Centre for Internet and Society

So Much to Lose

nishant — 2012-12-07T16:39:09Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Facebook launches FB Newswire for journalists; loses part of its immunity under IT Act 2000

praskrishna — 2014-05-06T05:41:03Z

A bus accident in California, a fire in New Jersey and another in Vasant Kunj, NASA's successful test flight of its vertical take-off and landing craft, a ceremony to honour the sherpas who died during an avalanche at the Everest last week, and, Israel's suspension of talks with Palestinian authorities. These were some of the news that were disseminated on the first day of Facebook's newest social tool: a newswire to aid journalists and newsrooms.

The article was published in DNA on April 26, 2014. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

In a tie-up with News Corp's Storyful, Facebook launched the Newswire late on Thursday to function as a tool to aid journalists and newsrooms to "find, share and embed newsworthy content from Facebook in the media they produce". Apart from Facebook, the tool is also accessible on twitter at @FBNewswire.

"FB Newswire aggregates newsworthy content shared publicly on Facebook by individuals and organisations across the world for journalists to use in their reporting. This will include original photos, videos and status updates posted by people on the front lines of major events like protests, elections and sporting events," said Andy Mitchell, director of news and global media partnerships at Facebook, via a Facebook blog post.

Facebook has been in the centre of the internet security debate for a while; claiming immunity from legal provisions citing its non-curatorial approach and also denying responsibility for the news the social media network produces. "With the launch of this new tool, Facebook is not only curating information, it also directs knowledge of the content its produces through the newswire. That makes it legally responsible under the Information Technology Act (2000)", says Sunil Abraham, director of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS).

The move is also seen as Facebook attempting to reach out to journalists, and eat away into the space that Twitter has occupied in the dissemination of information. Facebook has largely been operating as a social media network; and its move into the new-making space is seen as an expansion in that direction.

"There might be some competition for journalists and traditional media outlets. But largely, Facebook's tie-ups with broadcasters and political parties, where it has been promoting content in exchange for compensation, has not been transparent," says Abraham.

With more than a billion users, Facebook is considered the largest social media network. In a statement on April 24, Facebook revealed that more than half of the world's internet population now uses the social media network and recorded a 72% increase in its revenues in the first quarter of the year.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/dna-amrita-madhukalya-april-26-2014-facebook-launches-fb-newswire-for-journalists-loses-part-of-its-immunity-under-it-act-2000

European Court of Justice rules Internet Search Engine Operator responsible for Processing Personal Data Published by Third Parties

jyoti — 2014-05-14T14:18:46Z

The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that an "an internet search engine operator is responsible for the processing that it carries out of personal data which appear on web pages published by third parties.” The decision adds to the conundrum of maintaining a balance between freedom of expression, protecting personal data and intermediary liability.

The ruling is expected to have considerable impact on reputation and privacy related takedown requests as under the decision, data subjects may approach the operator directly seeking removal of links to web pages containing personal data. Currently, users prove whether data needs to be kept online—the new rules reverse the burden of proof, placing an obligation on companies, rather than users for content regulation.

A win for privacy?

The ECJ ruling addresses Mario Costeja González complaint filed in 2010, against Google Spain and Google Inc., requesting that personal data relating to him appearing in search results be protected and that data which was no longer relevant be removed. Referring to the Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament, the court said, that Google and other search engine operators should be considered 'controllers' of personal data. Following the decision, Google will be required to consider takedown requests of personal data, regardless of the fact that processing of such data is carried out without distinction in respect of information other than the personal data.

The decision—which cannot be appealed—raises important of questions of how this ruling will be applied in practice and its impact on the information available online in countries outside the European Union. The decree forces search engine operators such as Google, Yahoo and Microsoft's Bing to make judgement calls on the fairness of the information published through their services that reach over 500 million people across the twenty eight nation bloc of EU.

ECJ rules that search engines 'as a general rule,' should place the right to privacy above the right to information by the public. Under the verdict, links to irrelevant and out of date data need to be erased upon request, placing search engines in the role of controllers of information—beyond the role of being an arbitrator that linked to data that already existed in the public domain. The verdict is directed at highlighting the power of search engines to retrieve controversial information while limiting their capacity to do so in the future.

The ruling calls for maintaining a balance in addressing the legitimate interest of internet users in accessing personal information and upholding the data subject’s fundamental rights, but does not directly address either issues. The court also recognised, that the data subject's rights override the interest of internet users, however, with exceptions pertaining to nature of information, its sensitivity for the data subject's private life and the role of the data subject in public life. Acknowledging that data belongs to the individual and is not the right of the company, European Commissioner Viviane Reding, hailed the verdict, "a clear victory for the protection of personal data of Europeans".

The Court stated that if data is deemed irrelevant at the time of the case, even if it has been lawfully processed initially, it must be removed and that the data subject has the right to approach the operator directly for the removal of such content. The liability issue is further complicated by the fact, that search engines such as Google do not publish the content rather they point to information that already exists in the public domain—raising questions of the degree of liability on account of third party content displayed on their services.

The ECJ ruling is based on the case originally filed against Google, Spain and it is important to note that, González argued that searching for his name linked to two pages originally published in 1998, on the website of the Spanish newspaper La Vanguardia. The Spanish Data Protection Agency did not require La Vanguardia to take down the pages, however, it did order Google to remove links to them. Google appealed this decision, following which the National High Court of Spain sought advice from the European court. The definition of Google as the controller of information, raises important questions related to the distinction between liability of publishers and the liability of processors of information such as search engines.

The 'right to be forgotten'

The decision also brings to the fore, the ongoing debate and fragmented opinions within the EU, on the right of the individual to be forgotten. The 'right to be forgotten' has evolved from the European Commission's wide-ranging plans of an overhaul of the commission's 1995 Data Protection Directive. The plans for the law included allowing people to request removal of personal data with an obligation of compliance for service providers, unless there were 'legitimate' reasons to do otherwise. Technology firms rallying around issues of freedom of expression and censorship, have expressed concerns about the reach of the bill. Privacy-rights activist and European officials have upheld the notion of the right to be forgotten, highlighting the right of the individual to protect their honour and reputation.

These issues have been controversial amidst EU member states with the UK's Ministry of Justice claiming the law 'raises unrealistic and unfair expectations' and has sought to opt-out of the privacy laws. The Advocate General of the European Court Niilo Jääskinen's opinion, that the individual's right to seek removal of content should not be upheld if the information was published legally, contradicts the verdict of the ECJ ruling. The European Court of Justice's move is surprising for many and as Richard Cumbley, information-management and data protection partner at the law firm Linklaters puts it, “Given that the E.U. has spent two years debating this right as part of the reform of E.U. privacy legislation, it is ironic that the E.C.J. has found it already exists in such a striking manner."

The economic implications of enforcing a liability regime where search engine operators censor legal content in their results aside, the decision might also have a chilling effect on freedom of expression and access to information. Google called the decision “a disappointing ruling for search engines and online publishers in general,” and that the company would take time to analyze the implications. While the implications of the decision are yet to be determined, it is important to bear in mind that while decisions like these are public, the refinements that Google and other search engines will have to make to its technology and the judgement calls on the fairness of the information available online are not public.

The ECJ press release is available here and the actual judgement is available here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/ecj-rules-internet-search-engine-operator-responsible-for-processing-personal-data-published-by-third-parties

Huge outcry forces India to backtrack on social media data proposal

praskrishna — 2015-10-01T01:31:55Z

Govt retracts move after strongly negative reaction to 90-day message-saving policy

The article was published by Today on September 24, 2015. Pranesh Prakash has been quoted.

Responding to a chorus of withering criticism, Indian officials have withdrawn a draft policy on encryption that would have required users of social media and messaging apps to save plain-text versions of their messages for 90 days so they could be shared with the police.

The proposal, which many condemned as both draconian and impractical, came as an embarrassment days before Prime Minister Narendra Modi travels to Silicon Valley to try to attract investment and promote India as an emerging market for digital technology.

Mr Modi is an avid user of social media and has mobilised large networks of online activists during his party’s campaigns.

The government issued a statement on Tuesday saying the draft proposing that users save messages for three months had been withdrawn, as officials hurried to distance themselves from the idea.

“I wish to make it clear that it is just a draft and not the view of the government,” said Mr Ravi Shankar Prasad, the Minister of Communications and Information Technology.

Internet policy activists discovered the draft on a government website late last week and began to lampoon it online as “absurd”. One offered the example of an iPhone, which automatically encrypts messages.

“They can’t intentionally want people to copy and paste every message a person gets on their iPhone on to another device,” said Mr Pranesh Prakash, a policy director at the Center for Internet and Society in Bangalore.

The draft, which was put forward by a committee of unidentified experts in the Department of Electronics and Information Technology, also overlooked the fact that most Indians use mobile phones with very little storage space, said Mr Nikhil Pahwa, the editor of MediaNama.com, which covers digital media issues in India.

“It is incomprehensible how they would have expected users to keep their messages in plain-text format,” he said. “And I don’t think that anyone can argue that keeping data in a plain-text format makes it secure.”

An official in the Communications Ministry, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorised to talk to the media, said the expert committee had been convened to formulate a policy on the “phenomenal rise” in encrypted communication over the Internet.

He said the committee had intended to require social media platforms and messaging apps, such as WhatsApp and Viber, to save plain-text versions of messages and did not intend to impose that burden on individual users.

“It was interpreted by the netizens as ‘you and I’,” the official said. He added that interpretation was misleading.

But that version of the requirement would also be “outrageous,” Mr Prakash said. For example, WhatsApp uses “end-to-end” encryption and does not save communications between users or have access to plain text, he said.

Mr Prakash said that as officials revised the proposal, the government should reach out to “experts in cryptography and human rights”.

“This is a very crucial combination of three rights: the right to security, the right to freedom of expression, and the right to privacy,” he said.

On television, spokesmen for Mr Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) found themselves debating their counterparts from the opposition Indian National Congress Party, one of whom remarked that “tomorrow they will start demanding that you videograph what has been going on in your bedroom for the past 90 days.”

The BJP’s national spokeswoman, Shaina Nana Chudasama, responded with some exasperation. “I don’t know why we have to have this hue and cry,” she said.

“Our Prime Minister believes in absolute freedom on social media. There is no question of our trying to come down heavily on the freedom of the public at large.” THE NEW YORK TIMES

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/today-september-24-2015-huge-outcry-forces-india-backtrack-social-media-data-proposal

The Legal Validity of Internet Bans: Part I

Geetha Hariharan and Padmini Baruah — 2015-10-08T11:18:34Z

In recent months, there has been a spree of bans on access to Internet services in Indian states, for different reasons. The State governments have relied on Section 144, Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 to institute such bans. Despite a legal challenge, the Gujarat High Court found no infirmity in this exercise of power in a recent order. We argue that it is Section 69A of the Information Technology Act 2000, and the Website Blocking Rules, which set out the legal provision and procedure empowering the State to block access to the Internet (if at all it is necessary), and not Section 144, CrPC.

In recent months, there has been a spree of bans on access to Internet services in India states, for different reasons. In Gujarat, the State government banned access to mobile Internet (data services) citing breach of peace during the Hardik Patel agitation. In Godhra in Gujarat, mobile Internet was banned as a precautionary measure during Ganesh visarjan. In Kashmir, mobile Internet was banned for three days or more because the government feared that people would share pictures of slaughter of animals during Eid on social media, which would spark unrest across the state.

Can State or Central governments impose a ban on Internet access? If the State or its officials anticipate disorder or a disturbance of ‘public tranquility’, can Internet access through mobiles be banned? According to a recent order of the Gujarat High Court: Yes; Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) empowers the State government machinery to impose a temporary ban.

But the Gujarat High Court’s order neglects the scope of Section 69A, IT Act, and wrongly finds that the State government can exercise blocking powers under Section 144, CrPC. In this post and the next, we argue that it is Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act”) which is the legal provision empowering the State to block access to the Internet (including data services), and not Section 144, CrPC. Section 69A covers blocks to Internet access, and since it is a special law dealing with the Internet, it prevails over the general Code of Criminal Procedure.

Moreover, the blocking powers must stay within constitutional boundaries prescribed in, inter alia, Article 19 of the Constitution. Blocking powers are, therefore, subject to the widely-accepted tests of legality (foresight and non-arbitrariness), legitimacy of the grounds for restriction of fundamental rights and proportionality, calling for narrowly tailored restrictions causing minimum disruptions and/or damage.

In Section I of this post, we set out a brief record of the events that preceded the blocking of access to data services (mobile Internet) in several parts of Gujarat. Then in Section II, we summarise the order of the Gujarat High Court, dismissing the petition challenging the State government’s Internet-blocking notification under Section 144, CrPC. In the next post, we examine the scope of Section 69A, IT Act to determine whether it empowers the State and Central government agencies to carry out blocks on Internet access through mobile phones (i.e., data services such as 2G, 3G and 4G) under certain circumstances. We submit that Section 69A does, and that Section 144, CrPC cannot be invoked for this purpose.

I. The Patidar Agitation in Gujarat:

This question arose in the wake of agitation in Gujarat in the Patel community. The Patels or Patidars are politically and economically influential in Gujarat, with several members of the community holding top political, bureaucratic and industrial positions. In the last couple of months, the Patidars have been agitating, demanding to be granted status as Other Backward Classes (OBC). OBC status would make the community eligible for reservations and quotas in educational institutions and for government jobs.

Towards this demand, the Patidars organised multiple rallies across Gujarat in August 2015. The largest rally, called the Kranti Rally, was held in Ahmedabad, Gujarat’s capital city, on August 25, 2015. Hardik Patel, a leader of the agitation, reportedly went on hunger strike seeking that the Patidars’ demands be met by the government, and was arrested as he did not have permission to stay on the rally grounds after the rally. While media reports vary, it is certain that violence and agitation broke out after the rally. Many were injured, some lost their lives, property was destroyed, businesses suffered; the army was deployed and curfew imposed for a few days across the State.

In addition to other security measures, the State government also imposed a ban on mobile Internet services across different parts of Gujarat. Reportedly, Hardik Patel had called for a state-wide bandh over Whatsapp. The police cited “concerns of rumour-mongering and crowd mobilisation through Whatsapp” as a reason for the ban, which was instituted under Section 144, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”). In most of Gujarat, the ban lasted six days, from August 25 to 31, 2015, while it continued in Ahmedabad and Surat for longer.

II. The Public Interest Litigation:

A public interest petition was filed before the Gujarat High Court, challenging the mobile Internet ban. Though the petition was dismissed at the preliminary stage by Acting Chief Justice Jayant Patel and Justice Anjaria by an oral order delivered on September 15, 2015, the legal issues surrounding the ban are important and the order calls for some reflection.

In the PIL, the petitioner prayed that the Gujarat High Court declare that the notification under Section 144, CrPC, which blocked access to mobile Internet, is “void ab initio, ultra vires and unconstitutional” (para 1 of the order). The ban, argued the petitioner, violated Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution by being arbitrary and excessive, violating citizens’ right to free speech and causing businesses to suffer extensive economic damage. In any event, the power to block websites was specifically granted by Section 69A, IT Act, and so the government’s use of Section 144, CrPC to institute the mobile Internet block was legally impermissible. Not only this, but the government’s ban was excessive in that mobile Internet services were completely blocked; had the government’s concerns been about social media websites like Whatsapp or Facebook, the government could have suspended only those websites using Section 69A, IT Act. And so, the petitioner prayed that the Gujarat High Court issue a writ “permanently restraining the State government from imposing a complete or partial ban on access to mobile Internet/broadband services” in Gujarat.

The State Government saw things differently, of course. At the outset, the government argued that there was “sufficient valid ground for exercise of power” under Section 144, CrPC, to institute a mobile Internet block (para 4 of the order). Had the blocking notification not been issued, “peace could not have been restored with the other efforts made by the State for the maintenance of law and order”. The government stressed that Section 144, CrPC notifications were generally issued as a “last resort”, and in any case, the Internet had not been shut down in Gujarat; broadband and WiFi services continued to be active throughout. Since the government was the competent authority to evaluate law-and-order situations and appropriate actions, the Court ought to dismiss the petition, the State prayed.

The Court agreed with the State government, and dismissed the petition without issuing notice (para 9 of the order). The Court examined two issues in its order (very briefly):

The scope and distinction between Section 144, CrPC and Section 69A, IT Act, and whether the invocation of Section 144, CrPC to block mobile Internet services constituted an arbitrary exercise of power;
The proportionality of the blocking notification (though the Court doesn’t use the term ‘proportionality’).

We will examine the Court’s reading of Section 69A, IT Act and Section 144, CrPC, to see whether their fields of operation are in fact different.

Acknowledgements: We would like to thank Pranesh Prakash, Japreet Grewal, Sahana Manjesh and Sindhu Manjesh for their invaluable inputs in clarifying arguments and niggling details for these two posts.

Geetha Hariharan is a Programme Officer with Centre for Internet & Society. Padmini Baruah is in her final year of law at the National Law School of India University, Bangalore (NLSIU) and is an intern at CIS.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-legal-validity-of-bans-on-internet-part-i

Modi's Valley hug sparks swadeshi talk

praskrishna — 2015-10-11T05:33:55Z

His warm hug of Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg will perhaps be the most abiding image of Narendra Modi's visit to the Silicon Valley.

But that embrace, and what it conveyed, is now becoming the subject for an intense debate among techies here. Is Modi giving in too much to the Googles and Facebooks of the world, when there is so much technology talent within India? Is he taking the easy way out by handing out critical pieces of his Digital India vision to global incumbents rather than build domestic capabilities?

"When the government wanted to build a citizen engagement platform earlier this year, they depended on Google. Now when they want Wi-Fi in railway stations, it's again Google. These are things that can be done by our companies, otherwise we will not be able to create our own digital industry. Remember, we are the people who built Aadhaar," said an industry veteran who did not want to be named.

Nitin Pai, co-founder of Takshashila, an independent policy research and advocacy body that provides services for government agencies, NGOs and corporations, said Modi's team should make a careful distinction between national interest and MNCs' commercial interest. "Many MNCs have come forward to participate in Digital India initiatives. The government will have to look at offering sufficient incentives for innovation to domestic tech companies, many of whom are coming with innovative business models," he said.

Speaking to a cross-section of tech companies here, two sets of concerns emerge. One relates to the concessions that will work in favour of global incumbents and against newcomers - the latter is likely to add more value in the long term. This includes the issue of net neutrality , on which the government is seen to be waffling, and the guidelines issued by the Indian Patent Office declaring that software is patentable in India.

The new guidelines will make it easier for companies to file for software patents in India. But software patenting has become hugely controversial globally , because innova tions in the area are often just incremental, and come on top of other software programs.Besides, patenting is expensive and is often the subject of litigation, both of which work against small ventures with little resources. Companies like Google have spent billions of dollars to buy patents.

Venkatesh Hariharan, member of software product think-tank iSpirt, said the new guidelines would make it easier for bigger companies to file software patents, but for smaller firms and startups, the move could be detrimental."They could end up fighting patent litigations. In the US, 37% of patent litigation is around software and business patents," he said.

Sunil Abraham, executive director in research organization Centre for Internet and Society , fears litigation could kill local innovation. He cited a recent example where a Delhi high court order asked Indian handset manufacturer Micromax to pay 1.25%-2% of the selling price of its devices to Ericsson that had claimed infringement of patents.

The other set of issues relates to certain rules and regulations in India that place significant obstacles before small technology ventures. This is resulting in many ventures shifting their registered offices to Singapore or the US.

Albinder Dindsa's on-demand delivery service Gro fers is among the latest to create a holding company in Singapore. "It is challenging to do business in India. Even opening a bank account took time. We thought it would be easier to do an IPO if we are in Singapore," he said.

A senior industry analyst who did not want to be named said that till last year, two out of four ventures were moving out of India, but now that figure is three out of four. "I would expect the government to do something about it. In fact, the finance minister did say in June that the issues would be addressed within 30 days. But nothing has happened."

Also, it is expensive for angel investors overseas to invest in Indian startups.

India disallows startups from offering stock options to foreign nationals, which makes it difficult for them to access seasoned mentors.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-times-of-india-sujit-john-and-shilpa-phadnis-october-6-2015-modi-valley-hug-sparks-swadeshi-talk

Ahead of hosting Modi, Facebook rebrands internet.org as Free Basics

praskrishna — 2015-10-18T14:21:52Z

Hinting at what could be vital points of discussion when Prime Minister Narendra Modi visits Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg on Sunday, the social media giant has rebranded its internet access enabling platform Internet.org as Free Basics.

The article was published by Business Standard on September 26, 2015. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

This was announced by Chris Daniels, vice-president of Internet.org, at a press meet in Menlo Park on Friday. Zuckerberg confirmed the same and wrote on his Facebook wall.

Facebook has opened up its Free Basics platform, which means any app developer can now include their services on it. “This gives people the power to choose what apps they want to use.” Zuckerberg in his post also said the company has improved the security and privacy of Internet.org, which will support HTTPS web services as well. “Connectivity isn't an end in itself. It’s what people do with it that matters. We hope the improvements we've made help even more people get connected — so that our whole global community can benefit together,” Zuckerberg said in his post, in which he quoted the example of a soybean farmer from Maharashtra, Asif Mujhawar, who uses parenting app BabyCenter for free through Internet.org.

This is a significant move by Facebook, considering the backlash it had from various quarters in India following debates on net neutrality. Internet.org is an open platform by Facebook across 19 developing countries, including India, to enable easy access of selected apps and app-based services to people at zero cost. In India, it had partnered with Reliance Communications to offer free access to about 30 websites.

“One of the concerns was calling the service ‘Internet.org’, despite it representing only a tiny sliver of the Internet,” said Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the centre for Internet and Society, a nonprofit entity to promote safe internet access in the country.

He said by removing the Internet word, Facebook is now talking of its own larger internet affordability project and allowing app developers to build apps and host it on the Free Basic platform. “This gives people the power to choose what apps they want to use,” Prakash said.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-september-26-2015-ahead-of-hosting-modi-facebook-rebrands-internet-dot-org-as-free-basics

Indian politicians yet to tap voters online: CIS’s Abraham

praskrishna — 2013-10-23T05:31:34Z

Sunil Abraham talks about the role online media will play in forthcoming elections and the behaviour of online readers of news.

The interview (taken by Venkatesh Upadhyay) was published in Livemint on October 22, 2013.

Sunil Abraham, 40, is executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society, a not-for-profit research organization that works on issues related to freedom of expression and privacy. Abraham was in New Delhi to speak on the impact of media, social media and technology on governance and democracy, organized by the Observer Research Foundation together with the Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung. On the sidelines of the conference, he talked about the role that online media will play in forthcoming elections as well the behaviour of online readers of news.

Edited excerpts from the interview:

How important will digital media be for the forthcoming elections?

I think the Internet in India is very different from, say, the one found in the US. So, our capacity to read from similar experience in their elections is limited. If you take the extensive exposure that the (Barack) Obama campaign had on the online space and the manner in which it supposedly helped the campaign, I don’t see that happening here.

Politicians and political parties very active on social media. You don’t think that will have an effect on elections?

I think the missing part of the equation till now is that there has not been any devising—to my knowledge—of targeting of voters through Facebook or Twitter. Our digital footprint leads to immense big-data opportunities, which I do not see politicians in India being able to exploit. Again, to give an example from the United States, there were certain instances there from where if you were member of a particular community, you could be targeted by political campaigns. Here, I don’t see that happening that easily.


Above: Sunil Abraham on the role of digital media in elections

So our politicians are wasting their time on social media?

Not entirely. In my view, one of the good things that the Internet does is that it has the capacity to democratize public opinion. One must also keep in mind that networks such as the ones available through social media are not homogenous. So nodes such as users who are opinion-makers and journalists are active on these networks, and so politicians can use these methods to reach out to more people.

Does the traditional media still have a role?
Of course. Traditional media is more likely to determine political outcomes in comparison to social media because most of the links that we see in social media are related to content that is created on traditional media. Now, of course, we can be sceptical of the role that traditional media plays in influencing the general mood of the country, but that is a different question.

Is there something peculiar about the manner in which readers interact with newspaper reports online?
I think one can usually see the comments section of some news sites littered with hurtful and hateful comments. So, some readers such as myself basically go through these comments to look at trolling and also sometimes for comic relief. But again, every news organization seems to be dealing with this differently. The Times of India, doesn’t, in my view, regulate its comments section. But one can see, say, in The Hindu, that readers’ comments are regulated and are usually very thoughtful.

Is there any particular reason why certain news readers respond the way they do?

Well, a part of the reason why people consuming news online comment and interact the way they do is that anonymity produces a level of freedom that allows people to be more brutal in their behaviour online.

At the same time, you can also see, in some instances, the chilling effects of surveillance, where people end up censuring their thoughts on issues. Of course, surveillance is not the answer. Societies need to deal with hateful threats on their own terms.

What will it take for politicians and public figures to get their message across, given the idiosyncrasies of the Indian digital media?
I think two components are crucial: trust and authenticity. For example, in the case of Wikipedia, there is an assumed amount of trust that the user has. The trust relationship between public figures who are active online and the public also is a two-way street. Politicians must also trust their common party members to use their social media presence as and when they want to. For example, why don’t they allow each and every member of the political party to man their Twitter handle for a day?

As for authenticity, the human mind can say whether an act by someone online is authentic or not.

Finally, what is your view on the role that larger Internet monopolies such as Facebook and Google are playing across the digital plane?

The Internet has also changed over the past 15 years. It used to be a decentralized network. Everybody was hopeful that it would have democratizing potential and, therefore, techno-utopianism was born. Now, it is increasingly clear that a small proportion of websites have 90% of the traffic and large corporations such as Google and Facebook play a significant role in configuring the attention economy. They are now also beginning to take this role very seriously themselves. In the case of Google, increasingly Google is using its power over the attention economy to play a role in the electoral process in India. They have been holding Google Hangouts and what they have been able to do is bring the public to the politicians.

Other concerns such as Facebook and Twitter through their walled-garden arrangements with telecom companies also play a similar role in configuring the attention economy. One is more innocuous—like the manner in which their algorithms are structured determining who shows up in their feeds.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/livemint-venkatesh-upadhyay-october-22-2013-indian-politicians-yet-to-tap-voters-online

EC guidelines on social media: Welcome move, but not enough

praskrishna — 2013-11-19T10:18:51Z

With election season close by and the growing ubiquity of social media, the Election Commission of India’s recent guidelines for how candidates and political parties must conduct themselves on social media are a well-intentioned step. But are these guidelines enough to regulate how online media is used by parties and candidates, given the kind of proxy wars that are played online? For now, not really.

This article was published in the First Post on November 1. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

For the first time time, the EC is seeking detailed expenditure records, and disclosure of all authentic social media accounts of every candidate. The guidelines have also looked at online advertising and the EC has asked that all ads by political parties should be pre-certified before they are released online. In fact, Firstpost’s Pallavi Pollanki had reported even before the guidelines were published that the EC was working towards monitoring the use of social media. You can read the full story here.

Currently, however, the guidelines don’t take into account, content posted by persons other than candidates and political parties. The last paragraph of the EC’s order states, “As far as the content posted by persons other than candidates and political parties is concerned, the Commission is considering the matter in consultation with the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology on practical ways to deal with the issue, in so far as they relate to, or can be reasonably connected with, the election campaigning of political parties and candidates.”

The nature of the web is such that possible to create many IPs, change Twitter handles, create new user ids on public discussion forums. Thus it becomes very hard to gauge who is a volunteer/ just another ordinary supporter or who is a paid supporter. Even the EC acknowledges that.

Sunil Abraham, Director of the Centre for Internet and Society based in Bangalore, has a valid point on this. He says, “The guidelines only regulate the social media accounts of politicians and their parties. It does not regulate social media content published by others. This basically means that the EC needs to develop sophisticated tools to detect astroturfing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry and other forms of manipulation of the networked public sphere. Without these tools it would not be possible to tell when politicians and political parties use proxies to circumvent the guidelines.”

Astroturfing, for instance is when a site or an independent entity claims to be completely neutral and in favour of a political message without revealing its funding source. Very often software is used to create many online avatars. Sometimes it’s one person with many online identities which is also known as sock puppetry.

So yes, there might be online content or websites that claim to be independent and supports or mocks a particular leader but it might not always be possible to know who is financing them. While the EC might be able to keep a tab on official Twitter handles and Facebook and perhaps other few that are revealed by the party, it will be very hard to pinpoint proxy accounts, websites etc.

For example when it comes to a leader like Modi, there are many websites that are pro and anti-Modi. One in particular which defends Modi is called Godhra Riots the True Story and seeks to tell what it claims is the true tale behind the Godhra riots. When you type Godhra Riots, it is the number two search result in Google. In the About Us section, the website claims to be run by well-wishers of humanity and gives only a vague idea of its owner.

The site tries to absolve Modi, but since it doesn’t claim to be run by any political party, it doesn’t come under the purview of the EC’s guidelines and there is no reason to reveal who runs or funds it.

Counter to that is another website called Truth of Gujarat, which seeks to reveal the truth behind Narendra Modi’s development and other claims. The work published on the site bears bylines prominently but there is no easy way of knowing who finances the site and its research. The fact is that everyone claims to be represent a certain version of the truth on the web and when you don’t know the source, it becomes deeply problematic.

There’s also the question of Internet trolls who are largely un-touched by the guidelines. And there’s no denying that trolls do form a large part of the online political discourse in India.

We asked Ishan Russel, the managing partner for The Image People, a firm that specialises in political campaign management, if the guidelines are insufficient to deal with trolls.

He wrote, “Social media has ensured that a lot more people are expressing their opinion plus the added advantage of anonymity makes it easy for trolling. The days of the political class laying down the agenda are perhaps over… To try and regulate every comment is impossible, the best perhaps the EC can ensure is that no hateful campaigning happens online.”

EC also wants pre-certification for online advertising. But Sunil feels that pre-certification is overkill. He says, “This will greatly reduce the agility required by political parties on social media. Post facto notification would have been a sufficient measure to ensure compliance with the guidelines and other regulations of the EC.”

Ishant however says that pre-certification is good especially for video-based content, “In cases where for example a video ad is used it is good perhaps to pre-screen it so that it does not violate any norms.” He feels it is necessary to ensure that the online space remains fair too.

It would be fair to say that for now while the EC’s guidelines were much-needed but given the way the Internet works, they still have a long way to go.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/firstpost-november-1-2013-shruti-dhapola-ec-guidelines-on-social-media

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

Will Facebook, Twitter relocate servers to India?

praskrishna — 2016-04-23T15:26:39Z

The debate to relocate offshore servers of internet and social media firms including Google, Facebook and Twitter has revived.

The article by Taru Bhatia was published in Governance Now on April 23, 2016. Pranesh Prakash gave inputs.

Home minister Rajnath Singh has requested the social media companies, located outside India, to maintain servers in the country, in order to expedite the process of getting information on accounts which spread mischievous messages posing a threat to law and order situation. The move has come in the backdrop of delayed or no response to the government’s requests to these companies, for extracting information of some of its users on security grounds.

In February, the minister claimed Jamaat-ud-Dawa chief Hafiz Saeed’s involvement in the anti-national slogans that were allegedly raised in the campus of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU). The claim was based on a tweet that appeared on a fake twitter account of Saeed (@HafeezSaeedJUD), which was later deactivated by Twitter. But the US-based social media company has still not replied to the Indian government as to who was running the account.

It is interesting to note here that India shares mutual legal assistance treaty with the US, wherein, the duo can share information for the purpose of criminal investigation, via judicial route. The process, however, is lengthy.

“Given the nature of the content, sometimes the government cannot afford to wait. The process of issuing direction to get information or blocking certain content from public view is lengthy. The Indian government under the IT law is empowered to ask these companies to maintain servers in India,” says senior advocate, supreme court, and cyber law expert, Pavan Duggal, terming it as a legitimate concern related to national security. As India is a big market for all these companies, it shouldn’t be a problem for them to have servers in India, he says.

“If the police or security agencies want information from these companies, it becomes tall orders since they are not operating from India. They step back and say they are not accountable,” says Virag Gupta, a senior supreme court lawyer, adding that ministries of telecom and finance must join the home ministry in its request and spearhead the matter.

Gupta has filed a petition in the Delhi high court asking such offshore companies to register themselves under the Indian law. On the other hand, Pranesh Prakash, policy director at center for internet and society (CIS), a non-government research organisation supported by Google, feels that instead of requesting these companies to maintain servers in India, it is best for the government to figure out ways to speed up judicial process of the treaty, when it comes to internet governance.

From July to December 2015, India issued 141 requests to Twitter to retrieve information of its users’ accounts for criminal investigation purpose, as per the company’s transparency report. But the compliance rate was only 42 percent, the report says.

While India seeks information on national security grounds, the law here does not clearly define national security, which is still vast and ambiguous.

“I do believe that there is a need for a much clear definition of national security. If the government really wants to have servers of these companies in India then appropriate guidelines must exist, so that companies should not be taken by surprise,” says Duggal.

Security concerns

Data localisation is witnessing a growing trend among many countries. Last year, Russia enforced law to mandate internet companies to store its citizens’ data within the country. The move is generally taken in fear of losing country’s data to hackers. It also means that it would be easier for the government to get information from these internet companies.

And so protecting data and privacy of individuals within the country is also a matter of concern. Not having a strong data privacy law in place could lead to violation of internet rights of citizens.

“Privacy is a legitimate concern but at the end of the day the government is well empowered in the interest of protecting cyber security under the IT Act. But it is necessary for the government to look at the issue from a holistic perspective. There is a need for balancing privacy and security of an individual on one hand and national security on the other hand,” adds Duggal.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/governance-now-april-23-2016-taru-bhatia-will-facebook-twitter-relocate-servers-to-india

Ayodhya trending on Twitter sparks censorship concerns

praskrishna — 2012-12-12T10:38:01Z

On the 20th anniversary of the Babri Masjid demolition, the ShauryaDiwas, Ayodhya and Babri Masjid hashtags were trending on Twitter all day, with almost 2,500 messages sent over 48 hours.

Surabhi Agarwal's article was published in LiveMint on December 6, 2012. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

The tag ShauryaDiwas was used by supporters of the demolition and was used in half the total number of tweets.

Experts said the public display of extreme views on a social networking platform has the potential to create social unrest, leaving the government with few options but to regulate content, in turn fuelling the Internet censorship debate further.

A senior government official said that in a situation in which there are serious national security implications, the government has no option but to "block content" in order to stop communal sentiment from flaring up.

According to social web analytics firm Social Hues, the tweets reached an audience of 456,000 followers. However, according to Vinita Ananth, chief executive of Social Hues, there were also messages that "condemned the call for ShauryaDiwas” tagging it ShameDiwas. "New platforms like Twitter are providing real-time feedback on public sentiment, which is unprecedented."

Ashis Nandy, political and social analyst, said that even though very few Indians are on platforms such as Twitter, communications over them give a hint of what a certain section of the society is thinking about.

"It is a small representation of the middle class, which is driven by ideology and some of the people with extreme opinions may also belong to this group, so perhaps it could have some security implications," he said.

Fringe groups such as those above tend to take extreme positions to get attention, said Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bangalore-based research organization, the Centre for Internet and Society.

Having learnt their lessons after the recent Assam-related panic, intelligence agencies are now keeping a close watch on the Internet, another government official said.

"If necessary, posts will be removed through legitimate ways," the official said, adding that a debate was underway about how to strike a balance between freedom of speech and the lawful requirement of agencies. "Mischief by a few people creates nuisance in society. The government is now looking for ways through which it can regionally block or remove inflammatory tweets. We don’t want to curb freedom of speech and the government doesn’t have any such intentions either," the official said.

Hate messages on social media had sparked a panic exodus of people from the north-east from cities such as Bangalore, Pune and Chennai in August.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/livemint-december-6-2012-surabhi-agarwal-ayodhya-trending-on-twitter-sparks-censorship-concerns

Tulu Wikipedia Tutorial

praskrishna — 2015-12-15T07:50:52Z

Dr. U.B. Pavanaja trained the people involved in the creation of the videos.

Tutorial video on starting with Tulu Wikipedia which is in incubation:

Tutorial video explaining how to start with Tulu Wikipedia which is in incubator:

Tutorial video explaining how to add new article to Tulu Wikipedia:

Tutorial video explaining how to type in Tulu Wikipedia:

Tutorial video explaining how to format articles in Tulu Wikipedia:

The people behind these videos:

Prof. Vishwanatha Badikana for Script
Lasya Shetty for Voice
Abhishek Shetty, Saarang Community radio at St Aloysius College Mangaluru for Audio Recording
Soundarya Shetty for Mixing and Editing
Dr. U.B. Pavanaja for Conception, Direction, Mixing and Editing

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/tulu-wikipedia-tutorial

Net Neutrality Advocates Rejoice As TRAI Bans Differential Pricing

subha — 2016-02-23T02:10:42Z

India would not see any more Free Basics advertisements on billboards with images of farmers and common people explaining how much they benefited from this Facebook project.

The article by Subhashish Panigrahi was published by Odisha TV on February 9, 2016.

Because the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has taken a historical step by banning differential pricing without discriminating services. In their notes TRAI has explained, “In India, given that a majority of the population are yet to be connected to the internet, allowing service providers to define the nature of access would be equivalent of letting TSPs shape the users’ internet experience.” Not just that, violation of this ban would cost Rs. 50,000 every day.

Facebook planned to launch Free Basics in India by making a few websites – mostly partners with Facebook—available for free. The company not just advertised aggressively on bill boards and commercials across the nation, it also embedded a campaign inside Facebook asking users to vote in support of Free Basics. TRAI criticized Facebook’s attempt to manipulate public opinion. Facebook was also heavily challenged by many policy and internet advocates including non-profits like Free Software Movement of India and Savetheinternet.in campaign. The two collectives strongly discouraged Free Basics by moulding public opinion against it with Savetheinternet.in alone used to send over 2.4 million emails to TRAI to disallow Free Basics. Furthermore, 500 Indian start-ups, including major names like Cleartrip, Zomato, Practo, Paytm and Cleartax, also wrote to India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi requesting continued support for Net Neutrality – a concept that advocates equal treatment of websites – on Republic Day. Stand-up comedians like Abish Mathew and groups like All India Bakchod and East India Comedy created humorous but informative videos explaining the regulatory debate and supporting net neutrality. Both went viral.

Technology critic and Quartz writer Alice Truong reacted to Free Basics saying; “Zuckerberg almost portrays net neutrality as a first-world problem that doesn’t apply to India because having some service is better than no service.”

The decision of the Indian government has been largely welcomed in the country and outside. In support of the move, Web We Want programme manager at the World Wide Web Foundation Renata Avila has said; “As the country with the second largest number of Internet users worldwide, this decision will resonate around the world. It follows a precedent set by Chile, the United States, and others which have adopted similar net neutrality safeguards. The message is clear: We can’t create a two-tier Internet – one for the haves, and one for the have-nots. We must connect everyone to the full potential of the open Web.”

There are mixed responses on the social media, both in support and in opposition to the TRAI decision. Josh Levy, Advocacy Director at Accessnow, has appreciated saying, “India is now the global leader on #NetNeutrality. New rules are stronger than those in EU and US.”

Had differential pricing been allowed, it would have affected start-ups and content-based smaller companies adversely as they could never have managed to pay the high price to a partner service provider to make their service available for free. On the other hand, tech-giants like Facebook could have easily managed to capture the entire market. Since the inception, the Facebook-run non-profit Internet.org has run into a lot of controversies because of the hidden motive behind the claimed support for social cause.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/odisha-tv-february-9-2016-subhashish-panigrahi-net-neutrality-advocates-rejoice-as-trai-bans-differential-pricing

Social media undermining journalistic credibility?

praskrishna — 2013-03-06T04:41:15Z

The line separating journalists and bloggers is being increasingly blurred due to the growth of social media, said Nelson Moses, who was a panelist at a discussion on the credibility of social media as a journalistic tool.

The article was published in the New Indian Express on March 4, 2013. Snehashish Ghosh was a panelist.

The talk titled, “Is social media credible?” comprising a panel of professionals from various media houses from across India, was held as a part of the alumni reunion at the Indian Institute of Journalism and New Media (IIJNM) recently.

The panel included Snehashish Ghosh, a policy associate at the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, Nelson Moses, who has had stints with numerous media houses and now works at Yahoo, Subhash Rai, web editor of the Economic and Political Weekly, and Tresa Morera, the deputy editor of the global online desk at Reuters, Bangalore.

The discussion, moderated by Professor Mark Austin of IIJNM, revolved around the crucial issues surrounding the Indian media industry and the use of social media.

Talking points included the role social media like Twitter and Facebook played in populist movements across the Middle East, such as the Arab Spring and also the exodus of people of Manipuri and Assamese descent from Bangalore last year, due to a series of phone messages which purportedly threatened them with violence.Other issues covered in the discussion were whether bloggers could be cited as credible sources of information and also if their roles in shaping public perception was influencing how media houses and journalists function.

During the course of the discussion, which centered around the drawbacks of a digitally interlinked media landscape, Subhash Rai, said that though it was clearly the work of “right-wing fundamental elements” which led to the circulation of provocative messages against people from the north eastern part of the country, the incident also pointed to the failure of neoliberalism in the Indian context.

“Journalists are one of the beneficiaries of neoliberalism,” said Shubash Rai, while arguing that often, urban concerns take precedence over more

pressing issues occurring outside the big cities, leading to these issues either not being reported or not given the same importance. “For example, nobody is reporting the agrarian crisis,” he said.

Tresa Morera, an IIJNM alumna, said that she believed that “transparency” in the Indian media, and a series of “checks and balances” within media organizations could help in better reporting by the media.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/new-indian-express-march-4-2013-social-media-undermining-journalistic-credibility