something into that grid that they start to pay fees, so the operators will charge for higher value offerings which ride on top of the internet – premium content, enterprise services, cloud storage, freemium applications and so on.

The mobile operators have not embraced these ideas willingly. For years, the ability to access the internet from a mobile device was regarded as a value-add, almost a miracle. Now that the wireless network is often the primary access method, they need to change their ideas and be more like the smarter cablecos – which have tacked internet access onto a model driven by paid-for content and services – or the web giants, which have worked out ways to monetize ‘free’ access, from advertising to big data.

This, of course, is one of the goals of internet.org and Google’s similar initiatives involving drones, white space spectrum and satellites. The more users are able to access the internet, preferably for free, and the more they see Google or Facebook as their primary conduits to the web, the more data these companies have to feed into their deep learning platforms, their context aware services and their advertising and big data engines.

So while critics of TRAI said the zero rating decision was a setback to the goal of getting internet access into the hands of the huge underserved population of India, that population is too large and potentially rich for Facebook and its rivals to give up at the first hurdle.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote in a blog post: "While we're disappointed with today's decision, I want to personally communicate that we are committed to keep working to break down barriers to connectivity in India and around the world. Internet.org has many initiatives, and we will keep working until everyone has access to the internet."

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/telecom/news/the-register-february-15-2016-india-facebook-ruling-is-another-nail-in-coffin-of-mno-model

Why the Internet is Making India Furious

praskrishna — 2016-02-28T03:01:59Z

The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) in Bangalore is a kind of hacker club for wonks and lawyers obsessed with issues of digital rights and global development. Not exactly the mainstream kids’ lunch table. But the Center was brought into sudden relief this week, thanks to … Mark Zuckerberg.

Read Sanjena Sathian's blog post published by Ozy on February 19, 2016

In a splashy bit of news, India’s telecom authority rejected a program called Free Basics, which the Facebook team had been promoting as a way to get free Internet to the masses. (Here on the subcontinent, more than 300 million people use the Internet — but that’s only about a quarter of the population.) The idea: Facebook would allow free access to a handful of websites (the “basics”) to everyone; users would pay for further content. The objections: On the dramatic end came comparisons to colonialism; on the wonkier, objections based on the principles of net neutrality, or the idea that all Internet content should be treated the same. The threat the critics saw in Free Basics was that of the Web as a two-lane highway — the free stuff for the poor folks, and the good stuff for those who can afford it.

Mumbai-based Sanjena Sathian spoke to CIS cofounder and policy director Pranesh Prakash about the changing landscape of web rights that led up to the news.

OZY:

Tell us what you’re thinking in the wake of India’s decision.

Pranesh Prakash:

The order seemed to fix the issue with a sledgehammer rather than a scalpel. It over-regulates and bans things that are beneficial along with that that aren’t. They should have aimed for discriminatory pricing, but they’ve instead eliminated all differential pricing, even when it’s not discriminatory.

What should come next, in my opinion — it is imperative to ensure that governmental resources are used to provide free access to the Internet. If you’ve taken away something that could have helped and said no, no, no, it’s not good for you, then you are under an obligation to provide a replacement.

OZY:

How do you think the larger political conversations going on in India right now seep into the debates about digital rights?

PP:

Many people think the largest divider is between those who are from a developing country or a developed country. I think the larger divide is between those who are politically skeptical of states — more libertarian — versus those who are more trusting of states and see states as having a role to play in Internet governance. How you think the poor in India should get Internet — should that be provided by government or by market mechanisms — well, your political philosophies will play a role. In India, one tends to find fewer free-market fundamentalists than one would meet in, say, San Francisco.

OZY:

I think, increasingly, post-Snowden in particular, people think of digital rights as human rights. Where do you see things going wrong on a rights front here in India?

PP:

Oh, wow … so many ways. In India we have a situation where, right now, more than 3,000 websites were blocked by the government, but no one knows what these sites are. No one knows whether they were blocked through mechanisms that ensure accountability. There is no transparency around any of these. And this is just the visible tip of the iceberg. And how do I know this? I sent a right-to-information request to the government and they gave me this answer. But beyond this, they put in place a few years ago a law which allows for websites and any kind of web content to be censored by anyone. And all they have to do is send a request to any “intermediary,” which could be anything from your ISP to your web host to your DNS provider.

OZY:

Wait, so what does that mean? I get annoyed at a site — where do I go to lodge my complaint?

PP:

All these websites are required by the law to appoint a particular person as a “grievance redressal officer.”

OZY:

What a title!

PP:

Yes … and there are more than 40 grounds for grievances that have been listed in the law, including things such as “causing harm to minors” and certain speech being “disparaging.” Now, I engage in disparaging speech at least 12 times a day. And that’s perfectly legal under Indian law!

OZY:

Eep. Any good news, though?

PP:

A case went all the way up to the Supreme Court, [involving a young woman named] Shreya Singhal. There was a section 66A, quite an odious provision, that allowed for any kind of “offensive” or “annoying” speech to cause that person to be put in prison for up to three years.

Two teenage girls in Maharashtra, upon the death of a politician, put out a comment on social media. The death had caused a bandh, a curfew of sorts in Mumbai, and done not officially by the government but by political party workers. One girl said on Facebook, sure, go ahead, respect this politician, but why inconvenience so many citizens? Her friend liked this. And a case was launched against them. Similarly, some cartoons by an anticorruption activist were challenged and he was imprisoned briefly and released on bail.

OZY:

It’s always the cartoonists.…

PP:

Yes, and one professor in Calcutta — for forwarding a cartoon, he was placed under this law too. Many cases of perfectly fine political speech were made illegal thanks to this law. Eventually, though, in a landmark decision, the Supreme Court struck down this law, and this is the first time in almost three decades that the Supreme Court has struck off an entire law for being unconstitutional.

But, yes. Mostly? It’s not been pretty.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/ozy-february-19-2016-sanjena-sathian-why-internet-is-making-india-furious