The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 21 to 35.
India bans Facebook’s ‘free’ Internet for the poor
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/washington-post-annie-gowen-february-8-2016-india-bans-facebooks-free-internet-for-the-poor
<b>India’s telecom regulator said Monday that service providers cannot charge discriminatory prices for Internet services, a blow to Facebook’s global effort to provide low-cost Internet to developing countries.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Annie Gowen was published in <a class="external-link" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/indian-telecom-regulator-bans-facebooks-free-internet-for-the-poor/2016/02/08/561fc6a7-e87d-429d-ab62-7cdec43f60ae_story.html">Washington Post</a> on February 8, 2016. Sunil Abraham gave inputs. The article was also mirrored by <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/facebooks-behaviour-may-not-have-helped-its-cause-in-india-foreign-media-1275173">NDTV</a>.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook’s “Free Basics” program provides a pared-down version of Facebook and weather and job listings to some 15 million mobile-phone users in 37 countries around the world.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">When it debuted in India in April, however, Free Basics immediately ran afoul of Internet activists who said it violated the principle of “net neutrality,” which holds that consumers should be able to access the entire Internet unfettered by price or speed.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On Monday, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India agreed, prohibiting data service providers from offering or charging different prices for data — even if it’s free. The Free Basics program has run into trouble elsewhere in the world recently — with Egypt <a href="http://gizmodo.com/a-week-after-india-banned-it-facebooks-free-basics-s-1750299423" target="_blank">banning it</a> and Google <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/Google-bids-adieu-to-Facebooks-Free-Basics-in-Zambia/articleshow/50669257.cms" target="_blank">clarifying</a> that it pulled out of the application during a testing phase in Zambia.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In a statement, Facebook said that while the company was “disappointed with the outcome, we will continue our efforts to eliminate barriers and give the unconnected an easier path to the Internet.”<br /><br />In an interview before the ruling, Chris Daniels, Facebook’s vice president for Internet.org — the umbrella organization of the global effort — said India’s negative reaction has been “unique versus other markets we’ve seen. We’ve been welcomed with open arms in many countries.”<br /><br />Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg launched the program to great fanfare in 2013, partnering with other international tech firms on a mission to connect the 4 billion people in the world without Internet access — which he says is a basic human right.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India has 300 million mobile Internet users but still has close to 1 billion people without proper Internet access. But it is second only to the United States in number of Facebook users, with 130 million, with vast expansion potential as Facebook works to increase its user base beyond the developed world.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Yet the Free Basics program was <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/india-egypt-say-no-thanks-to-free-internet-from-facebook/2016/01/28/cd180bcc-b58c-11e5-8abc-d09392edc612_story.html">controversial from the start in India</a>, where critics accused Facebook of creating a “walled garden” for poor users that allowed them access to only a portion of the web that Facebook controlled.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Dozens of well-known tech entrepreneurs, university professors and tech industry groups spoke out against it, saying that the curated app, with its handpicked weather, job and other listings, put India’s <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/risk-averse-india-embraces-silicon-valley-style-start-ups/2015/11/28/85376e20-8fb6-11e5-934c-a369c80822c2_story.html">scrappy start-ups</a> and software developers at a disadvantage.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On Monday, Vijay Shekhar Sharma, the founder and creator of India’s payment application PayTM, applauded the regulator’s move.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">He had been among the program’s fiercest critics, dubbing Free Basics “poor Internet for poor people” and comparing Facebook’s actions to that of British colonialists and their East India Co.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“India, Do u buy into this baby internet?” Sharma tweeted in December. “The East India company came with similar ‘charity’ to Indians a few years back!”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“In a country like India that’s just taking off, it’s important that there is an equal playground for every app developer,” he said in an interview.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In December, India’s regulator put out a position paper on differential pricing and asked for public comment on whether such programs were fair.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In response, Facebook launched a public relations blitz, with television and newspaper advertisements, billboards and <a href="http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/toi-edit-page/free-basics-protects-net-neutrality/">an opinion piece by Zuckerberg</a> in the Times of India in which he argued against criticism that the social-media giant was providing the service simply to expand its user base.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook also engineered a prompt to users that sent “robo” letters of support for Free Basics to India’s telecommunications regulator. The regulator, flooded with form letters, <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/technology/social/trai-slams-facebook-letter-on-free-basics-campaign-wholly-misplaced/">was not amused.</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook’s behavior may not have helped its cause, some analysts said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“Facebook went overboard with its propaganda [and] convinced ‘the powers that be’ that it cannot be trusted with mature stewardship of our information society,” said Sunil Abraham of the Center for Internet and Society in Bangalore.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Yet David Kirkpatrick, the author of “<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1439102120?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creativeASIN=1439102120&linkCode=xm2&tag=thewaspos09-20" target="_blank" title="www.amazon.com">The Facebook Effect</a>,” says that Zuckerberg is determined to see the program succeed.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“Facebook is relentless,” he said. “Zuckerberg has said from the beginning his goal is to make the world more open and connected. And that’s a phrase he continues to repeat 10 years later.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The regulator had asked Facebook, and its local telecom partner, Reliance Communications, to suspend Free Basics’ operations during the public comment period. But the social-media giant and its partner appeared to flout the suspension order, with the program continuing to be operational on Reliance SIM cards.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A spokesman for Reliance earlier said that the applications was in “testing mode” and that it was not commercially promoting the product.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The regulatory body said Monday that anybody violating the order in the future will be subject to a fine of about $735 a day. It will return to review the policy in two years to see if it is effective.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/washington-post-annie-gowen-february-8-2016-india-bans-facebooks-free-internet-for-the-poor'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/washington-post-annie-gowen-february-8-2016-india-bans-facebooks-free-internet-for-the-poor</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial MediaFree BasicsInternet GovernanceFreedom of Speech and ExpressionFacebook2016-02-10T02:53:49ZNews ItemIndia, Egypt say no thanks to free Internet from Facebook
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/washington-post-annie-gowen-january-28-2016-india-egypt-say-no-thanks-to-free-internet-from-facebook
<b>ALWAR, India — Connecting people to the Internet is not easy in this impoverished farming district of wheat and millet fields, where working camels can be glimpsed along roads that curve through the low-slung Aravalli Hills.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Annie Gowen was <a class="external-link" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/india-egypt-say-no-thanks-to-free-internet-from-facebook/2016/01/28/cd180bcc-b58c-11e5-8abc-d09392edc612_story.html">published in Washington Post</a> on January 28, 2016. Sunil Abraham gave inputs.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">So when Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg helicoptered in about a year ago to visit a small computer lab and tout Internet for all, Osama Manzar, director of India’s Digital Empowerment Foundation, was thrilled.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">But when Manzar tried Facebook’s limited free Internet service, he was bitterly disappointed. The app, called Free Basics, is a pared-down version of Facebook with other services such as weather reports and job listings.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“I feel betrayed — not only betrayed but upset and angry,” Manzar said. “He said we’re going to solve the problem with access and bandwidth. But Facebook is not the Internet.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Zuckerberg launched his sweeping Internet.org initiative in 2013 as a way to provide 4 billion people in the developing world with Web access, which he says he sees as a basic human right.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">But the initiative has hit a major snag in India, where in recent months Free Basics has been embroiled in controversy — with critics saying that the app, which provides limited access to the Web, does a disservice to the poor and violates the principles of “net neutrality,” which holds that equal access to the Internet should be unfettered to all.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Activist groups such as <a href="http://www.savetheinternet.in/" target="_blank">Save the Internet</a>, professors from leading universities and tech titans such as Nandan Nilekani, the co-founder of Infosys, have spoken out against it. Another well-known Indian entrepreneur dubbed it “poor Internet for poor people.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The debate escalated in recent weeks after India’s telecommunications regulator suspended Free Basics as it weighs whether such plans are fair, with new rules expected by the end of the month.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A week later, Free Basics was banned in Egypt with little explanation, prompting concern that the backlash could spread to other markets. More recently, Google pulled out of the app in Zambia after a trial period. An estimated 15 million people are using Free Basics in 37 countries, including 1 million in India.</p>
<p class="interstitial-link" style="text-align: justify; "><i>[<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/indias-modi-wants-to-woo-silicon-valley-but-censorship-and-privacy-fears-grow-at-home/2015/09/23/2ab28f86-6174-11e5-8475-781cc9851652_story.html" target="_blank">India’s Modi wants to woo Silicon Valley, but privacy fears grow at home</a>]</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“It’s a very important test case for what will be India’s network neutrality regime,” said Sunil Abraham of the Center for Internet and Society in Bangalore.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India’s debate could affect the way other countries address the question of whether it is fair for Internet service providers to price websites differently. The U.S. Federal Communications Commission’s rules on net neutrality went into effect only in June.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Officials at Facebook launched an advertising blitz to counteract the negative publicity. “Who could possibly be against this?” Zuckerberg wondered in a Times of India editorial on Dec. 28.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“I think we’ve been a bit surprised by the strong reaction,” said Chris Daniels, Facebook’s vice president for Internet.org. “Fundamentally, the reason for the surprise is that the program is doing good. It’s bringing people online who are moving onto the broader Internet.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India, a country of 1.2 billion, has the second-highest number of Internet users in the world, but an estimated 80 percent of the population does not have Internet access.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India’s tech-savvy prime minister, Narendra Modi, is trying to combat this with an ambitious “Digital India” plan to link 250,000 village centers with fiber-optic cable and extend mobile coverage. He has turned to the Indian tech community as well as Silicon Valley for help, securing an agreement with Google to provide free WiFi in railway stations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India has 130 million Facebook users, second only to the United States, and is a key market as the social-media giant looks to expand beyond the developed world, where its growth has slowed.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“If Facebook manages to get another half a billion users in India, that’s a valuable set of eyeballs to sell to a political party or corporation,” Abraham said.</p>
<p class="interstitial-link" style="text-align: justify; "><i>[<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/is-india-the-next-frontier-for-facebook/2014/10/09/8b256ea0-d5d6-4996-aafe-8e0e776c9915_story.html" target="_blank">Is India the next frontier for Facebook?</a>]</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook has long said that its program is about altruism, not eyeballs.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">But it does reap new customers. Those who buy a SIM card from Facebook’s local mobile partner, Reliance Communications, are then prompted to pay for additional data. About 40 percent who sign up for Free Basics buy a data plan to move to the wider Web after 30 days, Daniels said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The service is still running despite the India suspension. A Reliance spokesman said it is in “testing mode” and is not being promoted.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“The thing people forget about Free Basics is that it’s intended to be a temporary transition for people to give them a taste of the Internet and sign up. It’s a marketing program for the carrier in some sense,” said David Kirkpatrick, author of “<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1439102120?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creativeASIN=1439102120&linkCode=xm2&tag=thewaspos09-20" target="_blank" title="www.amazon.com">The Facebook Effect</a>.” But he added: “The idea that it’s some kind of alternative Internet that’s a discriminatory gesture to the poor is the prevailing view among the Indian intelligentsia. It’s fundamentally misunderstood.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook has pledged to open up to new scrutiny the selection process for companies with new applications, Daniels said. That is a response to concerns by many in India’s tech community that Facebook’s process put India’s fledgling start-ups at a disadvantage.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The project’s proponents say that India’s needs are so great it cannot afford to suspend one program that could help.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mahesh Uppal, a telecommunications consultant, notes that more than 10 percent of the country does not have mobile phone coverage and that India’s progress in extending fiber-optic cable to village centers is proceeding at a glacial pace. Modi had set a goal of linking all 250,000 by 2016, but only 27,000 have cable so far and it is ready for use in only 3,200, according to a government report.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In comparison, some 80 percent of China’s villages are linked by broadband.</p>
<p class="interstitial-link" style="text-align: justify; "><i>[<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/inside-the-indian-temple-that-draws-americas-tech-titans/2015/10/30/03b646d8-7cb9-11e5-bfb6-65300a5ff562_story.html" target="_blank">Inside the Indian temple that draws America’s tech titans</a>]</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In Alwar district in the northern state of Rajasthan, many remember when Zuckerberg came to visit but fewer know about Free Basics.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“I’ve heard it’s free and by Facebook and you don’t have to pay for it,” said Umer Farukh, 43, a folk musician. “But I don’t think Facebook should control it. The Internet should be for everybody.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Farukh has only been computer literate for two years, but he’s already emailing and using YouTube to post videos and promote his band.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">He’s become such a proponent that he has donated space for one of Manzar’s computer centers — part of a government initiative to build cyber-hubs in minority communities — and encouraged the female members of his family to take classes, which is rare in his conservative community.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Farukh says that challenges to connecting India go far beyond data plans and fiber-optic cable or the government broadband that often sputters out. Wages are low, and hours are long. Only about half of the women in his state are literate, and about a quarter of the young women in his neighborhood are kept at home and not educated.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“This place is very backward,” he said. “India as a society is lagging far behind in terms of Internet.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In the small nearby community of Roja Ka Baas, ringed by fields of blooming mustard greens, residents are still awaiting the opening of their planned WiFi center. They are struggling along on cheap mobile phones with slow 2G spectrum until then, they said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sakir Khan, 14, said that once the Internet finally arrived in this village, the first thing he would do would be to sign up for Facebook.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Farheen Fatima and Subuhi Parvez contributed to this report.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/washington-post-annie-gowen-january-28-2016-india-egypt-say-no-thanks-to-free-internet-from-facebook'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/washington-post-annie-gowen-january-28-2016-india-egypt-say-no-thanks-to-free-internet-from-facebook</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial MediaFree BasicsInternet GovernanceFreedom of Speech and ExpressionFacebook2016-02-03T01:49:25ZNews ItemFacebook is no charity, and the ‘free’ in Free Basics comes at a price
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-conversation-january-11-2016-facebook-is-no-charity
<b>Who could possibly be against free internet access? This is the question that Mark Zuckerberg asks in a piece for the Times of India in which he claims Facebook’s Free Basics service “protects net neutrality”.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Free Basics is the rebranded Internet.org, a Facebook operation where by partnering with local telecoms firms in the developing world the firm offers free internet access – <a href="https://theconversation.com/facebooks-free-access-internet-is-limited-and-thats-raised-questions-over-fairness-36460">limited only to Facebook</a>, Facebook-owned WhatsApp, and a few other carefully selected sites and services.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Zuckerberg was responding to the strong backlash that Free Basics has faced in India, where the country’s Telecom Regulatory Authority recently <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/technology/tech-news-technology/facebook-free-basics-ban-net-neutrality-all-you-need-to-know/">pulled the plug on the operation</a> while it debates whether telecoms operators should be allowed to offer different services with variable pricing, or whether a principle of <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-uk-doesnt-need-net-neutrality-regulations-yet-38204">network neutrality</a> should be enforced.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Not content to await the regulator’s verdict, Facebook has come out swinging. It has <a href="http://mashable.com/2015/12/23/facebook-free-basics-net-neutrality-india/">paid for billboards</a>, <a href="http://techcrunch.com/2015/12/27/gatekeeper-or-stepping-stone/">full-page newspaper ads</a> and television ad campaigns to try to enforce the point that Free Basics is good for India’s poor. In his Times piece, Zuckerberg goes one step further – implying that those opposing Free Basics are actually hurting the poor.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">He argued that “for every ten people connected to the internet, roughly one is lifted out of poverty”. Without reference to supporting research, he instead offers an anecdote about a farmer called Ganesh from Maharashtra state. Ganesh apparently used Free Basics to double his crop yields and get a better deal for his crops.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Zuckerberg stressed that “critics of free basic internet services should remember that everything we’re doing is about serving people like Ganesh. This isn’t about Facebook’s commercial interests”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Zuckerberg’s indignation illustrates either how little he understands about the internet, or that he’s willing to say anything to anyone listening.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">This is not a charity</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">First, despite his <a href="http://boingboing.net/2015/12/27/facebooks-fuddy-full-page-a.html">claims to the contrary</a> Free Basics clearly runs against the idea of net neutrality by offering access to some sites and not others. While the service is claimed to be open to any app, site or service, in practice the <a href="https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/platform-technical-guidelines">submission guidelines</a> forbid JavaScript, video, large images, and Flash, and effectively rule out secure connections using HTTPS. This means that Free Basics is able to read all data passing through the platform. The same rules don’t apply to Facebook itself, ensuring that it can be the only social network, and (Facebook-owned) WhatsApp the only messaging service, provided.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Yes, Free Basics is free. But how appealing is a taxi company that will only take you to certain destinations, or an electricity provider that will only power certain home electrical devices? There are <a href="https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2015/05/05/mozilla-view-on-zero-rating/">alternative models</a>: in Bangladesh, <a href="http://m.grameenphone.com/">Grameenphone</a> gives users free data after they watch an advert. In some African countries, users get free data after buying a handset.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Second, there is no convincing body of peer-reviewed evidence to suggest internet access lifts the world’s poor out of poverty. Should we really base telecommunications policy on an anecdote and a <a href="https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/ie/Documents/TechnologyMediaCommunications/2014_uk_tmt_value_of_connectivity_deloitte_ireland.pdf">self-serving industry report</a> sponsored by the firm that stands to benefit? India has a <a href="http://indiatribune.com/indias-literacy-level-is-74-2011-census-2/">literacy rate of 74%</a>, of which a much smaller proportion speak English well enough to read it. Literate English speakers and readers tend not to be India’s poorest citizens, yet it’s English that is the predominant language on the web. This suggests Free Basics isn’t suited for India’s poorest, who’d be better served by more voice and video services.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Third, the claim that Free Basics isn’t in Facebook’s commercial interest is the most outrageous. In much the same way that <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/nestle-baby-milk-scandal-food-industry-standards">Nestlé offered free baby formula in the 1970s</a> as development assistance to low-income countries – leaving nursing mothers unable to produce sufficient milk themselves – Free Basics is likely to impede commercial alternatives.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">By offering free access Free Basics disrupts the market, allowing Facebook to gain a monopoly that can benefit from the network effects of a growing user base. Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society, in India, has <a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/facebook-shares-10-key-facts-about-free-basics-heres-whats-wrong-with-all-10-of-them">aptly noted</a> that expanding audience and consumer bases have long been as important as revenues for internet firms. Against Facebook’s immensely deep pockets and established user-base, homegrown competitors are thwarted before they even begin.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">Poverty consists of more than just no internet</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India will not always have low levels of internet access, this is not the issue – in fact Indian internet penetration growth rates <a href="http://geonet.oii.ox.ac.uk/blog/changing-internet-access/">are relatively high</a>. Instead the company sees Free Basics as a means to establish a bridgehead into the country, establishing a monopoly before other firms move in.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There is decades of <a href="http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/">research</a> about how best to help farmers like Ganesh: access to good quality education, healthcare, and water all could go a long way. But even if we see internet access as one of the key needs to be met, why would we then offer a restricted version?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In presenting Free Basics as an act of altruism Zuckerberg tries to silence criticism. “Who could possibly be against this?”, he asks:</p>
<blockquote style="text-align: justify; ">
<p>What reason is there for denying people free access to vital services for communication, education, healthcare, employment, farming and women’s rights?</p>
</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">That is the right question, but Free Basics is the wrong answer. Let’s call a spade a spade and see Free Basics as an important part of the business strategy of one of the world’s largest internet corporations, rather than as a selfless act of charity.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-conversation-january-11-2016-facebook-is-no-charity'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-conversation-january-11-2016-facebook-is-no-charity</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFree BasicsFreedom of Speech and ExpressionFacebookInternet Governance2016-01-30T11:32:47ZNews ItemFacebook Shares 10 Key Facts about Free Basics. Here's What's Wrong with All 10 of Them.
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/facebook-shares-10-key-facts-about-free-basics-heres-whats-wrong-with-all-10-of-them
<b>Shweta Sengar of Catch News spoke to Sunil Abraham about the recent advertisement by Facebook titled "What Net Neutrality Activists won't Tell You or, the Top 10 Facts about Free Basics". Sunil argued against the validity of all the 'top 10 facts'.</b>
<p> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Facebook has rebranded internet.org as Free Basics. After suffering from several harsh blows from the net neutrality activists in India, the social media behemoth is positioning a movement in order to capture user attention.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Apart from a mammoth two page advertisement on Free Basics on 23 December in a leading English daily, we spotted a numerous hoardings across the capital.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Unlike Facebook, Wikipedia has a rather upfront approach for raising funds. You must have noticed a pop-up as you open Wikipedia when they are in need of funds. What Facebook has done is branded Free Basics as 'free' as the basic needs of life.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The newspaper advertisement by Facebook was aimed at clearing all the doubts about Free Basics. The 10 facts highlighted a connected India and urging users to take the "first step towards digital equality."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">In an interview with <em>Catch</em>, Sunil Abraham, Executive Director of Bangalore based research organisation, the Centre for Internet and Society, shared his thoughts on the controversial subject. Abraham countered each of Facebook's ten arguments. Take a look:</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote><strong>01</strong> Free basics is open to any carriers. Any mobile operator can join us in connecting India.</blockquote>
<p>Sunil Abraham: Free Basics was initially exclusive to only one telecom operator in most markets that it was available in.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The non-exclusivity was introduced only after activists in India complained. But now the arrangement is exclusive to Free Basics as a walled garden provider. But discrimination harms remain until other Internet services can also have what Facebook has from telecom operators ie. free access to their destinations.</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote><strong>02</strong> We do not charge anyone anything for Free Basics. Period.</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify;">SA: As Bruce Schneier says "surveillance is the business model of the Internet". Free basics users are subject to an additional layer of surveillance ie. the data retention by the Facebook proxy server. Just as Facebook cannot say that they are ignoring Data Protection law because Facebook is a free product - they cannot say that Free Basics can violate network neutrality law because it is a free service. For ex. Flipkart should get Flipkart Basic on all Indian ISPs and Telcos.</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote><strong>03</strong> We do not pay for the data consumed in Free Basics. Operators participate because the program has proven to bring more people online. Free Basics has brought new people onto mobile networks on average over 50% faster since launching the service.</blockquote>
<p>SA: Facebook has been quoting statistics as evidence to influence the policy formulation process. But we need the absolute numbers and we also need them to be independently verifiable. At the very least we need the means to cross verify these numbers with numbers that telcos and ISPs routinely submit to TRAI.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Theoretical harms must be addressed through net neutrality regulation. For example, you don't have to build a single, centralised database of all Indian citizens to know that it can be compromised - from a security design perspective centralisation is always a bad idea. Gatekeeping powers given to any powerful entity will be compromised. While evidence is useful, regulation can already begin based on well established regulatory principles. After scientific evidence has been made available - the regulation can be tweaked.</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote><strong>04</strong> Any developer or publisher can have their content on Free Basics. There are clear technical specs openly published here ... and we have never rejected an app or publisher who has me these tech specs.</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify;">SA: Again this was only done as a retrospective fix after network neutrality activists in India complained about exclusive arrangements. For example, the music streaming service Hungama is not a low-bandwidth destination but since it was included the technical specifications only mentions large images and video files. Many of the other sites are indistinguishable from their web equivalents clearly indicating that this was just an afterthought. At the moment Free Basics has become controversial so most developers and publishers are not approaching them so there is no way for us to verify Facebook's claim.</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote><strong>05</strong> Nearly 800 developers in India have signed their support for Free Basics.</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify;">SA: I guess these are software developers working in the services industry who don't see themselves as potential competition to Facebook or any of the services within Free Basics. Also since Facebook as been completely disingenuous when it comes to soliciting support for their campaigns it is very hard to believe these claims. It has tried to change the meaning of the phrase "net neutrality" and has framed the debate in an inaccurate manner - therefore I could quite confidently say that these developers must have been fooled into supporting Free Basics.</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote><strong>06</strong> It is not a walled garden: In India, 40% of people who come online through Free Basics are paying for data and accessing the full internet within the first 30 days. In the same time period, 8 times more people are paying versus staying on just</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify;">SA: Again, no absolute numbers and also no granularity in the data that makes it impossible for anyone to verify these numbers. Also there is no way to compare these numbers to access options that are respectful of network neutrality such as equal rating. If the numbers are roughly the same for equal rating and zero-rating then there is no strong case to be made for zero-rating.</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote><strong>07</strong> Free Basics is growing and popular in 36 other countries, which have welcomed the program with open arms and seen the enormous benefits it has brought.</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify;">SA: Free Basics was one of the most controversial topics at the last Internet Governance Forum. A gratis service is definitely going to be popular but that does not mean forbearance is the only option for the regulator. In countries with strong civil society and/or a strong regulator, Free Basics has ran into trouble. Facebook has been able to launch Free Basics only in jurisdictions where regulators are still undecided about net neutrality. India and Brazil are the last battle grounds for net neutrality and that is why Facebook is spending advertising dollar and using it's infrastructure to win the global south.</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote><strong>08</strong> In a recent representative poll, 86% of Indians supported Free Basics by Facebook, and the idea that everyone deserves access to free basic internet services.</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify;">SA: This is the poll which was framed in alarmist language where Indian were asked to choose between perpetuating or bridging the digital divide. This is a false choice that Facebook is perpetuating - with forward-looking positive Network Neutrality rules as advocated by Dr. Chris Marsden it should be possible to bridge digital divide without incurring any free speech, competition, innovation and diversity harms.</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote><strong>09</strong> In the past several days, 3.2 million people have petitioned the TRAI in support of Free Basics.</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify;">SA: Obviously - since Free Basics is better than nothing. But the real choice should have been - are you a) against network neutrality ie. would you like to see Facebook play gatekeeper on the Internet OR b) for network neutrality ie. would you like to see Free Basics forced to comply with network neutrality rules and expand access without harms to consumers and innovators.</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote><strong>10</strong> There are no ads in the version of Facebook on Free Basics. Facebook produces no revenue. We are doing this to connect India, and the benefits to do are clear.</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify;">SA: As someone who has watched the Internet economy since the first dot com boom - it is absolutely clear that consumer acquisition is as important as revenues. They are doing it to connect people to Facebook and as a result some people will also connect to the Internet. But India is the last market on the planet where the walled garden can be bigger than the Internet, and therefore Facebook is manipulating the discourse through it's dominance of the networked public sphere.</p>
<p>Bravo to TRAI and network neutrality activists for taking Facebook on.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><em>Originally published by <a href="http://www.catchnews.com/tech-news/should-facebook-become-internet-s-gatekeeper-or-free-basics-must-comply-with-net-neutrality-sunil-abraham-has-some-thoughts-1450954347.html" target="_blank">Catch News</a>, on December 24, 2015.</em></p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/facebook-shares-10-key-facts-about-free-basics-heres-whats-wrong-with-all-10-of-them'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/facebook-shares-10-key-facts-about-free-basics-heres-whats-wrong-with-all-10-of-them</a>
</p>
No publishersunilNet NeutralityFeaturedFacebookInternet GovernanceHomepage2015-12-25T14:59:10ZBlog EntryHow To Win Friends, FB Style
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/outlook-india-october-12-2015-arindam-mukherjee-how-to-win-friends-fb-style
<b>True to form—and Facebook—there was a warm, friendly and familial feel to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s townhall meeting at Melon, California, with Mark Zuckerberg on September 27. Modi got emotional (yet again) while talking about his mother. Zuckerberg, the youngish founder of the world’s largest social networking site, got his parents to meet and pose with Modi. </b>
<p>The article by Arindam Mukherjee was published in <a class="external-link" href="http://www.outlookindia.com/article/how-to-win-friends-fb-style/295492">Outlook</a> on October 12, 2015. Sunil Abraham was quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“The most amazing moment was when I talked about our families,” Zuckerberg wrote in a post, “and he (Modi) shared stories of his childhood....” That’s just the kind of stuff we would see and post on Facebook—the benign visage of a profitable, all-pervasive US-based corporation. (Needless to say, everyone who has worked on this story is a registered user).<br /><br />Of course, we know Modi too is on Facebook. No other Indian politician has so effectively utilised the power of ‘likes’: and he has got 30 million. The problem with this chummy approach is that one could almost forget that the PM is also the supreme leader of a country that is Facebook’s second-largest market in the world with 125 million users. A few days earlier, Zuckerberg flew to Seattle to meet Chinese President Xi Jinping. Facebook is not present in China. “On a personal note, this was the first time I’ve ever spoken with a world leader entirely in a foreign language,” wrote Zuckerberg in another post.<br /><br />In contrast, Modi and Zuckerberg were speaking the same language. In fact, they even jointly updated their profile picture on Facebook—wrapped in the shades of the Indian tricolour—to support the Modi government’s Digital India initiative. Millions of Indians followed suit. And that’s when the shit hit the internet—it was discovered that people supporting the Digital India campaign were also putting in a ‘yes’ vote for Facebook’s contentious initiative internet.org (free but restricted net access; see accompanying faqs for all the details). Immediately, Modi became a party to the raging debate in India over net neutrality. This is unfortunate as the Modi government is yet to put on paper its stand on net neutrality. The nervous reaction to this engagement is also a function of the new truism of our times—“with this government, you never know”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/Modi2.png" alt="Modi" class="image-inline" title="Modi" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">What we do know is that the internet.org class name was built into the code for support for Digital India. Many experts feel this is not a coincidence; rather a clever ploy by Facebook to get the support of Indians and promote its internet.org initiative. This upset a vocal community of activists who see internet.org on the opposite camp. This led to the charge that Facebook was trying to influence the debate. Says Sunil Abraham, executive director with the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), “The moves by Facebook are quite juvenile as it is trying to use the Modi visit to further muddy the net neutrality debate. We should be concerned about Facebook trying to damage the debate in India to spin the PM’s participation in its own favour.” Of course, there are two sides to this debate. There are many people within the government who feel net neutrality is an elitist concern—increasing internet penetration, which Facebook and other such initiatives promise, is the way forward in a poor, unconnected country like India. “Today to talk about net neutrality is to talk about the 20 per cent who have access to the internet,” says telecom expert Mahesh Uppal. “It is unreasonable to dismiss out of hand anybody who offers free service to a subset of websites or services. Eventually, access to internet must come first before we talk about net neutrality.”<br /><br />Facebook promoted internet.org along with Samsung, Nokia, Qualcomm, Ericsson, MediaTek and Opera Software, the aim being to provide free internet service to developing nations. India, obviously, is a hot target for Facebook. Facebook has a partnership with Reliance in the country; the free internet service will be available only to Reliance users and the free access will be limited to Facebook’s partner sites. The debate over internet.org too has picked up steam in India—big media companies like NDTV and Times of India have pulled out of it on these issues. While Facebook has stressed that internet.org will ensure that the internet reaches people who do not have access to it, there have been concerns that it will restrict internet access only to sites that are internet.org’s partners.<br /><br />On its part, Facebook has been quick to refute the charge. A spokesperson in the US said, “There is absolutely no connection between updating your profile picture for Digital India and internet.org. An engineer mistakenly used the words ‘internet.org profile picture’ as a shorthand name he chose for part of the code.” The code was changed soon after. Despite repeated requests, representatives from Facebook India were unavailable for comment.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/Zuckerberg.png" alt="Zuckerberg" class="image-inline" title="Zuckerberg" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">But the damage has been done. Many now openly question Facebook’s motives in India and whether they have been truthful or not. Given all this brouhaha, questions will naturally be raised about Modi’s alignment with Facebook. Digital India is many things—but obviously increasing net penetration is one its goals. “Now whatever he does on net neutrality, it will be seen in terms of whether it will benefit Google or Facebook. That is the risk he took. I would like to know why the diplomatic advisors took the risk of putting the PM in a bargaining position instead of a bonus at the end of a deal,” says Prof Narendar Pani, who teaches at the National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">All this matters because the Modi government positions itself as digital-friendly, even though its moves on this front have been invasive (the push for Aadhar despite a legal sanction and increasing reports of monitoring digital conversations), and contradictory (the abortive porn and WhatsApp bans, among others). “The PM is going way beyond the e-governance plan to a stage where the government will just sit and watch people speaking. It is scary,” says internet activist Usha Ramanathan. She feels it doesn’t make sense to have companies like Google sharing ideas with the government while Indian people are being kept out of the loop. “And now Facebook will be joining that gang, it doesn’t make sense. What has Facebook done to get that privilege?” she asks.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Here again there is a carefully worded counter-argument. Former telecom entrepreneur and Rajya Sabha MP Rajeev Chandrashekhar says, “Net neutrality is a definition that would be made in the public domain. It will not be influenced by the PM’s engagement with Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg. Anyone who tries to mess with the definition of net neutrality will be met with a public outcry and judicial intervention.” The substance of this view is that Modi was within his rights to speak to corporations to further Digital India, or Make in India for that matter, and that there should be an open debate on the future direction of net neutrality.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/copy5_of_Sunil.png" alt="Sunil" class="image-inline" title="Sunil" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Clearly, the political knives are out. “Either the prime minister is not being briefed properly or he does not read his brief properly,” says former UPA minister Manish Tewari. Arguing that governments should be discussing rules of engagement in cyberspace, and not stakeholders, he asks, “Is India comfortable with that construct especially when the bulk of the technology companies, the root servers which form the underlying hardware of the internet, are all based in the US, and one being in Europe?”<br /><br />Although the government is yet to firm up its decision on net neutrality and a policy on it is yet to be announced, the debate has already acquired political colour in India, with the Congress and Aam Aadmi Party putting their weight behind the people’s voice. This is the first time that there has been a nation-wide upsurge of such an unprecedented size and magnitude on an internet policy. Says AAP’s Adarsh Shastri, “Facebook, Google etc are just tools. People can use them at will. To make them the mainstay of your programme for digital empowerment is to step on the civil rights and liberties of citizens. Doing this is a complete no-no. Let people access internet as they want is the way to go.”<br /><br />A consultation paper floated by telecom regulator Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) got almost 15 lakh responses from the Indian public in support of net neutrality. There was also strong opposition to zero rating platforms announced by telecom companies like Airtel which sought to provide free access to some websites on their platform in much the same way that internet.org proposes. And the reactions to the Facebook coding error are a pointer to what people in India think. Says Nikhil Pahwa, editor of Medianama and a leading net neutrality activist, “The reactions of the people to the Facebook event were heartening and showed that people are emotive and there is still mass support for net neutrality. The reaction to the TRAI paper was not a flash in the pan.”<br /><br />Interestingly, a couple of months ago, a department of telecommunications committee had said that internet.org was a violation of net neutrality and should not be allowed. It will be difficult for Modi and the government to overrule that and give it full and free access in India. Internet experts feel that the engagement with India and Modi was a desperate move by Facebook to get numbers from India. Says internet expert Mahesh Murthy, “Facebook is pulling out all stops to get favour for internet.org and is desperate about it. If India says yes, many others will say yes, but if India says no, other countries will follow.”<br /><br />Murthy says Facebook’s real problem is that it is finding it difficult to justify its price to earnings ratio as against its user numbers vis-a-vis Google which is much better in this respect. For this, it is desperately trying to get numbers, and with China banning Facebook, the only country left to get numbers is India. The massive electronic and print campaign at the cost of Rs 40-50 crore is a pointer towards this. He says everything about internet.org is about hooking Indians to it.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">No wonder, Facebook has been cultivating Indian media. The Modi visit has also been tarnished by the news that Facebook paid for the travel and accommodation of journalists from three Indian newspapers and one magazine to go and cover the Facebook-Modi meeting and get favourable coverage. Says writer-activist Arundhati Roy, “Many journalists covering the event for the Indian media were flown in from India by Facebook. So were some who asked pre-assigned questions at the event. I don’t know who sponsored the crocodile tears and the clothes.” It is also quite strange that the entire display picture and source code controversy got almost no play in the national media which chose instead to talk about Modi’s speech and his tears.<br /><br />All said and done, it is obvious that Facebook may be seeing India as an easy and vulnerable target which can be manipulated for its own advantage. Says Parminder Jeet Singh, executive director with IT for Change, an NGO working on information society, “India has low internet penetration and lots of people want to get on to the internet. There is low purchasing power but lots of aspiration. So the moment a free service is offered, a whole lot of people are likely to jump on it.” And that is something Facebook may be looking and aiming at.<br /><br />Currently, three processes are on that will determine how India will look at net neutrality—one at the DoT, one at TRAI and a third one at a parliamentary standing committee. But given the massive people’s response net neutrality has got vis-a-vis TRAI’s paper and also during the present Facebook issue, the outcome is predictable. Or so it seems. There’s a lot of money power at stake. For now, millions of internet Indians have already voted with that dislike button. And then, governments move in mysterious ways.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/outlook-india-october-12-2015-arindam-mukherjee-how-to-win-friends-fb-style'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/outlook-india-october-12-2015-arindam-mukherjee-how-to-win-friends-fb-style</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial MediaFacebookInternet Governance2015-10-18T12:02:10ZNews ItemDigital India: Did Modi get it wrong in Silicon Valley?
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bbc-october-16-2015-digital-india-did-modi-get-it-wrong-in-silicon-valley
<b>A bear hug, a photo filter and a new debate on net neutrality - Ayeshea Perera examines the domestic fallout of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Facebook townhall in US.</b>
<p>This was published by <a class="external-link" href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-34513257">BBC News</a> on October 16, 2015. Sunil Abraham was quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It was supposed to be a moment that rocked the virtual world. Mr Modi, widely acknowledged as one of the world's most influential politicians on social media, enveloped a slightly stunned Mark Zuckerberg in a bear hug.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">But what was it that really happened in Menlo Park? Why did some people think Mr Modi wasn't acting in India's best digital interests when he hugged Mr Zuckerberg?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India with an internet population of 354 million - which has already <a class="story-body__link-external" href="ttp://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-09-03/news/66178659_1_user-base-iamai-internet-and-mobile-association">grown by 17%</a> in the first six months of 2015 - is an obvious target for not only Facebook, but other Silicon Valley giants. And they have all been more than happy to pledge their support for <a class="story-body__link-external" href="http://www.digitalindia.gov.in/">digital India</a> - a recently launched government initiative aimed at reinvigorating an $18bn (£11.6bn) campaign to strengthen India's digital infrastructure.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a class="story-body__link-external" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/Free-Wi-Fi-at-500-railway-stations-with-Googles-help-PM-says/articleshow/49123998.cms">Google offered</a> to provide 500 railway stations with free WiFi and Microsoft <a class="story-body__link-external" href="http://thenextweb.com/microsoft/2015/09/28/microsoft-wants-to-bring-cheap-broadband-to-500000-indian-villages/">pledged to connect</a> 500,000 Indian villages with cheap broadband access.</p>
<h2 class="story-body__crosshead" style="text-align: justify; ">Digitally colonised?</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">But this huge show of support and the increased interest in India has caused some concern within the country.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"Is Digital India going to only make India a consumer of services offered by global tech companies in lieu of data? Personal data is the currency of the digital world. Are we going to give that away simply to become a giant market for a Facebook or a Google? Look at the way the tech world is skewed. Only China has been able to come up with companies that can take on these MNCs" Prabir Purkayasta, chairman of the Society for Knowledge Commons in India, told the BBC.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"The British ruled the world because they controlled the seas," he said. "Is India going to be content to just be a digital consumer? To being colonised once again?"</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/Modi.jpg" alt="Narendra Modi" class="image-inline" title="Narendra Modi" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">And in the aftermath of the Facebook townhall in particular, some talk has begun to surface about what Mr Zuckerberg's real India ambitions are.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Soon after the townhall ended, both Mr Modi and Mr Zuckerberg declared their support for digital India by using a special Facebook filter to tint their profile pictures in the tri-colour of the Indian flag.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Multitudes of Indians followed suit and timelines were awash with snazzy tinted profile pictures, all in support of "Digital India".</p>
<h2 class="story-body__crosshead" style="text-align: justify; ">'Innocent mistake'</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">But then <a class="story-body__link-external" href="http://www.nextbigwhat.com/facebook-tricolor-profile-297">a tech website</a> released what it claimed to be a portion of Facebook's source code, which allegedly "proved" that the "Support Digital India" filter was actually a "Support Internet.Org" filter.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook <a class="story-body__link-external" href="http://indianexpress.com/article/technology/tech-news-technology/digital-india-profile-pic-tool-not-linked-to-support-for-internet-org-says-facebook/">quickly issued a denial</a>, blaming the text in the code on an "engineer mistake" in choosing a shorthand name he used for part of the code.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">But the "mistake" which has been coupled with a huge advertising blitz for Internet.Org <a class="story-body__link-external" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1&v=JdUovve48No">across television channels</a> and newspapers has raised suspicion about Facebook's motives. A Facebook poll on Internet.Org that frequently appears on Indian user timelines has also been ridiculed for not giving users an option to say no.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Instead the answer options to the poll question "Do you want India to have free basic services?" are "Yes" and "Not now".</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/Internet.png" alt="Internet" class="image-inline" title="Internet" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Internet.org (now called free basics), aims to extend internet services to the developing world by offering a selection of apps and websites free to consumers.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook's vice-president of infrastructure engineering, Jay Parikh has described the initiative as an "attempt to connect the two-thirds of the world who do not have access to the Internet" by trying to solve issues pertaining to affordability, infrastructure and access.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">When Facebook launched the initiative in India in February, it was criticised by Indian activists who expressed concerns that the project threatened freedom of expression, privacy and the principle of <a class="story-body__link" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32592204">net neutrality</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On the other end of the debate, Indian columnist Manu Joseph <a class="story-body__link-external" href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/columns/net-neutrality-war-is-not-just-facebook-versus-internet-mullahs/story-s9eZpZnomaaiz4De8fYfaK.html">wrote in the Hindustan Times newspaper</a>, hitting out at the "selfish" stand on net neutrality. He said concerns over the issue should be "subordinate to the fact that the poor have a right to some Internet".</p>
<h2 class="story-body__crosshead" style="text-align: justify; ">Wrong signal</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A massive campaign by India's Save the Internet Coalition exhorting Indians to speak out against initiatives threatening net neutrality caught public imagination and saw <a class="story-body__link-external" href="http://tech.firstpost.com/news-analysis/net-neutrality-deadline-trai-receives-over-million-emails-from-netizens-asking-to-save-the-internet-264548.html">more than a million emails</a> to India's regulator, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), demanding a free and fair internet in the country. Internet.Org was one of the initiatives immediately affected.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">TRAI since released a draft policy <a class="story-body__link" href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-33605253">on net neutrality</a>, but a question that has been asked is whether it was appropriate for Mr Modi to visit Facebook given that the policy was still under consideration.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/Modi1.png" alt="Narendra" class="image-inline" title="Narendra" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mr Purkayasta is of the opinion that it could have been avoided. "It was not the time or the place to go. Even if it was simply a publicity gimmick, it still sends a signal to officials involved in drafting the policy," he said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, Sunil Abraham from the Centre for Internet and Society told the BBC he believed that while Facebook's intentions were suspect, Mr Modi's visit had the potential to safeguard net neutrality in India.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"India is a hugely important market for Facebook, and the prime minister has the power to force positive changes to its policies," he said. "We gain nothing by shutting them out."</p>
<h2 class="share__title--lightweight share__title" style="text-align: justify; "></h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p> </p>
<p><figure class="full-width has-caption media-landscape"> </figure></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bbc-october-16-2015-digital-india-did-modi-get-it-wrong-in-silicon-valley'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bbc-october-16-2015-digital-india-did-modi-get-it-wrong-in-silicon-valley</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial MediaGoogleFacebookInternet Governance2015-10-18T04:44:52ZNews ItemWhat Bengaluru Thinks of the Big Tech Announcements in Silicon Valley
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/ndtv-maya-sharma-september-29-2015-what-bengaluru-thinks-of-big-tech-announcements-in-silicon-valley
<b>There is a split verdict on the big tech announcements made out of California during the Prime Minister's visit, in the desi version of Silicon Valley - Bengaluru.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This was published by <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ndtv.com/bangalore-news/what-bengaluru-thinks-of-silicon-valleys-promises-to-pm-modi-1224320">NDTV</a> on September 29, 2015. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Companies here are still assessing how they will be impacted by the big connectivity projects that Google, Microsoft and others announced when Prime Minister Narendra Modi dropped in at Silicon Valley, the global hub for innovation and technology, over the weekend.<br /><br /> CEO Sunder Pichai said Google would tie up with the government to provide free Wi-Fi at 500 railway stations across the country. Microsoft's Satya Nadela said his company would take broadband connectivity to five lakh villages across the country.<br /><br />And that its cloud services would operate out of India's data centres.<br /><br /> Some smaller companies in Bengaluru hope they will get some business when these giant projects are implemented. "Smaller companies like ours would be hoping we get a share of the pie when it comes to implementation. The government should ensure that," said Soujanya Prakash, a General Manager at Vee Technologies, to NDTV. Vee one of the companies assigned to implement part of the massive Aadhar identity card project.<br /><br /> Ms Prakash said companies like Microsoft and Google bring great technological expertise with them.<br /><br /> Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director for the Centre for Internet and Technology, had a word of caution as he voiced concern about the privacy policies of some big global companies. "The government should push for a strong data protection regime in India and force these companies to abide by that," he said.<br /><br /> Mr Prakash also said, "These companies need India more than we need them since there are more than one billion customers here. The Indian government must be wise in using this bargaining power."</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/ndtv-maya-sharma-september-29-2015-what-bengaluru-thinks-of-big-tech-announcements-in-silicon-valley'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/ndtv-maya-sharma-september-29-2015-what-bengaluru-thinks-of-big-tech-announcements-in-silicon-valley</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial MediaFacebookInternet Governance2015-10-18T13:26:35ZNews ItemAhead of hosting Modi, Facebook rebrands internet.org as Free Basics
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-september-26-2015-ahead-of-hosting-modi-facebook-rebrands-internet-dot-org-as-free-basics
<b>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.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article was published by <a class="external-link" href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/facebooks-internet-org-is-now-free-basics-115092500238_1.html">Business Standard</a> on September 26, 2015. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span class="p-content">Facebook has opened up its <a class="storyTags" href="http://www.business-standard.com/search?type=news&q=Free+Basics" target="_blank">Free Basics </a>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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> “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.<br /> <br /> 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.</span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-september-26-2015-ahead-of-hosting-modi-facebook-rebrands-internet-dot-org-as-free-basics'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-september-26-2015-ahead-of-hosting-modi-facebook-rebrands-internet-dot-org-as-free-basics</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial MediaFacebookInternet Governance2015-10-18T14:21:52ZNews ItemFacebook and its Aversion to Anonymous and Pseudonymous Speech
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/facebook-and-its-aversion-to-anonymous-and-pseudonymous-speech
<b>Jessamine Mathew explores Facebook's "real name" policy and its implications for the right to free speech. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The power to be unidentifiable on the internet has been a major reason for its sheer number of users. Most of the internet can now be freely used by anybody under a pseudonym without the fear of being recognised by anybody else. These conditions allow for the furtherance of free expression and protection of privacy on the internet, which is particularly important for those who use the internet as a medium to communicate political dissent or engage in any other activity which would be deemed controversial in a society yet not illegal. For example, an internet forum for homosexuals in India, discussing various issues which surround homosexuality may prove far more fruitful if contributors are given the option of being undetectable, considering the stigma that surrounds homosexuality in India, and the recent setting-aside of the Delhi High Court decision reading down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. The possibility of being anonymous or pseudonymous exists on many internet fora but on Facebook, the world’s greatest internet space for building connections and free expression, there is no sanction given to pseudonymous accounts as Facebook follows a real name policy. And as the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/technology/facebook-battles-manhattan-da-over-warrants-for-user-data.html?_r=0">recent decision</a> of a New York judge, disallowing Facebook from contesting warrants on private information of over 300 of its users, shows, there are clear threats to freedom of expression and privacy.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On the subject of using real names, Facebook’s Community Standards states, “Facebook is a community where people use their real identities. We require everyone to provide their real names, so you always know who you're connecting with. This helps keep our community safe.” Facebook’s Marketing Director, Randi Zuckerberg, <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2019544/Facebook-director-Randi-Zuckerberg-calls-end-internet-anonymity.html">bluntly dismissed</a> the idea of online anonymity as one that “has to go away” and that people would “behave much better” if they are made to use their real names. Apart from being a narrow-minded statement, she fails to realise that there are many different kinds of expression on the internet, from stories of sexual abuse victims to the views of political commentators, or indeed, whistleblowers, many of whom may prefer to use the platform without being identified. It has been decided in many cases that humans have a right to anonymity as it provides for the furtherance of free speech without the fear of retaliation or humiliation (<i>see </i>Talley v. California).<i> </i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While Facebook’s rationale behind wanting users to register for accounts with their own names is based on the goal of maintaining the security of other users, it is still a serious infraction on users’ freedom of expression, particularly when anonymous speech has been protected by various countries. Facebook has evolved from a private space for college students to connect with each other to a very public platform where not just social connections but also discussions take place, often with a heavily political theme. Facebook has been described as <a href="http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/facebook-and-twitter-key-to-arab-spring-uprisings-report">instrumental</a> in the facilitation of communication during the Arab Spring, providing a space for citizens to effectively communicate with each other and organise movements. Connections on Facebook are no longer of a purely social nature but have extended to political and legal as well, with it being used to promote movements all through the country. Even in India, Facebook was the <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/news/Facebook-Twitter-Google-change-face-of-Indian-elections/articleshow/34721829.cms">most widely adopted medium</a>, along with Twitter and Facebook, for discourse on the political future of the country during, before and after the 2014 elections. Earlier in 2011, Facebook was <a href="https://cis-india.org/news/web2.0-responds-to-hazare">used intensively</a> during the India Against Corruption movement. There were pages created, pictures and videos uploaded, comments posted by an approximate of 1.5 million people in India. In 2012, Facebook was also used to <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/social-media/Delhi-gang-rape-case-FacebookTwitter-fuels-rally-at-India-Gate/articleshow/17741529.cms">protest against the Delhi gang rape</a> with many coming forward with their own stories of sexual assault, providing support to the victim, organising rallies and marches and protesting about the poor level of safety of women in Delhi.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Much like its content policy, Facebook exhibits a number of discrepancies in the implementation of the anonymity ban. Salman Rushdie found that his Facebook account had been <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/15/technology/hiding-or-using-your-name-online-and-who-decides.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0">suspended</a> and when it was reinstated after he sent them proof of identity, Facebook changed his name to the name on his passport, Ahmed Rushdie instead of the name he popularly goes by. Through a series of tweets, he criticised this move by Facebook, forcing him to display his birth name. Eventually Facebook changed his name back to Salman Rushdie but not before serious questions were raised regarding Facebook’s policies. The Moroccan activist Najat Kessler’s account was also <a href="https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CD8QFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjilliancyork.com%2F2010%2F04%2F08%2Fon-facebook-deactivations%2F&ei=O1KxU-fwH8meugSZ74HgAg&usg=AFQjCNE7oUt2dyrSjpTskK7Oz3Q1OYXudg&sig2=bsOu46nmABTUhArhdjDCVw&bvm=bv.69837884,d.c2E">suspended</a> as it was suspected that she was using a fake name. Facebook has also not just stopped at suspending individual user accounts but has also removed pages and groups because the creators used pseudonyms to create and operate the pages in question. This was seen in the case of Wael Ghonim who created a group which helped in mobilizing citizens in Egypt in 2011. Ghonim was a Google executive who did not want his online activism to affect his professional life and hence operated under a pseudonym. Facebook temporarily <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/how-wael-ghonim-sparked-egypts-uprising-68727">removed</a> the group due to his pseudonymity but later reinstated it.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While Facebook performs its due diligence when it comes to some accounts, it has still done nothing about the overwhelmingly large number of obviously fake accounts, ranging from Santa Claus to Jack the Ripper. On my own Facebook friend list, there are people who have entered names of fictional characters as their own, clearly violating the real name policy. I once reported a pseudonymous account that used the real name of another person. Facebook thanked me for reporting the account but also said that I will “probably not hear back” from them. The account still exists with the same name. The redundancy of the requirement lies in the fact that Facebook does not request users to upload some form identification when they register with the site but only when they suspect them to be using a pseudonym. Since Facebook also implements its policies largely only on the basis of complaints by other users or the government, the real name policy makes many political dissidents and social activists the target of abuse on the internet.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Further, Articles 21 and 22 of the ICCPR grant all humans the right to free and peaceful assembly. As governments increasingly crack down on physical assemblies of people fighting for democracy or against legislation or conditions in a country, the internet has proved to be an extremely useful tool for facilitating this assembly without forcing people to endure the wrath of governmental authorities. A large factor which has promoted the popularity of internet gatherings is the way in which powerful opinions can be voice without the fear of immediate detection. Facebook has become the coveted online space for this kind of assembly but their policies and more particularly, faulty implementation of the policies, lead to reduced flows of communication on the site.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Of course, Facebook’s fears of cyberbullying and harassment are likely to materialise if there is absolutely no check on the identity of users. A possible solution to the conflict between requiring real names to keep the community safe and still allowing individuals to be present on the network without the fear of identification by anybody would be to ask users to register with their own names but still allowing them to create a fictional name which would be the name that other Facebook users can see. Under this model, Facebook can also deal with the issue of safety through their system of reporting against other users. If a pseudonymous user has been reported by a substantial number of people for harassment or any other cause, then Facebook may either suspend the account or remove the content that is offensive. If the victim of harassment chooses to approach a judicial body, then Facebook may reveal the real name of the user so that due process may be followed. At the same time, users who utilise the website to present their views and participate in the online process of protest or contribute to free expression in any other way can do so without the fear of being detected or targeted. Safety on the site can be maintained even without forcing users to reveal their real names to the world. The system that Facebook follows currently does not help curb the presence of fake accounts and neither does it promote completely free expression on the site.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/facebook-and-its-aversion-to-anonymous-and-pseudonymous-speech'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/facebook-and-its-aversion-to-anonymous-and-pseudonymous-speech</a>
</p>
No publisherJessamine MathewSocial MediaPrivacyFreedom of Speech and ExpressionFacebookChilling EffectAnonymityPseudonimityArticle 19(1)(a)2014-07-04T07:53:07ZBlog EntryReading the Fine Script: Service Providers, Terms and Conditions and Consumer Rights
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/reading-between-the-lines-service-providers-terms-and-conditions-and-consumer-rights
<b>This year, an increasing number of incidents, related to consumer rights and service providers, have come to light. This blog illustrates the facts of the cases, and discusses the main issues at stake, namely, the role and responsibilities of providers of platforms for user-created content with regard to consumer rights.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>On 1st July, 2014 the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a complaint against T-Mobile USA,</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn1">[1]</a><span> accusing the service provider of 'cramming' customers bills, with millions of dollars of unauthorized charges. Recently, another service provider, received flak from regulators and users worldwide, after it published a paper, 'Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks'.</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn2">[2]</a><span> The paper described Facebook's experiment on more than 600,000 users, to determine whether manipulating user-generated content, would affect the emotions of its users.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In both incidents the terms that should ensure the protection of their user's legal rights, were used to gain consent for actions on behalf of the service providers, that were not anticipated at the time of agreeing to the terms and conditions (T&Cs) by the consumer. More precisely, both cases point to the underlying issue of how users are bound by T&Cs, and in a mediated online landscape—highlight, the need to pay attention to the regulations that govern the online engagement of users.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>I have read and agree to the terms</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In his statement, Chief Executive Officer, John Legere might have referred to T-Mobile as "the most pro-consumer company in the industry",<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn3">[3]</a> however the FTC investigation revelations, that many customers never authorized the charges, suggest otherwise. The FTC investigation also found that, T-Mobile received 35-40 per cent of the amount charged for subscriptions, that were made largely through innocuous services, that customers had been signed up to, without their knowledge or consent. Last month news broke, that just under 700,000 users 'unknowingly' participated in the Facebook study, and while the legality and ethics of the experiment are being debated, what is clear is that Facebook violated consumer rights by not providing the choice to opt in or out, or even the knowledge of such social or psychological experiments to its users.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Both incidents boil down to the sensitive question of consent. While binding agreements around the world work on the condition of consent, how do we define it and what are the implications of agreeing to the terms?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Terms of Service: Conditions are subject to change </b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A legal necessity, the existing terms of service (TOS)—as they are also known—as an acceptance mechanism are deeply broken. The policies of online service providers are often, too long, and with no shorter or multilingual versions, require substantial effort on part of the user to go through in detail. A 2008 Carnegie Mellon study estimated it would take an average user 244 hours every year to go through the policies they agree to online.<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn4">[4]</a> Based on the study, Atlantic's Alexis C. Madrigal derived that reading all of the privacy policies an average Internet user encounters in a year, would take 76 working days.<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn5">[5]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The costs of time are multiplied by the fact that terms of services change with technology, making it very hard for a user to keep track of all of the changes over time. Moreover, many services providers do not even commit to the obligation of notifying the users of any changes in the TOS. Microsoft, Skype, Amazon, YouTube are examples of some of the service providers that have not committed to any obligations of notification of changes and often, there are no mechanisms in place to ensure that service providers are keeping users updated.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook has said that the recent social experiment is perfectly legal under its TOS,<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn6">[6]</a> the question of fairness of the conditions of users consent remain debatable. Facebook has a broad copyright license that goes beyond its operating requirements, such as the right to 'sublicense'. The copyright also does not end when users stop using the service, unless the content has been deleted by everyone else.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">More importantly, since 2007, Facebook has brought major changes to their lengthy TOS about every year.<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn7">[7]</a> And while many point that Facebook is transparent, as it solicits feedback preceding changes to their terms, the accountability remains questionable, as the results are not binding unless 30% of the actual users vote. Facebook can and does, track users and shares their data across websites, and has no obligation or mechanism to inform users of the takedown requests.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Courts in different jurisdictions under different laws may come to different conclusions regarding these practices, especially about whether changing terms without notifying users is acceptable or not. Living in a society more protective of consumer rights is however, no safeguard, as TOS often include a clause of choice of law which allow companies to select jurisdictions whose laws govern the terms.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The recent experiment bypassed the need for informed user consent due to Facebook's Data Use Policy<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn8">[8]</a>, which states that once an account has been created, user data can be used for 'internal operations, including troubleshooting, data analysis, testing, research and service improvement.' While the users worldwide may be outraged, legally, Facebook acted within its rights as the decision fell within the scope of T&Cs that users consented to. The incident's most positive impact might be in taking the questions of Facebook responsibilities towards protecting users, including informing them of the usage of their data and changes in data privacy terms, to a worldwide audience.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>My right is bigger than yours</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Most TOS agreements, written by lawyers to protect the interests of the companies add to the complexities of privacy, in an increasingly user-generated digital world. Often, intentionally complicated agreements, conflict with existing data and user rights across jurisdictions and chip away at rights like ownership, privacy and even the ability to sue. With conditions that that allow for change in terms at anytime, existing users do not have ownership or control over their data.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In April New York Times, reported of updates to the legal policy of General Mills (GM), the multibillion-dollar food company.<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn9">[9]</a> The update broadly asserted that consumers interacting with the company in a variety of ways and venues no longer can sue GM, but must instead, submit any complaint to “informal negotiation” or arbitration. Since then, GM has backtracked and clarified that “online communities” mentioned in the policy referred only to those online communities hosted by the company on its own websites.<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn10">[10]</a> Clarification aside, as Julia Duncan, Director of Federal programs at American Association for Justice points out, the update in the terms were so broad, that they were open to wide interpretation and anything that consumers purchase from the company could have been held to this clause. <a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn11">[11]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Data and whose rights?</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Following Snowden revelations, data privacy has become a contentious issue in the EU, and TOS, that allow the service providers to unilaterally alter terms of the contract, will face many challenges in the future. In March Edward Snowden sent his testimony to the European Parliament calling for greater accountability and highlighted that in "a global, interconnected world where, when national laws fail like this, our international laws provide for another level of accountability."<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn12">[12]</a> Following the testimony came the European Parliament's vote in favor of new safeguards on the personal data of EU citizens, when it’s transferred to non-EU.<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn13">[13]</a> The new regulations seek to give users more control over their personal data including the right to ask for data from companies that control it and seek to place the burden of proof on the service providers.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The regulation places responsibility on companies, including third-parties involved in data collection, transfer and storing and greater transparency on concerned requests for information. The amendment reinforces data subject right to seek erasure of data and obliges concerned parties to communicate data rectification. Also, earlier this year, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled in favor of the 'right to be forgotten'<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn14">[14]</a>. The ECJ ruling recognised 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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In May, the Norwegian Consumer Council filed a complaint with the Norwegian Consumer Ombudsman, “… based on the discrepancies between Norwegian Law and the standard terms and conditions applicable to the Apple iCloud service...”, and, “...in breach of the law regarding control of marketing and standard agreements.”<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn15">[15]</a> The council based its complaint on the results of a study, published earlier this year, that found terms were hazy and varied across services including iCloud, Drop Box, Google Drive, Jotta Cloud, and Microsoft OneDrive. The Norwegian Council study found that Google TOS, allow for users content to be used for other purposes than storage, including by partners and that it has rights of usage even after the service is cancelled. None of the providers provide a guarantee that data is safe from loss, while many, have the ability to terminate an account without notice. All of the service providers can change the terms of service but only Google and Microsoft give an advance notice.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The study also found service providers lacking with respect to European privacy standards, with many allowing for browsing of user content. Tellingly, Google had received a fine in January by the French Data Protection Authority, that stated regarding Google's TOS, "permits itself to combine all the data it collects about its users across all of its services without any legal basis."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>To blame or not to blame</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook is facing a probe by the UK Information Commissioner's Office, to assess if the experiment conducted in 2012 was a violation of data privacy laws.<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn16">[16]</a> The FTC asked the court to order T-Mobile USA, to stop mobile cramming, provide refunds and give up any revenues from the practice. The existing mechanisms of online consent, do not simplify the task of agreeing to multiple documents and services at once, a complexity which manifolds, with the involvement of third parties.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Unsurprisingly, T-Mobile's Legere termed the FTC lawsuit misdirected and blamed the companies providing the text services for the cramming.<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn17">[17]</a> He felt those providers should be held accountable, despite allegations that T-Mobile's billing practices made it difficult for consumers to detect that they were being charged for unauthorized services and having shared revenues with third-party providers. Interestingly, this is the first action against a wireless carrier for cramming and the FTC has a precedent of going after smaller companies that provide the services.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The FTC charged T-Mobile USA with deceptive billing practices in putting the crammed charges under a total for 'use charges' and 'premium services' and failure to highlight that portion of the charge was towards third-party charges. Further, the company urged customers to take complaints to vendors and was not forthcoming with refunds. For now, T-Mobile may be able to share the blame, the incident brings to question its accountability, especially as going forward it has entered a pact along with other carriers in USA including Verizon and AT&T, agreeing to stop billing customers for third-party services. Even when practices such as cramming are deemed illegal, it does not necessarily mean that harm has been prevented. Often users bear the burden of claiming refunds and litigation comes at a cost while even after being fined companies could have succeeded in profiting from their actions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Conclusion </b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Unfair terms and conditions may arise when service providers include terms that are difficult to understand or vague in their scope. TOS that prevent users from taking legal action, negate liability for service providers actions despite the companies actions that may have a direct bearing on users, are also considered unfair. More importantly, any term that is hidden till after signing the contract, or a term giving the provider the right to change the contract to their benefit including wider rights for service provider wide in comparison to users such as a term that that makes it very difficult for users to end a contract create an imbalance. These issues get further complicated when the companies control and profiting from data are doing so with user generated data provided free to the platform.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In the knowledge economy, web companies play a decisive role as even though they work for profit, the profit is derived out of the knowledge held by individuals and groups. In their function of aggregating human knowledge, they collect and provide opportunities for feedback of the outcomes of individual choices. The significance of consent becomes a critical part of the equation when harnessing individual information. In France, consent is part of the four conditions necessary to be forming a valid contract (article 1108 of the Code Civil).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The cases highlight the complexities that are inherent in the existing mechanisms of online consent. The question of consent has many underlying layers such as reasonable notice and contractual obligations related to consent such as those explored in the case in Canada, which looked at whether clauses of TOS were communicated reasonably to the user, a topic for another blog. For now, we must remember that by creating and organising social knowledge that further human activity, service providers, serve a powerful function. And as the saying goes, with great power comes great responsibility.</p>
<hr size="1" style="text-align: justify; " width="33%" />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref1">[1]</a> 'FTC Alleges T-Mobile Crammed Bogus Charges onto Customers’ Phone Bills', published 1 July, 2014. See: http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2014/07/ftc-alleges-t-mobile-crammed-bogus-charges-customers-phone-bills</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref2">[2]</a> 'Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks', Adam D. I. Kramera,1, Jamie E. Guilloryb, and Jeffrey T. Hancock, published March 25, 2014. See:http://www.pnas.org/content/111/24/8788.full.pdf+html?sid=2610b655-db67-453d-bcb6-da4efeebf534</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref3">[3]</a> 'U.S. sues T-Mobile USA, alleges bogus charges on phone bills, Reuters published 1st July, 2014 See: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/01/us-tmobile-ftc-idUSKBN0F656E20140701</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref4">[4]</a> 'The Cost of Reading Privacy Policies', Aleecia M. McDonald and Lorrie Faith Cranor, published I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society 2008 Privacy Year in Review issue. See: http://lorrie.cranor.org/pubs/readingPolicyCost-authorDraft.pdf</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref5">[5]</a> 'Reading the Privacy Policies You Encounter in a Year Would Take 76 Work Days', Alexis C. Madrigal, published The Atlantic, March 2012 See: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/reading-the-privacy-policies-you-encounter-in-a-year-would-take-76-work-days/253851/</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref6">[6]</a> Facebook Legal Terms. See: https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref7">[7]</a> 'Facebook's Eroding Privacy Policy: A Timeline', Kurt Opsahl, Published Electronic Frontier Foundation , April 28, 2010 See:https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/facebook-timeline</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref8">[8]</a> Facebook Data Use Policy. See: https://www.facebook.com/about/privacy/</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref9">[9]</a> 'When ‘Liking’ a Brand Online Voids the Right to Sue', Stephanie Strom, published in New York Times on April 16, 2014 See: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/17/business/when-liking-a-brand-online-voids-the-right-to-sue.html?ref=business</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref10">[10]</a> Explaining our website privacy policy and legal terms, published April 17, 2014 See:http://www.blog.generalmills.com/2014/04/explaining-our-website-privacy-policy-and-legal-terms/#sthash.B5URM3et.dpufhttp://www.blog.generalmills.com/2014/04/explaining-our-website-privacy-policy-and-legal-terms/</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref11">[11]</a> General Mills Amends New Legal Policies, Stephanie Strom, published in New York Times on 1http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/18/business/general-mills-amends-new-legal-policies.html?_r=0</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref12">[12]</a> Edward Snowden Statement to European Parliament published March 7, 2014. See: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/201403/20140307ATT80674/20140307ATT80674EN.pdf</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref13">[13]</a> Progress on EU data protection reform now irreversible following European Parliament vote, published 12 March 201 See: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-14-186_en.htm</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref14">[14]</a> European Court of Justice rules Internet Search Engine Operator responsible for Processing Personal Data Published by Third Parties, Jyoti Panday, published on CIS blog on May 14, 2014. See: http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/ecj-rules-internet-search-engine-operator-responsible-for-processing-personal-data-published-by-third-parties</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref15">[15]</a> Complaint regarding Apple iCloud’s terms and conditions , published on 13 May 2014 See:http://www.forbrukerradet.no/_attachment/1175090/binary/29927</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref16">[16]</a> 'Facebook faces UK probe over emotion study' See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28102550</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref17">[17]</a> Our Reaction to the FTC Lawsuit See: http://newsroom.t-mobile.com/news/our-reaction-to-the-ftc-lawsuit.htm</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/reading-between-the-lines-service-providers-terms-and-conditions-and-consumer-rights'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/reading-between-the-lines-service-providers-terms-and-conditions-and-consumer-rights</a>
</p>
No publisherjyotiSocial MediaConsumer RightsGoogleinternet and societyPrivacyTransparency and AccountabilityIntermediary LiabilityAccountabilityFacebookData ProtectionPoliciesSafety2014-07-04T06:31:37ZBlog EntryWSIS+10 High Level Event: A Bird's Eye Report
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/wsis-10-high-level-event-a-birds-eye-report
<b>The WSIS+10 High Level was organised by the ITU and collaborative UN entities on June 9-13, 2014. It aimed to evaluate the progress on implementation of WSIS Outcomes from Geneva 2003 and Tunis 2005, and to envision a post-2015 Development Agenda. Geetha Hariharan attended the event on CIS' behalf.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>The World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) +10 </span><a href="http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2014/forum/">High Level Event</a><span> (HLE) was hosted at the ITU Headquarters in Geneva, from June 9-13, 2014. The HLE aimed to review the implementation and progress made on information and communication technology (ICT) across the globe, in light of WSIS outcomes (</span><a href="http://www.itu.int/wsis/index-p1.html">Geneva 2003</a><span> and </span><a href="http://www.itu.int/wsis/index-p2.html">Tunis 2005</a><span>). Organised in three parallel tracks, the HLE sought to take stock of progress in ICTs in the last decade (High Level track), initiate High Level Dialogues to formulate the post-2015 development agenda, as well as host thematic workshops for participants (Forum track).</span><span> </span></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">The High Level Track:</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/copy2_of_HighLevelTrack.jpg/@@images/be5f993c-3553-4d63-bb66-7cd16f8407dc.jpeg" alt="High Level Track" class="image-inline" title="High Level Track" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Opening Ceremony, WSIS+10 High Level Event </i>(<a class="external-link" href="https://twitter.com/ITU/status/334587247556960256/photo/1">Source</a>)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The High Level track opened officially on June 10, 2014, and culminated with the endorsement by acclamation (as is ITU tradition) of two <a href="http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2014/forum/inc/doc/outcome/362828V2E.pdf">Outcome Documents</a>. These were: (1) WSIS+10 Statement on the Implementation of WSIS Outcomes, taking stock of ICT developments since the WSIS summits, (2) WSIS+10 Vision for WSIS Beyond 2015, aiming to develop a vision for the post-2015 global information society. These documents were the result of the WSIS+10 <a href="http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/mpp/">Multi-stakeholder Preparatory Platform</a> (MPP), which involved WSIS stakeholders (governments, private sector, civil society, international organizations and relevant regional organizations).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The <strong>MPP</strong> met in six phases, convened as an open, inclusive consultation among WSIS stakeholders. It was not without its misadventures. While ITU Secretary General Dr. Hamadoun I. Touré consistently lauded the multi-stakeholder process, and Ambassador Janis Karklins urged all parties, especially governments, to “<i>let the UN General Assembly know that the multi-stakeholder model works for Internet governance at all levels</i>”, participants in the process shared stories of discomfort, disagreement and discord amongst stakeholders on various IG issues, not least human rights on the Internet, surveillance and privacy, and multi-stakeholderism. Richard Hill of the Association for Proper Internet Governance (<a href="http://www.apig.ch/">APIG</a>) and the Just Net Coalition writes that like NETmundial, the MPP was rich in a diversity of views and knowledge exchange, but stakeholders <a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/2014/06/16/what-questions-did-the-wsis10-high-level-event-answer/">failed to reach consensus</a> on crucial issues. Indeed, Prof. Vlamidir Minkin, Chairman of the MPP, expressed his dismay at the lack of consensus over action line C9. A compromise was agreed upon in relation to C9 later.<span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Some members of civil society expressed their satisfaction with the extensive references to human rights and rights-centred development in the Outcome Documents. While governmental opposition was seen as frustrating, they felt that the <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">MPP had sought and achieved a common understanding</span></strong>, a sentiment <a href="https://twitter.com/covertlight/status/476748168051580928">echoed</a> by the ITU Secretary General. Indeed, even Iran, a state that had expressed major reservations during the MPP and felt itself unable to agree with the text, <a href="https://twitter.com/covertlight/status/476748723750711297">agreed</a> that the MPP had worked hard to draft a document beneficial to all.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Concerns around the MPP did not affect the <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">review of ICT developments</span></strong> over the last decade. High Level Panels with Ministers of ICT from states such as Uganda, Bangladesh, Sweden, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and others, heads of the UN Development Programme, UNCTAD, Food and Agriculture Organisation, UN-WOMEN and others spoke at length of rapid advances in ICTs. The focus was largely on ICT access and affordability in developing states. John E. Davies of Intel repeatedly drew attention to innovative uses of ICTs in Africa and Asia, which have helped bridge divides of affordability, gender, education and capacity-building. Public-private partnerships were the best solution, he said, to affordability and access. At a ceremony evaluating implementation of WSIS action-lines, the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC), India, <a href="https://twitter.com/covertlight/status/476748723750711297">won an award</a> for its e-health application MOTHER.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>The Outcome Documents themselves shall be analysed in a separate post. But in sum, the dialogue around Internet governance at the HLE centred around the success of the MPP. Most participants on panels and in the audience felt this was a crucial achievement within the realm of the UN, where the Tunis Summit had delineated strict roles for stakeholders in paragraph 35 of the </span><a href="http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html">Tunis Agenda</a><span>. Indeed, there was palpable relief in Conference Room 1 at the </span><a href="http://www.cicg.ch/en/">CICG</a><span>, Geneva, when on June 11, Dr. Touré announced that the Outcome Documents would be adopted without a vote, in keeping with ITU tradition, even if consensus was achieved by compromise.</span></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">The High Level Dialogues:</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/HighLevelDialogues.jpg/@@images/3c30d94f-7a65-4912-bb42-2ccd3b85a18d.jpeg" alt="High Level Dialogues" class="image-inline" title="High Level Dialogues" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Prof. Vladimir Minkin delivers a statement.</i> (<a class="external-link" href="https://twitter.com/JaroslawPONDER/status/476288845013843968/photo/1">Source</a>)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The High Level Dialogues on developing a post-2015 Development Agenda, based on WSIS action lines, were active on June 12. Introducing the Dialogue, Dr. Touré lamented the Millennium Development Goals as a “<i>lost opportunity</i>”, emphasizing the need to alert the UN General Assembly and its committees as to the importance of ICTs for development.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As on previous panels, there was <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">intense focus on access, affordability and reach in developing countries</span></strong>, with Rwanda and Bangladesh expounding upon their successes in implementing ICT innovations domestically. The world is more connected than it was in 2005, and the ITU in 2014 is no longer what it was in 2003, said speakers. But we lack data on ICT deployment across the globe, said Minister Knutssen of Sweden, recalling the gathering to the need to engage all stakeholders in this task. Speakers on multiple panels, including the Rwandan Minister for CIT, Marilyn Cade of ICANN and Petra Lantz of the UNDP, emphasized the need for ‘smart engagement’ and capacity-building for ICT development and deployment.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A crucial session on cybersecurity saw Dr. Touré envision a global peace treaty accommodating multiple stakeholders. On the panel were Minister Omobola Johnson of Nigeria, Prof. Udo Helmbrecht of the European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA), Prof. A.A. Wahab of Cybersecurity Malaysia and Simon Muller of Facebook. The focus was primarily on building laws and regulations for secure communication and business, while child protection was equally considered.<span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The lack of laws/regulations for cybersecurity (child pornography and jurisdictional issues, for instance), or other legal protections (privacy, data protection, freedom of speech) in rapidly connecting developing states was noted. But the <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">question of cross-border surveillance and wanton violations of privacy went unaddressed</span></strong> except for the customary, unavoidable mention. This was expected. Debates in Internet governance have, in the past year, been silently and invisibly driven by the Snowden revelations. So too, at WSIS+10 Cybersecurity, speakers emphasized open data, information exchange, data ownership and control (the <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/ecj-rules-internet-search-engine-operator-responsible-for-processing-personal-data-published-by-third-parties">right to be forgotten</a>), but did not openly address surveillance. Indeed, Simon Muller of Facebook called upon governments to publish their own transparency reports: A laudable suggestion, even accounting for Facebook’s own undetailed and truncated reports.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In a nutshell, the post-2015 Development Agenda dialogues repeatedly emphasized the importance of ICTs in global connectivity, and their impact on GDP growth and socio-cultural change and progress. The focus was on taking this message to the UN General Assembly, engaging all stakeholders and creating an achievable set of action lines post-2015.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">The Forum Track:</h3>
<p><img src="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/copy_of_ForumTrack.jpg/@@images/dfcce68a-18d7-4f1e-897b-7208bb60abc9.jpeg" alt="Forum Track" class="image-inline" title="Forum Track" /></p>
<p><i>Participants at the UNESCO session on its Comprehensive Study on Internet-related Issues</i> (<a class="external-link" href="https://twitter.com/leakaspar/status/476690921644646400/photo/1">Source</a>)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The HLE was organized as an extended version of the WSIS Forum, which hosts thematic workshops and networking opportunities, much like any other conference. Running in parallel sessions over 5 days, the WSIS Forum hosted sessions by the ITU, UNESCO, UNDP, ICANN, ISOC, APIG, etc., on issues as diverse as the WSIS Action Lines, the future of Internet governance, the successes and failures of <a href="http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/12/18/itu-phobia-why-wcit-was-derailed/">WCIT-2012</a>, UNESCO’s <a href="http://www.unesco.org/new/internetstudy">Comprehensive Study on Internet-related Issues</a>, spam and a taxonomy of Internet governance.<span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Detailed explanation of each session I attended is beyond the scope of this report, so I will limit myself to the interesting issues raised.<span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">At ICANN’s session on its own future (June 9), Ms. Marilyn Cade emphasized the <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">importance of national and regional IGFs</span></strong> for both issue-awareness and capacity-building. Mr. Nigel Hickson spoke of engagement at multiple Internet governance fora: “<i>Internet governance is not shaped by individual events</i>”. In light of <a href="http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/04/16/icann-anything-that-doesnt-give-iana-to-me-is-out-of-scope/">criticism</a> of ICANN’s apparent monopoly over IANA stewardship transition, this has been ICANN’s continual <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014-06-06-en">response</a> (often repeated at the HLE itself). Also widely discussed was the <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">role of stakeholders in Internet governance</span></strong>, given the delineation of roles and responsibilities in the Tunis Agenda, and governments’ preference for policy-monopoly (At WSIS+10, Indian Ambassador Dilip Sinha seemed wistful that multilateralism is a “<i>distant dream</i>”).<span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This discussion bore greater fruit in a session on Internet governance ‘taxonomy’. The session saw <a href="https://www.icann.org/profiles/george-sadowsky">Mr. George Sadowsky</a>, <a href="http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/faculty/kurbalija">Dr. Jovan Kurbalija</a>, <a href="http://www.williamdrake.org/">Mr. William Drake</a> and <a href="http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2014/forum/agenda/session_docs/170/ThoughtsOnIG.pdf">Mr. Eliot Lear</a> (there is surprisingly no official profile-page on Mr. Lear) expound on dense structures of Internet governance, involving multiple methods of classification of Internet infrastructure, CIRs, public policy issues, etc. across a spectrum of ‘baskets’ – socio-cultural, economic, legal, technical. Such studies, though each attempting clarity in Internet governance studies, indicate that the closer you get to IG, the more diverse and interconnected the eco-system gets. David Souter’s diagrams almost capture the flux of dynamic debate in this area (please see pages 9 and 22 of <a href="http://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/ISOC%20framework%20for%20IG%20assessments%20-%20D%20Souter%20-%20final_0.pdf">this ISOC study</a>).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There were, for most part, insightful interventions from session participants. Mr. Sadowsky questioned the effectiveness of the Tunis Agenda delineation of stakeholder-roles, while Mr. Lear pleaded that techies be let to do their jobs without interference. <a href="http://internetdemocracy.in/">Ms. Anja Kovacs</a> raised pertinent concerns about <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">including voiceless minorities in a ‘rough consensus’ model</span></strong>. Across sessions, <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">questions of mass surveillance, privacy and data ownership rose</span></strong> from participants. The protection of human rights on the Internet – especially freedom of expression and privacy – made continual appearance, across issues like spam (<a href="http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/CDS/sg/rgqlist.asp?lg=1&sp=2010&rgq=D10-RGQ22.1.1&stg=1">Question 22-1/1</a> of ITU-D Study Group 1) and cybersecurity.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Conclusion:</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The HLE was widely attended by participants across WSIS stakeholder-groups. At the event, a great many relevant questions such as the future of ICTs, inclusions in the post-2015 Development Agenda, the value of muti-stakeholder models, and human rights such as free speech and privacy were raised across the board. Not only were these raised, but cognizance was taken of them by Ministers, members of the ITU and other collaborative UN bodies, private sector entities such as ICANN, technical community such as the ISOC and IETF, as well as (obviously) civil society.<span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Substantively, the HLE did not address mass surveillance and privacy, nor of expanding roles of WSIS stakeholders and beyond. Processually, the MPP failed to reach consensus on several issues comfortably, and a compromise had to be brokered.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>But perhaps a big change at the HLE was the positive attitude to multi-stakeholder models from many quarters, not least the ITU Secretary General Dr. Hamadoun Touré. His repeated calls for acceptance of multi-stakeholderism left many members of civil society surprised and tentatively pleased. Going forward, it will be interesting to track the ITU and the rest of UN’s (and of course, member states’) stances on multi-stakeholderism at the ITU Plenipot, the WSIS+10 Review and the UN General Assembly session, at the least.</span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/wsis-10-high-level-event-a-birds-eye-report'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/wsis-10-high-level-event-a-birds-eye-report</a>
</p>
No publishergeethaWSIS+10PrivacyCybersecurityHuman Rights OnlineSurveillanceFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceFacebookData ProtectionMulti-stakeholderICANNInternet AccessITUInternet StudiesE-GovernanceICT2014-06-20T15:57:32ZBlog EntryContent Removal on Facebook — A Case of Privatised Censorship?
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/content-removal-on-facebook
<b>Any activity on Facebook, be it creating an account, posting a picture or status update or creating a group or page, is bound by Facebook’s Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. These contain a list of content that is prohibited from being published on Facebook which ranges from hate speech to pornography to violation of privacy. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook removes content largely on the basis of requests either by the government or by other users. The <a href="https://www.facebook.com/help/365194763546571/">Help section</a> of Facebook deals with warnings and blocking of content. It says that Facebook only removes content that violates Community Guidelines and not everything that has been reported.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">I conducted an experiment to primarily look at Facebook’s process of content removal and also to analyse what kind of content they actually remove.</p>
<ol> </ol><ol>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">I put up a status which contained personal information of a person on my Friend List (the information was false). I then asked several people (including the person about whom the status was made) to report the status — that of being harassed or for violation of privacy rights. Seven people reported the status. Within half an hour of the reports being made, I received the following notification:<br />"Someone reported your <a href="https://www.facebook.com/sugarquill/posts/10152265929599232" target="_blank">post</a> for containing harassment and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/settings?tab=support&item_id=10152265934819232&notif_t=content_reported">1 other reason</a>."<br /><br />The notification also contained the option to delete my post and said that Facebook would look into whether it violated their Community Guidelines.<br /><br />A day later, all those who had reported the status received notifications stating the following:<br /><br />"We reviewed the post you reported for harassment and found it doesn't violate our <a href="https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>." <br /><br />I received a similar notification as well.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">I, along with around thirteen others, reported a Facebook page which contained pictures of my friend and a few other women with lewd captions in various regional languages. We reported the group for harassment and bullying and also for humiliating someone we knew. The report was made on 24 March, 2014. On 30 April, 2014, I received a notification stating the following:<br /><br />"We reviewed the page you reported for harassment and found it doesn't violate our <a href="https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.<br /><br />Note: If you have an issue with something on the Page, make sure you report the content (e.g. a photo), not the entire Page. That way, your report will be more accurately reviewed."<br /><br />I then reported each picture on the page for harassment and received a series of notifications on 5 May, 2014 which stated the following:<br /><br />"We reviewed the photo you reported for harassment and found it doesn't violate our <a href="https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>."</li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">These incidents are in stark contrast with repeated attempts by Facebook to remove content which it finds objectionable. In 2013, a homosexual man’s picture protesting against the Supreme Court judgment in December was <a href="http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/heated-debate-after-facebook-allegedly-deletes-photograph-of-gay-sikh-kissing-a-man-460219">taken down</a>. In 2012, Facebook <a href="http://www.blouinartinfo.com/news/story/816583/facebook-censors-pompidous-gerhard-richter-nude-fueling-fight">removed artwork</a> by a French artist which featured a nude woman. In the same year, Facebook <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2146588/Heather-Patrick-Walker-Facebook-ban-pictures-baby-son-died.html">removed photographs</a> of a child who was born with defect and banned the mother from accessing Facebook completely. Facebook also <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/20/facebook-breast-cancer-tattoo-photo-double-mastectomy_n_2726118.html">removed a picture</a> of a breast cancer survivor who posted a picture of a tattoo that she had following her mastectomy. Following this, however, Facebook issued an apology and stated that mastectomy photographs are not in violation of their Content Guidelines. Even in the sphere of political discourse and dissent, Facebook has cowered under government pressure and removed pages and content, as evidenced by the <a href="http://www.firstpost.com/living/facebook-bows-to-pak-pressure-bans-rock-band-laal-anti-taliban-groups-1560009.html">ban</a> on the progressive Pakistani band Laal’s Facebook page and other anti-Taliban pages. Following much social media outrage, Facebook soon <a href="http://www.dawn.com/news/1111174/laals-facebook-page-now-accessible-to-pak-based-internet-users">revoked</a> this ban. These are just a few examples of how harmless content has been taken down by Facebook, in a biased exercise of its powers.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">After incidents of content removal have been made public through news reports and complaints, Facebook often apologises for removing content and issues statements that the removal was an “error.” In some cases, they edit their policies to address specific kinds of content after a takedown (like the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/dec/30/facebook-breastfeeding-ban">reversal of the breastfeeding ban</a>).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On the other hand, however, Facebook is notorious for refusing to take down content that is actually objectionable, partially evidenced by my own experiences listed above. There have been complaints about Facebook’s <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/feb/19/facebook-images-rape-domestic-violence">refusal to remove</a> misogynistic content which glorifies rape and domestic violence through a series of violent images and jokes. One such page was removed finally, not because of the content but because the administrators had used fake profiles. When asked, a spokesperson said that censorship “was not the solution to bad online behaviour or offensive beliefs.” While this may be true, the question that needs answering is why Facebook decides to draw these lines only when it comes to certain kinds of ‘objectionable’ content and not others.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">All of these examples represent a certain kind of arbitrariness on the part of Facebook’s censorship policies. It seems that Facebook is far more concerned with removing content that will cause supposed public or governmental outrage or defy some internal morality code, rather than protecting the rights of those who may be harmed due to such content, as their Statement of Policies so clearly spells out.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There are many aspects of the review and takedown process that are hazy, like who exactly reviews the content that is reported and what standards they are made to employ. In 2012, it was revealed that Facebook <a href="http://gawker.com/5885714/inside-facebooks-outsourced-anti-porn-and-gore-brigade-where-camel-toes-are-more-offensive-than-crushed-heads">outsourced</a> its content reviews to oDesk and provided the reviewers with a 17-page manual which listed what kind of content was appropriate and what was not. A bare reading of the leaked document gives one a sense of Facebook’s aversion to sex and nudity and its neglect of other harm-inducing content like harassment through misuse of content that is posted and what is categorised as hate speech.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In the process of monitoring the acceptability of content, Facebook takes upon itself the role of a private censor with absolutely no accountability or transparency in its working. A <a href="https://fbcdn-dragon-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/t39.2178-6/851563_293317947467769_1320502878_n.png">Reporting Guide</a> was published to increase transparency in its content review procedures. The Guide reveals that Facebook provides for an option where the reportee can appeal the decision to remove content in “some cases.” However, the lack of clarity on what these cases are or what the appeal process is frustrates the existence of this provision as it can be misused. Additionally, Facebook reserves the right to remove content with or without notice depending upon the severity of the violation. There is no mention of how severe is severe enough to warrant uninformed content removal. In most of the above cases, the user was not notified that their content was found offensive and would be liable for takedown. Although Facebook publishes a transparency report, it only contains a record of takedowns following government requests and not those by private users of Facebook. The unbridled nature of the power that Facebook has over our personal content, despite clearly stating that all content posted is the user’s alone, threatens the freedom of expression on the site. A proper implementation of the policies that Facebook claims to employ is required along with a systematic record of the procedure that is used to remove content that is in consonance with natural justice.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/content-removal-on-facebook'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/content-removal-on-facebook</a>
</p>
No publisherjessieFacebookInternet GovernanceCensorshipPrivacy2014-06-16T05:23:09ZBlog EntryArbitrary Arrests for Comment on Bal Thackeray's Death
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/bal-thackeray-comment-arbitrary-arrest-295A-66A
<b>Two girls have been arbitrarily and unlawfully arrested for making comments about the late Shiv Sena supremo Bal Thackeray's death. Pranesh Prakash explores the legal angles to the arrests.</b>
<h2 id="facts-of-the-case">Facts of the case</h2>
<p>This morning, there was <a href="http://www.mumbaimirror.com/article/2/2012111920121119043152921e12f57e1/In-Palghar-cops-book-21yearold-for-FB-post.html">a short report in the Mumbai Mirror</a> about two girls having been arrested for comments one of them made, and the other 'liked', on Facebook about Bal Thackeray:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Police on Sunday arrested a 21-year-old girl for questioning the total shutdown in the city for Bal Thackeray’s funeral on her Facebook account. Another girl who ‘liked’ the comment was also arrested.</p>
<p>The duo were booked under Section 295 (a) of the IPC (for hurting religious sentiments) and Section 64 (a) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Though the girl withdrew her comment and apologised, a mob of some 2,000 Shiv Sena workers attacked and ransacked her uncle’s orthopaedic clinic at Palghar.</p>
<p>“Her comment said people like Thackeray are born and die daily and one should not observe a bandh for that,” said PI Uttam Sonawane.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2 id="what-provisions-of-law-were-used">What provisions of law were used?</h2>
<p>There's a small mistake in Mumbai Mirror's reportage as there is no section "64(a)"<sup><a class="footnoteRef" href="#fn1" id="fnref1">1</a></sup> in the Information Technology (IT) Act, nor a section "295(a)" in the Indian Penal Code (IPC). They must have meant <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/section-295a-indian-penal-code">section 295A of the IPC</a> ("outraging religious feelings of any class") and <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/section-66A-information-technology-act">section 66A of the IT Act</a> ("sending offensive messages through communication service, etc."). (Update: The Wall Street Journal's Shreya Shah has confirmed that the second provision was section 66A of the IT Act.)</p>
<p>Section 295A of the IPC is cognizable and non-bailable, and hence the police have the powers to arrest a person accused of this without a warrant.<sup><a class="footnoteRef" href="#fn2" id="fnref2">2</a></sup> Section 66A of the IT Act is cognizable and bailable.</p>
<p>Update: Some news sources claim that <a href="http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/indianpenalcode/s505.htm">section 505(2) of the IPC</a> ("Statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes") has also been invoked.</p>
<h2 id="was-the-law-misapplied">Was the law misapplied?</h2>
<p>This is clearly a case of misapplication of s.295A of the IPC.<sup><a class="footnoteRef" href="#fn3" id="fnref3">3</a></sup> This provision has been frivolously used numerous times in Maharashtra. Even the banning of James Laine's book <i>Shivaji: Hindu King in Islamic India</i> happened under s.295A, and the ban was subsequently held to have been unlawful by both the Bombay High Court as well as the Supreme Court. Indeed, s.295A has not been applied in cases where it is more apparent, making this seem like a parody news report.</p>
<p>Interestingly, the question arises of the law under which the friend who 'liked' the Facebook status update was arrested. It would take a highly clever lawyer and a highly credulous judge to make 'liking' of a Facebook status update an act capable of being charged with electronically "sending ... any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character" or "causing annoyance or inconvenience", or under any other provision of the IT Act (or, for that matter, the IPC).<sup><a class="footnoteRef" href="#fn4" id="fnref4">4</a></sup> That 'liking' is protected speech under Article 19(1)(a) is not under question in India (unlike in the USA where that issue had to be adjudicated by a court), since unlike the wording present in the American Constitution, the Indian Constitution clearly protects the 'freedom of speech <b>and expression</b>', so even non-verbal expression is protection.</p>
<h2 id="role-of-bad-law-and-the-police">Role of bad law and the police</h2>
<p>In this case the blame has to be shared between bad law (s.66A of the IT Act) and an abuse of powers by police. The police were derelict in their duty, as they failed to provide protection to the Dhada Orthopaedic Hospital, run by the uncle of the girl who made the Facebook posting. Then they added insult to injury by arresting Shaheen Dhada and the friend who 'liked' her post. This should not be written off as a harmless case of the police goofing up. Justice Katju is absolutely correct in <a href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Katju-demands-action-against-Mumbai-cops-for-arresting-woman/Article1-961478.aspx">demanding that such police officers should be punished</a>.</p>
<h2 id="rule-of-law">Rule of law</h2>
<p>Rule of law demands that laws are not applied in an arbitrary manner. When tens of thousands were making similar comments in print (Justice Katju's article in the Hindu, for instance), over the Internet (countless comments on Facebook, Rediff, Orkut, Twitter, etc.), and in person, how did the police single out Shaheen Dhada and her friend for arrest?<sup><a class="footnoteRef" href="#fn5" id="fnref5">5</a></sup></p>
<h2 id="social-media-regulation-vs.-suppression-of-freedom-of-speech-and-expression">Social Media Regulation vs. Suppression of Freedom of Speech and Expression</h2>
<p>This should not be seen merely as "social media regulation", but as a restriction on freedom of speech and expression by both the law and the police. Section 66A makes certain kinds of speech-activities ("causing annoyance") illegal if communicated online, but legal if that same speech-activity is published in a newspaper. Finally, this is similar to the Aseem Trivedi case where the police wrongly decided to press charges and to arrest.</p>
<p>This distinction is important as it being a Facebook status update should not grant Shaheen Dhada any special immunity; the fact of that particular update not being punishable under s.295 or s.66A (or any other law) should.</p>
<div class="footnotes">
<hr />
<ol>
<li id="fn1">
<p>Section 64 of the IT Act is about "recovery of penalty" and the ability to suspend one's digital signature if one doesn't pay up a penalty that's been imposed.<a href="#fnref1">↩</a></p>
</li>
<li id="fn2">
<p>The police generally cannot, without a warrant, arrest a person accused of a bailable offence unless it is a cognizable offence. A non-bailable offence is one for which a judicial magistrate needs to grant bail, and it isn't an automatic right to be enjoyed by paying a bond-surety amount set by the police.<a href="#fnref2">↩</a></p>
</li>
<li id="fn3">
<p>Section 295A of the IPC has been held not to be unconstitutional. The first case to <a href="http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/pil-to-declare-sec-66a-as-unconstitutional-filed/1111666.html">challenge the constitutionality of section 66A of the IT Act</a> was filed recently in front of the Madurai bench the Madras High Court.)<a href="#fnref3">↩</a></p>
</li>
<li id="fn4">
<p>One can imagine an exceptional case where such an act could potentially be defamatory, but that is clearly exceptional.<a href="#fnref4">↩</a></p>
</li>
<li id="fn5">
<p>This is entirely apart from the question of how the Shiv Sena singled in on Shaheen Dhada's Facebook comment.<a href="#fnref5">↩</a></p>
</li>
</ol>
<hr />
<p>This blog entry has been re-posted in the following places</p>
<ul>
<li><a class="external-link" href="http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?283033">Outlook</a> (November 19, 2012).</li>
<li><a class="external-link" href="http://kafila.org/2012/11/19/social-media-regulation-vs-suppression-of-freedom-of-speech-pranesh-prakash/">KAFILA</a> (November 19, 2012).</li>
</ul>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/bal-thackeray-comment-arbitrary-arrest-295A-66A'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/bal-thackeray-comment-arbitrary-arrest-295A-66A</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIPCIT ActFreedom of Speech and ExpressionFeaturedFacebookCensorship2013-01-02T03:42:37ZBlog EntryIndia's Broken Internet Laws Need a Shot of Multi-stakeholderism
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-broken-internet-law-multistakeholderism
<b>Cyber-laws in India are severely flawed, with neither lawyers nor technologists being able to understand them, and the Cyber-Law Group in DEIT being incapable of framing fair, just, and informed laws and policies. Pranesh Prakash suggests they learn from the DEIT's Internet Governance Division, and Brazil, and adopt multi-stakeholderism as a core principle of Internet policy-making.</b>
<p>(An edited version of this article was published in the Indian Express as <a href="http://www.indianexpress.com/story-print/941491/">"Practise what you preach"</a> on Thursday, April 26, 2012.)</p>
<p>The laws in India relating to the Internet are greatly flawed, and the only way to fix them would be to fix the way they are made. The <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/www.mit.gov.in/content/cyber-laws-security">Cyber-Laws & E-Security Group</a> in the <a href="http://www.mit.gov.in">Department of Electronics and Information Technology</a> (DEIT, who refer to themselves as 'DeitY' on their website!) has proven itself incapable of making fair, balanced, just, and informed laws and policies. The Information Technology (IT) Act is filled with provisions that neither lawyers nor technologists understand (not to mention judges). (The definition of <a href="http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/informationtechnologyact/s65.htm">"computer source code" in s.65 of the IT Act</a> is a great example of that.)</p>
<p>The Rules drafted under s.43A of the IT Act (on 'reasonable security practices' to be followed by corporations) were so badly formulated that the government was forced to issue a <a href="http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx??relid=74990">clarification through a press release</a>, even though the clarification was in reality an amendment and amendments cannot be carried out through press releases. Despite the clarification, it is unclear to IT lawyers whether the Rules are mandatory or not, since s.43A (i.e., the parent provision) seems to suggest that it is sufficient if the parties enter into an agreement specifying reasonable security practices and procedures. Similarly, the "Intermediary Guidelines" Rules (better referred to as the Internet Censorship Rules) drafted under s.79 of the Act have been called <a href="http://www.indianexpress.com/story-print/940682/">"arbitrary and unconstitutional" by many, including MP P. Rajeev</a>, who has <a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/statutory-motion-against-intermediary-guidelines-rules">introduced a motion in the Rajya Sabha to repeal the Rules</a> ("Caught in a net", Indian Express, April 24, 2012). These Rules give the power of censorship to every citizen and allow them to remove any kind of material off the Internet within 36 hours without anybody finding out. Last year, we at the Centre for Internet and Society used this law to get thousands of innocuous links removed from four major search engines without any public notice. In none of the cases (including one where an online news website removed more material than the perfectly legal material we had complained about) were the content-owners notified about our complaint, much less given a chance to defend themselves.</p>
<p>Laws framed by the Cyber-Law Group are so poorly drafted that they are misused more often than used. There are too many criminal provisions in the IT Act, and their penalties are greatly more than that of comparable crimes in the IPC. Section 66A of the IT Act, which criminalizes "causing annoyance or inconvenience" electronically, has a penalty of 3 years (greater than that for causing death by negligence), and does not require a warrant for arrest. This section has been used in the Mamata Banerjee cartoon case, for arresting M. Karthik, a Hyderabad-based student who made atheistic statements on Facebook, and against former Karnataka Lokayukta Santosh Hegde. Section 66A, I believe, imperils freedom of speech more than is allowable under Art. 19(2) of the Constitution, and is hence unconstitutional.</p>
<p>While <a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1740460/">s.5 of the Telegraph Act</a> only allows interception of telephone conversations on the occurrence of a public emergency, or in the interest of the public safety, the IT Act does not have any such threshold conditions, and greatly broadens the State's interception abilities. Section 69 allows the government to force a person to decrypt information, and might clash with Art.20(3) of the Constitution, which provides a right against self-incrimination. One can't find any publicly-available governmental which suggests that the constitutionality of provisions such as s.66A or s.69 was examined.</p>
<p>Omissions by the Cyber-Law Group are also numerous. The <a href="http://www.cert-in.org.in">Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In)</a> has been granted <a href="http://www.cert-in.org.in/">very broad functions</a> under the IT Act, but without any clarity on the extent of its powers. Some have been concerned, for instance, that the broad power granted to CERT-In to "give directions" relating to "emergency measures for handling cyber security incidents" includes the powers of an "Internet kill switch" of the kind that Egypt exercised in January 2011. Yet, they have failed to frame Rules for the functioning of CERT-In. The licences that the Department of Telecom enters into with Internet Service Providers requires them to restrict usage of encryption by individuals, groups or organisations to a key length of only 40 bits in symmetric key algorithms (i.e., weak encryption). The RBI mandates a minimum of 128-bit SSL encryption for all bank transactions. Rules framed by the DEIT under s.84A of the IT Act were to resolve this conflict, but those Rules haven't yet been framed.</p>
<p>All of this paints a very sorry picture. Section 88 of the IT Act requires the government, "soon after the commencement of the Act", to form a "Cyber Regulations Advisory Committee" consisting of "the interests principally affected or having special knowledge of the subject-matter" to advise the government on the framing of Rules, or for any other purpose connected with the IT Act. This body still has not been formed, despite the lag of more than two and a half years since the IT Act came into force. Justice Markandey Katju’s recent letter to Ambika Soni about social media and defamation should ideally have been addressed to this body. </p>
<p>The only way out of this quagmire is to practise at home that which we preach abroad on matters of Internet governance: multi-stakeholderism. Multi-stakeholderism refers to the need to recognize that when it comes to Internet governance there are multiple stakeholders: government, industry, academia, and civil society, and not just the governments of the world. This idea has gained prominence since it was placed at the core of the "Declaration of Principles" from the first World Summit on Information Society in Geneva in 2003, and has also been at the heart of India's pronouncements at forums like the Internet Governance Forum. Brazil has an <a href="httphttp://www.cgi.br/english/">"Internet Steering Committee"</a> which is an excellent model that practices multi-stakeholderism as a means of framing and working national Internet-related policies. DEIT's <a href="http://www.mit.gov.in/content/internet-governance">Internet Governance Division</a>, which formulates India's international stance on Internet governance, has long recognized that governance of the Internet must be done in an open and collaborative manner. It is time the DEIT's Cyber-Law and E-Security Group, which formulates our national stance on Internet governance, realizes the same.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-broken-internet-law-multistakeholderism'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-broken-internet-law-multistakeholderism</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIT ActFreedom of Speech and ExpressionEncryptionIntermediary LiabilityFacebookInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-04-26T13:45:25ZBlog EntryMufti Aijaz Arshad Qasmi v. Facebook and Ors (Order dated December 20, 2011)
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/order-2011-12-20-mufti-aijaz-arshad-qasmi-v-facebook-and-ors
<b>This is the order passed on December 20, 2011 by Addl. Civil Judge Mukesh Kumar of the Rohini Courts, New Delhi. All errors of spelling, syntax, logic, and law are present in the original.</b>
<p>Suit No 505/11</p>
<p>Mufti Aijaz Arshad Qasmi<br />
vs.<br />
Facebook etc.</p>
<p>20.12.11</p>
<p>Fresh suit received by assignment. It be checked and registered.</p>
<p>Present: Plaintiff in person with Ld. Counsel.</p>
<p>Ld. Counsel for plaintiff prayed for ex-parte ad-interim injunction. He has filed the present suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against 22 defendants who are running their social networking websites under the name of Facebook, Google India (P) Ltd., Yahoo India (P) Ltd., Microsoft India (P) Ltd., Orkut, Youtube etc as shown in the memo of parties in the plaint. It is submitted that plaintiff is an active citizen of India and residing at the given address and he believes in Secular, Socialist and Democratic India professing Muslim religion. It is further submitted that the contents which are uploaded by some of the miscreants through these social networking websites mentioned above are highly objectionable and unacceptable by any set of the society as the contents being published through the aforesaid websites are derogatory, per-se inflammatory and defamatory which cannot be acceptable by any of the society professing any religion. Even if the same is allowed to be published through these social networking websites and if anybody will take out the print and circulated amongst any of the community whether it is Muslim or Hindu or Sikh, then definitely there would be rioting at mass level which may result into serious law and order problem in the country. Where the miscreants have not even spare any of the religion, even they have created defamatory articles and pictures against the Prophet Mohammad, the Hindu goddess Durga, Laxmi, Lord Ganesha and many other Hindu gods which are being worshiped by the people of Hindu community. It is prayed by the counsel for plaintiff that the defendants may be directed to remove these defamatory and derogatory articles and pictures from their social websites and they should be restrained from publishing the same anywhere through Internet or in any manner. It is further submitted that the social websites are being utilised by the every person of whatever age of he is whether he is 7 years old or 80 years old. These defamatory articles will certainly corrupt not only young minds below the 18 years of age but also corrupt the minds of all age group persons. It is further submitted that even the miscreants have not spared the leaders of any political party whether it is BJP, Congress, Shiv Sena or any other political party doing their political activities in India, which may further vitiate the minds of every individual and may result into political rivalry by raising allegations against each other.</p>
<p>I have gone through the record carefully wherein the plaintiff has also filed a CD containing all the defamatory articles and photographs, plaintiff also wants to file certain defamatory and obscene photographs of the Prophet Mohammad and Hindu Gods and Goddesses. Photographs are returned to the plaintiff, although, the defamatory written articles are taken on record. Same be kept in sealed cover.</p>
<p>In my considered opinion, the photographs shown by the plaintiff having content of defamation and derogation against the sentiments of every community. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the plaintiff has a prima facie case in his favour. Moreover, balance of convenience also lies against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff. Moreover, if the defendants will not be directed to remove the defamatory articles and contents from their social networking websites, then not only the plaintiff but every individual who is having religious sentiments would suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, taking in consideration the facts and circumstances and nature of the suit filed by the plaintiff where every time these social networking websites are being used by the public at large and there is every apprehension of mischief in the public, the defendants are hereby restrained from publishing the defamatory articles shown by the plaintiff and contained in the CD filed by the plaintiff immediately on service of this order and notice. Defendants are further directed to remove the same from their social networking websites.</p>
<p>Application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC stands allowed and disposed of accordingly.</p>
<p>Summons be issued to the defendants on filing of PF/RO/Speed Post. The defendants having their addresses in different places may be served as per the provisions of Order 5 CPC. Reader of this court is directed to keep the documents and CD in a sealed cover. Plaintiff is directed to get served the defendants along with all the documents. Plaintiff is further directed to ensure the compliance of the provisions under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC and file an affidavit in this regard. Copy of this order be given dasti.</p>
<p>Put up for further proceedings on 24.12.11.</p>
<p>Sd/-<br />
(Mukesh Kumar)<br />
ACJ-cum-ARC, N-W<br />
Rohini Courts, Delhi<br /></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/order-2011-12-20-mufti-aijaz-arshad-qasmi-v-facebook-and-ors'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/order-2011-12-20-mufti-aijaz-arshad-qasmi-v-facebook-and-ors</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIT ActGoogleCourt CaseObscenityFreedom of Speech and ExpressionFacebookCensorshipResources2012-02-20T18:02:44ZPage