Centre for Internet and Society

India No Haven For Net Freedom But It Did Not Oppose UN Move on Internet Rights

praskrishna — 2016-07-09T02:25:51Z

India hasn’t had the best record when it comes to Internet rights. The country regularly carries out Internet shutdowns under flimsy pretexts, is still fumbling when it comes to the drafting of 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.

The article by Anuj Srinivas was published in the Wire on July 6, 2016.

So, 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”, it wasn’t surprising to see the wave of media criticism of the amendments that were proposed by countries such as China and Russia – and which were supported by India.

South Africa’s Mail & Guardian ran a story headlined “South Africa votes with China, Russia and India against Internet freedoms in UN resolution”. Private Internet Access’s headline was “These 17 Countries Don’t Believe that Freedom of Expression on the Internet is a Human Right”. Popular tech website The Verge noted that the resolution was opposed “by a minority of authoritarian regimes including Russia, China and Saudi Arabia, as well as democracies like South Africa and India. These nations 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’.”

The Verge‘s report was followed up by a number of Indian publications including IndiaToday and Medianama – the latter incorrectly stating that the UNHRC resolution “recognised Internet usage as a basic human right – as well a host of other global publications.

The facts
There were two fundamental mistakes with some of these reports. Firstly, the resolution was adopted without vote (with oral revision) as noted by the UNHRC. Therefore, while there were a number of countries which co-sponsored the resolution and many that didn’t, it is completely wrong to state that India – as the Mail & Guardian reported – or any other country, voted against the resolution.

Secondly, as noted by the Centre for Internet and Society, 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. Although it may fit neatly within India’s history of issuing Internet block orders, no country was opposed to this paragraph at the UNHRC forum (although many countries including India flout this clause in spirit back at home). No such amendment was proposed.

What then were these four amendments, which Article 19, an organisation that advocates freedom of expression, statedwould “substantially weaken the resolution”? Out of the four amendments (referred to as L85-88 in the UNHRC resolution), the first amendment (L85) – which sought to include a reference to fighting against the exploitation of children online – was withdrawn by Russia before it was considered by member states.

The other three amendments, while not completely endorsed by the countries that co-sponsored the resolution, do carry a certain level of nuance. Only one of the amendments (L86) can truly be described as diluting language regarding freedom of expression online, although this could have been potentially a result of procedural politics.

L88: Including Reference to Hate Speech
This amendment – proposed by Belarus, China, Iran and the Russian Federation – 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.”

Article 19 says of this amendment that it would “undermine the intended focus of the draft resolution on protecting human rights online, in particular freedom of expression..” While it is true that a few paragraphs of the resolution’s preamble include a reference to hate speech, it is difficult to see what harm this amendment would have brought in and even more difficult to accept that it would dilute the focus of the overall resolution.

Using the Internet and other online media technologies for incitement and as a means of propagating intolerance and xenophobia is a very real problem in India and other Asian countries, the most notable example of which was the role that social media played in the exodus of north-east Indian migrants from Bangalore four years ago. While shutdowns are obviously not the best way of dealing with this, it is important to acknowledge the role of the Internet as a medium in this aspect. In sum, this amendment certainly would not have diluted the resolution’s aim of promoting freedom of expression online.

L87: Human-Rights Approach
The second amendment replaces the term “human rights-based approach” with “comprehensive and integrated approach” in two paragraphs on expanding Internet access:

PP17: Stressing the importance of applying a comprehensive and integrated (human rights-based approach) in providing and expanding access to the Internet and for the Internet to be open, accessible and nurtured by multistakeholder participation,

OP5: Affirms also the importance of applying a comprehensive and integrated (human rights-based approach) in providing and in expanding access to Internet and requests all States to make efforts to bridge the many forms of digital divides..

This amendment was a little trickier. According to people involved in the country stakeholder discussions, whom The Wirespoke with, the aversion to a ‘human-rights’ approach towards expanding Internet access came as a result of China and Russia playing procedural politics. The language that was proposed in the amendment – “comprehensive and integrated” – while certainly not the strongest possible language that could have been used, would not have legally diluted the proposal to expand Internet access while maintaining an open and multistakeholder approach towards Internet governance.

Stepping back, what would a human rights-based approach in expanding Internet access look like? Would it include legitimising the act of zero-rating and the approval of schemes such as Facebook’s Free Basics? Both of which, incidentally, have been banned in India. While the proposed amendment certainly does not speak well of the motivations of China, Russia and India, the term is also vague enough that its mere removal doesn’t indicate a lack of support towards Internet freedom.

L88 – Right to privacy and removal of UDHR reference
This amendment, proposed by China and the Russian Federation, was more straightforward. In two paragraphs, it sought to add the specific term ‘right to privacy’, while in another paragraph it proposed removing reference to language from, and articles in, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Had the amendment been passed, the changes in the following paragraphs would have been made:

PP7: Noting that the exercise of human rights, in particular the right to freedom of expression and the right to privacy, on the Internet is an issue of increasing interest and importance as the rapid pace of technological development enables individuals all over the world to use new information and communication technologies,

OP15: Decides to continue its consideration of the promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights, including the right to freedom of expression and the right to privacy, on the Internet and other information and communication technology, as well as of how the Internet can be an important tool for fostering citizen and civil society participation, for the realisation of development in every community and for exercising human rights, in accordance with its programme of work.

OP1: Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, in particular freedom of expression ~~which is applicable regardless of frontiers and through any media of one’s choice~~, and the right to privacy in accordance with articles 17 and 19 of the ~~Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the~~ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;

On one hand, this amendment would have added specific reference to the right to privacy. That specific term doesn’t appear in the draft resolution, although there are a few references to privacy in general in the resolution’s preamble.

However, the addition of a ‘right to privacy’ is coupled with a watering down of clear references to the protection of freedom of expression. Cynical observers would rightly note that China and Russia are probably less concerned with online privacy and more irked with the clear support of freedom of expression “regardless of frontiers” and “in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights”; which is probably why this particular proposed amendment combined both issues to improve its chances of passing. While there is little doubt that this amendment would have diluted the resolution’s focus on protecting freedom of expression, the alternative phrasing also doesn’t create legal loopholes that renders it useless. Moreover, it still contains reference to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, especially Article 19, which goes beyond Article 19 of the UDHR .

India, a guardian?
It would be naive and wrong to take a strong position either way. To state that the amendments supported by India are all antithetical to the spirit of the UNHRC resolution, as some have done, is simply incorrect. On the other hand, this doesn’t mean India, and even less, China and Russia, are guardians of Internet freedom.

The UNHRC resolution in its entirety is a fine document. While non-binding, it provides a foundation for claiming that the same rights people have offline “must also be protected online”. Other crucial sections state that governments “should ensure accountability for all human rights violations and abuses committed against persons for exercising their human rights online”, while condemning “measures to intentionally prevent or disrupt access to or dissemination of information online”.

While the amendments India supported may not wholly oppose this resolution, it is also true that successive Indian governments also do not have an admirable track-record of upholding the resolution’s aims. Freedom for online speech had to be reclaimed in the form of court judgements, with the current government still supporting regulations that would allow it clamp down on online freedom of expression. In certain states within the country, Internet shutdowns happen without public explanations or justifiable reasoning. Over the last four years, for instance, Jammu and Kashmir has lost 18 days of Internet access. While it may not have wholly opposed the UNHRC resolution, the country still has a ways to go in terms of Internet freedom.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-week-anuj-srinivas-july-6-2016-india-no-haven-for-net-freedom-but-did-not-oppose-un-move-on-internet-rights

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

Trans Pacific Partnership and Digital 2 Dozen: Implications for Data Protection and Digital Privacy

Shubhangi Heda — 2016-07-12T07:56:24Z

In this essay, Shubhangi Heda explores the concerns related to data protection and digital privacy under the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement signed recently between United States of America and eleven countries located around the pacific ocean region, across South America, Australia, and Asia. TPP is a free trade agreement (FTA) that emphasises, among other things, the need for liberalising global digital economy. The essay also analyses the critical document titled ‘Digital 2 Dozen’ (D2D), which compiles the key action items within TPP addressing liberalisation of digital economy, and sets up the relevant goals for the member nations.

1. Introduction

2. Analysis of TPP and D2D

2.1. Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP)

2.2. Digital 2 Dozen (D2D)

3. Major Criticisms of the Digital Agenda of TPP

3.1. Data Protection

3.2. Digital Privacy

4. Implications of TPP for RCEP

5. Implications of TPP in the Context of EU Safe Harbour Judgement

6. Implications of TPP for India after US-India Cyber Relationship Agreement

7. Conclusion

8. Endnotes

9. Author Profile

1. Introduction

This essay explores the concerns related to data protection and digital privacy under the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement signed recently between United States of America and eleven countries located around the pacific ocean region, across South America, Australia, and Asia [1]. TPP is a free trade agreement (FTA) that emphasises, among other things, the need for liberalising global digital economy. The essay also analyses the critical document titled ‘Digital 2 Dozen’ (D2D), which compiles the key action items within TPP addressing liberalisation of digital economy, and sets up the relevant goals for the member nations. TPP requires the member countries to facilitate unhindered digital data flow across nations, for commercial and governmental purposes, which evidently have major implications for national and regional data protection and privacy regimes. These implications must also be seen in the context the recent judgement by the EU Court of Justice against the validity of the EU-USA data transfer agreement of 2000. Further, the essay discusses the potential impacts that TPP/D2D might have on India, in the context of the ongoing USA-India Cyber Relationship dialogue. If the privacy concerns are not raised right now TPP might act as a model framework for future FTAs which will fail to encompass proper data protection and digital privacy regime within it.

2. Analysis of TPP and D2D

2.1. Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP)

Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a large multi-partner free trade agreement amongst twelve Asia-Pacific countries, which is closely led by geo-political and economic strategies of the USA. Countries started the negotiation of TPP in 2008 when USA joined Pacific Four (P-4) negotiations and in 2015 negotiations of TPP was concluded and text was released. Ministers from the member countries signed the agreement on February 4, 2016 [2]. The main aim of TPP is to liberalise trade and investment beyond what is provided for within the WTO. It is also considered to be a strategic move by the US to counter the trade linkages that are being established in the Asian region. TPP largely covers topics of market access, and rules on various related issues such as intellectual property rights, labour laws, and environment standards [3].

Between 1992 -2012 there has been an upsurge in bilateral trade agreements being signed in Asia from 25 to 103 and the effect of these FTAs is called the ‘noodle bowl effect’. TPP is seen as framework which will replace these FTAs which are causing the ‘noodle bowl effect’.While these FTAs are being replaced but with TPP being signed there are various bilateral arrangements signed along with TPP. USA has also stated that TPP will not affect the already existing NAFTA [4]. While TPP is being concluded there is another free trade agreement being negotiated between USA and EU , which is Trans Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Both TPP and TTIP and are considered to be serving similar objective which is to deal with new and modern trade issues. Also both the agreements are US led and since negotiation for TPP are now finalised it may have a significant impact on TTIP [5].

TPP is one of the first document which deals specifically with digital economy and applies across borders. The main aims of TPP are to promote free flow of data across borders without data localisation. It aims to remove national clouts and regional internets. It also includes provisions to combat theft of trade secrets. It allows you to create transparent regulatory process with inputs from various stakeholders. It also aims to provide access to tools and procedures for conduct of e-commerce [6].

Some of the major criticism to TPP were regarding the issues related to [7]:

environment, wherein it does not address the issue of climate change and the language used in the agreement is very weak;
labour rights provision mandates parties to adhere to the ILO provision but it does not seem to provide for effective framework and might not bring the desired change;
investment chapter is seen to be controversial because of the investor state dispute settlement clause which will allow foreign investor to sue government over policies that might cause harm to them;
e-commerce and telecommunication chapter raises major privacy concerns;
intellectual property chapter wherein it includes controversial rules regarding pharmaceutical companies and data exclusivity apart from the privacy concerns.

2.2 Digital 2 Dozen (D2D)

D2D is set of rules and aims which is specifically drafted to be followed for the trade agreements related to open internet and digital economy. More specific aims of TPP as provided within the ‘Digital 2 Dozen,’ aiming for more liberalised trade in digital goods and services, are [8]:

promoting free and open internet,
prohibiting digital custom duties,
securing basic non-discrimination principles,
enabling cross-border data flows,
preventing localization barriers,
barring forced technology transfers,
advancing innovative authentication methods,
delivering enforceable consumer protections,
safeguarding network competition,
fostering innovative encryption products, and
building an adaptable framework.

Strategic goal of the US in introducing D2D as goals of TPP has been to set up a trend within Asian region for all the trade agreements. It is expected to ensure that if TPP is a success, similar goals and policy frameworks will be followed for other trade agreements as we. For example, the USA-India partnership also enshrines similar aims and so does the USA-Korea partnership. Hence while India is not part of TPP, USA is nonetheless trying to get India into a partnership which is similar to the TPP. The language proposed by the USA in TPP negotiations has always been supportive for cross border data flows as it claims that companies have mechanism to keep a privacy check and privacy would not be undermined, but countries like New Zealand and Australia which have strong privacy protection laws nationally have raised concerns which will be discussed in further sections [9]. Also not only in privacy rights but Digital Dozen initiative also affects other digital rights related to - excessive copyright terms TPP proposed to extend the term of copyright to hundred years which deprive access to knowledge; as in the U.S motive to give more power to private entities , the ISP obligations enumerated within TPP which puts freedom of expression and privacy at risk as ISPs are allowed to check for copyright infringement and TPP does not put any privacy restriction in this regard; introduction of new fair use rules; ban on circumvention of digital locks or DRMs; no compulsory limitation for persons with disabilities; lack of fair use for journalistic right; while net neutrality is major issue is many developing nations in Asia no effective provision for net neutrality is aimed at in the D2D initiative; prohibits open source mandates which puts barrier for countries which want to release any software as open source as a policy decision [10].

3. Major Issues Related to Data Protection and Privacy in the TPP

3.1. Data Protection

One of the major concern raised against TPP is regarding data protection provisions that have been integrated within the E- Commerce chapter of the agreement. Article 14.11 and Article 14 .13 are the ones that deal with data flow related to consumer information.Article 14.11 in the agreement puts a requirement on the member states to allow transfer of data across border and Article 14.13 does not allow the companies to host data on local servers. Concerns were raised in few member states for instance, Australian Privacy Foundation raised concerns over Article 14.11 which requires transfers to be allowed in context of business activities of service suppliers. It claimed that exception to this provision is very narrow and the repercussion for not following the exception is that investor state dispute settlement proceedings can be initiated, which is not sufficient to protect privacy. Also, it highlighted the issue that with the narrow exception provided under Article 14.13 which relates to prohibition on data localisation, it might have adverse effect on the implementation of national privacy laws within Australia [11].

Another provision which is of major concern is Article 14.13 which prohibit data localisation. It will raise problems for countries like Indonesia and China which will have to change their local laws to implement the provision [12]. Since there already has been a major concern with regard to USA- EU Safe Harbour Agreement which was later made subject to the ECJ’s ruling on data protection, which invalidated any arrangement which provides voluntary enterprises responsibility to enforce privacy. But both the USA and EU are in process of renegotiating the agreement.The major concern was that in EU data protection is a fundamental right while in USA data protection is more consumer centric. When similar concerns were raised in TPP negotiations, they were rebutted as USA claimed that FTA does not concern itself with data protection [13].

In 2012 Australia proposed an alternative language to TPP which allowed countries to place restriction on data flow as long as it was not a barrier to trade. U.S responded to concerns raised by the Australia through a side letter which ensured Australia that U.S and Australia have a mutual understanding in relation to privacy and U.S will ensure the privacy of data with regards to Australia. While Australia’s concern was given acknowledgement other countries which raised similar issues were not given any assurances [14]. US instead proposed ad- hoc strategy that gave private companies power to form privacy policy with implementation through state machinery [15].

3.2. Digital Privacy

Article 14.8 in the E- Commerce chapter of the agreement states that countries can form legal framework for the protection of rights but the kind of ‘legal framework’ is not defined. Also, nowhere it states that the privacy protection or data protection laws are expressly exempted, rather it states that any such policy implemented by member states will be put under review of TPP standards. The standards which TPP proposes to follow are based on the underlying idea that any such policy should not hinder free trade in any way. This test will be applied by tribunals which are experts in trade and investment and not on data protection or human rights [16]. While Article 14.8 provides for protection of private information of consumers but the footnote to the provision renders it ineffective. The footnote states that member countries can adopt legal framework for the protection of data which can be done by self-regulation by industry and does not provide for any comprehensive data protection obligation upon the member states [17]. Similar to this Article 13.4 of the telecommunications chapter under TPP also states that the countries can apply regulation regarding confidentiality of the messages as long as it is not “a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade in services" [18].

Another chapter which raises major concerns about the privacy rights is intellectual property. It affects privacy through the provisions related to technological protective measures and the provision that regulate ISP’s liability. Regarding the TPM provision, the TPP follows the DMCA model whereby the exception to anti- circumvention provision is very narrow and does not apply to anti- trafficking provision. The exception allows user to circumvent TPM if it affect the user's privacy in any way, although this provision does not apply to ant- trafficking of TPM. The provision regarding ISP’s liability states that there should be cooperation between ISPs and rights holders and it does not prohibit ISPs to monitor its users. Also TPP proposes the notice for takedown and identification of the infringer by the ISP but this provision is not in consonance with laws of member states, like that of Peru which does not have any copyright law on ISP . Also many countries have tried to introduce proper privacy laws along with implementation of ISP liability but that is not done within the TPP [19]. TPP as whole aims to give greater power to private regulators without providing for minimum standard for protection of privacy.

Although TPP is not a data protection agreement but it consequently deals with various aspects of data protection, hence it is prospective model for privacy and data protection practices in future trade agreements. If positive obligations are included within the free trade agreements it will have an advancing impact on the data protection regime.

4.Implications of TPP for RCEP

While TPP has such lacunas similar provision are proposed in RCEP to which India is a party and which will have serious implication as many of the countries have inadequate data protection laws nationally and with the introduction of such an FTA the exploitation of privacy rights will be rampant [20]. To avoid this EU directive on data protection should be taken into consideration in the negotiations of such FTAs. But for the RCEP negotiations are still going on and in India many companies like Flipkart, Snapdeal etc. have started preparing for the changing norms. The government claims that it is going to accept best practices in the region which indicates that it is going to have same policies as that of TPP. Although people from industry have raised concerns that while there are national laws but it is difficult to check third party involvement within the business and it is becoming increasingly difficult to keep the consumer data confidential [21].

5. Implications of TPP in the Context of EU Safe-Harbour Judgement

Mr. Maximillian Schrems, an Austrian National residing in Austria, has been a user of the Facebook social network since 2008. Any person residing in EU who wishes to use Facebook is required to conclude, at the time of his registration, a contract with Facebook Ireland (a subsidiary of Facebook Inc. which itself is established in Unites States). Some or all of the personal data of the Facebook Ireland’s users who residing in EU is transferred to servers belonging to Facebook Inc. that are located in United States, where it undergoes processing. On 25 June 2013 Mr Schrems made a complaint to the commissioner by which he in essence asked the latter to exercise his statutory powers by prohibiting Facebook Ireland from transferring his personal data to Unites States, and this led to the Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner case [22]. He contended that in his complaint that the law and practice in force in that country did not ensure adequate protection of the personal data held in its territory against the surveillance activities that were engaged in thereby by the public authorities. Mr Schrems referred in this regard to the revelations made by Edward Snowden concerning the activities of the United States intelligence services, in particular those of the NSA.(para 26, 27, 28). The case came in the court ruled that “that a third country which ensures an adequate level of protection, does not prevent a supervisory authority of a Member State, within the meaning of Article 28 of the EU 94/46 directive as amended, from examining the claim of a person concerning the protection of his rights and freedoms in regard to the processing of personal data relating to him which has been transferred from a Member State to that third country when that person contends that the law and practices in force in the third country do not ensure an adequate level of protection. The ruling implies that personal data cannot be transferred to third country which does not provide adequate level of protection.

EU safe harbour judgment and EU directive on privacy provide contrasting rules related to privacy. While TPP gives power to private entities to formulate rules regarding privacy while the recent ECJ judgment invalidated giving such power to private entities under EU-US Safe Harbour Agreement. Also in context of the same judgment Hamburg’s Commissioner for Data Privacy And Freedom of Information announced an investigation into the data transfer taking place through Facebook and Google to U.S. Hence in the light of the recent judgment member states within EU are not allowed to permit cross border data flow, in contrast to this one of the main goals of TPP is to maintain free flow of data across border [23]. EU is this regard has also set forth the proposal to introduce General Data Protection Regulation. (GDPR). Although U.S and EU are trying to renegotiate the agreement but the privacy concerns raised cannot be ignored. Hence following the same model as was invalidate under the ECJ judgment lets US exploit privacy of member states under TPP. Similar concerns as raised within the judgment are also raised in India as it also following the same model within U.S-India Cyber Relationship Agreement and in RCEP negotiations.

6. Implications of TPP in the context of USA-India Cyber Relationship

While India is not part of TPP but it might have an effect on the U.S India Cyber Relationship Agreement. In August 2015 there was re- initiation of the India-U.S cyber dialogue to address common concerns related to cybersecurity and to develop better partnerships between public and private sector for betterment of digital economy [24]. One of the key aim of this agreement is free flow of information between two nations, which suffers from similar problem that it will put privacy of the citizens at risk. Also India does not have any bilateral treaty which ensures cyber data protection in such a scenario the only solution is data localisation, but this agreement will put data at risk [25]. Hence while the TPP negotiations were going on and also RCEP is being discussed the concerns about privacy and data protection need to be raised as mention in earlier section regarding implications of TPP on RCEP, the USA-India Cyber Relationship also faces the same implications..Although the aim of USA-India Cyber Relationship is to ensure cybersecurity. After the cases of Muzaffarnagar riots, upheaval in North -Eastern states and Gujarat riots, India has realised it is important to ensure compliance from the social media companies. India sees the USA-India Cyber Relationship as an opportunity to achieve this goal. The Google Transparency Report states that that India made around three thousand requests to Google for user data [26], which indicate at the country's interest in having a common data understanding with the major social media companies (almost all of which are located in USA) about requesting and sharing of user activity data. While this concern is being addressed through the agreement, it is difficult to ignore the clause related to free flow of information, and if the meaning of the term is extended and adopted from TPP itself will put digital privacy of Indian citizens at risk [27].

7. Conclusion

Even though TPP negotiation are completed but the ratification of the agreement is still underway. TPP is being seen as one of a kind trade agreement because it is the first time that countries across the globe have come together as a whole to address concerns of modern trade. Although it fails to address some of the key concerns related to privacy and data protection which are becoming increasingly important. Data protection and privacy issues cannot be seen in isolation and needs to merged within the modern day trade agreements. The D2D component by the USA is strategic move to have trade dominance in Asia and to compete with China’s growth . TPP has privacy and data protection lacunae within the e- commerce , telecommunications and intellectual property discussion.Although it might have serious implications on RCEP negotiation and USA- India Cyber Relationship Dialogue. Similar concern regarding data protection has already been addressed by ECJ judgment invalidating USA-EU Safe Harbour Agreement but the similar ad - hoc strategy has been incorporated within TPP. Since TPP might be considered as best practice model for future FTAs in the Asian region it is important to raise and address these privacy concerns now.

8. Endnotes

[1] The signatory countries include Australia, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, United States of America, Vietnam, Chile, Brunei, Singapore, New Zealand. "The Trans-Pacific Partnership," http://www.ustr.gov/tpp (last visited Jul 7, 2016).

[2] "The Origins and Evolution of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)," Global Research, http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-origins-and-evolution-of-the-trans-pacific-partnership-tpp/5357495 (last visited Jul 7, 2016).

[3] Fergusson, Ian F., Mark A. McMinimy & Brock R. Williams, "The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP): In Brief," (2015), http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/key_workplace/1477/ (last visited Jul 1, 2016).

[4] Gajdos, Lukas, The Trans-Pacific Partnership and its impact on EU trade, Policy Department, Directorate-General for External Policies, Policy Briefing (2013), http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/briefing_note/join/2013/491479/EXPO-INTA_SP(2013)491479_EN.pdf.

[5] Twining, Daniel, Hans Kundnani & Peter Sparding, Trans-Pacific Partnership: geopolitical implications for EU-US relations, Policy Department, Directorate-General for External Policies, June 24 (2016), http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/535008/EXPO_STU(2016)535008_EN.pdf.

[6] USTR, "Remarks by Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Robert Holleyman to the New Democrat Network," https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/speechestranscripts/2015/may/remarks-deputy-us-trade (last visited Jul 4, 2016).

[7] Murphy, Katharine, "Trans-Pacific Partnership: four key issues to watch out for," The Guardian, November 6, 2015, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/nov/06/trans-pacific-partnership-four-key-issues-to-watch-out-for (last visited Jul 7, 2016).

[8] USTR, "The Digital 2 Dozen" (2016), https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/Digital-2-Dozen-Final.pdf (last visited Jul 1, 2016).

[9] Fergusson, Ian F.m Mark A. McMinimy & Brock R. Williams, "The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations and issues for congress," (2015), http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/key_workplace/1412/ (last visited Jul 8, 2016).

[10] "How the TPP Will Affect You and Your Digital Rights," Electronic Frontier Foundation (2015), https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/12/how-tpp-will-affect-you-and-your-digital-rights (last visited Jul 7, 2016).

[11] Australian Privacy Foundation (APF), Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (2016), https://www.privacy.org.au/Papers/Parlt-TPP-160310.pdf.

[12] Greenleaf, Graham, "The TPP & Other Free Trade Agreements: Faustian Bargains for Privacy?," SSRN (2016), http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Papers.cfm?abstract_id=2732386 (last visited Jul 1, 2016).

[13] "GED-Project: Transatlantic Data Flows and Data Protection," GED Blog (2015), https://ged-project.de/topics/competitiveness/transatlantic-data-flows-and-data-protection-the-state-of-the-debate/ (last visited Jul 1, 2016).

[14] Geist, Michael, "The Trouble with the TPP, Day 14: No U.S. Assurances for Canada on Privacy," (2016), http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2016/01/the-trouble-with-the-tpp-day-14-no-u-s-assurances-for-canada-on-privacy/ (last visited Jul 4, 2016).

[15] Aaronson, Susan Ariel, "What does TPP mean for the Open Internet?" From Policy Brief on Trade Agreements and Internet Governance Prepared for the Global Commission on Internet Governance (2015), https://www.gwu.edu/~iiep/events/DigitalTrade2016/TPPPolicyBrief.pdf (last visited Jul 5, 2016).

[16] Lomas, Natasha, "TPP Trade Agreement Slammed For Eroding Online Rights," TechCrunch, http://social.techcrunch.com/2015/11/05/tpp-vs-privacy/ (last visited Jun 30, 2016).

[17] "Q&A: The Trans-Pacific Partnership," Human Rights Watch (2016), https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/01/12/qa-trans-pacific-partnership (last visited Jul 1, 2016).

[18] "TPP Full Text Released," People Over Politics (2015), http://peopleoverpolitics.org/2015/11/07/tpp-just-as-bad-as-you-thought/ (last visited Jul 7, 2016).

[19] "Right to Privacy in Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP ) Negotiations," Knowledge Ecology International, http://keionline.org/node/1164 (last visited Jul 1, 2016).

[20] Asian Trade Centre, "E-Commerce and Digital Trade Proposals for RCEP (2016)," http://static1.squarespace.com/static/5393d501e4b0643446abd228/t/575a654c86db438e86009fa1/1465541967821/RCEP+E-commerce+June+2016.pdf (last visited Jul 1, 2016).

[21] "E-commerce companies like Flipkart, Snapdeal to beef up data security to meet RCEP norms," The Economic Times, http://economictimes.indiatimes.com//articleshow/49068419.cms (last visited Jul 1, 2016).

[22] ECLI:EU:C:2015:650 (C -362/14)

[23] King et al., "Privacy law, cross-border data flows, and the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement: what counsel need to know," Lexology, http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=b5c0b400-8161-4439-a4b7-131552ad5209 (last visited Jul 4, 2016).

[24] "U.S.-India Business Council Applauds Resumption of Cybersecurity Dialogue," U.S.-India Business Council (2015), http://www.usibc.com/press-release/us-india-business-council-applauds-resumption-cybersecurity-dialogue (last visited Jul 5, 2016).

[25] Sukumar, Arun Mohan, "India Is Coming up Against the Limits of Its Strategic Partnership With the United States," The Wire (2016), http://thewire.in/40403/india-is-coming-up-against-the-limits-of-its-strategic-partnership-with-the-united-states/ (last visited Jul 4, 2016).

[26] Countries – Google Transparency Report, https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/countries/ (last visited Jul 8, 2016).

[27] Sukumar, Arun Mohan, "A case for the Net’s Ctrl+Alt+Del," The Hindu, September 5, 2015, http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/a-case-for-the-nets-ctrlaltdel/article7616355.ece (last visited Jul 5, 2016).

9. Author Profile

Shubhangi Heda is a Student of Jindal Global Law School, O.P Jindal Global University. She has completed her fourth year. She gives due importance to popular culture in her life and loves to read fiction and like to watch TV-shows, her favorite being 'White Collar'.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/tpp-and-d2-implications-for-data-protection-and-digital-privacy

Place for a safety net

praskrishna — 2016-07-13T02:45:56Z

Vinupriya took her life last week, humiliated by the morphed images of her naked body posted on a social media site. Experts warn that the spike in Internet traffic brings with it an increase in online sexual crimes. Measures must be taken urgently to save lives, they tell T.V. Jayan.

The article was published in the Telegraph on July 10, 2016.

Sangeeta (not her name) was 25 and working for a private company in Mumbai when she suddenly told her family that she was going to quit her job and stay at home. Her parents were flummoxed, but questioning and coaxing yielded no answers. As the days rolled on, the management graduate slipped into depression. Her worried family took her to a counsellor. And it was only then that she came out with her story.

Soon after she joined the company, Sangeeta got romantically involved with her boss. By the time she learnt he was married, the involvement had taken a physical turn. And when she tried to put an end to it, the man, who had recorded their intimate moments, used the video clips to blackmail her for sexual favours. After Sangeeta's confession and a police complaint, the blackmailing boss was nabbed and put behind bars.

Vinupriya, an undergraduate student from Salem, Tamil Nadu, was not so lucky. She found that her morphed images had been uploaded on Facebook. She committed suicide last week after her parents refused to believe her story, and the police failed to act swiftly.

Cyber experts are alarmed by the increase in online crimes against women in India. According to them, what is more worrying is that though the risks are catastrophic, the issues are not being addressed at a larger level.

"Vinupriya's case is particularly frightening. I suspect this would be the first of many such tragedies. They might even result in honour killings, as such crimes can destroy the reputation of families," says American cyber lawyer Parry Aftab, executive director of the voluntary organisation, Wired Safety, which she founded 20 years ago, and which deals extensively with cyber stalking and other crimes.

Earlier this week, a man was arrested in Delhi for sending obscene messages to more than 1,500 women in the National Capital Region. According to the police, the miscreant would randomly dial any number and if the caller turned out to be a woman, he would save the number and later check out her WhatsApp profile picture. He would then send obscene clips to the woman. One news report said some of the marriages were in trouble because husbands had seen the messages and suspected that their wives were in a relationship with the man sending those explicit messages.

Aftab has been studying the dangers of online stalking for a while. There are no figures on this in India, but a top United Nations official, stationed in New Delhi and dealing with trafficking, told her that about 500 rape and sexual assault cases were recorded and shared over WhatsApp in India this year.

She referred to a study conducted in the US that said one in three girls and boys engaged in sexting. Children involved in sexting contemplated suicide three times more than others of the same age, she said.

According to her, Wired Safety volunteers come across five cases of sextortion and sexting every day from Asian countries, including India, and act upon them by red-flagging social media organisations where such images are posted.

Pavan Duggal, a cyber lawyer based in Delhi, feels that social media service providers are not doing enough to stop online sexual abuse. "They are hiding behind a 2015 Supreme Court judgment, which said content can be removed only on judicial orders or in response to government notifications," he says.

The verdict he refers to was delivered in a case filed by a student called Shreya Singhal. In 2012, two girls were arrested over their Facebook post questioning the Mumbai shutdown for Shiv Sena patriarch Bal Thackeray's funeral. The incident made an impression on Singhal, a student of astrophysics at the University of Bristol, who was in India at the time.

Upon research she discovered that Section 66(A) of India's IT Act was subjective and any seemingly offensive social media post could land anyone in jail. Singhal filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court protesting that the section violated the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression, and in 2015, the apex court ruled in her favour.

This judgment, however, emboldened cyber miscreants. "All the cyber bullies and cyber stalkers now have a misplaced feeling that nothing can happen to them," says Duggal. He points out that while the delivery of justice takes time, the harassment happens 24x7.

"Who do the victims turn to for help? There are provisions in the 2011 IT rules that clearly say that social medial service providers should have rules and regulations in place to deal with objectionable content, but they do not act," he holds.

Aftab, however, believes that some efforts are in place. She cites the example of Microsoft's PhotoDNA technology, which is used by many social media and online search firms, including Facebook, Google and Twitter, to prevent child pornography on the Internet. PhotoDNA works by creating a number of mini hashes on a single image and combining them to have a full hash. If anything is changed, even a pixel, then the hash signature will not match.

But she holds that on a larger scale, it is difficult to technologically deal with revenge porn, sextortion (using a sexual or provocative image to blackmail people for sexual favours) and sexting (sharing sexually provocative images of people, especially women) with the intention of damaging reputation.

Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society, hints at a lack of initiative on the part of the social media organisations. "When it comes to enforcing intellectual property, organisations like Facebook do an excellent job of keeping their platform free of copyright infringement," he says. "So, clearly these companies can police activities on their platform when it affects their bottom-line."

And while this debate continues, more and more Indians join the online experience, thereby increasing the chances of more such cases. Aftab, who plans to set up a voluntary organisation relating to cyber safety in India, says it is best to focus on proactive measures in the interim.

Last month, she addressed 1,200 teenage girls from a Bangalore college. "One of the first questions posed to me was from a young girl who said she was currently being blackmailed by someone who threatened to morph her pictures into sexually explicit images and send them to her family and others. Morphed image issue seems to be a lot more serious in India than in the West."

The problem, she stresses, is that such incidents can lead to self-harm. To counter this, the affected person needs to inform his or her family and enlist their support. Together, they should approach social media organisations to ensure that the objectionable content is removed in time. To prevent the offenders from doing further harm, they then need to take the help of law enforcement agencies.

"The government for its part must amplify the voices of women and hold these Internet corporations accountable for an information escrow. There should be an independent mechanism to monitor whether Internet platforms are taking complaints from women seriously," Abraham says. Only then can a young girl like Vinupriya pluck up the courage to fight online abuse.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-telegraph-july-10-2016-place-for-a-safety-net

Tamil Nadu likely to hold Facebook accountable for suicide case

praskrishna — 2016-07-13T13:44:58Z

The recent suicide of a 21-year-old woman from Salem district in Tamil Nadu over her morphed pictures being uploaded on Facebook could turn into a flash-point between the state police and the world's most-popular social networking site.

The article by V. Prem Shanker was published in the Economic Times on July 13, 2016.

"We are exploring the possibility of holding Facebook accountable for the delay in responding to our requests since that was one of the factors which led to the young lady committing suicide," Salem superintendent of police Amit Kumar Singh told ET in an exclusive interaction. On June 23, the Salem police had received a complaint from the father of the 21-year-old stating that someone had uploaded her morphed nude pictures on Facebook. The father had requested the police to get the photographs removed from the site and also find and warn the perpetrator.

The police recorded the complaint the same evening and later sent what is called a 'Law Enforcement Online Request' to Facebook asking for details of the IP address from which the morphed photographs were uploaded on the website. Officials also requested Facebook to take down the objectionable photographs of the young woman.

Five days after the request was sent, Facebook responded with the IP address on June 28 and within 12 hours after that the police cracked the case and nabbed the suspect.

However, all this was a bit too late because the previous day, on June 27, the young woman had ended her life. Her morphed nude photographs were taken down only on the day of her death, according to the police.

"Apart from addressing Facebook, we also investigated the case from other angles but couldn't make headway. Thus, there was nothing we could do about the pictures still being online apart from waiting for Facebook to act," Singh said, adding "enforcement of compliance is a matter of grave concern."

Officials are considering charging Facebook with abetment to suicide and including Facebook in the chargesheet if the site is found culpable after investigations. However, the state police is said to be discussing with legal experts on how this can be done as there is no precedent for a website having been charged in a crime.

Facebook did not reply to an email seeking comment. Earlier in a communique, responding to criticisms of police inaction in this case, Singh had pointed out that "Only Facebook can block a page and it exercises this discretion as per its Facebook Community Standards and not the law of the land it is being viewed in. Facebook does not provide the police with any special powers to take down a page even if the police receive a cognizable complaint of identity theft and uploading of obscene content. There is no tool available, at least as of now, with the police to coerce or goad Facebook to act expeditiously even if the matter is very urgent and there is a flagrant violation of Indian law."

Experts point out that the disparity with which Facebook treats child abuse laws and copyright infringements as opposed to violation of women's rights is stark.

"Look at the war against child pornography. In the United Kingdom there is an independent foundation that has immunity under UK child pornography law. They generate a database and circulate it across all platforms and ensure that it is kept absolutely squeaky clean," points out Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bengaluru based research organisation, Centre for Internet and Society.

"There definitely needs to be a law to ensure that such platforms do not violate the law of the land, especially when it comes to women's rights. But in interim, the government can create an information escrow or a platform where the victims can place on record their problems and it is there for these sites to see and take action," Abraham added.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/economic-times-v-prem-shanker-july-13-2016-tamil-nadu-likely-to-hold-facebook-accountable-for-suicide-case

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

The Idea of the Book

nishant — 2012-04-10T09:53:27Z

Its future lies in a trans-media format that is ever evolving, writes Nishant Shah in an article which was published in the Indian Express on April 8, 2012.

If you are a true bibliophile, you have long transcended making mortal judgements about books, based on insignificant factors such as plot, narrative, or writing style. A true bibliophile is in love with the form of the book — the joy that comes from the rustle of a turned page, the euphoria of holding a book in your arms, the satisfaction that rises from watching a tottering stack of books. For hardcore bibliomaniacs, the love is at a sub-molecular level, so to speak, finding their happiness and content in shapes of fonts, thickness of paper, methods of binding, imprints and meta-data that tells its own story. For all these true lovers of books, their affection goes beyond the content of the book. They love the book as an artefact, as an object of desire. It is as if there was a “bookness” to the book that they deeply appreciate.

It is these people, along with many others, who mourn the death of the book in the age of digital mass production. With the advent of the e-book and the ubiquitous presence of reading devices, many have announced the death of the book. The ‘dead-tree book’, as it is often derisively described in many circles, is a thing of the past. As we live in worlds of increasing interface, the surfaces we read on, the way we read, and the forms that we read have undergone a dramatic reconfiguration. Swype-and-touch has replaced turn-and-fold and the book as we know it, is growing extinct.

Professor Bruno Latour — one of the first theorists and critics of digital technologies, large-scale networks, and new methods of knowledge production — from Sciences Po in Paris, during his recent visit to Bangalore, suggested that instead of accepting the imminent death of the book and mourning its demise, it might be more fruitful to look at its future. The digital, he says, does not question the idea of the book, but merely the form. This, for me, is a fascinating idea. We often recognise the book as a form — something that is written, something that is bound, or something that is found in libraries. If you were to define a book, you would talk about the different kinds, shapes, colours and sizes of books but you won’t necessarily be able to explain it. This is because a book is only a material manifestation of a much larger idea and this is what we need to focus on.

The book has seen many transitions in its form from the pre-print, hand-written manuscripts by trained scribes to the print-on-demand paperbacks which can be assembled easily. Technologies have not threatened but actually helped it change, evolve and keep up with the times. When we think of the digital book and the possibilities it offers, these are much more exciting than the rather Luddite lament about how the book is dead.

In the digital medium, the future of multimedia narratives is convergence. An ability to tell stories, record knowledge, share information and make connections through a variety of media forms and styles changes the future of the book. Imagine a book that begins with a text, continues through music, blends into user-generated pictures and ends with a video. Imagine this book being written, not only in different media but also by different people, simultaneously, resulting in a layered palimpsest rather than a static page. Imagine each page and every word on the page not as a fixed thing but one of a series of alternatives. Imagine a book that is written as it is read, and no longer excludes print-challenged or differently-abled people from contributing to the writing, reading and sharing process.

A trans-media format would stay true to the democratic and inclusive vision of a book and correct the limitations of print. Such a book would also free knowledge and information from businesses — let’s not forget that the publishing and education system is a business — and allow a new audience to participate in knowledge production. This is not a mere fantasy. We already have new models such as mash-ups which give us a new logic to sort and store information. Imagine Facebook as a collaborative platform where different information can come together to supplement the traditional book. Wikipedia is a space of knowledge production, which might simulate the older encyclopaedia form, but it is written by unpaid contributors, collaboratively, even as the Encyclopaedia Britannica announces its last ever print publication.

The form of the book is going to change as it has over the last 500 years. However, the idea of the book — a receptacle that contains and records collective wisdom, information, ideas, knowledge, experiences and imagination of humankind – is here to stay. The digital book has to be understood not merely as a digitisation of an older book, but has to be imagined as a smorgasbord of possibilities which will revolutionise the form of the book and bring it closer to its intended vision. It is time indeed to announce, ‘The Book is Dead! Long Live the Book!’

Read the original from the Indian Express

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/idea-of-the-book

Cartonama Workshop

praskrishna — 2012-02-14T10:21:16Z

HasGeek presents an intensive, hands-on training for managing and building location based services at the Centre for Internet & Society (CIS), Bangalore on 2nd and 3rd March, 2012. CIS is a partner for this event.

About the Workshop

Around 95% smartphone users around the world - which translates to about 468 million people - are using Location Based Services to look for points of interests, ATMs, restaurants, hotels and many other services. They are checking traffic status, and sharing locations and check-ins with friends on various social networks. In the last four years, this industry has grown six times, to a whooping $6 billion.

Cartonama Workshop will provide developers, neo-geographers and entrepreneurs working on location based services with hands-on training on advanced tools to manage and represent their geographic data.

The trainers will help participants to learn use of tools such as databases, tile servers, tile studios, Geocoding APIs, search APIs and JavaScript libraries through an application building exercise. The learning process is interspersed with lectures and discussion sessions on issues such as quality of geographic data, commercialization, licensing and privacy. For more details about the workshop sessions, visit the HasGeek funnel.

Speakers

Schuyler Erle
Free Software developer and evangelist for over fifteen years. He was a co-author of 'Mapping Hacks' and 'Google Maps Hacks'. He was also a co-founder of the OpenLayers and TileCache projects, and is a charter member of the OSGeo Foundation. He also works in the fields of wireless networking, intelligent search engines and the Semantic Web and was the lead developer of NoCatAuth which is an open source wireless captive portal. He built geocoder.us, which is an open source United States. address geocoder. More recently, Schuyler helped found the Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team and serves on its Board of Directors. He currently resides in San Francisco.

Mikel Maron
Programmer and geographer working for impactful community and humanitarian uses of open source and open data. He is co-founder of Ground Truth Initiative, and of the Map Kibera project. He’s on the Board of the OpenStreetMap Foundation, and President of the Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team, having helped to facilitate the OSM response to the Haiti earthquake. He’s travelled widely, organizing projects in India, Palestine, Egypt, Swaziland, and elsewhere. Previously, he co-founded Mapufacture and worked on collaborative platforms, and geoweb standards, with a wide spectrum of organizations from UN and government agencies to anarchist hacker collectives.

In 2008, Mikel Maron and Schuyler Erle conducted a series of workshops in India. From Delhi to Ludhiana, Pune, Mumbai, Kerala and Bangalore. The workshop series poked people like Arun Ganesh and inspired them to map and build applications. Arun and his friends mapped Chennai extensively and created beautiful maps. They also put the data together into busroutes.in

. BusRoutes.in remains as one of the best examples of using crowdsourced geographic information to create applications that are useful.

Sessions


Introduction to OpenStreetMap	GPS Surveying for OpenStreetMap	Downloading from GPS	Editing Data for OpenStreetMap

Tagging and Map Features	Geographic File Formats	Geo-enabled Databases	Processing OpenStreetMap Data

Data Swiss Army Knives	Creating Shapefiles	Tiles	Tilemill

Java Script Mapping APIs	Serving Tiles	Geocoding and Location queries	Putting it all together

Why You Should Attend the Workshop?

The workshop is only open to 30 participants. This is to ensure that the trainers can pay individual attention to each participant.

The workshop will train you with both back-end as well as front-end tools necessary for developing functional location based services and will enable you to build maps which can be used on devices ranging from phones to tablets to computers. It is aimed at teaching you the entire technology stack, right from managing the data to deploying the data on the server, and finally presenting it to your end user. During the hands-on sessions, you will develop web-based location services and learn how to manage your geographic data by creating interactive maps.

Mikel and Schuyler have extensive experience working with interactive maps, open data, Open Street Maps (OSM) and diverse communities on the ground. Participants will benefit immensely from the knowledge, experience and expertise of the trainers.

Registration

Tickets are priced at Rs. 10,000. Participants can register through the DoAttend portal. Or, you can pay offline through cheques and DD. Your ticket price covers workshop facilities and the facilitators' travel to India. The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) has sponsored part of the workshop expenses.

Participants are expected to bring their own GPS devices / mobile phones and computers for the application building exercises.

If you have any queries, write to Sajjad Anwar.

Buy Tickets Now

Venue

The workshop will be held at the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), Bangalore. The congenial atmosphere at CIS facilitates both formal and informal interactions, and peer-to-peer learning.

No. 194, 2nd C Cross, 4th Main
Opposite Domlur Club
Domlur 2nd Stage, Bangalore - 560 071

The Centre for Internet & Society

The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) is a Bangalore-based independent, non-profit research organisation. CIS is primarily involved in research on the Internet and its relationship to society. Through its academic and research programmes, campaigns, and advocacy, CIS brings together scholars, academics, students, programmers and scientists to engage in a large variety of issues concerning the Internet: from histories of the Internet to enhancing accessibility for persons with disabilities, openness, telecom and Internet governance, among others.

CIS is supporting the Cartonama Workshop by providing the venue and hosting the workshop facilitators in Bangalore.

HasGeek

HasGeek was initiated in September 2010 to create discussion spaces for developers around emerging technologies. Our events are developer-focused. We began by organizing five editions of the DocType HTML5 conference in Bangalore, Chennai, Pune, Hyderabad and Ahmedabad.

In 2011, we organized a series of events in Bangalore starting with the Android Camp in April, PHP and Cloud Computing in June, JSFoo in October, and Droidcon India in November. Each of these events had an open talks submission and voting system, which made every event more participant-focused.

In 2012, we are attempting to reach out to a wider audience of developers, entrepreneurs and students, across large and small Indian cities, by addressing interesting technology problems such as UI Engineering, Data Science, SMS and email notifications, among others.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/cartonama

Tweeple say it pithily with hash tags

praskrishna — 2012-02-13T05:06:10Z

Twitter best captures public irreverence to pomposity and the powers-that-be, writes Deepa Kurup in this article published in the Hindu on February 11, 2012. Nishant Shah is quoted in this article.

The Twitter world is divided into two kinds of people, those who are funny and those who try.

And nothing gets them going like a jolly controversy, particularly one that involves politicians — an easy target, always — and pornography. Of course, there's still them blogs and Facebook, but Twitter, with its sense of ‘right here, right now' (something that Facebook's Timeline tries to emulate) appears to be where every current event is made light of, ripped apart, hash-tagged and, of course, wildly re-tweeted.

Hash-Tag Bash

This week, for instance, it was all about the three Ministers from Karnataka who were caught watching porn on their phones in the Legislative Assembly when the House was in session. For at least two whole days, tweeple (people using Twitter) seemed to be gripped by what has been christened #PornGate (yes, every event these days is reduced to a single hash tag on Twitter).

So jokes ranged from the genuinely clever, funny and to the lame and obscene. Though many cannot be mentioned here in print, quite a few had to do with the ministers' state of mind and being, and even offered them advice on how to tide through these, ahem, hard times.

On Facebook, a space that doesn't stifle your creativity to 140 measly characters (for those who've been living under a rock for the past six years, that's the word limit for a single Tweet), there were more elaborate forms of humour such as morphed pictures, couplets and political satire.

The last time when social media in India went viral was the Shahrukh Khan-Shirish Kundar brawl (predictably, christened #SlapGate).

Does something about Twitter, or its format, inspire everyone to try their hand at humour? Perhaps, it's the brevity — the soul of wit, remember? —- that the platform demands. “It's also probably because it's difficult to be profound in 140 characters,” offers Nishant Shah, researcher at the Centre for Internet and Society, who tracks social media closely. Another factor could be what he calls the “gamification aesthetic” of web 2.0. “This is because our social networking sites and writing platforms are performances of a certain kind... they allow us to convert our everyday lives into games — with rewards, actions, punishments or rules.”

More Immediate

Ask Ramesh Srivats, a hugely funny ad man who's wildly popular on Twitter for his one-liners, and he believes that online humour, particularly so on Twitter, is fun because its immediate, more observational, real and allows people an opportunity to be irreverent.

There're no sacred cows here. And there's a certain mood that Twitter sets up, often depending on what's current; the rest is about timing. “Twitter doesn't allow you to analyse or discuss an issue… I'd rather do that on Facebook or elsewhere,” he explains. So is there pressure to say the next-most-funny thing on Twitter? “Of course not. If something comes to mind, I say it. It's just like a conversation among friends,” Mr. Srivats laughs.

Why not Facebook?

It's not that there aren't other forms of humour online — there are videos, blogs, Facebook pages and so on. There are indeed some incredibly humorous bloggers — many of them, however, have migrated to Twitter. But it's the mood that Twitter creates. Facebook, on the other hand, allows for more expression of angst, grief and even activism. Mr. Shah says that Facebook is to sadness what Twitter is to humour; perhaps, it is a more “nurturing and personalised space”.

The “gaming aesthetic” on Facebook, however, does exist with memes, videos, picture remixes and so on, he says. “But unlike Twitter, here the attempt is not to be merely humorous... banter on Facebook is about a post or an object, where as banter on Twitter is about the banter itself!

The original story was published in the Hindu

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/tweeple-say-it-pithily-with-hash-tags

Personal Data, Public Profile

nishant — 2012-02-14T06:19:52Z

Whether we like it or not, we live in a world that is rapidly being Googlised, writes Nishant Shah in an article published by the Financial Express on February 13, 2012.

Apart from its core functions like search and email, we consume Google services and products around the clock and around the click—YouTube, Calendar, Docs, Google+, Google Reader, Google Analytics et al. On March 1, 2012, our increasingly co-dependent relationship with Google will reach a new stage of commitment as Google consolidates its privacy policies for the entire Google universe. If you are logged into your Google account, all your information across Google’s different platforms will be clubbed together to form a comprehensive profile of what you do online.

Google has suggested this will personalise your interactions with Google platforms. The videos you watch on YouTube might influence your search results; the links that you click on will affect the advertisements displayed to you; the mails that you read will establish proximity with your friends on Google+ ... A comprehensive profile of who you are, what you do, what you like, what you share and what you hide will be created. Google has shown unmatched commitment to transparency on user data retention, storage and usage over the years. However, a centralised profile on users rings a few alarm bells for me. There are three use-cases that immediately crop up with apocalyptic implications.

Death of anonymity: One of the biggest strengths of the internet, as a space for both political dissent and freedom of expression, is that it has allowed people to talk through their avatars without putting themselves in conditions of bodily harm. So, it was good to have a scenario where my activities on YouTube did not get mapped onto my more identifiable profile on Google+ and did not get correlated with my personal interactions on Gmail. Mapping all the actions of a user who might want a more distributed identity might lead to precarious conditions for users living in critical times.

Negotiation with governments: While Google claims that it is committed to protecting the safety of its users, we know that it is eventually subject to the rules of the countries that it operates in. In the past, say in skirmishes with China, we have seen that despite its powerful status, it is not exempt from the demands of different governments. Given the current state of negotiations around censorship that are ongoing in India, it is a little scary to think how users’ data can be abused by authoritative government officials. A multi-tiered, distributed system offers users safety which a consolidated one doesn’t.

Inter-platform repercussions: If something I do on a platform gets flagged as objectionable, does it mean that all my rights to Google World get revoked?

Hidden data collection: One of the things that a lot of people don’t realise is that Google, in its attempts at enriching our user experience, collects more data than you disclose. So, apart from the personal data that you have more control over, there is a range of other data—pages you visit, the time you spend there, links you click on, comments that you write, information you share, etc—which form a part of Google’s algorithms for you. Consolidation of this data through services like Ad Sense and Double Click might also expose you to third party advertisers who might abuse this information that is about you but not under your control.

Google’s consolidation of its privacy policies across platforms signal a new wave of information management on the web, where the earlier free-form distributed information practice is getting mapped on to the physical bodies of the users. While it might lead to better web services, it also means that we need to be more aware of our information practices and start preparing for a web that is going to demand more accountability from its users than ever before.

The author is a digital humanities scholar and Director-Research at the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society.

The original article was published in the Financial Express

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/personal-data-public-profile

Prometheus bound and gagged

praskrishna — 2012-02-14T04:47:46Z

Funny how a healthy person like me can collapse one day and end up in the hospital. The doctor who made me go through every lab test available, finally diagnosed the cause after a chat with me. Apparently, I collapsed because I’m getting angry, increasing my blood pressure. The only solution he said is to stop reading newspapers, as I’m getting agitated by headlines like ‘India can go the China way and block sites’, or by how the government says there’s no Internet censorship while all it’s actions point the other way.

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

Censorship is a word that is particularly abhorrent for someone like me, who grew up listening to tales of how people like Ramnath Goenka fought the censors during the Emergency. And to say that we’ll start blocking websites in India like China is doing, the most heart wrenching moment I’ve ever heard. While researching for this piece, I came across some information that is out in the open on the Internet, but which is not generating the level of debate it deserves. We seem to be immersed in discussing Kolaveri, while slowly sliding into an Orwellian nightmare. As an example, I didn’t know there are rules called ‘Intermediary Guidelines’ and ‘Cyber cafe rules’, and I bet you didn’t either. As Pranesh Prakash of Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) has pointed out in a blog post, these two rules alone, made up by the Department of IT in April 2011, give the government and citizens of India great powers at censoring the web by allowing them to get Internet firms to remove content that is ‘disparaging’, ‘doesn’t have rights to’, etc.

Killing freedom of speech is only the first crime of these rules as proved by the good people at CIS. To test these rules, they complained against some frivolous content to ISPs and Internet companies, which resulted in six out of seven listings being removed without informing posters or users. More alarmingly, of the 358 items the Government of India (and some states) has requested Google to remove, only eight were for hate speech, one for national security, and an astounding 255 for ‘government criticism’.

Since introducing these draconian rules, the tale only gets murkier. Not content with asking Internet firms to self-regulate, Kapil Sibal has introduced an amendment to the Copyright Act, which introduces section 52(1)(C ), that allows anyone to send a notice complaining about infringement of his copyright. While this sounds normal, the catch is that ‘the Internet company has to remove the content immediately without question, even if the notice is false or malicious’. This amendment is before Rajya Sabha, and considering how our Parliament passes bills without a debate, it’ll become a law very soon.

Baleful rules and people behind them fail to realise that such efforts will lead to the Streisand effect, whereby attempts to hide any information will lead to it being publicised more widely. Yes more widely, because you can take out some content, but India’s youth will re-post it in a million places within minutes, like they do with pirated movies. We play a lot of cunning games just to live peacefully in India already. Please don’t let us play them online too.

The writer is a tech geek.
Email: articles@theadarsh.net

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/prometheus-bound-and-gagged

Indecent Proposals

praskrishna — 2012-02-14T06:13:22Z

If Kapil Sibal’s attempts to police net content fructify, it may even lead to a reversal of some of the forward-looking provisions of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000. The new proposal, for instance, will reverse Section 79 which protects intermediaries (websites and carriers) from being prosecuted or made liable for any objectionable content published. Says Pranesh Prakash, programme manager, Centre for Internet and Society: “Unfortunately, what Sibal says turns this upside down as they would now be held responsible for e-content.” Sibal wants to monitor content prior to publication.

The article by Arindam Mukherjee was published in Outlook Magazine on December 19, 2011. Pranesh Prakash was quoted in it.

While there are privacy concerns, any attempt to do real-time monitoring could pose serious legal complications. Says cyber law expert Pavan Duggal: “This proposition could be ultra vires of the Constitution which guarantees fundamental rights under Article 19, which is about freedom of speech and expression subject to reasonable restrictions.” And the reasonable restrictions for monitoring, blocking and interception of internet content are already built into the IT Act.

Says Rajya Sabha MP Rajeev Chandrasekhar: “If Sibal was really serious about protecting people, he should have read the IT Act that has a section which allows a victim to legally pursue his/her claim of defamation. If Sibal has his way, DoT bureaucrats will decide what content is ‘appropriate’ or ‘inappropriate’.”

“If Sibal was really serious, he should have read the IT Act...it has a section on how victims can pursue defamation claims.”

Moreover, the IT Intermediary Guideline Rules, 2011, though still provisional, mandate that once service providers receive instructions, they have to remove objectionable content within 36 hours. The Act also has other specific provisions like Section 69, which provides safeguards for interception, monitoring/decryption of information; Section 69A which gives procedures and safeguards for blocking access of information by the public; Section 69B for monitoring and collecting traffic data or information. There are also provisions for obscenity and defamation, with steep fines prescribed. Following these, the state has blocked 11 websites since ’09

However, what Sibal and his men would have seen is the Act’s inability to act on the content freely flowing in social media sites. Says Duggal: “The IT Act, 2000, was amended in ’08, but doesn’t talk about social media which came up only around that time. There is a need to bring social media within the ambit of the Act. What Sibal is suggesting doesn’t exist anywhere in the world.” Monitoring social media websites would also be a huge challenge as crores of messages and tweets are generated from India everyday.

And privacy? Experts say since India does not have dedicated legislation on privacy, the government could escape any attack on that front. Although some privacy elements were added to the IT Act in 2008, its scope is limited and the concept of data privacy is missing. In fact, the law doesn’t even recognise a person’s right to data privacy!.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/indecent-proposals