The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 31 to 45.
Why India snubbed Facebook's free Internet offer
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/why-india-snubbed-facebooks-free-internet-offer
<b>The social media giant wanted to give the people of India free access to a chunk of the Internet, but the people weren't interested.</b>
<p>The blog post by Daniel Van Boom was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.cnet.com/news/why-india-doesnt-want-free-basics/">published by Cnet</a> on February 26, 2016. Sunil Abraham was quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mark Zuckerberg's ambitious mission to provide free Internet access to rural India was rejected by the people it was intended to help long before the country's regulators banned it earlier this month.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Around the country, farmers, labourers and office workers scorned Facebook's offer. Called Free Basics, it provided only limited access to the Internet through a suite of websites and services that, unsurprisingly, included Facebook. They felt the limited service didn't follow the open nature of the Internet, where all sites and online destinations should be equally accessible, so they organized real-world protests and an online Save The Internet campaign, with the message that Zuckerberg's efforts weren't welcome.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">You might think people would jump at the opportunity to access Facebook for free, especially since more than a billion people use the social network every day. But it's that hitch -- that they can't access everything else -- which is precisely the problem, said Sunil Abraham, the executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society India. "Even if somebody spends 90 percent of their time on Facebook, that 10 percent is equally as important."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Indian regulators sided with popular opinion and <a href="http://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-free-basics-gets-blocked-in-india/"><span>cut off Free Basics</span></a> in the world's second-most populous country on February 8. The ruling by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) forbids all zero-rating plans, meaning anyone offering customers free access to only a limited set of services of sites are banned. It was championed as a victory for Net neutrality, the principle that everyone should have equal access to all content on the Internet.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The decision was undoubtedly a blow for Facebook, which says it wants to connect the billions of have-nots around the world to the Internet through the program. While more than half the world's online population uses Facebook each month, the company's efforts to connect with the developing world -- with Free Basics also being available in over 30 other countries, such as Kenya and Iraq -- could be a boon for business.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"[The Internet] must remain neutral for everyone, individuals and businesses alike. Everyone must have equal access to it," said Rajesh Sawhney, a Mumbai-based tech entrepreneur, in support of TRAI's decision to reject Free Basics. He believes the zero-rating scheme can be misused by telcos and other companies to create divisive ecosystems, where certain brands or companies are included and others aren't.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The package wasn't without its supporters though, with some being disappointed with the government's intervention in the marketplace.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"It is generally assumed that there is something sinister behind violations of Net neutrality...but that is not always true," says software engineer Shashank Mehra. "ISPs trying to match consumer demand isn't something sinister, it is a market process."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The social media giant further defends itself by pointing out that Free Basics is <a href="https://info.internet.org/en/2015/11/19/internet-org-myths-and-facts/" target="_blank"><span>open to any and all developers</span></a>, including competitors Twitter and Google, as long as they meet the program's <a href="https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/platform-technical-guidelines" target="_blank"><span>technical standards.</span></a> This evidently wasn't enough to convince much of India.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">The problem persists</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook disputes claims that its interest in India is commercial, saying its efforts are humanitarian. In speeches over the past few months, Zuckerberg has painted Internet access as a tool for global good. "The research has shown on this that for every 10 people who get access to the internet, about one person gets a new job, and about one person gets lifted out of poverty," <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqkKiGhIyXs#t=4m03s" target="_blank"><span>he said at a Townhall Q&A</span></a> in Delhi last October. "Connecting things in India is one of the most important things we can do in the world."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Zuckerberg appears to have taken the loss in stride. <a href="http://www.cnet.com/news/mark-zuckerberg-internet-org-telecoms-project-mobile-world-congress-2016/"><span>During a keynote address at the Mobile World Conference in Barcelona</span></a> earlier this week, he admitted to being disappointed by the ruling, but added, "We are going to focus on different programs [in India]...we want to work with all the operators there." A Facebook spokesperson said the company "will continue our efforts to eliminate barriers and give the unconnected an easier path to the Internet and the opportunity it brings."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Those ideals could certainly help in India, where around <a href="http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.RUR.TOTL.ZS" target="_blank"><span>68 percent</span></a> of its population -- about 880 million people -- live in rural conditions or poverty. The promise of free access to health, education, local and national news through an Internet connection could potentially improve quality of live. So what's the problem?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The service providers would also be granting free Facebook.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Peggy Wolff, a volunteer coordinator at education NGO Isha Vidhya, says Facebook is just the latest in a long line of international companies hoping to crack rural India, where the bulk of the country's poor live.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While admitting that low cost or free Internet is imperative in rural areas, that "smart villages" are needed to help ease the human burden on India's increasingly overcrowded cities, she says, "Free basics is just a bit suspicious to most people. There's just too much vested interest."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"The big question." Sawhney says, "is how do we give fast and free Internet to a large section of society in India?"</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There are alternatives. United States-based Jana, for instance, developed an Android app called mCent that allows its growing userbase of 30 million to earn data by downloading and using certain apps or watching advertisements from sponsors. Unlike Free Basics, that data can be expended on any online destination.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Jana's CEO Nathan Eagle, like Zuckerberg, says his mission is to bring Internet connectivity to the next billion people. "Today, Internet connectivity in emerging markets is much more an issue of affordability, rather than access," he explains. "1.3 billion people in emerging markets now have Android phones...it's the cost of data that is prohibitive."</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/why-india-snubbed-facebooks-free-internet-offer'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/why-india-snubbed-facebooks-free-internet-offer</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFree BasicsFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceCensorship2016-02-27T07:49:08ZNews ItemThe Internet Has a New Standard for Censorship
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-wire-jyoti-panday-january-29-2016-internet-has-a-new-standard-for-censorship
<b>The introduction of the new 451 HTTP Error Status Code for blocked websites is a big step forward in cataloguing online censorship, especially in a country like India where access to information is routinely restricted.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article was published in the Wire on January 29, 2016. The original can be <a class="external-link" href="http://thewire.in/2016/01/29/the-internet-has-a-new-standard-for-censorship-20386/">read here</a>.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Ray Bradbury’s dystopian novel Fahrenheit 451 opens with the declaration, “It was a pleasure to burn.” The six unassuming words offer a glimpse into the mindset of the novel’s protagonist, ‘the fireman’ Guy Montag, who burns books. Montag occupies a world of totalitarian state control over the media where learning is suppressed and censorship prevails. The title alludes to the ‘temperature at which book paper catches fire and burns,’ an apt reference to the act of violence committed against citizens through the systematic destruction of literature. It is tempting to think about the novel solely as a story of censorship. It certainly is. But it is also a story about the value of intellectual freedom and the importance of information.<br /><br />Published in 1953, Bradbury’s story predates home computers, the Internet, Twitter and Facebook, and yet it anticipates the evolution of these technologies as tools for censorship. When the state seeks to censor speech, they use the most effective and easiest mechanisms available. In Bradbury’s dystopian world, burning books did the trick; in today’s world, governments achieve this by blocking access to information online. The majority of the world’s Internet users encounter censorship even if the contours of control vary depending on the country’s policies and infrastructure.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Online censorship in India</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>In India, information access blockades have become commonplace and are increasingly enforced across the country for maintaining political stability, for economic </span><a href="http://www.indiantelevision.com/regulators/high-court/delhi-hc-restrains-200-websites-from-illegally-showing-balajis-kyaa-kool-hain-hum-3-160123" target="_blank"><span>reasons</span></a><span>, in defence of national security or preserving social values. Last week, the Maharashtra Anti-terror Squad </span><a href="http://www.abplive.in/india-news/maharashtra-ats-blocks-94-isis-websites-brainwashing-the-youth-280192"><span>blocked</span></a><span> 94 websites that were allegedly radicalising the youth to join the militant group ISIS. Memorably, in 2015 the NDA government’s ham-fisted </span><a href="http://thewire.in/2015/08/03/the-government-does-not-want-you-accessing-porn-on-the-internet-anymore-7782/"><span>attempts</span></a><span> at enforcing a ban on online pornography resulted in widespread public outrage. Instead of revoking the ban, the government issued yet another vaguely worded and in many senses astonishing order. As reported by </span><i><a href="http://www.medianama.com/2015/08/223-porn-india-ban/"><span>Medianama</span></a></i><span>, the revised order delegates the responsibility of determining whether banned websites should remain unavailable to private intermediaries. </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>The state’s shifting reasons for blocking access to information is reflective of its tendentious attitude towards speech and expression. Free speech in India is messily contested and normally, the role of the judiciary acts as a check on the executive’s proclivity for banning. For instance, in 2010 the Supreme Court </span><a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Supreme-Court-lifts-ban-on-James-Laines-book-on-Shivaji/articleshow/6148410.cms"><span>upheld</span></a><span> the Maharashtra High Court’s decision to revoke the ban on the book on Shivaji by American author James Laine, which, according to the state government, contained material promoting social enmity. However, in the context of communications technology the traditional role of courts is increasingly being passed on to private intermediaries. </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>The delegation of authority is evident in the government notifying intermediaries to proactively filter content for ‘child pornography’ in the revised </span><a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/dot-morality-block-order-2015-07-31/view"><span>order</span></a><span> issued to deal with websites blocked as result of its crackdown on pornography. Such screening and filtering requires intermediaries to make a determination on the legality of content in order to avoid direct liability. As international best practices such as the </span><a href="https://www.manilaprinciples.org/"><span>Manila Principles on Intermediary Liability</span></a> <span>point out, such screening is a slow process and costly and intermediaries are incentivised to simply limit access to information. </span></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><span>Blocking procedures and secrecy</span></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>The constitutional validity of Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2008 which grants power to the executive to block access to information unchecked, and in secrecy was challenged in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. Curiously, the Supreme Court upheld S69A reasoning that the provisions were narrowly-drawn with adequate safeguards and noted that any procedural inconsistencies may be challenged through writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. Unfortunately as past instances of blocking under S69A reveal the provisions are littered with procedural deficiencies, amplified manifold by the authorities responsible for interpreting and implementing the orders.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Problematically, an </span><a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/is-india2019s-website-blocking-law-constitutional-2013-i-law-procedure"><span>opaque</span></a><span> confidentiality criteria built into the blocking rules mandates secrecy in requests and recommendations for blocking and places written orders outside the purview of public scrutiny. As there are no comprehensive list of blocked websites or of the legal orders, the public has to rely on ISPs leaking orders, or media reports to understand the censorship regime in India. RTI applications requesting further information on the implementation of these safeguards have at best provided</span> <a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/response-deity.clarifying-procedures-for-blocking.pdf"><span>incomplete</span></a><span> information. </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Historically, the courts in India have </span><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Politics/hDIjjunGikWywOgSRiM7NP/SC-has-set-a-high-threshold-for-tolerance-Lawrence-Liang.html"><span>held</span></a><span> that Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India is as much about the right to receive information as it is to disseminate, and when there is a chilling effect on speech, it also violates the right to receive information. Therefore, if a website is blocked citizens have a constitutional right to know the legal grounds on which access is being restricted. Just like the government announces and clarifies the grounds when banning a book, users have a right to know the grounds for restrictions on their speech online. </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Unfortunately, under the</span><a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/deity-says-143-urls-blocked-in-2015"> <span>present</span></a><span> blocking regime in India there is no easy way for a service provider to comply with a blocking order while also notifying users that censorship has taken place. The ‘</span><a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/information-technology-procedure-and-safeguards-for-blocking-for-access-of-information-by-public-rules-2009"><span>Blocking Rules</span></a><span>’ require notice “person </span><span>or</span><span> intermediary” thus implying that notice may be sent to either the originator or the intermediary. Further, the confidentiality clause </span><a href="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2015/03/25/the-supreme-courts-it-act-judgment-and-secret-blocking/"><span>raises</span></a><span> the presumption that nobody beyond the intermediaries ought to know about a block. </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Naturally, intermediaries interested in self-preservation and avoiding conflict with the government become complicit in maintaining secrecy in blocking orders. As a result, it is often difficult to determine why content is inaccessible and users often mistake censorship for technical problem in accessing content. Consequently, pursuing legal recourse or trying to hold the government accountable for their censorious activity becomes a challenge. In failing to consider the constitutional merits of the confidentiality clause, the Supreme Court has shied away from addressing the over-broad reach of the executive. </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Secrecy in removing or blocking access is a global problem that places limits on the transparency expected from ISPs. Across </span><a href="https://books.google.co.in/books?id=s1LBBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=transparency+and+blocking+orders&source=bl&ots=8kJ5LNJU5s&sig=gB9E01_gQ3QsjwFtnpa5KdIL8oA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwirzr7ZlMzKAhXEt44KHdxkBxQQ6AEIOzAF#v=onepage&q=transparency%20and%20blocking%20orders&f=false"><span>many</span></a><span> jurisdictions intermediaries are legally </span><a href="https://books.google.co.in/books?id=s1LBBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=transparency+and+blocking+orders&source=bl&ots=8kJ5LNJU5s&sig=gB9E01_gQ3QsjwFtnpa5KdIL8oA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwirzr7ZlMzKAhXEt44KHdxkBxQQ6AEIOzAF#v=onepage&q=transparency%20and%20blocking%20orders&f=false"><span>prohibited</span></a><span> from publicising filtering orders as well as information relating to content or service restrictions. For example in United Kingdom, ISPs are prohibited from revealing blocking orders related to terrorism and surveillance. In South Korea, the </span><a href="http://www.singo.or.kr/eng/01_introduction/introduction.php"><span>Korean Communications Standards Commission</span></a><span> holds public meetings that are open to the public. However, the sheer v</span><a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/08/south-korea-only-thing-worse-online-censorship"><span>olume</span></a><span> of censorship (i.e. close to 10,000 URLs a month) makes it </span><a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/08/south-korea-only-thing-worse-online-censorship"><span>unwieldy</span></a><span> for public oversight. </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>As the Manila Principles </span><a href="https://www.eff.org/files/2015/07/08/manila_principles_background_paper.pdf"><span>note</span></a><span>, providing users with an explanation and reasons for placing restrictions on their speech and expression increases civic engagement. Transparency standards will empower citizens to demand that companies and governments they interact with are more accountable when it comes to content regulation. It is worth noting, for conduits as opposed to content hosts, it may not always be technically feasible for to provide a notice when content is unavailable due to filtering. A new standard helps improve transparency standards for network level intermediaries and for websites bound by confidentiality requirements. The recently introduced HTTP code for errors is a critical step forward in cataloguing censorship on the Internet. </span></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><span>A standardised code for censorship</span></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>On December 21, 2015, the Internet Engineering Standards Group (IESG) which is the organisation responsible for reviewing and updating the internet’s operating standards approved the publication of 451-’An HTTP Status Code to Report Legal Obstacles’. The code provides intermediaries a standardised way to notify users know when a website is unavailable following a legal order. Publishing the code allows intermediaries to be transparent about their compliance with court and executive orders across jurisdictions and is a huge step forward for capturing online censorship. HTTP code 451 was introduced by software engineer Tim Bray and the code’s name is an homage to Bradbury’s novel Fahrenheit 451. </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Bray began developing the code after being inspired by a blog post by Terence Eden calling for a censorship error code. The code’s official status comes after two years of discussions within the technical community and is a result of campaigning from transparency and civil society advocates who have been pushing for clearer labelling of internet censorship. Initially, the code received pushback from within the technical community for reasons enumerated by Mark Nottingham, Chair of the IETF HTTP Working Group in his </span><a href="https://www.mnot.net/blog/2015/12/18/451"><span>blog</span></a><span>. However, soon sites began using the code on an experimental and unsanctioned basis and faced with increasing demand for and feedback, the code was accepted. </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>The HTTP code 451 works as a machine-readable flag and has immense potential as a tool for organisations and users who want to quantify and understand censorship on the internet. Cataloguing online censorship is a challenging, time-consuming and expensive task. The HTTP code 451 circumvents confidentiality obligations built into blocking or licensing regimes and reduces the cost of accessing blocking orders. </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>The code creates a distinction between websites blocked following a court or an executive order, and when information is inaccessible due to technical errors. If implemented widely, Bray’s new code will help </span><a href="http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/21/10632678/http-status-code-451-censorship-tim-bray"><span>prevent</span></a><span> confusion around blocked sites. The code addresses the issue of the ISP’s misleading and inaccurate usage of </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_403"><span>Error 403</span></a><span> ‘Forbidden’ (to indicate that the server can be reached and understood the request, but refuses to take any further action) or 404 ‘</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_404"><span>Not Found</span></a><span>’ (to indicate that the requested resource could not be found but may be available again in the future). </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Adoption of the new standard is optional, though at present there are no laws in India that prevent intermediaries doing so. Implementing a standardised machine-readable flag for censorship will go a long way in bolstering the accountability of ISPs that have in the </span><a href="http://www.medianama.com/2014/12/223-india-blocks-imgur/"><span>past</span></a><span> targeted an entire domain instead of the specified URL. Adoption of the standard by ISPs will also improve the understanding of the burden imposed on intermediaries for censoring and filtering content as presently, there is no clarity on what constitutes compliance. Of course, censorious governments may </span><a href="https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2015/12/23/welcome-to-http-error-code-451-unavailable-for-legal-reasons/"><span>prohibit</span></a><span> the use of the code, for example by issuing an order that specifies not only that a page be blocked, but also precisely which HTTP return code should be used. Though such sanctions should be </span><a href="https://cdt.org/blog/censorship-transparency-comes-to-the-web/"><span>viewed</span></a><span> as evidence of systematic rights violation and totalitarian regimes. </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>In India where access to software code repositories such as Github and Sourceforge are routinely </span><span><a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/2014-12-17_DoT-32-URL-Block-Order.pdf">restricted</a>,</span><span> the need for such code is obvious. The use of the code will improve confidence in blocking practices, allowing users to understand the grounds on which their right to information is being restricted. Improving transparency around censorship is the only way to build trust between the government and its citizens about the laws and policies applicable to internet content.</span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-wire-jyoti-panday-january-29-2016-internet-has-a-new-standard-for-censorship'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-wire-jyoti-panday-january-29-2016-internet-has-a-new-standard-for-censorship</a>
</p>
No publisherjyotiFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceChilling EffectCensorship2016-01-30T09:17:54ZBlog EntryThe Humpty-Dumpty Censorship of Television in India
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-wire-bhairav-acharya-humpty-dumpty-censorship-of-tv-in-india
<b>The Modi government’s attack on Sathiyam TV is another manifestation of the Indian state’s paranoia of the medium of film and television, and consequently, the irrational controlling impulse of the law.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article originally published in the Wire on September 8, 2015 was also mirrored on the website <a class="external-link" href="http://notacoda.net/2015/09/09/the-humpty-dumpty-censorship-of-television-in-india/">Free Speech/Privacy/Technology</a>.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It is tempting to think of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting’s (MIB) <a href="http://www.livelaw.in/i-b-ministrys-warning-to-channel-for-comments-on-pm-modi-delhi-hc-seeks-reply/" target="_blank">attack on Sathiyam TV</a> solely as another authoritarian exhibition of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government’s intolerance of criticism and dissent. It certainly is. But it is also another manifestation of the Indian state’s paranoia of the medium of film and television, and consequently, the irrational controlling impulse of the law.</p>
<p><b>Sathiyam TV’s transgressions</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sathiyam’s transgressions began more than a year ago, on May 9, 2014, when it broadcast a preacher saying of an unnamed person: “Oh Lord! Remove this satanic person from the world!” The preacher also allegedly claimed this “dreadful person” was threatening Christianity. This, the MIB reticently claims, “appeared to be targeting a political leader”, referring presumably to Prime Minister Modi, to “potentially give rise to a communally sensitive situation and incite the public to violent tendencies.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The MIB was also offended by a “senior journalist” who, on the same day, participated in a non-religious news discussion to allegedly claim Modi “engineered crowds at his rallies” and used “his oratorical skills to make people believe his false statements”. According to the MIB, this was defamatory and “appeared to malign and slander the Prime Minister which was repugnant to (his) esteemed office”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">For these two incidents, Sathiyam was served a show-cause notice on 16 December 2014 which it responded to the next day, denying the MIB’s claims. Sathiyam was heard in-person by a committee of bureaucrats on 6 February 2015. On 12 May 2015, the MIB handed Sathiyam an official <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/277493911/Warning-Sathiyam-TV-Channel-12th-May-2015" target="_blank">an official “Warning”</a> which appears to be unsupported by law. Sathiyam moved the Delhi High Court to challenge this.</p>
<p>As Sathiyam sought judicial protection, the MIB issued the channel a <a href="http://www.catchnews.com/india-news/now-airing-the-hounding-of-a-tv-channel-for-showing-modi-in-bad-light-1441303238.html" target="_blank">second warning</a> August 26, 2016 citing three more objectionable news broadcasts of: a child being subjected to cruelty by a traditional healer in <a href="http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/newborn-forced-to-walk-by-witch-doctor-in-assam-village-as-fever-cure-764554" target="_blank">Assam</a>; a gun murder inside a government hospital in <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2V4B2elMjo" target="_blank">Madhya Pradesh</a>; and, a self-immolating man rushing the dais at a BJP rally in <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECDV5AieD4g" target="_blank">Telangana</a>. All three news items were carried by other news channels and websites.</p>
<p><b>Governing communications</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Most news providers use multiple media to transmit their content and suffer from complex and confusing regulation. Cable television is one such medium, so is the Internet; both media swiftly evolve to follow technological change. As the law struggles to keep up, governmental anxiety at the inability to perfectly control this vast field of speech and expression frequently expresses itself through acts of overreach and censorship.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In the newly-liberalised media landscape of the early 1990s, cable television sprang up in a legal vacuum. Doordarshan, the sole broadcaster, flourished in the Centre’s constitutionally-sanctioned monopoly of broadcasting which was only broken by the Supreme Court in 1995. The same year, Parliament enacted the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 (“Cable TV Act”) to create a licence regime to control cable television channels. The Cable TV Act is supplemented by the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994 (“Cable Rules”).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The state’s disquiet with communications technology is a recurring motif in modern Indian history. When the first telegraph line was laid in India, the colonial state was quick to recognize its potential for transmitting subversive speech and responded with strict controls. The fourth iteration of the telegraph law represents the colonial government’s perfection of the architecture of control. This law is the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, which continues to dominate communications governance in India today including, following a directive in 2004, broadcasting.</p>
<p><b>Vague and arbitrary law</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Cable TV Act requires cable news channels such as Sathiyam to obey a list of restrictions on content that is contained in the Cable Rules (“<a href="http://mib.nic.in/WriteReadData/documents/pc1.pdf" target="_blank">Programme Code</a>“). Failure to conform to the Programme Code can result in seizure of equipment and imprisonment; but, more importantly, creates the momentum necessary to invoke the broad powers of censorship to ban a programme, channel, or even the cable operator. But the Programme Code is littered with vague phrases and undefined terms that can mean anything the government wants them to mean.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">By its first warning of May 12, 2015, the MIB claimed Sathiyam violated four rules in the Programme Code. These include rule 6(1)(c) which bans visuals or words “which promote communal attitudes”; rule 6(1)(d) which bans “deliberate, false and suggestive innuendos and half-truths”; rule 6(1)(e) which bans anything “which promotes anti-national attitudes”; and, rule 6(1)(i) which bans anything that “criticises, maligns or slanders any…person or…groups, segments of social, public and moral life of the country” <i>(sic).</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The rest of the Programme Code is no less imprecise. It proscribes content that “offends against good taste” and “reflects a slandering, ironical and snobbish attitude” against communities. On the face of it, several provisions of the Programme Code travel beyond the permissible restrictions on free speech listed in Article 19(2) of the Constitution to question their validity. The fiasco of implementing the vague provisions of the erstwhile section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is a recent reminder of the dangers presented by poorly-drafted censorship law – which is why it was struck down by the Supreme Court for infringing the right to free speech. The Programme Code is an older creation, it has simply evaded scrutiny for two decades.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The arbitrariness of the Programme Code is amplified manifold by the authorities responsible for interpreting and implementing it. An Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) of bureaucrats, supposedly a recommendatory body, interprets the Programme Code before the MIB takes action against channels. This is an executive power of censorship that must survive legal and constitutional scrutiny, but has never been subjected to it. Curiously, the courts have shied away from a proper analysis of the Programme Code and the IMC.</p>
<p><b>Judicial challenges</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In 2011, a single judge of the Delhi High Court in the <a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/132453/" target="_blank"><i>Star India</i></a> case (2011) was asked to examine the legitimacy of the IMC as well as four separate clauses of the Programme Code including rule 6(1)(i), which has been invoked against Sathiyam. But the judge neatly sidestepped the issues. This feat of judicial adroitness was made possible by the crass indecency of the content in question, which could be reasonably restricted. Since the show clearly attracted at least one ground of legitimate censorship, the judge saw no cause to examine the other provisions of the Programme Code or even the composition of the IMC.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This judicial restraint has proved detrimental. In May 2013, another single judge of the Delhi High Court, who was asked by Comedy Central to adjudge the validity of the IMC’s decision-making process, relied on <i>Star India</i> (2011) to uphold the MIB’s action against the channel. The channel’s appeal to the Supreme Court is currently pending. If the Supreme Court decides to examine the validity of the IMC, the Delhi High Court may put aside Sathiyam’s petition to wait for legal clarity.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As it happens, in the <a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/110813550/"><i>Shreya Singhal</i></a> case (2015) that struck down section 66A of the IT Act, the Supreme Court has an excellent precedent to follow to demand clarity and precision from the Programme Code, perhaps even strike it down, as well as due process from the MIB. On the accusation of defaming the Prime Minister, probably the only clearly stated objection by the MIB, the Supreme Court’s past law is clear: public servants cannot, for non-personal acts, claim defamation.</p>
<p><b>Censorship by blunt force</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Beyond the IMC’s advisories and warnings, the Cable TV Act contains two broad powers of censorship. The first empowerment in section 19 enables a government official to ban any programme or channel if it fails to comply with the Programme Code or, “if it is likely to promote, on grounds of religion, race, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, linguistic or regional groups or castes or communities or which is likely to disturb the public tranquility.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The second empowerment is much wider. Section 20 of the Cable TV Act permits the Central Government to ban an entire cable television operator, as opposed to a single channel or programmes within channels, if it “thinks it necessary or expedient so to do in public interest”. No reasons need be given and no grounds need be considered. Such a blunt use of force creates an overwhelming power of censorship. It is not a coincidence that section 20 resembles some provisions of nineteenth-century telegraph laws, which were designed to enable the colonial state to control the flow of information to its native subjects.</p>
<p><b>A manual for television bans</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="http://www.frontline.in/arts-and-culture/cinema/cut-and-thrust/article5185915.ece" target="_blank">Film</a> and television have <a href="http://thebigindianpicture.com/2013/03/the-heart-of-censorship/" target="_blank">always</a> attracted political attention and state censorship. In 1970, <a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1719619/" target="_blank">Justice Hidayatullah</a> of the Supreme Court explained why: “It has been almost universally recognised that the treatment of motion pictures must be different from that of other forms of art and expression. This arises from the instant appeal of the motion picture… The motion picture is able to stir up emotions more deeply than any other product of art.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Within this historical narrative of censorship, television regulation is relatively new. <a href="http://www.indiantelevision.com/television/programming/tv-channels/regulations/ib-ministry-dictates-channels-to-follow-the-programme" target="_blank">Past governments</a> have also been quick to threaten censorship for attacking an incumbent Prime Minister. There seems to be a pan-governmental consensus that senior political leaders ought to be beyond reproach, irrespective of their words and deeds.</p>
<p>But on what grounds could the state justify these bans? Lord Atkins’ celebrated war-time dissent in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liversidge_v_Anderson" target="_blank"><i>Liversidge</i></a> (1941) offers an unlikely answer:</p>
<p>“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.’”</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-wire-bhairav-acharya-humpty-dumpty-censorship-of-tv-in-india'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-wire-bhairav-acharya-humpty-dumpty-censorship-of-tv-in-india</a>
</p>
No publisherbhairavFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceCensorship2015-11-29T08:37:53ZBlog EntryThe Case of Whatsapp Group Admins
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-case-of-whatsapp-group-admins
<b></b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Censorship laws in India have now roped in group administrators of chat groups on instant messaging platforms such as Whatsapp (<i>group admin(s)</i>) for allegedly objectionable content that was posted by other users of these chat groups. Several incidents<a href="file:///C:/Users/HP/Desktop/Whatsapp%20group%20admins.docx#_ftn1">[1]</a> were reported this year where group admins were arrested in different parts of the country for allowing content that was allegedly objectionable under law. A few reports mentioned that these arrests were made under Section 153A<a href="file:///C:/Users/HP/Desktop/Whatsapp%20group%20admins.docx#_ftn2">[2]</a> read with Section 34<a href="file:///C:/Users/HP/Desktop/Whatsapp%20group%20admins.docx#_ftn3">[3]</a> of the Indian Penal Code (<i>IPC</i>) and Section 67<a href="file:///C:/Users/HP/Desktop/Whatsapp%20group%20admins.docx#_ftn4">[4]</a> of the Information Technology Act (<i>IT Act</i>).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Targeting of a group admin for content posted by other members of a chat group has raised concerns about how this liability is imputed. Whether a group admin should be considered an intermediary under Section 2 (w) of the IT Act? If yes, whether a group admin would be protected from such liability?</span></p>
<h3><strong>Group admin as an intermediary</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Whatsapp is an instant messaging platform which can be used for mass communication by opting to create a chat group. A chat group is a feature on Whatsapp that allows joint participation of Whatsapp users. The number of Whatsapp users on a single chat group can be up to 100. Every chat group has one or more group admins who control participation in the group by deleting or adding people. <a href="file:///C:/Users/HP/Desktop/Whatsapp%20group%20admins.docx#_ftn5">[5]</a> It is imperative that we understand that by choosing to create a chat group on Whatsapp whether a group admin can become liable for content posted by other members of the chat group.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Section 34 of the IPC provides that when a number of persons engage in a criminal act with a common intention, each person is made liable as if he alone did the act. Common intention implies a pre-arranged plan and acting in concert pursuant to the plan. It is interesting to note that group admins have been arrested under Section 153A on the ground that a group admin and a member posting content on a chat group that is actionable under this provision have common intention to post such content on the group. But would this hold true when for instance, a group admin creates a chat group for posting lawful content (say, for matchmaking purposes) and a member of the chat group posts content which is actionable under law (say, posting a video abusing Dalit women)? Common intention can be established by direct evidence or inferred from conduct or surrounding circumstances or from any incriminating facts.</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/HP/Desktop/Whatsapp%20group%20admins.docx#_ftn6">[6]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>We need to understand whether common intention can be established in case of a user merely acting as a group admin. For this purpose it is necessary to see how a group admin contributes to a chat group and whether he acts as an intermediary.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>We know that parameters for determining an intermediary differ across jurisdictions and most global organisations have categorised them based on their role or technical functions.</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/HP/Desktop/Whatsapp%20group%20admins.docx#_ftn7">[7]</a><span> Section 2 (w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (</span><i>IT Act</i><span>) defines an intermediary as </span><i>any person, who on behalf of another person, receives, stores or transmits messages or provides any service with respect to that message</i><span> </span><i>and includes the telecom services providers, network providers, internet service providers, web-hosting service providers, search engines, online payment sites, online-auction sites, online marketplaces and cyber cafés</i><span>. Does a group admin receive, store or transmit messages on behalf of group participants or provide any service with respect to messages of group participants or falls in any category mentioned in the definition? Whatsapp does not allow a group admin to receive, or store on behalf of another participant on a chat group. Every group member independently controls his posts on the group. However, a group admin helps in transmitting messages of another participant to the group by allowing the participant to be a part of the group thus effectively providing service in respect of messages. A group admin therefore, should be considered an intermediary. However his contribution to the chat group is limited to allowing participation but this is discussed in further detail in the section below.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), in a 2010 report</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/HP/Desktop/Whatsapp%20group%20admins.docx#_ftn8">[8]</a><span>, an internet intermediary brings together or facilitates transactions between third parties on the Internet. It gives access to, hosts, transmits and indexes content, products and services originated by third parties on the Internet or provide Internet-based services to third parties. A Whatsapp chat group allows people who are not on your list to interact with you if they are on the group admins’ contact list. In facilitating this interaction, according to the OECD definition, a group admin may be considered an intermediary.</span></p>
<h3><strong>Liability as an intermediary</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Section 79 (1) of the IT Act protects an intermediary from any liability under any law in force (for instance, liability under Section 153A pursuant to the rule laid down in Section 34 of IPC) if an intermediary fulfils certain conditions laid down therein. An intermediary is required to carry out certain due diligence obligations laid down in Rule 3 of the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 (<i>Rules</i>). These obligations include monitoring content that infringes intellectual property, threatens national security or public order, or is obscene or defamatory or violates any law in force (Rule 3(2)).<a href="file:///C:/Users/HP/Desktop/Whatsapp%20group%20admins.docx#_ftn9">[9]</a> An intermediary is liable for publishing or hosting such user generated content, however, as mentioned earlier, this liability is conditional. Section 79 of IT Act states that an intermediary would be liable only if it initiates transmission, selects receiver of the transmission and selects or modifies information contained in the transmission that falls under any category mentioned in Rule 3 (2) of the Rules. While we know that a group admin has the ability to facilitate sharing of information and select receivers of such information, he has no direct editorial control over the information shared. Group admins can only remove members but cannot remove or modify the content posted by members of the chat group. An intermediary is liable in the event it fails to comply with due diligence obligations laid down under rule 3 (2) and 3 (3) of the Rules however, since a group admin lacks the authority to initiate transmission himself and control content, he can’t comply with these obligations. Therefore, a group admin would be protected from any liability arising out of third party/user generated content on his group pursuant to Section 79 of the IT Act.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>It is however relevant to note whether the ability of a group admin to remove participants amounts to an indirect form of editorial control.</span></p>
<h3><strong>Other pertinent observations</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong><span> </span></strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In several reports<a href="file:///C:/Users/HP/Desktop/Whatsapp%20group%20admins.docx#_ftn10">[10]</a> there have been discussions about how holding a group admin liable makes the process convenient as it is difficult to locate all the users of a particular group. This reasoning may not be correct as the Whatsapp policy<a href="file:///C:/Users/HP/Desktop/Whatsapp%20group%20admins.docx#_ftn11">[11]</a> makes it mandatory for a prospective user to provide his mobile number in order to use the platform and no additional information is collected from group admins which may justify why group admins are targeted. Investigation agencies can access mobile numbers of Whatsapp users and gain more information from telecom companies.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>It is also interesting to note that the group admins were arrested after a user or someone familiar to a user filed a complaint with the police about content being objectionable or hurtful. Earlier this year, the apex court had ruled in the case of </span><i>Shreya Singhal v. Union of India</i><a href="file:///C:/Users/HP/Desktop/Whatsapp%20group%20admins.docx#_ftn12">[12]</a><span> that an intermediary needed a court order or a government notification for taking down information. With actions taken against group admins on mere complaints filed by anyone, it is clear that the law enforcement officials have been overriding the mandate of the court.</span></p>
<h3><strong>Conclusion</strong></h3>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="text-align: justify; ">According to a study conducted by a global research consultancy, TNS Global, around 38 % of internet users in India use instant messaging applications such as Snapchat and Whatsapp on a daily basis, Whatsapp being the most widely used application. These figures indicate the scale of impact that arrests of group admins may have on our daily communication.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>It is noteworthy that categorising a group admin as an intermediary would effectively make the Rules applicable to all Whatsapp users intending to create groups and make it difficult to enforce and would perhaps blur the distinction between users and intermediaries.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>The critical question however is whether a chat group is considered a part of the bundle of services that Whatsapp offers to its users and not as an independent platform that makes a group admin a separate entity. Also, would it be correct to draw comparison of a Whatsapp group chat with a conference call on Skype or sharing a Google document with edit rights to understand the domain in which censorship laws are penetrating today?</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Valuable contribution by Pranesh Prakash and Geetha Hariharan</i></p>
<hr size="1" style="text-align: justify; " width="33%" />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/HP/Desktop/Whatsapp%20group%20admins.docx#_ftnref1">[1]</a> <a href="http://www.nagpurtoday.in/whatsapp-admin-held-for-hurting-religious-sentiment/06250951">http://www.nagpurtoday.in/whatsapp-admin-held-for-hurting-religious-sentiment/06250951</a> ; <a href="http://www.catchnews.com/raipur-news/whatsapp-group-admin-arrested-for-spreading-obscene-video-of-mahatma-gandhi-1440835156.html">http://www.catchnews.com/raipur-news/whatsapp-group-admin-arrested-for-spreading-obscene-video-of-mahatma-gandhi-1440835156.html</a> ; <a href="http://www.financialexpress.com/article/india-news/whatsapp-group-admin-along-with-3-members-arrested-for-objectionable-content/147887/">http://www.financialexpress.com/article/india-news/whatsapp-group-admin-along-with-3-members-arrested-for-objectionable-content/147887/</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/HP/Desktop/Whatsapp%20group%20admins.docx#_ftnref2">[2]</a> Section 153A. “Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.— (1) Whoever— (a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities…” or 2) Whoever commits an offence specified in sub-section (1) in any place of worship or in any assembly engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/HP/Desktop/Whatsapp%20group%20admins.docx#_ftnref3">[3]</a> Section 34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention – When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/HP/Desktop/Whatsapp%20group%20admins.docx#_ftnref4">[4]</a> Section 67 Publishing of information which is obscene in electronic form. -Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published in the electronic form, any material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it, shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees and in the event of a second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and also with fine which may extend to two lakh rupees."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/HP/Desktop/Whatsapp%20group%20admins.docx#_ftnref5">[5]</a> https://www.whatsapp.com/faq/en/general/21073373</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/HP/Desktop/Whatsapp%20group%20admins.docx#_ftnref6">[6]</a> Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad AIR 1955 SC 216</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/HP/Desktop/Whatsapp%20group%20admins.docx#_ftnref7">[7]</a><a href="https://www.eff.org/files/2015/07/08/manila_principles_background_paper.pdf">https://www.eff.org/files/2015/07/08/manila_principles_background_paper.pdf</a>; <a href="http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002311/231162e.pdf">http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002311/231162e.pdf</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/HP/Desktop/Whatsapp%20group%20admins.docx#_ftnref8">[8]</a> http://www.oecd.org/internet/ieconomy/44949023.pdf</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/HP/Desktop/Whatsapp%20group%20admins.docx#_ftnref9">[9]</a> Rule 3(2) (b) of the Rules</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/HP/Desktop/Whatsapp%20group%20admins.docx#_ftnref10">[10]</a><a href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/if-you-are-a-whatsapp-group-admin-better-be-careful/article7531350.ece">http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/if-you-are-a-whatsapp-group-admin-better-be-careful/article7531350.ece</a>; http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil_nadu/Social-Media-Administrator-You-Could-Land-in-Trouble/2015/10/10/article3071815.ece; <a href="http://www.medianama.com/2015/10/223-whatsapp-group-admin-arrest/">http://www.medianama.com/2015/10/223-whatsapp-group-admin-arrest/</a>; <a href="http://www.thenewsminute.com/article/whatsapp-group-admin-you-are-intermediary-and-here%E2%80%99s-what-you-need-know-35031">http://www.thenewsminute.com/article/whatsapp-group-admin-you-are-intermediary-and-here%E2%80%99s-what-you-need-know-35031</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/HP/Desktop/Whatsapp%20group%20admins.docx#_ftnref11">[11]</a> https://www.whatsapp.com/legal/</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/HP/Desktop/Whatsapp%20group%20admins.docx#_ftnref12">[12]</a> http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/FileServer/2015-03-24_1427183283.pdf</p>
<div>
<div id="ftn12"></div>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-case-of-whatsapp-group-admins'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-case-of-whatsapp-group-admins</a>
</p>
No publisherJapreet GrewalIT ActIntermediary LiabilityCensorship2015-12-08T10:25:42ZBlog EntrySummary Report Internet Governance Forum 2015
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/summary-report-internet-governance-forum-2015
<b>Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), India participated in the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) held at Poeta Ronaldo Cunha Lima Conference Center, Joao Pessoa in Brazil from 10 November 2015 to 13 November 2015. The theme of IGF 2015 was ‘Evolution of Internet Governance: Empowering Sustainable Development’. Sunil Abraham, Pranesh Prakash & Jyoti Panday from CIS actively engaged and made substantive contributions to several key issues affecting internet governance at the IGF 2015. The issue-wise detail of their engagement is set out below. </b>
<p align="center" style="text-align: left;"><strong>INTERNET
GOVERNANCE</strong></p>
<p align="justify">
I. The
Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group to the IGF organised a discussion on
<em><strong>Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) and Internet Economy</strong></em><em>
</em>at
the Main Meeting Hall from 9:00 am to 12:30 pm on 11 November, 2015.
The
discussions at this session focused on the importance of Internet
Economy enabling policies and eco-system for the fulfilment of
different SDGs. Several concerns relating to internet
entrepreneurship, effective ICT capacity building, protection of
intellectual property within and across borders were availability of
local applications and content were addressed. The panel also
discussed the need to identify SDGs where internet based technologies
could make the most effective contribution. Sunil
Abraham contributed to the panel discussions by addressing the issue
of development and promotion of local content and applications. List
of speakers included:</p>
<ol>
<li>
<p align="justify">
Lenni
Montiel, Assistant-Secretary-General for Development, United Nations</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Helani
Galpaya, CEO LIRNEasia</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Sergio
Quiroga da Cunha, Head of Latin America, Ericsson</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Raúl
L. Katz, Adjunct Professor, Division of Finance and Economics,
Columbia Institute of Tele-information</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Jimson
Olufuye, Chairman, Africa ICT Alliance (AfICTA)</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Lydia
Brito, Director of the Office in Montevideo, UNESCO</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
H.E.
Rudiantara, Minister of Communication & Information Technology,
Indonesia</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Daniel
Sepulveda, Deputy Assistant Secretary, U.S. Coordinator for
International and Communications Policy at the U.S. Department of
State </p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Deputy
Minister Department of Telecommunications and Postal Services for
the republic of South Africa</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Sunil
Abraham, Executive Director, Centre for Internet and Society, India</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
H.E.
Junaid Ahmed Palak, Information and Communication Technology
Minister of Bangladesh</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Jari
Arkko, Chairman, IETF</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Silvia
Rabello, President, Rio Film Trade Association</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Gary
Fowlie, Head of Member State Relations & Intergovernmental
Organizations, ITU</p>
</li></ol>
<p align="justify">
Detailed
description of the workshop is available here
<a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-main-sessions" target="_top">http</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-main-sessions" target="_top">://</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-main-sessions" target="_top">www</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-main-sessions" target="_top">.</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-main-sessions" target="_top">intgovforum</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-main-sessions" target="_top">.</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-main-sessions" target="_top">org</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-main-sessions" target="_top">/</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-main-sessions" target="_top">cms</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-main-sessions" target="_top">/</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-main-sessions" target="_top">igf</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-main-sessions" target="_top">2015-</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-main-sessions" target="_top">main</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-main-sessions" target="_top">-</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-main-sessions" target="_top">sessions</a><u>
</u></p>
<p align="justify">
Transcript
of the workshop is available here
<u><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2327-2015-11-11-internet-economy-and-sustainable-development-main-meeting-room">http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2327-2015-11-11-internet-economy-and-sustainable-development-main-meeting-room</a></u></p>
<p align="justify">
Video
link Internet
economy and Sustainable Development here
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6obkLehVE8">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6obkLehVE8</a></p>
<p align="justify"> II.
Public
Knowledge organised a workshop on <em><strong>The
Benefits and Challenges of the Free Flow of Data </strong></em>at
Workshop Room
5 from 11:00 am to 12:00 pm on 12 November, 2015. The discussions in
the workshop focused on the benefits and challenges of the free flow
of data and also the concerns relating to data flow restrictions
including ways to address
them. Sunil
Abraham contributed to the panel discussions by addressing the issue
of jurisdiction of data on the internet. The
panel for the workshop included the following.</p>
<ol>
<li>
<p align="justify">
Vint
Cerf, Google</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Lawrence
Strickling, U.S. Department of Commerce, NTIA</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Richard
Leaning, European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3), Europol</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Marietje
Schaake, European Parliament</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Nasser
Kettani, Microsoft</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Sunil
Abraham, CIS
India</p>
</li></ol>
<p align="justify">
Detailed
description of the workshop is available here
<a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">http</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">://</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">www</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">.</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">intgovforum</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">.</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">org</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">/</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">cms</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">/</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">workshops</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">/</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">list</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">-</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">of</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">-</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">published</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">-</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">workshop</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">-</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">proposals</a><u>
</u></p>
<p align="justify">
Transcript
of the workshop is available here
<a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2467-2015-11-12-ws65-the-benefits-and-challenges-of-the-free-flow-of-data-workshop-room-5">http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2467-2015-11-12-ws65-the-benefits-and-challenges-of-the-free-flow-of-data-workshop-room-5</a></p>
<p align="justify">
Video link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtjnHkOn7EQ</p>
<p align="justify"> III.
Article
19 and
Privacy International organised a workshop on <em><strong>Encryption
and Anonymity: Rights and Risks</strong></em>
at Workshop Room 1 from 11:00 am to 12:30 pm on 12 November, 2015.
The
workshop fostered a discussion about the latest challenges to
protection of anonymity and encryption and ways in which law
enforcement demands could be met while ensuring that individuals
still enjoyed strong encryption and unfettered access to anonymity
tools. Pranesh
Prakash contributed to the panel discussions by addressing concerns
about existing south Asian regulatory framework on encryption and
anonymity and emphasizing the need for pervasive encryption. The
panel for this workshop included the following.</p>
<ol>
<li>
<p align="justify">
David
Kaye, UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Juan
Diego Castañeda, Fundación Karisma, Colombia</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Edison
Lanza, Organisation of American States Special Rapporteur</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Pranesh
Prakash, CIS India</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Ted
Hardie, Google</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Elvana
Thaci, Council of Europe</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Professor
Chris Marsden, Oxford Internet Institute</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Alexandrine
Pirlot de Corbion, Privacy International</p>
</li></ol>
<p align="justify"><a name="_Hlt435412531"></a>
Detailed
description of the workshop is available here
<a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">http</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">://</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">www</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">.</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">intgovforum</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">.</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">org</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">/</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">cms</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">/</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">worksh</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">o</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">ps</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">/</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">list</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">-</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">of</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">-</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">published</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">-</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">workshop</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">-</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">proposals</a><u>
</u></p>
<p align="justify">
Transcript
of the workshop is available here
<a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2407-2015-11-12-ws-155-encryption-and-anonymity-rights-and-risks-workshop-room-1">http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2407-2015-11-12-ws-155-encryption-and-anonymity-rights-and-risks-workshop-room-1</a></p>
<p align="justify">
Video link available here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUrBP4PsfJo</p>
<p align="justify"> IV.
Chalmers
& Associates organised a session on <em><strong>A
Dialogue on Zero Rating and Network Neutrality</strong></em>
at the Main Meeting Hall from 2:00 pm to 4:00 pm on 12 November,
2015. The Dialogue provided access to expert insight on zero-rating
and a full spectrum of diverse
views on this issue. The Dialogue also explored alternative
approaches to zero rating such as use of community networks. Pranesh
Prakash provided
a
detailed explanation of harms and benefits related to different
approaches to zero-rating. The
panellists for this session were the following.</p>
<ol>
<li>
<p align="justify">
Jochai
Ben-Avie, Senior Global Policy Manager, Mozilla, USA</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Igor
Vilas Boas de Freitas, Commissioner, ANATEL, Brazil</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Dušan
Caf, Chairman, Electronic Communications Council, Republic of
Slovenia</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Silvia
Elaluf-Calderwood, Research Fellow, London School of Economics,
UK/Peru</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Belinda
Exelby, Director, Institutional Relations, GSMA, UK</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Helani
Galpaya, CEO, LIRNEasia, Sri Lanka</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Anka
Kovacs, Director, Internet Democracy Project, India</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Kevin
Martin, VP, Mobile and Global Access Policy, Facebook, USA</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Pranesh
Prakash, Policy Director, CIS India</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Steve
Song, Founder, Village Telco, South Africa/Canada</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Dhanaraj
Thakur, Research Manager, Alliance for Affordable Internet, USA/West
Indies</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Christopher
Yoo, Professor of Law, Communication, and Computer & Information
Science, University of Pennsylvania, USA</p>
</li></ol>
<p align="justify">
Detailed
description of the workshop is available here
<a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-main-sessions" target="_top">http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-main-sessions</a></p>
<p align="justify">
Transcript
of the workshop is available here
<a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2457-2015-11-12-a-dialogue-on-zero-rating-and-network-neutrality-main-meeting-hall-2">http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2457-2015-11-12-a-dialogue-on-zero-rating-and-network-neutrality-main-meeting-hall-2</a></p>
<p align="justify"> V.
The
Internet & Jurisdiction Project organised a workshop on
<em><strong>Transnational
Due Process: A Case Study in MS Cooperation</strong></em>
at Workshop Room
4 from 11:00 am to 12:00 pm on 13 November, 2015. The
workshop discussion focused on the challenges in developing an
enforcement framework for the internet that guarantees transnational
due process and legal interoperability. The discussion also focused
on innovative approaches to multi-stakeholder cooperation such as
issue-based networks, inter-sessional work methods and transnational
policy standards. The panellists for this discussion were the
following.</p>
<ol>
<li>
<p align="justify">
Anne
Carblanc Head of Division, Directorate for Science, Technology and
Industry, OECD</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Eileen
Donahoe Director Global Affairs, Human Rights Watch</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Byron
Holland President and CEO, CIRA (Canadian ccTLD)</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Christopher
Painter Coordinator for Cyber Issues, US Department of State</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Sunil
Abraham Executive Director, CIS India</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Alice
Munyua Lead dotAfrica Initiative and GAC representative, African
Union Commission</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Will
Hudsen Senior Advisor for International Policy, Google</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Dunja
Mijatovic Representative on Freedom of the Media, OSCE</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Thomas
Fitschen Director for the United Nations, for International
Cooperation against Terrorism and for Cyber Foreign Policy, German
Federal Foreign Office</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Hartmut
Glaser Executive Secretary, Brazilian Internet Steering Committee</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Matt
Perault, Head of Policy Development Facebook</p>
</li></ol>
<p align="justify">
Detailed
description of the workshop is available here
<a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals">http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals</a></p>
<p align="justify">
Transcript
of the workshop is available here
<a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2475-2015-11-13-ws-132-transnational-due-process-a-case-study-in-ms-cooperation-workshop-room-4">http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2475-2015-11-13-ws-132-transnational-due-process-a-case-study-in-ms-cooperation-workshop-room-4</a></p>
<p align="justify">
Video
link Transnational
Due Process: A Case Study in MS Cooperation available here <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9jVovhQhd0">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9jVovhQhd0</a></p>
<p align="justify"> VI.
The Internet Governance Project organised a meeting of the
<em><strong>Dynamic
Coalition on Accountability of Internet Governance Venues</strong></em>
at Workshop Room 2 from 14:00
– 15:30 on
12 November, 2015. The coalition
brought together panelists to highlight the
challenges in developing an accountability
framework
for internet governance
venues that include setting up standards and developing a set of
concrete criteria. Jyoti Panday provided the perspective of civil
society on why acountability is necessary in internet governance
processes and organizations. The panelists for this workshop included
the following.</p>
<ol>
<li>
<p>
Robin
Gross, IP Justice</p>
</li><li>
<p>
Jeanette
Hofmann, Director
<a href="http://www.internetundgesellschaft.de/">Alexander
von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society</a></p>
</li><li>
<p>
Farzaneh
Badiei,
Internet Governance Project</p>
</li><li>
<p>
Erika
Mann,
Managing
Director Public PolicyPolicy Facebook and Board of Directors
ICANN</p>
</li><li>
<p>
Paul
Wilson, APNIC</p>
</li><li>
<p>
Izumi
Okutani, Japan
Network Information Center (JPNIC)</p>
</li><li>
<p>
Keith
Drazek , Verisign</p>
</li><li>
<p>
Jyoti
Panday,
CIS</p>
</li><li>
<p>
Jorge
Cancio,
GAC representative</p>
</li></ol>
<p>
Detailed
description of the workshop is available here
<a href="http://igf2015.sched.org/event/4c23/dynamic-coalition-on-accountability-of-internet-governance-venues?iframe=no&w=&sidebar=yes&bg=no">http://igf2015.sched.org/event/4c23/dynamic-coalition-on-accountability-of-internet-governance-venues?iframe=no&w=&sidebar=yes&bg=no</a></p>
<p>
Video
link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIxyGhnch7w</p>
<p> VII.
Digital
Infrastructure
Netherlands Foundation organized an open forum at
Workshop Room 3
from 11:00
– 12:00
on
10
November, 2015. The open
forum discussed the increase
in government engagement with “the internet” to protect their
citizens against crime and abuse and to protect economic interests
and critical infrastructures. It
brought
together panelists topresent
ideas about an agenda for the international protection of ‘the
public core of the internet’ and to collect and discuss ideas for
the formulation of norms and principles and for the identification of
practical steps towards that goal.
Pranesh Prakash participated in the e open forum. Other speakers
included</p>
<ol>
<li>
<p>
Bastiaan
Goslings AMS-IX, NL</p>
</li><li>
<p>
Pranesh
Prakash CIS, India</p>
</li><li>
<p>
Marilia
Maciel (FGV, Brasil</p>
</li><li>
<p>
Dennis
Broeders (NL Scientific Council for Government Policy)</p>
</li></ol>
<p>
Detailed
description of the open
forum is available here
<a href="http://schd.ws/hosted_files/igf2015/3d/DINL_IGF_Open%20Forum_The_public_core_of_the_internet.pdf">http://schd.ws/hosted_files/igf2015/3d/DINL_IGF_Open%20Forum_The_public_core_of_the_internet.pdf</a></p>
<p>
Video
link available here <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joPQaMQasDQ">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joPQaMQasDQ</a></p>
<p>
VIII.
UNESCO, Council of Europe, Oxford University, Office of the High
Commissioner on Human Rights, Google, Internet Society organised a
workshop on hate speech and youth radicalisation at Room 9 on
Thursday, November 12. UNESCO shared the initial outcome from its
commissioned research on online hate speech including practical
recommendations on combating against online hate speech through
understanding the challenges, mobilizing civil society, lobbying
private sectors and intermediaries and educating individuals with
media and information literacy. The workshop also discussed how to
help empower youth to address online radicalization and extremism,
and realize their aspirations to contribute to a more peaceful and
sustainable world. Sunil Abraham provided his inputs. Other speakers
include</p>
<p>
1.
Chaired by Ms Lidia Brito, Director for UNESCO Office in Montevideo</p>
<p>
2.Frank
La Rue, Former Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression</p>
<p>
3.
Lillian Nalwoga, President ISOC Uganda and rep CIPESA, Technical
community</p>
<p>
4.
Bridget O’Loughlin, CoE, IGO</p>
<p>
5.
Gabrielle Guillemin, Article 19</p>
<p>
6.
Iyad Kallas, Radio Souriali</p>
<p>
7.
Sunil Abraham executive director of Center for Internet and Society,
Bangalore, India</p>
<p>
8.
Eve Salomon, global Chairman of the Regulatory Board of RICS</p>
<p>
9.
Javier Lesaca Esquiroz, University of Navarra</p>
<p>
10.
Representative GNI</p>
<p>
11.
Remote Moderator: Xianhong Hu, UNESCO</p>
<p>
12.
Rapporteur: Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi, UNESCO</p>
<p>
Detailed
description of the workshop
is available here
<a href="http://igf2015.sched.org/event/4c1X/ws-128-mitigate-online-hate-speech-and-youth-radicalisation?iframe=no&w=&sidebar=yes&bg=no">http://igf2015.sched.org/event/4c1X/ws-128-mitigate-online-hate-speech-and-youth-radicalisation?iframe=no&w=&sidebar=yes&bg=no</a></p>
<p>
Video
link to the panel is available here
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIO1z4EjRG0">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIO1z4EjRG0</a></p>
<p> <strong>INTERMEDIARY
LIABILITY</strong></p>
<p align="justify">
IX.
Electronic
Frontier Foundation, Centre for Internet Society India, Open Net
Korea and Article 19 collaborated to organize
a workshop on the <em><strong>Manila
Principles on Intermediary Liability</strong></em>
at Workshop Room 9 from 11:00 am to 12:00 pm on 13 November 2015. The
workshop elaborated on the Manila
Principles, a high level principle framework of best practices and
safeguards for content restriction practices and addressing liability
for intermediaries for third party content. The
workshop
saw particpants engaged in over lapping projects considering
restriction practices coming togetehr to give feedback and highlight
recent developments across liability regimes. Jyoti
Panday laid down the key details of the Manila Principles framework
in this session. The panelists for this workshop included the
following.</p>
<ol>
<li>
<p align="justify">
Kelly
Kim Open Net Korea,</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Jyoti
Panday, CIS India,</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Gabrielle
Guillemin, Article 19,</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Rebecca
McKinnon on behalf of UNESCO</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Giancarlo
Frosio, Center for Internet and Society, Stanford Law School</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Nicolo
Zingales, Tilburg University</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Will
Hudson, Google</p>
</li></ol>
<p align="justify">
Detailed
description of the workshop is available here
<a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals</a></p>
<p align="justify">
Transcript
of the workshop is available here
<a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2423-2015-11-13-ws-242-the-manila-principles-on-intermediary-liability-workshop-room-9">http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2423-2015-11-13-ws-242-the-manila-principles-on-intermediary-liability-workshop-room-9</a></p>
<p align="justify">
Video link available here <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFLmzxXodjs">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFLmzxXodjs</a></p>
<p align="justify"> <strong>ACCESSIBILITY</strong></p>
<p align="justify">
X.
Dynamic
Coalition
on Accessibility and Disability and Global Initiative for Inclusive
ICTs organised a workshop on <em><strong>Empowering
the Next Billion by Improving Accessibility</strong></em><em>
</em>at
Workshop Room 6 from 9:00 am to 10:30 am on 13 November, 2015. The
discussion focused on
the need and ways to remove accessibility barriers which prevent over
one billion potential users to benefit from the Internet, including
for essential services. Sunil
Abraham specifically spoke about the lack of compliance of existing
ICT infrastructure with well established accessibility standards
specifically relating to accessibility barriers in the disaster
management process. He discussed the barriers faced by persons with
physical or psychosocial disabilities. The
panelists for this discussion were the following.</p>
<ol>
<li>
<p align="justify">
Francesca
Cesa Bianchi, G3ICT</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Cid
Torquato, Government of Brazil</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Carlos
Lauria, Microsoft Brazil</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Sunil
Abraham, CIS India</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Derrick
L. Cogburn, Institute on Disability and Public Policy (IDPP) for the
ASEAN(Association of Southeast Asian Nations) Region</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Fernando
H. F. Botelho, F123 Consulting</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Gunela
Astbrink, GSA InfoComm</p>
</li></ol>
<p align="justify">
Detailed
description of the workshop is available here
<u><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals</a></u></p>
<p align="justify">
Transcript
of the workshop is available here
<u><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2438-2015-11-13-ws-253-empowering-the-next-billion-by-improving-accessibility-workshop-room-3">http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2438-2015-11-13-ws-253-empowering-the-next-billion-by-improving-accessibility-workshop-room-3</a></u></p>
<p align="justify">
Video
Link Empowering
the next billion by improving accessibility <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RZlWvJAXxs">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RZlWvJAXxs</a></p>
<p align="justify"> <strong>OPENNESS</strong></p>
<p align="justify">
XI.
A
workshop on <em><strong>FOSS
& a Free, Open Internet: Synergies for Development</strong></em>
was organized at Workshop Room 7 from 2:00 pm to 3:30 pm on 13
November, 2015. The discussion was focused on the increasing risk to
openness of the internet and the ability of present & future
generations to use technology to improve their lives. The panel shred
different perspectives about the future co-development
of FOSS and a free, open Internet; the threats that are emerging; and
ways for communities to surmount these. Sunil
Abraham emphasised the importance of free software, open standards,
open access and access to knowledge and the lack of this mandate in
the draft outcome document for upcoming WSIS+10 review and called for
inclusion of the same. Pranesh Prakash further contributed to the
discussion by emphasizing the need for free open source software with
end‑to‑end encryption and traffic level encryption based
on open standards which are decentralized and work through federated
networks. The
panellists for this discussion were the following.</p>
<ol>
<li>
<p align="justify">
Satish
Babu, Technical Community, Chair, ISOC-TRV, Kerala, India</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Judy
Okite, Civil Society, FOSS Foundation for Africa</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Mishi
Choudhary, Private Sector, Software Freedom Law Centre, New York</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Fernando
Botelho, Private Sector, heads F123 Systems, Brazil</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Sunil
Abraham, CIS
India</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Pranesh
Prakash, CIS
India</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Nnenna
Nwakanma- WWW.Foundation</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Yves
MIEZAN EZO, Open Source strategy consultant</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Corinto
Meffe, Advisor to the President and Directors, SERPRO, Brazil</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Frank
Coelho de Alcantara, Professor, Universidade Positivo, Brazil</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Caroline
Burle, Institutional and International Relations, W3C Brazil Office
and Center of Studies on Web Technologies</p>
</li></ol>
<p align="justify">
Detailed
description of the workshop is available here
<u><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals</a></u></p>
<p align="justify">
Transcript
of the workshop is available here
<u><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2468-2015-11-13-ws10-foss-and-a-free-open-internet-synergies-for-development-workshop-room-7" target="_top">http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2468-2015-11-13-ws10-foss-and-a-free-open-internet-synergies-for-development-workshop-room-7</a></u></p>
<p align="justify">
Video
link available here <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwUq0LTLnDs">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwUq0LTLnDs</a></p>
<p align="justify">
<br /><br /></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/summary-report-internet-governance-forum-2015'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/summary-report-internet-governance-forum-2015</a>
</p>
No publisherjyotiAccess to KnowledgeBig DataFreedom of Speech and ExpressionEncryptionInternet Governance ForumIntermediary LiabilityAccountabilityInternet GovernanceCensorshipCyber SecurityDigital GovernanceAnonymityCivil SocietyBlocking2015-11-30T10:47:13ZBlog EntryIndian PM Narendra Modi’s digital dream gets bad reception
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-australian-amanda-hodge-september-29-2015-indian-pm-narendra-modi-digital-dream-gets-bad-reception
<b>As Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi told Silicon Valley’s most powerful chief executives this week how his government “attacked poverty by using the power of networks and mobile phones’’, the entire population of the state of Kashmir remained offline — by order of the state.
</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Amanda Hodge was published in <a class="external-link" href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/indian-pm-narendra-modis-digital-dream-gets-bad-reception/story-e6frg6so-1227547929688">the Australian</a> on September 29, 2015. Sunil Abraham gave inputs.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“I see technology as a means to empower and as a tool that bridges the distance between hope and opportunity,” Mr Modi said yesterday on a trip in which he will also discuss development at the UN.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Earlier, in a “town hall” meeting with Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg Mr Modi hailed the power of social media networks that gave governments the opportunity to correct themselves “every five minutes”, rather than every five years.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">His remarks during his Digital India tour of the US west coast sparked a storm of Twitter protest.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The northern state’s former chief minister Omar Abdullah, who noted the “irony of listening to Prime Minister Modi lecturing about connected digital India, while we are totally disconnected”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The ban on mobile and broadband internet in Jammu and Kashmir was imposed last Friday, the beginning of the Muslim holiday of Eid-ul-Zuha during which animals are slaughtered and the meat fed to the poor, for fear social media could inflame tensions over the state government’s decision to enforce a beef ban.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It was to have lasted 24 hours but — notwithstanding Twitter feedback — was extended twice as a “precautionary” measure.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As Mr Modi outlined his dreams of a broadband network connecting the country’s most remote communities, millions of New Delhi mobile phone users continued their daily wrestle with line dropouts.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“We are bringing technology, transparency, efficiency, ease and effectiveness in governance,” he said, as in New Delhi the government talked of pulling down more mobile towers.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Centre for Internet and Society director Sunil Abraham said yesterday: “Schizophrenia between rhetoric and reality (on digital policy) is the global standard for all world leaders.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“Politicians in opposition are invariably opposed to surveillance and in favour of free speech but the very day that politician assumes office even if it is someone as splendid as Barack Obama, they change their opinions on these topics and become pro-surveillance and pro-censorship.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Certainly successive Indian governments have had a patchy record on such issues. Last March India’s activist Supreme Court struck down a controversial section of the Information Technology Act which made posting information of a “grossly offensive or menacing character” punishable by up to three years’ jail.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">That month police in northern Uttar Pradesh arrested a teenager for a Facebook post, which they said “carried derogatory language against a community”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Previous cases under the former Congress-led government include that of a university professor detained for posting a cartoon about the chief minister of West Bengal and the arrest of two young women over a Facebook post criticising the shutdown of Mumbai following the death of a Hindu right politician.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While Mr Modi’s government welcomed the Supreme Court ruling as a “landmark day for freedom of speech and expression”, last month it attempted to block 857 random porn sites.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Notwithstanding the gulf between Mr Modi’s digital dream rhetoric and the reality at home, his second US visit in 17 months has reaped dividends. Google has committed to a joint initiative to roll out free Wi-Fi to 500 railway stations across the country, and Qualcomm has pledged a $US150 million ($213m) tech startup fund.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">But Mr Abraham warned of the potential for such investments to compromise net neutrality — the principle of allowing internet users access to all content and applications.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-australian-amanda-hodge-september-29-2015-indian-pm-narendra-modi-digital-dream-gets-bad-reception'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-australian-amanda-hodge-september-29-2015-indian-pm-narendra-modi-digital-dream-gets-bad-reception</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaInternet GovernanceCensorshipSurveillance2015-09-29T15:23:04ZNews ItemHiding behind rules on naming sites it banned, govt reveals fears
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hindustan-times-september-3-2015-harjeet-inder-singh-sahi-hiding-behind-rules-on-naming-sites-it-banned-govt-reveals-fears
<b>With the union government's ban on 857 porn sites in July creating brouhaha across the country, there had been a concern over the voice of the youth being stifled and censorship making a comeback.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Harjeet Inder Singh Sahi was published in the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/chandigarh/hiding-behind-rules-on-naming-sites-it-banned-govt-reveals-fears/story-Ef2IdZLe4mu15KNpe8HOHO.html">Hindustan Times</a> on September 3, 2015.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Even though there was a partial rollback of the ban, the government still seems intent on being obtrusive with information and deny access to it, especially about the internet and the way it intends to govern it.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This has been illustrated by the union government's department of telecommunications refusing to provide information on websites it has banned to a petition under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>The reply</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"The group coordinator, cyber law division, department of electronics and information technology, has been authorised as designated officer and issues instructions for blocking/unblocking of websites/URLs. The clause 16 of Information Technology Procedure and Safeguards for blocking access of information by Public, Rules 2009, says strict confidentiality shall be maintained regarding all requests and complaints received and actions taken thereof," says the reply to the RTI application filed by this correspondent on August 3.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The reply to the petition - filed at <a href="http://www.rtionline.gov.in">www.rtionline.gov.in</a> with registration number DOTEL/R/2015/61348 - was received on August 27.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Background to the case</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In July this year, the department of electronics and information technology had banned 857 pornographic websites listed in the petition of Indore-based advocate Kamlesh Vaswani in the supreme court. The websites were banned by citing 'morality' and 'decency' enshrined in Article 19 (2) of the Constitution of India and under provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000. A few days later, the government did a flip-flop and revoked the ban partially.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) had subsequently released the list online. Now, the government has refused to provide information on websites banned in the country.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Department tangle</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The department of electronics and IT decided on the ban, but it was the department of telecom which served the order to the internet companies because it is the supervising authority for them. The RTI can be filed with the department of telecom as it issues guidelines for and notices to internet service providers. The same application could also have been filed with the department of electronics and information technology. This department might have replied to the application or forwarded it to the telecom department.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hindustan-times-september-3-2015-harjeet-inder-singh-sahi-hiding-behind-rules-on-naming-sites-it-banned-govt-reveals-fears'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hindustan-times-september-3-2015-harjeet-inder-singh-sahi-hiding-behind-rules-on-naming-sites-it-banned-govt-reveals-fears</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaInternet GovernanceCensorship2015-09-27T10:59:56ZNews ItemGovernment may tieup with global police, Interpol to fight child pornography
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/economic-times-september-3-2015-surabhi-agarwal-govt-tie-up-with-global-police-interpol-to-fight-child-pornography
<b>International partnerships, including with the global police network Interpol, could be the basis for India's strategy to counter child pornography after the government's move to ban websites peddling smut backfired last month.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Surabhi Agarwal was published in the <a class="external-link" href="http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-09-03/news/66178673_1_websites-international-criminal-police-organization-interpol">Economic Times</a> on September 3, 2015. Sunil Abraham was quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The new approach by the ministry of communications and information technology mirrors the system adopted by developed countries, government officials said, representing a targetted attack on child pornography instead of the recent fiasco when the authorities backtracked in the face of protests after banning 857 websites.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Once it comes on board as a partner, the International Criminal Police Organization will alert India about production, distribution or broadcast of child pornographic content regularly. India will also have access to an Interpol database known as the 'worst of ' list of domains with content containing child sexual abuse.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"The country is not divided on the issue of child pornography and the government has made a policy statement that it will deal with the problem firmly. So that will be guiding the entire action," a senior government official said. The person said that the government is still studying the model and a call will be taken soon.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A partnership with the UK-based Internet Watch Foundation, which maintains a database on child pornography and collaborates with the British government, is also being considered.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Interpol manages a database which uses sophisticated image comparison software to make connections between victims and places. The foundation also maintains a similar database which is constantly updated. It sends alerts to members twice each day.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"That's the global best practice," said Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bangalore based advocacy group Centre for Internet and Society. "There is no reason for us to reinvent anything; we should just adopt the best practice with some improvements." For a long time, the government and Internet service providers have been passing the buck to each other on this issue, arguing that they don't have the wherewithal to create a database on such content and block it. "This is because as per the Indian laws, anyone who looks at such content even with the motive of blocking it is committing a punishable offense," said Abraham. In August the government said it was banning 857 pornographic websites, only to backtrack amidst widespread criticism and a rap from the Supreme Court. Almost all the websites have been unblocked now with the exception of a few which allegedly contain child pornographic content.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">During the hearing in the Supreme Court, the Internet Service Providers Association of India (ISPAI) said that it is impossible for an ISP to block pornographic sites without orders from the court or department of telecom and that the task of identifying such websites should not be the domain of internet service providers. A decision on the issue will work in the government's favour since the next hearing in the matter is slated for October. "Once the country has access to some list which is authentic and verified, regular action can be taken," a government official said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As per initial discussions, the dominant point of view is for ISPAI to be the point of contact between the government and international organisations. It will be tasked with vetting the list and receiving blocking orders from the telecom department so that further action can be taken.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/economic-times-september-3-2015-surabhi-agarwal-govt-tie-up-with-global-police-interpol-to-fight-child-pornography'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/economic-times-september-3-2015-surabhi-agarwal-govt-tie-up-with-global-police-interpol-to-fight-child-pornography</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaObscenityPornographyInternet GovernanceCensorship2015-09-27T10:25:44ZNews ItemGoverning Speech on the Internet: From the Free Marketplace Policy to a Controlled 'Public Sphere'
https://cis-india.org/raw/blog_governing-speech-on-the-internet
<b>This post by Smarika Kumar is part of the 'Studying Internets in India' series. Smarika is a consultant with Alternative Law Forum, Bangalore. She is interested in issues concerning law and technology. In this essay, Smarika explores how through the use of policy and regulation, the private marketplace of the internet is sought to be reined in and reconciled to the public sphere, which is mostly represented through legislations governing the internet.</b>
<p> </p>
<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>The internet is widely thought to be unprecedented and radically different from the media which preceded it. Interestingly, the internet has been unlike other media, in that it does not have a history of being monopolised by governments. True, certain States have tried to regulate the internet in a manner which allows them to exercise an increased control over it, some others have a greater control over the internet root given the history of development of the internet, but nevertheless no one State can be said to “own” the internet in any jurisdiction, in the manner of telephone or broadcast monopolies. Internet as it stands now, at its essence, is a largely private of networks connecting privately-owned, and occasionally publicly-funded platforms.</p>
<p>This feature of the internet poses an interesting problem when one tries to think about speech. In law and policymaking, an important question remains: Should internet be treated as the marketplace of privately managed avenues for speech, or should speech on the internet be treated within the bigger concept of the public sphere? Moreover, how are law and policy in India currently disposed towards speech on the internet? In the present essay, I hope to discuss some of these issues by looking at the judgement in <em>Shreya Singhal v. Union of India</em> [1], which was pronounced by the Supreme Court of India in March 2015. The judgement is most widely recognised as a culmination of several challenges to Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 which criminalised a wide range of speech on the internet on the grounds of very broad terms like “grossly offensive”, “causing annoyance” and “inconvenience, danger, and obstruction.” Section 66A was challenged along with Sections 69A and 79 of the Act, which lay down the rules for blocking of content on the internet, and for intermediary liability and responsibility to take down internet content, respectively. This challenge was made on grounds of being in violation of the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression and Right to Equality guaranteed by the Constitution of India among others. However, while the judgement struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional, it upheld the constitutionality of the State-directed Internet blocking Rules as well as Intermediary Liability Guidelines. This may pose a paradox if one accounts for the fact that at the heart of it, all—Section 66A, Section 69A and Section 79, were actually legislations regulating speech. Then why strike one down and uphold others? To seek an answer in the present essay, I broadly look at the philosophical origins of regulation of speech on the internet. Two theories in philosophy—John Stuart Mill’s The Marketplace of Ideas and Jurgen Habermas’ Public Sphere have been very influential in liberal democratic traditions and jurisdictions in thinking about the governance of speech. Scholarly work concerning media law in other jurisdictions has also elaborated on how each of these theories can be implicitly used differently in judicial interpretations to serve different ends [2]. In this, the Marketplace of Ideas approach tends to treat speech and platforms for speech as part of the competition within a market context, whereby different kinds of ideas or speech compete with each other to find an avenue for expression. The Public Sphere approach on the other hand, treats different kinds of speech as part of a larger democratic concept of discussion and speech, whereby the aspiration is for representation of diverse kinds and sources of speech, rather than competition between them.</p>
<p>With the utilisation of these different underlying philosophical assumptions, legal implications can be so vastly different. And when that happens, it becomes essential to trace the process of how these philosophical approaches themselves work in legal argumentation. For these reasons, it becomes critical to probe the thinking in <em>Shreya Singhal</em> judgement to understand which philosophical attitude to speech it actually inheres: the Marketplace of Ideas conception, or the Public Sphere approach? I argue in this essay that while traces of both the Marketplace of Ideas and the Public Sphere approach are present in <em>Shreya Singhal</em>, neither of these philosophies actually govern the rationale of the judgement. An analysis of <em>Shreya Singhal</em> along with the judgement in <em>Cricket Association of Bengal</em> (1995) [3] which it refers to, shows that it is in fact, a third philosophy, rooted in the impulse of colonial control, which gives <em>Shreya Singhal</em> its philosophical consistency.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>The Marketplace of Ideas in <em>Shreya Singhal</em></h2>
The judgement in <em>Shreya Singhal</em> actually employs the idea of the marketplace in its approach to discuss the implications of Section 66A. It begins by referring to the 2010 Supreme Court judgement of <em>S. Khushboo v. Kanniamal and Anr</em> [4] which had spoken about the concept of the marketplace of ideas, and how employing it is essential to safeguard “unpopular speech” under the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression in the Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The Court marks out this reference to the marketplace of ideas, tracing this concept back to the 1919 American judgement of <em>Abrams v. United States</em> [5]. The Supreme Court states, talking about the Khushboo case:
<p> </p>
<blockquote>This last judgement is important in that it refers to the “market place of ideas” concept that has permeated American Law. This was put in the felicitous words of Justice Holmes in his famous dissent in Abrams v. United States, 250 US 616 (1919), thus: “But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas-that the best test of truth is the power of thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution.” (para 11)</blockquote>
<p>The Supreme Court judgement goes onto trace the history of Marketplace of Ideas in American jurisprudence, and understand its place within the Indian Constitution. The Court holds:</p>
<blockquote>This leads us to a discussion of what is the content of the expression “freedom of speech and expression”. There are three concepts which are fundamental in understanding the reach of this most basic of human rights. The first is discussion, the second is advocacy, and the third is incitement. Mere discussion or even advocacy of a particular cause howsoever unpopular is at the heart of Article 19(1)(a). It is only when such discussion or advocacy reaches the level of incitement that Article 19(2) kicks in. (para 13)</blockquote>
<p>The Marketplace of Ideas then becomes the philosophical tenet which pivots the judgement around its unique jurisprudential concept: the distinction between discussion, advocacy and incitement. This conception of the marketplace holds that State interference in speech on the internet has to be kept off as long as the condition of such speech being incitement is not fulfilled. In a way, this is a hands-off approach to the governance of speech which is solidified in the Court’s declaration of the unconstitutionality of Section 66A. The Court refers to the American judgement of Reno, Attorney General of <em>United States v. American Civil Liberties Union</em> [6] to bring this logic to speech on the internet as well. Citing the district court judgement in this case, it holds:</p>
<blockquote>[I]t is no exaggeration to conclude that the Internet has achieved, and continues to achieve, the most participatory marketplace of mass speech that this country – and indeed the world – as yet seen. The plaintiffs in these actions correctly describe the ‘democratizing’ effects of Internet communication: individual citizens of limited means can speak to a worldwide audience on issues of concern to them. Federalists and Anti-federalists may debate the structure of their government nightly, but these debates occur in newsgroups or chat rooms rather than in pamphlets. Modern-day Luthers still post their theses, but to electronic bulletins boards rather than the door of the Wittenberg Schlosskirche. More mundane (but from a constitutional perspective, equally important) dialogue occurs between aspiring artists, or French cooks, or dog lovers, or fly fishermen. 929 F. Supp. At 881. (at page 425) (para 60)</blockquote>
<p><em>Shreya Singhal</em>’s striking down of 66A then becomes founded in the idea that the State need not interfere in what kind of speech is made in the marketplace of the internet, as long as such speech does not amount to incitement. In a particular sphere of speech which is “not incitement” then, the logic of the Marketplace of Ideas approach seems to work in the <em>Shreya Singhal</em> judgement.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Recognition of the Limitations of the Marketplace of Ideas and a Move towards Public Sphere</h2>
<p>One would then surmise that the use of the Marketplace of Ideas approach is what makes <em>Shreya Singhal</em> such a pro-freedom of speech pronouncement. But interestingly, the judgement also cites the matter of <em>The Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal and Anr</em> [3] which has been remarkable for outlining the limitations of the marketplace in the governance and production of a diversity of opinions and sources in speech. The <em>Cricket Association of Bengal</em> case was brought forth before the Supreme Court in 1995, after the liberalisation regime in media, to challenge the constitutionality of preventing a private broadcaster to use Indian airwaves in order to exclusively broadcast a cricket match.</p>
<p>The Court, while holding that there was no such exclusive right inhering in a private broadcaster since airwaves had to be allocated and used in public interest, also held that the limitations on a private broadcaster’s right to broadcast also could not extend beyond Article 19(2). In doing so, the Court recognises that the marketplace in a free and competitive system may not always be sufficient enough to make use of the media to generate and represent speech which is in the democratic public interest of discussion and advocacy. <em>Shreya Singhal</em> cites this portion of the judgement in support of its own rationale of striking down Section 66A. It holds:</p>
<blockquote>The right to use the airwaves and the content of the programmes, therefore, needs regulation for balancing it and as well as to prevent monopoly of information and views relayed, which is a potential danger flowing from the concentration of the right to broadcast/telecast in the hands either of a central agency or of few private affluent broadcasters. That is why the need to have a central agency representative of all sections of the society free from control both of the Government and the dominant influential sections of the society. This is not disputed. But to contend that on that account the restrictions to be imposed on the right under Article 19(1)(a) should be in addition to those permissible under Article 19(2) and dictated by the use of public resources in the best interests of the society at large, is to misconceive both the content of the freedom of speech and expression and the problems posed by the element of public property in, and the alleged scarcity of, the frequencies as well as by the wider reach of the media. (para 29)</blockquote>
<p>The recognition in <em>Shreya Singhal</em> that unregulated, the marketplace can lead to “a monopoly of information and views relayed” flowing from the hands of “either a central agency or a few private affluent broadcasters” points to the limitation of the Marketplace of Ideas approach itself. Such recognition culminated into a more participation-focused idea of what it means to live in a democracy: the idea of a Public Sphere where regulation and governance of media is done in order to expand participation of different kinds of ideas and people within public speech. The Court again cites <em>Cricket Association of Bengal</em> in this regard to state:</p>
<blockquote>When, however, there are surplus or unlimited resources and the public interests so demand or in any case do not prevent telecasting, the validity of the argument based on limitation of resources disappears. It is true that to own a frequency for the purposes of broadcasting is a costly affair and even when there are surplus or unlimited frequencies, only the affluent few will own them and will be in a position to use it to subserve their own interest by manipulating news and views. That also poses a danger to the freedom of speech and expression of the have-nots by denying them the truthful information on all sides of an issue which is so necessary to form a sound view on any subject. (para 29)</blockquote>
<p>In background of this, it could be said that the Marketplace of Ideas, while it forms an important part of the backbone in the striking down of Section 66A, it is not all there is to it. The idea of participation in a Public Sphere is recognised as well, and to an extent it is the barrier to participation in this Public Sphere, which enables the declaration of Section 66A as unconstitutional.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Public Sphere or the Marketplace? : (N)either, but a Dynamics of Control</h2>
<p>Much of the discourse around <em>Shreya Singhal</em>’s discussion on Sections 69A and 79, has seen it as divorced from the discussion around Section 66A. The discussion on Section 69A and 79 in the judegment has been seen as regressive, or ambiguous, while the portion of the judgement dealing with Section 66A has been largely been pronounced progressive and liberal. It has also been argued that the discussion on Section 66A in <em>Shreya Singhal</em> departs from a myriad previous judgements and their approach towards the governance of free speech [7]. I would like to argue on the contrary, that there is in fact, a deep continuity in the judgement on various provisions, as well as with prior judgements on speech, as far as the approach which is taken towards the governance of speech generally, and speech on the internet, specifically, is concerned.</p>
<p>To understand this continuity, it is of critical importance to note how the approaches of Public Sphere and the Marketplace of Ideas are contrasted in <em>Cricket Association of Bengal</em>, and by reference in <em>Shreya Singhal</em> as well—while the former is used to justify regulation for participation of a larger public in reception of information from the media, and the latter to keep off excessive interference by the Government. Moreover, the judgement also seems to conflate the Marketplace of Ideas and the Public Sphere conceptions of speech governance when it states:</p>
<blockquote>It is clear, therefore, that the petitioners are correct in saying that the public’s right to know is directly affected by Section 66A. Information of all kinds is roped in – such information may have scientific, literary or artistic value, it may refer to current events, it may be obscene or seditious. That such information may cause annoyance or inconvenience to some is how the offence is made out. It is clear that the right of the people to know – the market place of ideas – which the internet provides to persons of all kinds is what attracts Section 66A. (para 20)</blockquote>
<p>One notes in the abovementioned extract that the right to know is seen to emerge from the Marketplace of Ideas rather than through participation in the Public Sphere. In light of these observations, one can then ask the question: What is really at the philosophical heart of <em>Shreya Singhal</em> judgement when it can employ both these approaches? One can argue that the focus of the judgement is to balance these two approaches for the governance of speech. But what is the aim of such an attempt to “balance”? Where is it really leading to? The answer may lie in analysing the rest of <em>Shreya Singhal</em>, including its pronouncements on Executive Rules under Section 69A and Section 79, both of which while being regressive, were upheld as constitutional.</p>
<p>The issue under Section 69A concerned the constitutional validity of the Blocking Rules of the internet, while that under Section 79 concerned the liability of intermediaries on the internet. What is interesting is that the Court in its analysis of Rules under both these sections does not go into the grounds which have been prescribed for the blocking of websites, or for pinning intermediary liability. Commenting on the Rules under Section 69A, the judgement holds:</p>
<blockquote>Merely because certain additional safeguards such as those found in Section 95 and 96 CrPC are not available does not make the Rules constitutionally infirm. We are of the view that the Rules are not constitutionally infirm in any manner. (para 111)</blockquote>
<p>Additionally it places emphasis on the premise the satisfaction of the Central Government that it is necessary to block a website, is a valuable assumption to proceed with the blocking of such website within the tenet of Article 19(2). It holds:</p>
<blockquote>It will be noticed that Section 69A unlike Section 66A is a narrowly drawn provision with several safeguards. First and foremost, blocking can only be resorted to where the Central Government is satisfied that it is necessary so to do. (para 109)</blockquote>
<p>Similarly, for the Rules under Section 79, the Court strikes down the premise that private censorship of internet content based on the judgement of intermediaries is constitutionally permissible. (see para 117) However, it upholds constitutionality of removal of content by an intermediary upon knowledge of a court order to this effect, as well as knowledge of notification by the appropriate government. It states:</p>
<blockquote>Section 79(3)(b) has to be read down to mean that the intermediary upon receiving actual knowledge that a court order has been passed asking it to expeditiously remove or disable access to certain material must then fail to expeditiously remove or disable access to that material. This is for the reason that otherwise it would be very difficult for intermediaries like Google, Facebook etc. to act when millions of requests are made and the intermediary is then to judge as to which of such requests are legitimate and which are not. We have been informed that in other countries worldwide this view has gained acceptance, Argentina being in the forefront. Also, the Court order and/or the notification by the appropriate Government or its agency must strictly conform to the subject matters laid down in Article 19(2). (para 117)</blockquote>
<p>In this manner while the power of speech regulation is taken away from private intermediaries existing in the Marketplace of Ideas, it is restored within the organs of the State—the Judiciary and the Executive. This may not necessarily be repressive, as long as these powers of regulations are used to actually expand the Public Sphere, rather than limiting or controlling it. But the architecture of the regulations under both Sections 69A, and 79 suggest that they have been designed for control, rather than promoting discussion in the Public Sphere, as is evident from the strong censorship models they employ.</p>
<p>Such type of speech regulation aimed at creating a State-controlled “Public Sphere” has a long history: It has been additionally opined that the First Amendment to the Constitution which expanded the grounds under Article 19(2) embodies this colonial continuity within the Constitution framework itself [8]. Eminent lawyer, Rajeev Dhavan has analysed the colonial history of laws governing speech in India to observe continuity from the administration then, to the post-independence orientation of speech laws, to point out that an inherent distrust of the media has always existed in the legal structure, be it before or after the Indian Constitution. He traces such form of legal structure to a desire to control, rather than enable the “public” rooted in the context of colonial rather than democratic pressures [9].</p>
<p>This trend also links back to what happens in the case of <em>Cricket Association of Bengal</em> which is cited in support of the striking down of Section 66A in <em>Shreya Singhal</em>. In <em>Cricket Association of Bengal</em>, while there is a recognition of the limitations of Marketplace of Ideas in how it can concentrate participation in democratic discussions only to the hands of those with adequate purchasing power,9 it also fails to amend this through a process of greater participation and representation of diverse public on media. What it broadly does instead is conflate the public to the State, holding that it is only through State-administered public broadcasting that greater participation and representation of diverse public on media can happen. Accordingly, Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy in his judgement states:</p>
<blockquote>Public good lies in ensuring plurality of opinions, views and ideas and that would scarcely be served by private broadcasters, who would be and who are bound to be actuated by profit motive. There is a far greater likelihood of these private broadcasters indulging in misinformation, disinformation and manipulation of news and views than the government-controlled media, which is at least subject to public and parliamentary scrutiny. (para 181, emphasis added)</blockquote>
<p>Such architecture of Government regulation in the governance of speech, visible both in <em>Cricket Association of Bengal</em>, and by extension in the 66A discussion in <em>Shreya Singhal</em>, but also in the Sections 69A and 79 discussion in the latter judgement, aspires not at expanding and creating a Habermasian Public Sphere of unlimited lively discussion, but rather, a pre-defined, controlled sphere of the “public” which behaves in congruence with the interests of the State. While on the surface it may seem to recognise the limits of the Marketplace of Ideas approach in speech governance and aim for reform of the same, in the bigger scheme of things, the criticism of the marketplace is really directed towards putting more control of public speech in the hands of the State machinery [9].</p>
<p>In such a background of the control trend, even a judgement like <em>Shreya Singhal</em> with such a progressive outcome, appears like a flash in the pan. It might allow for some seemingly liberal advancements in free speech, but it does so only within the larger structure of control mechanisms created for speech ingrained within a pre-independence, undemocratic form of governance which was disrespectful of an independent Public Sphere. The question which then needs to be asked is this: While judgements like <em>Shreya Singhal</em> strike down the really repressive, do they actually bring about a structural change in legal assumptions about public speech? Or is the same colonial desire of control which is permeating the most progressive pronouncements of our jurisdiction? Is it moving towards a participatory, diverse and independent Public Sphere, or something which appears close enough to free discussion, but really is carefully monitored to produced “socially relevant” content, whereby what is relevant is defined through a complicated State apparatus? As our speech laws move to the Internet Age, these are some questions we must ask if the hope for the law is to enable involved, democratic citizenry, rather than a colonial-flavoured Internet public.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>References</h2>
<p>[1] Judgement accessed from <a href="http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/FileServer/2015-03-24_1427183283.pdf">http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/FileServer/2015-03-24_1427183283.pdf</a>.</p>
<p>[2] Stein, Laura. 2006. <em>Speech rights in America: The First Amendment, Democracy, and the Media</em>. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.</p>
<p>[3] Judgement accessed from <a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/539407/">http://indiankanoon.org/doc/539407/</a>.</p>
<p>[4] Judgement accessed from <a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1327342/">http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1327342/</a>.</p>
<p>[5] 250 US 616 (1919).</p>
<p>[6] 521 U.S. 844 (1997).</p>
<p>[7] Bhatia, Gautam. 2015. At the Heart of the Landmark 66A Ruling: The Crucial Distinction between Advocacy and Incitement. Scroll. March 25. Accessed from <a href="http://scroll.in/article/716034/at-the-heart-of-the-landmark-66a-ruling-the-crucial-distinction-between-advocacy-and-incitement">http://scroll.in/article/716034/at-the-heart-of-the-landmark-66a-ruling-the-crucial-distinction-between-advocacy-and-incitement</a>.</p>
<p>[8] See: Liang, Lawrence. 2011. Reasonable Restrictions and Unreasonable Speech. InfoChange. Accessed from <a href="http://infochangeindia.org/agenda/freedom-of-expression/reasonable-restrictions-and-unreasonable-speech.html">http://infochangeindia.org/agenda/freedom-of-expression/reasonable-restrictions-and-unreasonable-speech.html</a>. Also see: Acharya, Bhairav. 2015. Free Speech Policy in India: Community, Custom, Censorship, and the Future of Internet Regulation. May 06. Accessed from <a href="http://notacoda.net/2015/05/06/free-speech-policy-in-india-community-custom-censorship-and-the-future-of-internet-regulation/">http://notacoda.net/2015/05/06/free-speech-policy-in-india-community-custom-censorship-and-the-future-of-internet-regulation/</a>.</p>
<p>[9] Dhavan, Rajeev. 2009. Moral Consensus in a Law and Order Society. In Aravind Rajagopal (ed.), <em>The Indian Public Sphere</em>. Oxford University Press. Pp. 92-93.</p>
<p>[10] See the discussion in the previous section of this essay.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><em>The post is published under <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International</a> license, and copyright is retained by the author.</em></p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/raw/blog_governing-speech-on-the-internet'>https://cis-india.org/raw/blog_governing-speech-on-the-internet</a>
</p>
No publisherSmarika KumarFreedom of Speech and ExpressionJudiciaryRAW Blog69ACensorshipSection 66AResearchers at Work2015-08-28T05:57:55ZBlog EntryIndia partially lifts Porn Ban?
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/desi-blitz-august-7-2015-nazhat-khan-india-partially-lifts-porn-ban
<b>India is said to have partially removed the porn ban. But many internet service providers have refused to restore access, due to a 'vague' government order. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The blog post by Nazhat Khan was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.desiblitz.com/content/india-partially-lifts-porn-ban">published in DESI blitz</a> on August 7, 2015.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India has partially lifted the ban of online pornography, just days after blocking user access to 857 adult websites.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Indian government enforced the ban on July 30, 2015, only to reverse its decision on August 4, 2015. Ravi Shankar Prasad, the Communications and IT Minister, clarifies the ban only targets websites promoting child pornography.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">He says: “A new notification will be issued shortly. The ban will be partially withdrawn. Sites that do not promote child porn will be unbanned.” Under the new order, internet service providers (ISPs) in India are allowed to unblock these 857 websites – except for those that contain child pornography.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This has caused another outrage. ISPs complain it is not within their capability and responsibility to do so. Internet Service Providers Association of India (ISPAI) explains: “ISPs have no way or mechanism to filter out child pornography from URLs, and the further unlimited sub-links.</p>
<table class="invisible" style="text-align: justify; ">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/copy3_of_Pranesh.png" alt="Pranesh" class="image-inline" title="Pranesh" /></th>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“Hence, we request your good self to advise us immediately on the future course of action in this regard.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“Till your further directive, the ISPs are keeping the said 857 URLs disabled.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">An executive at an Indian ISP tells the Wall Street Journal: “How can we go ahead? What if something comes up tomorrow [on one of these sites], which has child porn, or something else?” <br /><br />Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society, points out it is not right for the government to pass the ball over to private companies. <br /><br />He says: “The onus cannot be put on the service providers. What the government is doing is inherently unfair, it is not what the law requires.” In effect, porn sites in India are still blocked. The Supreme Court and senior officials are yet to provide clearer directives for ISPs.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/desi-blitz-august-7-2015-nazhat-khan-india-partially-lifts-porn-ban'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/desi-blitz-august-7-2015-nazhat-khan-india-partially-lifts-porn-ban</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceCensorship2015-09-20T06:30:34ZNews ItemBan on pornography temporary, says government
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-august-4-2015-ban-on-pornography-temporary-says-government
<b>The government has taken a dramatic U-turn from its stated position on internet pornography.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/ban-on-pornography-temporary-says-government-115080301262_1.html">published in Business Standard</a> on August 4, 2015. Pranesh Prakash has been quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span class="p-content">A year after conveying to the Supreme Court that a blanket ban on internet pornography was not possible, through the department of electronics and information technology, it has asked internet providers to disable 857 websites that carry adult content. A senior official from the department of telecommunications (DoT) said the ban was a temporary measure, till the final order is announced by the apex court on August 10.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span class="p-content"><span class="p-content"> The government is looking at setting up an ombudsman to oversee cyber content, which will have representatives from NGOs, child activists and the government. The DoT official said, “There has to be some kind of regulatory oversight away from the government intervention… An ombudsman might be set up for overseeing cyber related content issues.”</span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span class="p-content"><span class="p-content"><span class="p-content">The genesis of the current notification lies in the public interest litigation (PIL) filed by advocate Vijay Panjwani in April 2013. The PIL has sought curbs on these websites on the internet, especially the ones showing child pornography. The senior DoT official conveyed that the blocking of 857 websites was in compliance with the SC directive asking for measures to block porn sites, particularly those dealing with child pornography.</span></span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span class="p-content">The July 31 notification from DoT has advised internet service licensees to disable content on 857 websites, as the content "hosted on these websites relates to morality and decency as given in Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India". The government had stated last year that it was not technologically feasible to monitor such contents as it would require physical intervention, which would impact data speeds.<br /> <br /> In December 2014, the government had approached telecom providers and internet service providers to help identify such sites, but the service providers did not cooperate. Consequently, the government has gone ahead and identified 857 websites. However, the government has not given any detail as what was the criterion to identify such websites.<br /> <br /> Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society, says DoT has used the provision of 79 (3) (b) of the IT Act, which is a convoluted Section that the intermediatory (ISPs) may lose protection from liability. This section is very convulated, the provisions for website blocking does not allow blocking porn. In section 69 (a), the entire procedure is that it allows an opportunity for the blocked website to be heard. “I can't comment on the reasons that the government for doing this. I know the order says the ban relates to morality, decency," adds Prakash.<br /> <br /> Last year, the government took a position that said blocking these websites was not feasible, given that these sites are hosted outside India. In case of any ban, these sites can be relocated within hours to bypass it. Pavan Duggal, an advocate who specialises in cyber laws, has called the disablement 'cosmetic,' as it will not have the requisite deterrent effect. Duggal says: "This is a lost battle from the word go, as it is impossible to disable access permanently."<br /> <br /> Watching such content in India is currently not an offence and, thus, the government is invoking “morality and decency” while seeking a curb on a fundamental right — Freedom of Speech & Expression. Under Article 19 (2) of the Constitution, the state can curb a fundamental right in order to maintain public order, decency or morality.<br /> </span></p>
<hr />
<p><span><span><b>TO BAN OR NOT TO BAN</b></span></span><br /> <br /> <b>2013</b></p>
<ul>
<li> Advocate Vijay Panjwani & Kamlesh Vaswani file PIL seeking curbs on internet pornography</li>
</ul>
<p><b>Aug 2014</b></p>
<ul>
<li> Supreme Court bench under Chief Justice R M Lodha agreed with the PIL and sought strict laws to curb online content</li>
</ul>
<p><b>8 Jul 2015</b></p>
<ul>
<li> Chief Justice of India H L Dattu upholds personal liberty and refuses to pass an interim order. Asks government to take a stand on the issue</li>
<li> CJI, heading a three-judge Bench, asks government to a detailed affidavit within four weeks</li>
</ul>
<p><b>Jul 31</b></p>
<ul>
<li> DoT sends notification seeking ban on 857 websites</li>
<li> Currently, there are no laws banning internet pornography in India, other than those related to children</li>
<li> Government’s stated position has been that it is difficult to curb online content</li>
</ul>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-august-4-2015-ban-on-pornography-temporary-says-government'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-august-4-2015-ban-on-pornography-temporary-says-government</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshInternet GovernanceChilling EffectCensorship2015-09-13T08:46:24ZNews Item Indian Porn Ban is Partially Lifted But Sites Remain Blocked
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-wall-street-journal-august-5-2015-sean-mclain-indian-porn-ban-is-partially-lifted-but-sites-remain-blocked
<b>The Indian government made a quick about-face on its order to block hundreds of pornography websites on Tuesday, partially lifting the ban after political backlash against the moral policing.
</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article was published in <a class="external-link" href="http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2015/08/05/indian-porn-ban-is-partially-lifted-but-sites-remain-blocked/">Wall Street Journal</a> on August 5, 2015. Pranesh Prakash gave his inputs.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">But the websites remained blocked because Internet service providers were afraid of legal trouble.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The new order from the Department of Telecommunications said that Internet service providers could unblock any of the 857 websites, so long as they don’t contain child pornography. However, the websites remain blocked because service providers say they have no way of knowing whether they contain child porn, and no control over whether they will in the future.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Ravi Shankar Prasad, the IT minister, said Tuesday night that the government would trim down the list of banned sites, to focus only on those that contain child porn.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“A new notification will be issued shortly. The ban will be partially withdrawn. Sites that do not promote child porn will be unbanned,” <a href="http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/porn-ban-to-be-lifted-partially-says-government/1/456229.html">said Mr. Prasad on the TV news channel</a> India Today.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The wording of the new order created confusion, because it appears to put the responsibility for policing the Internet for child pornography on service providers.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“How can we go ahead? What if something comes up tomorrow [on one of these sites], which has child porn, or something else?,” said an executive at an Indian service provider who asked not to be named.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“The onus cannot be put on the service providers. What the government is doing is inherently unfair, it is not what the law requires,” said Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society, a Bangalore-based civil liberties advocacy group. It is the government’s job to determine what violates the law, not private companies, Mr. Prakash said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i> </i></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-wall-street-journal-august-5-2015-sean-mclain-indian-porn-ban-is-partially-lifted-but-sites-remain-blocked'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-wall-street-journal-august-5-2015-sean-mclain-indian-porn-ban-is-partially-lifted-but-sites-remain-blocked</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceChilling EffectCensorship2015-09-13T09:00:03ZNews ItemPorn block in India sparks outrage
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-australian-news-august-5-2015-amanda-hodge-porn-block-in-india-sparks-outrage
<b>
India’s government has triggered a storm of protest after blocking 857 alleged pornography websites, with privacy and internet freedom campaigners, as well as consumers, condemning the move as arbitrary and unlawful.
</b>
<div>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Amanda Hodge was published in the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/porn-block-in-india-sparks-outrage/story-e6frg6so-1227470074078">Australian</a> on August 5, 2015. Pranesh Prakash gave his inputs.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The order, enforced since Sunday by the country’s main internet service providers, comes amid debate about the influence of pornography on sex crime in India, and as the Supreme Court considers a petition by lawyer Kamlesh Vaswani to ban pornographic websites that harm children.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The government has been forced to defend the move, saying it was taken in response to Supreme Court criticism at inaction against child pornography websites, although the Supreme Court itself has refused to impose any interim ban while it considers the petition. The websites — a fraction of the world’s millions of internet pornography sites — will remain blocked until the government figures out how to restrict access, a spokesman said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Critics have slammed the measure as unconstitutional and pointed out the list includes adult humour sites that contain no pornographic content. Others have suggested it is another intrusion into the private lives of ordinary Indians by an administration intent on pushing a puritanical Hindu agenda, citing the recent ban on beef in several states and an alleged “Hindu-isation” of school textbooks.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">That prompted outrage from Telecom Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad. “I reject with contempt the charge that it is a Talibani government. Our government supports free media, respects communication on social media and has respected freedom of communication always,” he said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While India has no law preventing citizens accessing internet pornography, regulations do restrict the publishing of “obscene information in electronic form”. Centre for Internet and Society policy director Pranesh Prakash told <i>The Australian </i>yesterday that some elements of that act were welcome — such as prohibition of child pornography and the uploading of a person’s private parts without consent — but “the provisions relating to ‘sexually explicit materials’ are far too broad, with no exceptions made for art, architecture, education or literature”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mr Prakash said the pornography ban amounted to an “abdication of the government’s duty”, given the list of sites blocked was provided on request to the government by one of the Vaswani petitioners. “The additional solicitor-general essentially asked one of the petitioners to provide a list of websites, which she passed on to the Department of Information Technology, which in turn passed to Department of Telecommunications asking for them to be blocked or disabled.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“That is not acceptable in a democracy where it is not the government which has actually found any of these websites to be unlawful.” Mr Prakash also criticised the secrecy surrounding the order, which he said contravened Indian law requiring a public declaration of any intended ban so that it might be challenged. The bans were made under “Rule 12” of India’s IT Act, which empowers the government to force ISPs to block sites when it is “necessary or expedient”.</p>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-australian-news-august-5-2015-amanda-hodge-porn-block-in-india-sparks-outrage'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-australian-news-august-5-2015-amanda-hodge-porn-block-in-india-sparks-outrage</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIT ActCensorshipFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceDigital MediaChilling Effect2015-08-05T02:10:46ZNews ItemPorn ban: People will soon learn to circumvent ISPs and govt orders, expert says
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-times-of-india-august-2-2015-karthikeyan-hemalatha-porn-ban
<b></b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Karthikeyan Hemalatha was published in the <a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/Porn-ban-People-will-soon-learn-to-circumvent-ISPs-and-govt-orders-expert-says/articleshow/48320914.cms">Times of India</a> on August 2. Pranesh Prakash gave inputs.</p>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The government used other sections of the Act to circumvent this provision. Sources in the Department of Telecommunication, which comes under the ministry of communications and information technology, said a notification had been issued under Section 79 (b) of IT Act under which internet service providers could be penalized for not following government orders. "Though the section protects an internet service provider (ISP) from legal action for the content it may allow, it can be penalized for not following government orders to ban them," said Prakash.<br /> <br /> Last month, the Supreme Court declined to pass an interim order to block websites which have pornographic content. "Such interim orders cannot be passed by this court. Somebody may come to the court and say 'look I am above 18 and how can you stop me from watching it within the four walls of my room?' It is a violation of Article 21 [right to personal liberty]," said Chief Justice H L Dattu.<br /> <br /> The judge was reacting to a public interest litigation filed by advocate Kamlesh Vashwani who was seeking to block porn websites in the country. "The issue is definitely serious and some steps need to be taken. The Centre is expected to take a stand. Let us see what stand the Centre will take," the Chief Justice said and directed the Centre to reply within four weeks. Over the weekend, the stance became clear.<br /> <br /> Sources also say that Section 19 (2) of the Constitution was used for the ban. The section allows the government to impose "reasonable restrictions in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court."<br /> <br /> For netizens, the government could actually be providing crash courses on proxy sites. "This is the best way to teach people on how to circumvent ISPs and government orders," said Prakash, adding that real abusive porn sites might still be available.<br /> <br /> "There is no dynamic mechanism to block all sites with pornographic content. The government has to individually pick URLs (uniform resource locator) to ban websites. Right now, only popular websites have been banned and the little known abusive sites like those that propagate revenge porn or child porn," said Prakash. "No ban can be comprehensive," he added.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-times-of-india-august-2-2015-karthikeyan-hemalatha-porn-ban'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-times-of-india-august-2-2015-karthikeyan-hemalatha-porn-ban</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIT ActCensorshipFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceDigital MediaChilling Effect2015-08-05T01:47:52ZNews ItemNanny state rules porn bad for you
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-times-of-india-august-4-2015-anahita-mukherji-nanny-state-rules-porn-bad-for-you
<b></b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Anahita Mukherji was published in the Times of India on August 4, 2015. Pranesh Prakash gave his inputs.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span id="advenueINTEXT" style="float: left; ">Half a century ago, India banned the DH Lawrence classic, Lady Chatterley's Lover. The ban, though lambasted for its Victorian view of modesty and obscenity, was fair and square; the matter was debated in the Supreme Court, which upheld the ban. Over 50 years later, a diverse spectrum of civil society has slammed a much more insidious and far less transparent ban on internet pornography.<br /><br />For starters, the 857 sites that vanished from India's internet sphere haven't been officially banned, they just don't show up when you type the url. The order blocking them isn't public. For a list of the 857 sites, one must rely on leaked documents put out on Twitter by Pranesh Prakash, policy director, Centre for Internet and Society. "The ban on Lady Chatterley's Lover was public. As for the blocked websites, the government has gone out of its way to hide the list of sites pulled down. A secret order banning material violates all principles of transparency in a democracy," says Prakash.<br /> <br /> The document, with 'Restricted' written on it, is a letter from the department of telecom asking ISPs to disable 857 sites as they bear content related to "morality" and "decency," violating Article 19 (2).<br /> <br /> Strangely, the order's been issued under Sec 79 (3)(b) of the IT Act dealing with intermediaries having to remove material used to commit unlawful acts. "Watching porn isn't illegal in India. Disseminating 'obscene' content can be illegal, but for that, the government must file a case against the sites, and they must be allowed a representation," says Prakash.<br /> <br /> "Sec 79 (3)(b) of the IT act isn't the section under which governments can block sites. It should use Sec 69 that has a review process," says Nikhil Pahwa, a champion of internet freedom.<br /> <br /> The government drew up its list of 857 sites even as SC is in the process of hearing a petition to ban porn and is yet to pass an order. It includes playboy.com that, says Prakash, is a legitimate adult site. Pahwa points to the ban's "bizarrely moralistic undertones".<br /> <br /> "As society evolves, government and regulatory regime are stuck in medieval ages," he says, adding a ban on websites will be rendered ineffective, pushing users to VPNs, a black hole for government monitoring mechanisms.<br /> <br /> "A government that hasn't succeeded with Make in India is trying to prevent Make out in India," says venture capitalist Mahesh Murthy, who earlier backed net neutrality.<br /> <br /> "The government is blocking websites to keep Rightwing lunatic fringes happy after its unsuccessful bid to pass the land bill," says Murthy.<br /> <br /> "It isn't merely looking at blocking porn, but is trying to bring back Sec 66A (IT Act), ruled unconstitutional by the SC," he adds. "It's part of the bid to restrict individual freedom, create an artificial separation between Indian culture and anything erotic, driven by a diktat from Hindutva forces. It's ironic as Modi came to power as someone looking to activate individual agency. Now he's wary about where that leads to," says Subir Sinha, professor at the School of Oriental and African Studies (London). Murthy and Sinha believe the issue stems from a refusal to accept Indian culture in totality. "Victorian morality is considered Hindu, Khajuraho isn't," says Murthy.<br /> <br /> "The government seems to be acting in a more high-handed manner than previous ones. The press and public opinion should wake up to this," says sociologist Andre Beteille.</span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-times-of-india-august-4-2015-anahita-mukherji-nanny-state-rules-porn-bad-for-you'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-times-of-india-august-4-2015-anahita-mukherji-nanny-state-rules-porn-bad-for-you</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaCensorshipFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceDigital MediaChilling Effect2015-08-05T01:39:28ZNews Item