The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 1 to 15.
Report on the Sixth Privacy Roundtable Meeting, New Delhi
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/report-on-the-sixth-privacy-roundtable-meeting-new-delhi
<b>In 2013 the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) drafted the Privacy Protection Bill as a citizens' version of a privacy legislation for India. Since April 2013, CIS has been holding Privacy Roundtables in collaboration with Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) and DSCI, with the objective of gaining public feedback to the Privacy Protection Bill and other possible frameworks for privacy in India. The following is a report on the Sixth Privacy Roundtable held in New Delhi on August 24, 2013.
</b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>This research was undertaken as part of the 'SAFEGUARDS' project that CIS is undertaking with Privacy International and IDRC.</i></p>
<hr />
<p></p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Introduction<b> </b></h2>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; ">A series of seven multi-stakeholder roundtable meetings on "privacy" were conducted by CIS in collaboration with FICCI from April 2013 to August 2013 under the Internet Governance initiative. DSCI joined CIS and FICCI as a co-organizer on April 20, 2013.</p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; ">CIS was a member of the Justice A.P. Shah Committee which drafted the "<a class="external-link" href="http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_privacy.pdf">Report of Groups of Experts on Privacy</a>". CIS also drafted a <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/privacy-protection-bill-2013-citizens-draft" class="external-link">Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013</a> (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Bill’), with the objective of establishing a well protected privacy regime in India. CIS has also volunteered to champion the session/workshops on "privacy" in the final meeting on Internet Governance proposed for October 2013.</p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; ">At the roundtables the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy and the text of the Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013 will be discussed. The discussions and recommendations from the six round table meetings will be presented at the Internet Governance meeting in October 2013.</p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpLast" style="text-align: justify; ">The dates of the six Privacy Round Table meetings are enlisted below:</p>
<ol>
<li>New Delhi Roundtable: April 13, 2013</li>
<li>Bangalore Roundtable: April 20, 2013</li>
<li>Chennai Roundtable: May 18, 2013</li>
<li>Mumbai Roundtable: June 15, 2013</li>
<li>Kolkata Roundtable: July 13, 2013</li>
<li>New Delhi Roundtable: August 24, 2013</li>
<li>New Delhi Final Roundtable and National Meeting: October 19, 2013</li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This Report provides an overview of the proceedings of the Sixth Privacy Roundtable (hereinafter referred to as 'the Roundtable'), conducted at FICCI, Federation House in Delhi on August 24, 2013. <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-personal-data-protection-bill-2013" class="internal-link" title="The Personal Data (Protection) Bill, 2013">The Personal Data (Protection) Bill, 2013 </a>was discussed at the Roundtable.</p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst" style="text-align: justify; ">The Sixth Privacy Roundtable began with reflections on the evolution of the Bill. In its penultimate form, the Bill stands substantially changed as compared to its previous versions. For the purpose of this Roundtable, which entailed participation largely from industry organizations and other entities who handle personal data, only the personal data regime was discussed. This debate was distinguished from the general and specific discussion relating to privacy, surveillance and interception of communications as it was felt that greater expertise was required to deal adequately with such a vast and nuanced area. After further discussion with security experts, the provisions on surveillance and privacy of communications will be reincorporated resulting in omnibus privacy legislation. To reflect this alteration in the ambit of the Bill in its current form, its title was changed to <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-personal-data-protection-bill-2013" class="external-link">Personal Data (Protection) Bill</a> from the more expansive – Privacy (Protection) Bill.</p>
<h2>Chapter I – Preliminary</h2>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; ">Section 2 of the first chapter enumerates various definitions including ‘personal data’, which is defined as any data that can lead to identification and ‘sensitive personal data’; a subset of personal data defined by way of a list. The main contentions arose in relation to the latter definition.</p>
<h3 class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; ">Religion and Caste</h3>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpLast" style="text-align: justify; ">A significant modification is found in the definition of ‘sensitive personal data’, which has expanded to include two new categories, namely, (i) ethnicity, religion, race or caste, and (ii) financial and credit information. Although discussed previously, these two categories have hitherto been left out of the purview of the definition as they are fraught with issues of practicality. In the specific example of caste, the government has historically indulged in large-scale data collection for the purpose of census, for example as conducted by the Ministry of Rural Development and the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India. Further, in the Indian scenario, various statutory benefits accrue from caste identities under the aegis of affirmative action policies. Hence, categorizing it as sensitive personal data may not be considered desirable. The problem is further exacerbated with respect to religion as even a person’s name can be an indicator. In light of this, some issues under consideration were –</p>
<ul>
<li>Whether religion and caste should be categorized as sensitive personal data or personal data?</li>
<li>Whether it is impracticable to include it in either category?</li>
<li>If included as sensitive personal data, how should it be implemented?</li>
</ul>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst" style="text-align: justify; ">The majority seemed to lean towards including it under the category of sensitive personal data rather than personal data. It was argued that the categorization of some personal data as sensitive was done on the basis of higher potential for profiling or discrimination. In the same vein, caste and religious identities were sensitive information, requiring greater protection as provided under section 16 of the Bill. Regarding the difficulties posed by revealing names, it was proposed that since it was not an indicator by default, this consideration could not be used as a rationale to eliminate religion from the definition. Instead, it was suggested that programmes sensitizing the populous to the implications of names as indicators of religion/caste should be encouraged. With regard to the issue of census, where caste information is collected, it was opined that the same could be done in an anonymously as well. The maintenance of public databases including such information by various public bodies was considered problematic for privacy as they are often easily accessible and hence have a high potential for abuse. Overall, the conclusion was that the potential for abuse of such data could be better curtailed if greater privacy requirements were mandated for both private and public organizations. The collection of this kind of data should be done on a necessity basis and kept anonymous wherever possible. However, it was acknowledged that there were greater impracticalities associated with treating religion and caste as sensitive personal data. Further, the use and disclosure of indicative names was considered to be a matter of choice. Often caste information was revealed for affirmative action schemes, for example, rank lists for admissions or appointments. In such cases, it was considered to be counter-productive to discourage the beneficiary from revealing such information. Consequently, it was suggested that they could be regulated differently and qualified wherever required. The floor was then thrown open for discussing the other categories included under the definition of ‘sensitive personal data’.</p>
<h3 class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; ">Political Affiliation<b> </b></h3>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; ">Another contentious issue discussed at the Roundtable was the categorization of ‘political affiliation’ as ‘sensitive personal data’. A participant questioned the validity of including it in the definition, arguing that it is not an issue in India. Further, it was argued that one’s political affiliation was also subject to change and hence did not mandate higher protection as provided for sensitive personal data. Instead, if included at all, it should be categorized as ‘personal data’. This was countered by other participants who argued that revealing such information should be a matter of choice and if this choice is not protected adequately, it may lead to persecution. In light of this, changing one’s political affiliation particularly required greater protection as it may leave one more vulnerable. Everyone was in agreement that the aggregation of this class of data, particularly when conducted by public and private organizations, was highly problematic, as evidenced by its historic use for targeting dissident groups. Further, it was accepted unanimously that this protection should not extend to public figures as citizens had a right to know their political affiliation. However, although there was consensus on voting being treated as sensitive personal data, the same could not be reached for extending this protection to political affiliation.</p>
<h3 class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; ">Conviction Data<b> <br /></b></h3>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; ">The roundtable also elicited a debate on conviction data being enumerated as sensitive personal data. The contention stemmed from the usefulness of maintaining this information as a matter of public record. Inter alia, the judicial practice of considering conviction history for repeat offenders, the need to consider this data before issuing passport and the possibility of establishing a sex offenders registry in India were cited as examples for the same.</p>
<h3 class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; ">Financial and Credit Information<b><br /></b></h3>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; ">From the outset, the inclusion of Financial and Credit information as sensitive personal data was considered problematic as it would clash directly with existing legislations. Specifically, the Reserve Bank of India mandates on all issues revolving around this class of data. However, it was considered expedient to categorize it in this manner due to grave mismanagement associated with it, despite existing protections. In this regard, the handling of Credit Information was raised as an issue. Even though it is regulated under the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005, its implementation was found to be wanting by some participants. In this context, the harm sought to be prevented by its inclusion in the Bill was unregulated sharing of credit-worthiness data with foreign banks and organs of the state. Informed consent was offered as the primary qualifier. However, some participants proposed that extending a strong regime of protection to such information would not be economically viable for financial institutions. Thus, it was suggested that this category should be categorized as personal data with the aim of regulating unauthorized disclosures.</p>
<h3 class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; ">Conclusion</h3>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpLast" style="text-align: justify; ">The debate on the definition of sensitive personal data concluded with the following suggestions and remarks:</p>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">The categories included under sensitive personal data should be subject to contextual provisions instead of blanket protection.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Sensitive personal data mandates greater protection with regard to storage and disclosure than personal data.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">While obtaining prior consent is important for both kinds of data, obtaining informed consent is paramount for sensitive personal data.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Both classes of data can be collected for legitimate purposes and in compliance with the protection provided by law. </li>
</ul>
<h2>Chapter II – Regulation of Personal Data</h2>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; ">This chapter of the Bill establishes a negative statement of a positive right under Section 3 along with exemptions under Section 4, as opposed to the previous version of the Bill, discussed at the fifth Privacy Roundtable, which established a positive right. Thus, in its current form, the Bill provides a stronger regime for the regulation of personal data. The single exemption provided under this part is for personal or domestic use.</p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpLast" style="text-align: justify; ">The main issues under consideration with regard to this part were –</p>
<ul>
<li>The scope of the protection provided</li>
<li>Whether the exemptions should be expanded or diminished. </li>
</ul>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst" style="text-align: justify; ">A participant raised a doubt regarding the subject of the right. In response, it was clarified that the Bill was subject to existing Constitutional provisions and relevant case law. According to the apex court, in <i>Kharak Singh v. The State of U.P.</i> (1964), the Right to Privacy arose from the Right to Life and Personal Liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Since the Article 21 right is applicable to all persons, the Right to Privacy has to be interpreted in conjunction. Consequently, the Right to Privacy will apply to both citizens and non-citizens in India. It would also extend to information of foreigners stored by any entity registered in India and any other entity having an Indian legal personality irrespective of whether they are registered in India or not.</p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; ">The next issue that arose at the Roundtable stemmed from the exemption provided under Section 4 of the Bill. A participant opined that excluding domestic use of such data was unadvisable as often such data was used maliciously during domestic rows such as divorce. With regard to the how ‘personal and domestic use’ was to be defined it was proposed that the same had to cater existing cultural norms. In India, this entailed that existing community laws had to be followed which does not recognize nuclear families as a legal entity. It was also acknowledged that Joint Hindu Families had to be dealt with specially and their connection with large businesses in India would have to be carefully considered.</p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; ">Another question regarding exemptions brought up at the Roundtable was whether they should be broadened to include the information of public servants and the handling of all information by intelligence agencies. Similarly, some participants proposed that exemptions or exceptions should be provided for journalists, private figures involved in cases of corruption, politicians, private detective agencies etc. It was also proposed that public disclosure of information should be handled differently than information handled in the course of business.</p>
<h3 class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; ">Conclusion</h3>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpLast" style="text-align: justify; ">The overall conclusion of the discussion on this Chapter was –</p>
<ul>
<li>All exemptions and exceptions included in this Chapter should be narrowly tailored and specifically defined.</li>
<li>Blanket exemptions should be avoided. The specificities can be left to the Judiciary to adjudicate on as and when contentions arise. </li>
</ul>
<h2 class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst" style="text-align: justify; ">Chapter III – Protection of Personal Data</h2>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; ">This chapter seeks to regulate the collection, storage, processing, transfer, security and disclosure of personal data.</p>
<h3 class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; ">Collection of Personal Data</h3>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; ">Sections 5, 6 and 7 of the Bill regulate the collection of personal data. While section 5 establishes a broad bar for the collection of personal data, Section 6 and 7 provide for deviations from the same, for collecting data with and without prior informed consent respectively.</p>
<h3 class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; ">Collection of Data with Prior Informed Consent</h3>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; ">Section 6 establishes the obligation to obtain prior informed consent, sets out the regime for the same and by way of 2 provisos allows for withdrawal of consent which may result in denial of certain services.</p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; ">The main issues discerned from this provision involved (i) notice for obtaining consent, (ii) mediated data collection, and (iv) destruction of data.</p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; ">Regarding notice, some participants observed that although it was a good practice it was not always feasible. A participant raised the issue of the frequency of obtaining consent. It was observed that services that allowed its users to stay logged in and the storage of cookies etc. were considered benefits which would be disrupted if consent had to be obtained at every stage or each time the service was used. To solve this problem, it was unanimously accepted that consent only had to be obtained once for the entirety of the service offered except when the contract or terms and conditions were altered by the service provider. It was also decided that the entity directly conducting the collection of data was obligated to obtain consent, even if the same was conducted on behalf of a 3<sup>rd</sup> party.</p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; ">Mediated date collection proved to be a highly contentious issue at the Roundtable. The issue was determining the scope and extent of liability in cases where a mediating party collects data for a data controller for another subject who may or may not be a user. In this regard, two scenarios were discussed – (i) uploading pictures of a 3<sup>rd</sup> party by a data subject on social media sites like Facebook and (ii) using mobile phone applications to send emails, which involves, inter alia, the sender, the phone manufacturer and the receiver. The ancillary issues recognized by participants in this regard were – (i) how would data acquired in this manner be treated if it could lead to the identification of the 3<sup>rd</sup> party?, and (ii) whether destruction of user data due to withdrawal of consent amount to destruction of general data, i.e. of the 3<sup>rd</sup> party. The consensus was that there was no clarity on how such forms of data collection could be regulated, even though it seemed expedient to do so. The government’s inability to find a suitable solution was also brought to the table. In this regard it was suggested by some participants that the Principle of Collection Limitation, as defined in the A.P. Shah Committee Report, would provide a basic protection. Further the extent to which this would be exempted for being personal use was suggested as a threshold. A participant observed that it would be technically unfeasible for the service provider to regulate such collection, even if it involved illicit data such as pornographic or indecent photographs. Further, it was opined that such an oversight by the service provider could be undesirable since it would result in the violation of the user’s privacy. Thus, any proposal for regulation had to balance the data subject’s rights with that of the 3<sup>rd</sup> party. In light of this, it was suggested that the mediating party should be made responsible for obtaining consent from the 3<sup>rd</sup> party.</p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; ">Another aspect of this provision which garnered much debate was the proviso mandating destruction of data in case of withdrawal of consent. A participant stated the need for including broad exceptions as it may not always be desirable. Regarding the definition of ‘destroy’, as provided for under Section 2, it was observed that it mandated the erasure/deletion of the data in its entirety. Instead, it was suggested, that the same could be achieved by merely anonymising the information.</p>
<h3 class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; ">Collection of Data without Consent</h3>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; ">Section 7 of the Bill outlines four scenarios which entail collection of personal data without prior consent, which are reproduced below -</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>“(a) necessary for the provision of an emergency medical service to the data subject;<br /></i><i>(b) required for the establishment of the identity of the data subject and the collection is authorised by a law in this regard;<br />(c) necessary to prevent a reasonable threat to national security, defence or public order; or<br />(d) necessary to prevent, investigate or prosecute a cognisable offence”</i></p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; ">Most participants at the Roundtable found that the list was too large in scope. The unqualified inclusion of prevention in that last two sub clauses was found to be particularly problematic. It was suggested that Section 7 (c) was entirely redundant as its provisions could be read into Section 7 (d). Furthermore, the inclusion of ‘national security’ as a basis for collecting information without consent was rejected almost unanimously. It was suggested that if it was to be included then a qualification was desirable, allowing collection of information only when authorized by law. Some participants extended this line of reasoning to Section 7 (c) as state agencies were already authorized to collect information in this manner. It was opined that including it under the Bill would reassert their right to do so in broader terms. For similar reasons, Section 7 (b) was found objectionable as well. It was further suggested that if sub clauses (b), (c) and (d) remained in the Bill, it should be subject to existing protections, for example those established by seminal cases such as <i>Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India</i> (1978) and<i> PUCL v. Union of India</i> (1997).</p>
<h3 class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; ">Storage and Processing of Personal Data<b> </b></h3>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; ">Section 8 of the Bill lays down a principle mandating the destruction of the information collected, following the cessation of the necessity or purpose for storage and provides exceptions to the same. It sets down a regime of informed consent, purpose specific storage and data anonymization.</p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; ">The first amendment suggested for this provision was regarding the requirement of deleting the stored information ‘forthwith’. It was proposed by a participant that deleting personal data instantaneously had practical constraints and a reasonability criteria should be added. It was also noticed that in the current form of the Bill, the exception of historical, archival and research purposes had been replaced by the more general phrase ‘for an Act of Parliament’. The previous definition was altered as the terms being used were hard to define. In response, a participant suggested a broader phrase which would include any legal requirement. Another participant argued that a broader phrase would need to me more specifically defined to avoid dilution.</p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; ">Section 9 of the Bill sets out two limitations for processing data in terms of (i) the kind of personal data being processed and (ii) the purpose for the same. The third sub clause enumerates exceptions to the abovementioned principles in language similar to that found in Section 7.</p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; ">With regard to the purpose limitation clause it was suggested by many participants that the same should be broadened to include multiple purposes as purpose swapping is widespread in existing practice and would be unfeasible and undesirable to curtail. Sub clause 3 of this Section was critiqued for the same reasons as Section 7.</p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; ">Section 10 restricts cross-border transfer of data. It was clarified that different departments of the same company or the same holding company would be treated as different entities for the purpose of identifying the data processor. However, a concern was raised regarding the possibility of increased bureaucratic hurdles on global transfer of data in case this section is read too strictly. At the same time, to provide adequate protection of the data subject’s rights certain restrictions on the data controller and location of transfer.</p>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; ">The regime for disclosure of personal data without prior consent is provided for by Section 14. The provision did not specify the rank of the police officer in charge of passing orders for such disclosure. It was observed that a suitable rank had to be identified to ensure adequate protection. Further, it was suggested that the provision be broadened to include other competent agencies as well. This could be included by way of a schedule or subsequent notifications.</p>
<h3 class="MsoNormalCxSpLast" style="text-align: justify; ">Conclusion</h3>
<ul>
<li>Mediated collection of data should be qualified on the basis of purpose and intent of collection.</li>
<li>The issue of cost to company (C2C) was not given adequate consideration in the Bill.</li>
<li>The need to lay down Procedures at all stages of handling personal data.</li>
<li>Special exemptions need to be provided for journalistic sources. </li>
</ul>
<h2 class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst" style="text-align: justify; ">Meeting Conclusion<b><br /></b></h2>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; ">The Sixth Privacy Roundtable was the second to last of the stakeholder consultations conducted for the Citizens’ <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-personal-data-protection-bill-2013" class="external-link">Personal Data (Protection) Bill, 2013</a>. Various changes made to the Bill from its last form were scrutinized closely and suitable suggestions were provided. Further changes were recommended for various aspects of it, including definitions, qualifications and procedures, liability and the chapter on offences and penalties. The Bill will be amended to reflect multi-stakeholder suggestions and cater to various interests.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/report-on-the-sixth-privacy-roundtable-meeting-new-delhi'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/report-on-the-sixth-privacy-roundtable-meeting-new-delhi</a>
</p>
No publisherprachiSAFEGUARDSInternet GovernancePrivacy2013-08-30T15:04:51ZBlog EntryCyberspying: Government may ban Gmail for official communication
https://cis-india.org/news/times-of-india-august-30-2013-cyberspying-govt-may-ban-gmail-for-official-communication
<b>The government will soon ask all its employees to stop using Google's Gmail for official communication, a move intended to increase security of confidential government information after revelations of widespread cyberspying by the US.
</b>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This article was <a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/internet/Cyberspying-Government-employees-may-face-Gmail-ban/articleshow/22156529.cms">published in the Times of India </a>on August 30, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A senior official in the ministry of communications and information technology said the government plans to send a formal notification to nearly 5 lakh employees barring them from email service providers such as Gmail that have their servers in the US, and instead asking them to stick to the official email service provided by India's National Informatics Centre.<br /><br />"Gmail data of Indian users resides in other countries as the servers are located outside. Currently, we are looking to address this in the government domain, where there are large amounts of critical data," said J Satyanarayana, secretary in the department of electronics and information technology.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span style="float:left; "><br /></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span style="float:left; "> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span style="float:left; "><br /></span></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Snowden fallout</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span id="advenueINTEXT" style="float:left; ">The move comes in the wake of revelations by former US <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/National-Security-Agency">National Security Agency</a> contractor Edward <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Snowden-%28musician%29">Snowden</a> that the <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/US-Government">US government</a> had direct access to large amounts of personal data on the internet such as emails and chat messages from companies like Google, Facebook and Apple through a programme called <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/PRISM">PRISM</a>. <br /><br /> Documents leaked by Snowden showed that NSA may have accessed network infrastructure in many countries, causing concerns of potential security threats and data breaches. Even as the new policy is being formulated, there has been no mention yet of how compliance will be ensured. <br /><br /> Several senior government officials in India, including ministers of state for communications & IT Milind Deora and Kruparani Killi, have their Gmail IDs listed in government portals as their official email. <br /><br /> A <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Google-India">Google India</a> spokeswoman said the company has not been informed about the ban, and hence it cannot comment on speculation. "Nothing is documented so far, so for us, it is still speculation," Google said in an email response. <br /><br /> A senior official in the IT department admitted on condition of anonymity that employees turn to service providers such as Gmail because of the ease of use compared with official email services, as well as the bureaucratic processes that govern creation of new accounts. <br /><br /> "You can just go and create an account in Gmail easily, whereas for a government account, you have to go through a process because we have to ensure that he is a genuine government user." <br /><br /> Last week, IT Minister Kapil Sibal said the new policy would require all government officials living abroad to use NIC servers that are directly linked to a server in India while accessing government email services. Sibal said there has been no evidence of the US accessing Internet data from India. <br /><br /> Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bangalore-based research firm Centre for Internet and Society, said he agrees with the government's decision to ban Gmail for official communication and that any official violating this needs to be punished. <br /><br /> "After Snowden's revelations, we can never be sure to what extent foreign governments are intercepting government emails," he said. Abraham, however, called the government's decision a "late reaction", as the use of Gmail and other free email services by bureaucrats has increased in the past. <br /><br /> "Use of official government email would also make it easier to achieve greater transparency and anti-corruption initiatives. Ministers, intelligence and law enforcement officials should not be allowed to use alternate email providers under any circumstance." </span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/times-of-india-august-30-2013-cyberspying-govt-may-ban-gmail-for-official-communication'>https://cis-india.org/news/times-of-india-august-30-2013-cyberspying-govt-may-ban-gmail-for-official-communication</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaCyber SecurityInternet GovernanceSurveillance2013-09-02T04:19:53ZNews ItemElection campaign: parties draw battle lines on media platforms
https://cis-india.org/news/livemint-august-26-2013-venkatesh-upadhyay-election-campaign
<b>In the run-up to the 2014 polls, parties are drawing up media strategies that have a focus on young voters.</b>
<p>This article by Venkatesh Upadhyay was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/Consumer/XU1EhHP3O5EYJRg3wQGD9M/Election-campaign-parties-draw-battle-lines-on-media-platfo.html">published in Livemint </a>on August 26, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p>Major national political parties have begun to sharpen and tweak their tools of public relations and media engagement in the run-up to the 2014 general election, with an eager nod towards a voters list that is expected to be packed by the young.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">National parties currently in the process of shortlisting their advertising, public relations and mobile marketing agencies declined to share details.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“The advertising strategy will crystalize by January. We will go for multiple agencies,” said <span class="person"><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Manish%20Tewari">Manish Tewari</a></span>, spokesperson for the Congress as well as minister for information and broadcasting.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">According to people familiar with the selection process, <span class="brand"><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/JWT">JWT</a></span>, <span class="brand"><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Crayons%20Communications">Crayons Communications</a></span> and <span class="brand"><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Dentsu%20India">Dentsu India</a></span>, among others, are all in the race for the Congress business. Home-grown Crayons has worked closely with the Delhi government and Congress in the past.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Refusing to confirm the names on the shortlist, Tewari said it was a line-up of the “usual suspects”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">For social media, the Congress has engaged Delhi-based <span class="brand"><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/OMLogic">OMLogic</a></span>, an online media marketing company, which helped create the website <i>fekuexpress.com</i> that seeks to highlight the supposedly braggart nature of the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party’s chief campaigner <span class="person"><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Narendra%20Modi">Narendra Modi</a></span>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The website ran contests in which winners received film tickets. OMLogic was among three shortlisted agencies from 22 that competed for the same account, a person familiar with the bid said. According to others aware of the developments, senior Congress leaders such as <span class="person"><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Digvijay%20Singh">Digvijay Singh</a></span> and <span class="person"><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Deepender%20Singh%20Hooda">Deepender Singh Hooda</a></span> helped select the agencies.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">OMLogic helps clients enhance their brands across platforms and creates social media applications for them. The company declined to comment for this story.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“I believe these elections will represent the first time that political parties will have a conscious media strategy,” said <span class="person"><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Sanjaya%20Baru">Sanjaya Baru</a></span>, communications advisor to Prime Minister <span class="person"><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Manmohan%20Singh">Manmohan Singh</a></span> from 2004 to 2008.</p>
<table class="invisible">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th><iframe frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/rigg4vKmrUs" width="420"></iframe></th>
<td style="text-align: justify; ">
<p>“By conscious I mean that political parties have acknowledged the role of mass media in getting their message across to voters. TV has taken the space of political rallies.”
<div class="p"></div>
<div class="p">Baru said the media strategy for the coming elections was essentially focused on TV and social media as “both these platforms allow parties to reach out to large parts of the urban and semi-urban demographic”.</div>
<div class="p"></div>
<div class="p">Close to 60 million new voters have been enrolled for the 2014 election, of whom 17.6 million are 18-19 year-old first-timers. A study by the Iris Knowledge Foundation and Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI) estimates the number of urban social media users to be around 78 million. The main users were in the age groups of 18-24 and 25-34 years.</div>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">The Congress has already highlighted the role of social media in its communication strategy. The party held a special session on the use of social media by party members on 22 August that was addressed by minister of state for human resources <span class="person"><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Shashi%20Tharoor">Shashi Tharoor</a></span>, and <span class="person"><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Manish%20Tewari">Manish Tewari</a></span>. In a similar meeting last month, party members were briefed on how to comment on key issues, including the state of the economy, and personalities like Modi, who is also Gujarat chief minister.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">It also launched an intranet software called Khidki (Hindi for window) for use by Congress members. According to party politicians, another important part of last month’s exercise was to identify young members who would make up a cadre of spokespersons that would then participate across news channels.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">The BJP, meanwhile, has drafted Internet entrepreneurs <span class="person"><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/B.G.%20Mahesh">B.G. Mahesh</a></span> and <span class="person"><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Rajesh%20Jain">Rajesh Jain</a></span> to help the party with its social media operations. Acknowledging the role of social media in the party’s media strategy, BJP spokesperson <span class="person"><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Nirmala%20Seetharaman">Nirmala Seetharaman</a></span> said, “Our exercise has already taken on board the position which the party enjoys on various social media. We only emphasized the content that such media ought to have,” she added.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">Prominent members of the party, led by Modi, have large followings on social media. Modi’s <span class="brand"><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Twitter">Twitter</a></span> account is followed by close to 2.1 million people.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">Last week, the BJP launched <i>india272.com</i> that would “crowd source” suggestions by the electorate. It also launched a website where its members can upload “chargesheets” on the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance. Visitors to <i>www.bjp.org/upachargesheet</i> can also make use of different social media platforms such as <span class="brand"><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Facebook">Facebook</a></span>, <span class="brand"><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Twitter">Twitter</a></span>, <span class="brand"><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/YouTube">YouTube</a></span> and <span class="brand"><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Flickr">Flickr</a></span> to register their complaints.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">Some Internet activists are sceptical about such strategies. “The average Indian netizen is not that well equipped to critically analyse the content coming from so-called crowdsourced mechanisms,” said <span class="person"><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Sunil%20Abraham">Sunil Abraham</a></span>, executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society, a Bangalore-based Internet policy research organization. “I believe that social media might be one step removed from actual voters and might be more oriented towards opinion makers. In that sense social media (in India) behaves very differently from the way it has been used in the US.”</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">According to an online media expert familiar with the BJP’s social media campaign, the interactive nature of social media helps build up an image of transparency while making the party more accessible to a young audience that has been switching off television news.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">In addition, social media allows political leaders to gauge public response quickly.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; "><span class="person"><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Ajay%20Maken">Ajay Maken</a></span>, Congress general secretary and the man who heads the party’s communication strategy, pointed out in an article published this month that subjects that become influential on Twitter during the day tend to turn into full-fledged TV debates by the evening.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">But political parties are not giving up on television channels just yet.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">According to a report by consulting firm KPMG, the number of Indian households with TV sets is estimated to be 154 million, and is expected to grow to 173 million by 2017. TAM Media research estimated the number of TV households to be 123 million in 2009. Meanwhile, cable- and satellite-owning TV households has in the period 2009-2012 ballooned from 90 million to 126 million, according to TAM.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">The Congress has issued guidelines to its members on how to behave on television. According to individuals familiar with the move, the party has also set up a research cell that informs Congress spokespersons about subjects that they are asked to speak on.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">Congress members who participate in televised debates have been given strict orders to not go on air without a thorough understanding of the nuances of issues—provided to them by Congress researchers. For instance, spokespersons have been advised to rely on facts and be data-specific when confronted with the twin issues of Gujarat’s high-growth economy and Modi’s governance record.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">In order to streamline the process, the party has come up with lists of speakers who are focused on specific issues. It has also constituted media cells in each state capitals with three units—spokespersons, social media cell and research —and a social media division for every urban centre with a population of at least a million.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">The BJP has devised a similar strategy. Party spokespersons have been asked to mention chief ministers other than Modi if asked about the leadership for the 2014 elections. <span class="person"><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Arun%20Jaitley">Arun Jaitley</a></span>, in a interview to<i> The Hindu</i>, on 19 August had spoken about the possibility of there being close to 10 prime ministerial candidates in the BJP.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">The BJP, which held a closed-door media workshop for party members last week, is also keen on research. “A lot of policy requires specialized understanding which is largely domain-specific. In that regard, members of our party will need to be prepared when they speak on such issues,” said spokesperson Seetharaman.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">The Congress has already begun a television ads-blitzkrieg to trumpet its record in government. Begun in May, these ads have sought to showcase the fruits of the welfare state, including schemes aimed at the poor, such as theMahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, as well a long list of rights-based laws. One well-known ad tells the story of a fictional young woman named Priya who lives in a village but makes use of opportunities in education and improved electricity connections to become a successful entrepreneur.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/livemint-august-26-2013-venkatesh-upadhyay-election-campaign'>https://cis-india.org/news/livemint-august-26-2013-venkatesh-upadhyay-election-campaign</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial MediaInternet Governance2013-09-05T10:23:41ZNews ItemBalancing vigilance and privacy
https://cis-india.org/news/the-hindu-august-19-2013-prashant-jha-balancing-vigilance-and-privacy
<b>As the government steps up its surveillance capabilities, the entire social contract between the state and citizens is being reformulated, with worrying consequences.</b>
<hr />
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">This article by Prashant Jha was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/balancing-vigilance-and-privacy/article5037582.ece">published in the Hindu on August 18, 2013</a>. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">The Indian state is arming itself with both technological capabilities and the institutional framework to track the lives of citizens in an unprecedented manner.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">A new Centralised Monitoring System (CMS) is in the offing, which would build on the already existing mechanisms. As <i>The Hindu </i>reported on June 21, this would allow the government to access in real-time any mobile and fixed line conversation, SMS, fax, website visit, social media usage, Internet search and email, and will have ‘unmatched capabilities of deep search surveillance and monitoring’.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Civil society groups and citizens expressed concern about the government’s actions, plans, and intent at a discussion organised by the Foundation for Media Professionals, on Saturday.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "><b>The context</b></p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Usha Ramanathan, a widely respected legal scholar, pointed to the larger political context which had permitted this form of surveillance. It stemmed, she argued, from a misunderstanding of the notion of sovereignty. “It is not the government, but the people who are sovereign.” Laws and the Constitution are about limiting the power of the state, but while people were being subjected to these restrictions, the government itself had found ways to remain above it – either by not having laws, or having ineffective regulators. States knew the kind of power they exercised over citizens, with the result that ‘impunity had grown’.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">“There is also a complete breakdown of the criminal justice system,” Ms Ramanathan said. This had resulted in a reliance on extra-judicial methods of investigation, and ‘scape-goating’ had become the norm. ‘National security’ had been emphasised, re-emphasised, and projected as the central goal. “We haven’t paused to ask what this means, and the extent to which we have been asked to give up personal security for the sake of national security.” It was in this backdrop that technology had advanced by leaps, and made extensive surveillance possible.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">The implications are enormous. The data is often used for purposes it is not meant for, including political vendetta, keeping track of rivals, corporates, and digging out facts about a citizen when he may have antagonised those in power.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Pranesh Prakash, director of the Centre of Internet and Society (CIS) looked back at the killing of Haren Pandya, the senior Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader in Gujarat. Mr Pandya was using the SIM card of a friend, and it was by tracking the SIM, and through it his location, that the Gujarat government got to know that Mr Pandya had deposed before a commission and indicted the administration for its role in the riots. Eventually, he was found murdered outside a park in Ahmedabad. The Gujarat Police had accessed call details of 90,000 phones.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">It is also not clear whether mining this kind of data has been effective for the national security purposes, which provide the reason for doing it in the first place. Saikat Datta, resident editor of Daily News and Analysis, and an expert on India’s intelligence apparatus, said a core problem was the absence of any auditing and over sight. “There needs to be a constant review of the number of calls, emails under surveillance, with questions about whether it is yielding results. But this does not happen, probably because a majority is not for counter-terrorism. There would be trouble if you build accountability mechanisms.” When he sought information under RTI around precisely such issues, he was denied information on the grounds that it would strengthen ‘enemies of the state’.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Anja Kovacs, who works with the Internet Democracy Project, said this form of “mass surveillance” criminalised everybody since it was based on the assumption that each citizen was a “potential criminal”. She also pointed out that having “more information” did not necessarily mean it was easier to address security threats – there was intelligence preceding the Mumbai attacks, but it was not acted upon. She added, “Most incidents have been resolved by traditional intelligence. Investing in agencies, training them better could be more effective.”</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "><b>Bring in the caveats</b></p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Few argue that the state is not entitled to exercise surveillance at all. In fact, a social contract underpins democratic states. Citizens agree to subject some of their rights to restrictions, and vest the state with the monopoly over instruments and use of violence. In turn, the state – acting within a set of legal principles; being accountable to citizens; and renewing its popular legitimacy through different measures, including elections – provides order and performs a range of developmental functions.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">This framework, citizens and civil liberty groups worry, is under threat with governments appropriating and usurping authority to conduct unprecedented surveillance. Citizen groups, technology and privacy experts came together globally to draft the International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communication Surveillance.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">It prescribed that any restriction to privacy through surveillance must be ‘legal’; it must be for a ‘legitimate aim’; it must be ‘strictly and demonstrably necessary’; it must be preceded by showing to an established authority that other ‘less invasive investigative techniques’ have been used; it must follow ‘due process’; decisions must be taken by a ‘competent judicial authority’; there must be ‘public oversight’ mechanisms; and ‘integrity of communications and systems’ should be maintained. (Full text available on www.necessaryandproportionate.org)Mr Prakash of CIS, which has done extensive work on surveillance and privacy issues, said, “An additional principle must be collection limitation or data minimisation.” Giving the instance of Indian Railways seeking the date of birth from a customer booking a ticket, Mr Prakash said this was not information which was necessary. But it could be used by hackers and many other agencies to access an individual’s private transactions in other areas. The UPA government is finalising a privacy Bill, but its final version is not yet public, and it is not clear how far the government would go in protecting citizen rights.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/the-hindu-august-19-2013-prashant-jha-balancing-vigilance-and-privacy'>https://cis-india.org/news/the-hindu-august-19-2013-prashant-jha-balancing-vigilance-and-privacy</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaCentral Monitoring SystemInternet GovernancePrivacy2013-09-05T10:53:28ZNews ItemTransparency Reports — A Glance on What Google and Facebook Tell about Government Data Requests
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/what-google-and-facebook-tell-about-govt-data-requests
<b>Transparency Reports are a step towards greater accountability but how efficacious are they really? </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Prachi Arya examines the transparency reports released by tech giants with a special focus on user data requests made to <a class="external-link" href="https://www.google.co.in/">Google</a> and <a class="external-link" href="https://www.facebook.com/">Facebook</a> by Indian law enforcement agencies. <i></i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>The research was conducted as part of the 'SAFEGUARDS' project that CIS is doing with Privacy International and IDRC.</i></p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">According to a recent <a class="external-link" href="http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Press_Releases/2013/8/comScore_Releases_the_2013_India_Digital_Future_in_Focus_Report">comScore Report</a> India has now become the third largest internet user with nearly 74 million citizens on the Internet, falling just behind China and the United States. The report also reveals that Google is the preferred search engine for Indians and Facebook is the most popular social media website followed by <a class="external-link" href="http://www.linkedin.com/">LinkedIn</a> and <a class="external-link" href="https://twitter.com/">Twitter</a>. While users posting their photos on Facebook can limit viewership through privacy settings, there isn’t much they can do against government seeking information on their profiles. All that can be said for sure in the post-Snowden world is that large-scale surveillance is a reality and the government wants it on their citizen’s online existence. In this Orwellian scenario, transparency reports provide a trickle of information on how much our government finds out about us.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The first transparency report was released by Google three years ago to provide an insight into <a class="external-link" href="http://googleblog.blogspot.in/2013/04/transparency-report-more-government.html">‘the scale and scope of government requests for censorship and data around the globe’</a>. Since then the issuance of such reports is increasingly becoming a standard practice for tech giants. An <a class="external-link" href="https://www.eff.org/who-has-your-back-2013">Electronic Frontier Foundation Report</a> reveals that major companies that have followed Google’s lead include Dropbox, LinkedIn, Microsoft and Twitter<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"> </span></span></a> with Facebook and Yahoo! being the latest additions<a href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"> </span></span></a>. Requests to <a class="external-link" href="https://transparency.twitter.com/">Twitter</a> and <a class="external-link" href="https://www.microsoft.com/about/corporatecitizenship/en-us/reporting/transparency/">Microsoft</a> from Indian law enforcement agencies were significantly less than requests to Facebook and Google. Twitter revealed that Indian law enforcement agencies made less than 10 requests, none of which resulted in sharing of user information. Out of the 418 requests made to Microsoft by India (excluding Skype), 88.5 per cent were complied with for non-content user data. The <a class="external-link" href="http://info.yahoo.com/transparency-report/">Yahoo! Transparency Report</a> revealed that 6 countries surpassed India in terms of the number of user data requests. Indian agencies requested user data 1490 times from 2704 accounts for both content and non-content data and over 50 per cent of these requests were complied with.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The following is a compilation of what the latest transparency reports issued by Facebook and Google.</p>
<h3 class="external-link"><a class="external-link" href="http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/">Google</a></h3>
<blockquote class="quoted" style="text-align: justify; ">"The information we share on the Transparency Report is just a sliver of what happens on the internet"<br /><b>Susan Infantino</b>, <i>Legal Director for Google</i></blockquote>
<p class="MsoListParagraph">Beginning from December 2009, Google has published several biannual transparency reports:</p>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">It discloses traffic data of Google services globally and statistics on removal requests received from copyright owners or governments as well as user data requests received from government agencies and courts. It also lays down the legal process required to be followed by government agencies seeking data.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">There was a 90 per cent increment in the number of <a class="external-link" href="http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/government/">content removal requests</a> received by Google from India. The requests complied with included:
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Restricting videos containing clips from the controversial movie “Innocence of Muslims” from view. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Many YouTube videos and comments as well as some Blogger blog posts being restricted from local view for disrupting public order in relation to instability in North East India.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">For <a class="external-link" href="http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/IN/">User Data requests</a>, the Google report details the number of user data requests and users/accounts as well as percentage of requests which were partially or completely complied with. In India the user data requests more than doubled from 1,061 in the July-December 2009 period to 2,431 in the July-December 2012 period. The compliance rate decreased from 79 per cent in the July-December 2010 period to 66 per cent in the last report.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Jurisdictions outside the United States can seek disclosure using Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties or any ‘other diplomatic and cooperative arrangement’. Google also provides information on a voluntary basis if requested following a valid legal process if the requests are in consonance with international norms, U.S. and the requesting countries' laws and Google’s policies.</li>
</ul>
<h3><a class="external-link" href="https://www.facebook.com/about/government_requests">Facebook</a></h3>
<ul>
<blockquote class="quoted" style="text-align: justify; ">"We hope this report will be useful to our users in the ongoing debate about the proper standards for government requests for user information in official investigations." <br /><b>Colin Stretch</b>, <i> Facebook General Counsel</i></blockquote>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook inaugurated its first ever transparency report last Tuesday with a promise to continue releasing these reports.</p>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">The ‘Global Government Requests Report’ provides information on the number of requests received by the social media giant for user/account information by country and the percentage of requests it complied with. It also includes operational guidelines for law enforcement authorities.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">The report covers the first six months of 2013, specifically till June 30. In this period India made 3,245 requests from 4,144 users/accounts and half of these requests were complied with. </li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Jurisdictions outside the United States can seek disclosure by way of mutual legal assistance treaties requests or letter rogatory. Legal requests can be in the form of search warrants, court orders or subpoena. The requests are usually made in furtherance of criminal investigations but no details about the nature of such investigations are provided.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Broad or vague requests are not processed. The requests are expected to include details of the law enforcement authority issuing the request and the identity of the user whose details are sought. </li>
</ul>
<h3>The Indian Regime</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Section 69 and 69 B of the <a class="external-link" href="http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/downloads/itact2000/it_amendment_act2008.pdf">Information Technology (Amended) Act, 2008</a> prescribes the procedure and sets safeguards for the Indian Government to request user data from corporates. According to section 69, authorized officers can issue directions to intercept, monitor or decrypt information for the following reasons:</p>
<ol>
<li>Sovereignty or integrity of India,</li>
<li>Defence of India,</li>
<li>Security of the state,</li>
<li>Friendly relations with foreign states, </li>
<li>Maintenance of public order,</li>
<li>Preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to the above, or</li>
<li>For investigation of any offence.</li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Section 69 B empowers authorized agencies to monitor and collect information for cyber security purposes, including ‘for identification, analysis and prevention of intrusion and spread of computer contaminants’. Additionally, there are rules under section 69 and 69 B that regulate interception under these provisions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Information can also be requested through the Controller of Certifying Authority under section 28 of the IT Act which circumvents the stipulated procedure. If the request is not complied with then the intermediary may be penalized under section 44.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Indian Government has been increasingly leaning towards greater control over online communications. In 2011, <a class="external-link" href="http://in.news.yahoo.com/court-stays-rs-11-lakh-fine-imposed-yahoo-163503671.html">Yahoo! was slapped with a penalty of Rs. 11 lakh</a> for not complying with a section 28 request, which called for email information of a person on the grounds of national security although the court subsequently stayed the Controller of Certifying Authorities' order.<a href="#_ftn7"> </a> In the same year the government called for <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/unkindest-cut-mr-sibal" class="external-link">pre-screening user content</a> by internet companies and social media sites to ensure deletion of ‘objectionable content’ before it was published.<a href="#_ftn8"> </a> Similarly, the government has increasingly sought <a class="external-link" href="http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/06/07/india-new-monitoring-system-threatens-rights">greater online censorship</a>, using the Information Technology Act to arrest citizens for social media posts and comments and even emails criticizing the government.<a href="#_ftn9"> </a></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">What does this mean for Privacy?</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Google Transparency Report has thrown light on an increasing trend of governmental data requests on a yearly basis. The reports published by Google and Facebook reveal that the number of government requests from India is second only to the United States. Further, more than 50 per cent of the requests from India have led to disclosure by nearly all the companies surveyed in this post, with Twitter being the single exception.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Undeniably, transparency reports are important accountability mechanisms which reaffirm the company’s dedication towards protecting its user’s privacy. However, basic statistics and vague information cannot lift the veil on the full scope of surveillance. Even though Google’s report has steadily moved towards a more nuanced disclosure, it would only be meaningful if, <i>inter alia</i>, it included a break-up of the purpose behind the requests. Similarly, although Google has also included a general understanding of the legal process, more specifics need to be disclosed. For example, the report could provide statistics for notifications to indicate how often user’s under scrutiny are not notified. Such disclosures are important to enhance user understanding of when their data may be accessed and for what purposes, particularly without prior or retrospective intimation of the same. Till such time the report can provide comprehensive details about the kind of surveillance websites and internet services are subjected to, it will be of very limited use. Its greatest limitation, however, may lie beyond its scope.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The monitoring regime envisioned under the Information Technology Act effectively lays down an overly broad system which may easily lead to abuse of power. Further, the Indian Government has become infamous for their need to control websites and social media sites. Now, with the Indian Government’s plan for establishing the Central Monitoring System the need for intermediaries to conduct the interception may be done away with, giving the government unfettered access to user data, potentially rendering corporate transparency of data requests obsolete.</p>
<ul>
</ul>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/what-google-and-facebook-tell-about-govt-data-requests'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/what-google-and-facebook-tell-about-govt-data-requests</a>
</p>
No publisherprachiInternet GovernancePrivacy2013-09-13T09:44:53ZBlog EntryCYFY 2013: India Conference on Cyber Security and Cyber Governance
https://cis-india.org/news/india-conference-on-cyber-security-and-cyber-governance
<b>The Observer Research Foundation in collaboration with the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry is holding the India Conference on Cyber Security and Cyber Governance at the Oberoi Hotel in New Delhi on October 14 and 15, 2013. Sunil Abraham will participate in this event as a speaker.</b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Click to download the full details in the <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cyfy-brochure.pdf" class="internal-link">event brochure</a>.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Shri Kapil Sibal, Minister of Communications & Technology will give the inaugural address. Shri Shivshankar Menon, National Security Advisor, Government of India will give the keynote address. Shri Shashi Tharoor, Minister of State, Human Resource Development, Government of India will give the dinner table address on October 14.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On the second day, October 15, Minister Jaak Aaviksoo will give the keynote address and Shri Nehchal Sandhu, Deputy National Advisor, Government of India will give the valedictory address.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">List of Speakers</h3>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Kapil Sibal, Minister for Communications and Information Technology, India</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Shivshankar Menon, National Security Advisor, Government of India</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Shashi Tharoor, Minister of State for Human Resource Development, India</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Nehchal Sandhu, Deputy National Security Advisor, Government of India</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">A.P. Shah, Former Chief Justice, Delhi High Court</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Arvind Gupta, Director General, Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, India</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Ashish Chauhan, CEO, Bombay Stock Exchange</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">C. Raja Mohan, Distinguished Fellow, ORF</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Christopher Painter, Office of the Coordinator for Cyber Issues, Department Of State, USA</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Dirk Brengelmann, Commissioner for International Cyber Policy, Federal Foreign Office, Germany</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Eric H. Loeb, Vice President, International External Affairs, AT&T</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Gabriel Siboni, Director, Cyber Warfare Program, Institute for National Security Studies, Tel Aviv University, Israel</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Jaak Aaviksoo, Minister of Education and Research of the Republic of Estonia</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Jamie Shea, Deputy Assistant Secretary General, Emerging Security Challenges, NATO</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Joe Sullivan, CSO, Facebook</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">John Mallery, Research Scientist, MIT Computer Science & Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, USA</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Maurizio Martellini, Secretary General, Landau Network-Centro Volta and IWG Executive Secretary, Italy</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Michael Cheatham, Head U.S. Representative Office, Indo-US Science and. Technology Forum, USA</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">M.M.Oberoi, Indian Police Service, Joint commissioner of Police, Delhi Police, Government of India</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Oleg Demidov, The Russian Center for Policy Studies, Russia</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Peter Grabosky, Researcher, Australian National University, Australia</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Prakash Nagpal, Senior Vice President, Product Marketing and Marketing, Narus</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Rajan Mathews, Director General, Cellular Operators Association of India</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Ram Narain, Deputy Director General (Security), Department of Telecommunication (DoT), Government of India</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Sandro Gaycken, Freie Universität Berlin, Institute of Computer Science, Germany</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Sean Kanuck, National Intelligence Officer for Cyber Issues, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, USA</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Vijay Madan, Chief Mentor, Tata Teleservices (former Director, C-DOT), India</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Vivke Lall, President & CEO, Reliance Industries Limited</li>
</ul>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/india-conference-on-cyber-security-and-cyber-governance'>https://cis-india.org/news/india-conference-on-cyber-security-and-cyber-governance</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaCyber SecurityInternet Governance2013-09-26T06:50:15ZNews ItemDoT Blocks Domain Sites — But Reasons and Authority Unclear
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/dot-blocks-domain-sites
<b>Earlier this year, ISPs such as Airtel and MTNL blocked a number of domain sites including BuyDomains, Fabulous Domains and Sedo.co.uk. Whereas the Indian Government and courts have previously issued orders blocking websites, these actions have generally been attributed to issues such as posting of inflammatory content or piracy of copyrighted material. However, the reasoning behind blocking domain marketplaces such as the above mentioned sites is not clear.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">These websites offer users various tools to buy and sell domain names and simplify the purchasing process. Users on <a href="http://broadbandforum.in/airtel-broadband/79130-websites-blocked-on-airtel-broadband-2.html#post644518">India Broad Band forum</a> and websites like <a href="http://www.medianama.com/2012/08/223-indiablocks-airtel-blocks-youtu-be-short-url-proxy-domain-marketplace-sites/">Medianama</a> reported that these domain sites were not accessible and the following message was displayed instead — "<i>This website/URL has been blocked until further notice either pursuant to Court orders or on the Directions issued by the Department of Telecommunications</i>".</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">.In Registry’s Anti-Abuse Policy</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">If the issue at hand is one of abusive registrations, it would fall under the <a href="http://www.inregistry.in/Policies/IN_Anti_Abuse_Policy">.IN Domain Anti-abuse Policy</a> adopted by the National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI) and the .in registry. This policy states that NIXI will have the right to <i>"deny, cancel, or transfer any registration or transaction, or place any domain name(s) on registry lock, hold, or similar status"</i> if necessary. This raises a question as to why the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) would issue directions to block these domain marketplaces instead of cancelling their registration or placing it on hold under the policies adopted by NIXI.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A second, more important question would be whether the DoT has the power to block websites or take action under NIXI’s anti-abuse policy. NIXI and the .in registry both work under the aegis of the Department of Electronics and Information Technology. In addition, the Information Technology Act, 2000 ("the IT Act") is the only legislation that provides the authority to block a website and this authority is bestowed upon the Secretary, Department of Information Technology.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Information Technology Act</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Section 69-A of the IT Act authorizes the central government to issue directions/orders to block public access to any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource i.e., block websites. Such orders can be issued if the authorized officer finds that it is necessary to do so in the India’s sovereign and national interests or in the interest of public order. These interests include defence, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign neighbours and preventing incitement to the commission of an offence.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The procedures and safeguards that are to be followed before issuing an order to block a website are detailed in the <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/information-technology-procedure-and-safeguards-for-blocking-for-access-of-information-by-public-rules-2009">Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for blocking for access of information by public) Rules, 2009</a> ("the rules"). The rules provide that upon receiving a complaint, the concerned organization for the blocking of access to information shall examine the complaint to ensure that there is a need to take action under the reasons mentioned above. If such action is found necessary, a request if forwarded and a committee established as per the rules reviews any requests made to block access to any information. During this review, there is also provision for a notice and reply procedure. This allows for the person controlling the online publication of such information to appear before the committee and respond to the request or make any clarifications regarding the information.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The recommendations of the committee are then sent to the Secretary of the Department of Information Technology who further directs an agency of the government or the intermediary to block the relevant content/website. The rules also provide procedures for blocking access in case of an emergency and in cases where court orders directing the blocking of information have been issued.</p>
<p>Whereas the ideas of sovereign interest and public order are admittedly very broad, there is no clear explanation as to what actions of domain sites/marketplaces such as BuyDomain and sedo.co.uk would be considered to impinge upon either. Neither is there any information available regarding why the DoT considers this to be the case.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/dot-blocks-domain-sites'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/dot-blocks-domain-sites</a>
</p>
No publishersmitaInternet GovernanceInformation TechnologyCensorship2012-11-21T10:03:39ZBlog EntryGoogle's 'Transparency Report' sketchy, inconclusive: Government
https://cis-india.org/news/articles-economic-times-nov-17-2012-indu-nandakumar-googles-transparency-report-sketchy-inconclusive
<b>Google calls it the 'Transparency Report', but as far as Indian authorities are concerned, it is anything but. The world's largest Internet company this week published its latest half-yearly findings on government requests for access to personal information, showing that both the number of requests and the rate of denials have risen. The data, according to the world's largest democracy, are too sketchy for any clear conclusions to be drawn.</b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This article by Indu Nandakumar was <a class="external-link" href="http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-11-17/news/35170763_1_transparency-report-google-data-requests">published in the Economic Times</a> on November 17, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The skirmish is happening during a year in which relations between the <a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/Indian%20government">Indian government</a> and <a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/Internet%20companies">Internet companies</a> deteriorated, with demands to take down fake <a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/Twitter">Twitter</a> handles and web pages that the former said threatened the security of regional and religious minorities.</p>
<div dir="LTR" id="mod-a-body-after-first-para" style="text-align: justify; ">
<p>The sum and substance of the 'Transparency Report' is that government authorities have increased the number of requests they make for personal information of user accounts on Google-owned services, including <a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/YouTube">YouTube</a> and Gmail. Google, on the other hand, has been denying the requests at a higher rate since it first started publishing the half-yearly report in 2010.</p>
<p>"If we believe a request is overly broad, we seek to narrow it. We may refuse to remove content or produce information, or try to narrow the request in some cases if it was not specific enough," a Google spokesman told ET. In an emailed statement, Google said it respects the legal process in India, but is keen to meet both the letter and spirit of the law before complying.</p>
<p>According to Google, in the first half of 2012, various arms of the Indian government made 2,319 requests but Google "partially or fully" complied with only 64% of those, compared with 70% in the same period in 2011 and nearly 80% in 2010. The government requests also sought information about 3,467 user accounts.</p>
<p>The department of information technology deflected requests for comment to the office of Gulshan Rai, director of India's <a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/Cyber%20Emergency%20Response%20Team">Cyber Emergency Response Team</a>.</p>
<p><b>India Big Market for Google</b></p>
<p>Rai said Google must "transparently" share the data pertaining to requests received by them. "It's Google data, which cannot be accessed by anybody else," he said. "We have been speaking to Google for over a year now to streamline this process and bring in more transparency, but they never came around."</p>
<p>What this could mean is that the government does not have a central repository of all requests for personal information by Indian authorities. So, by depending solely on Google, the government may be leaving itself in a position where it cannot challenge the authenticity of information in the Internet company's report. India's a significant market for Google, which has over 100 million users here with an over 95% market share of the Internet search market, according to research firm StatCounter. Google employs nearly 1,535 engineers in India. In August, the department of electronics & information technology sought 412 web pages hosted on Google to be blocked in connection with the controversial movie "Innocence of Muslims" as well as the mass exodus to the North-East states following riots in Assam.</p>
<p>"Google invariably tends to be more subjective on the adequacy of the request. Earlier they were more inclined to accept government requests. Now with the increase in the number of requests, especially since the 26/11 attacks, there is an exercise to examine the adequacy," said Pawan Duggal, a Supreme Court lawyer specialising in <a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/cyber%20law">cyber law</a>.</p>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/articles-economic-times-nov-17-2012-indu-nandakumar-googles-transparency-report-sketchy-inconclusive'>https://cis-india.org/news/articles-economic-times-nov-17-2012-indu-nandakumar-googles-transparency-report-sketchy-inconclusive</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaInternet GovernanceIntermediary Liability2012-11-22T07:39:05ZNews ItemBreaking Down Section 66A of the IT Act
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/breaking-down-section-66-a-of-the-it-act
<b>Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which prescribes 'punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc.' is widely held by lawyers and legal academics to be unconstitutional. In this post Pranesh Prakash explores why that section is unconstitutional, how it came to be, the state of the law elsewhere, and how we can move forward.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Back in February 2009 (after the IT Amendment Act, 2008 was hurriedly passed on December 22, 2008 by the Lok Sabha, and a day after by the Rajya Sabha<a href="#fn1" name="fr1">[1]</a> but before it was <a class="external-link" href="http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/downloads/itact2000/act301009.pdf">notified on October 27, 2009</a>) I had written that <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/section-66A-information-technology-act" class="external-link">s.66A</a> is "patently in <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/publications/it-act/short-note-on-amendment-act-2008/" class="external-link">violation of Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India</a>":</p>
<p class="visualClear" style="text-align: justify; ">Section 66A which punishes persons for sending offensive messages is overly broad, and is patently in violation of Art. 19(1)(a) of our Constitution. The fact that some information is "grossly offensive" (s.66A(a)) or that it causes "annoyance" or "inconvenience" while being known to be false (s.66A(c)) cannot be a reason for curbing the freedom of speech unless it is directly related to decency or morality, public order, or defamation (or any of the four other grounds listed in Art. 19(2)). It must be stated here that many argue that John Stuart Mill's harm principle provides a better framework for freedom of expression than Joel Feinberg's offence principle. The latter part of s.66A(c), which talks of deception, is sufficient to combat spam and phishing, and hence the first half, talking of annoyance or inconvenience is not required. Additionally, it would be beneficial if an explanation could be added to s.66A(c) to make clear what "origin" means in that section. Because depending on the construction of that word s.66A(c) can, for instance, unintentionally prevent organisations from using proxy servers, and may prevent a person from using a sender envelope different from the "from" address in an e-mail (a feature that many e-mail providers like Gmail implement to allow people to send mails from their work account while being logged in to their personal account). Furthermore, it may also prevent remailers, tunnelling, and other forms of ensuring anonymity online. This doesn't seem to be what is intended by the legislature, but the section might end up having that effect. This should hence be clarified.</p>
<p class="visualClear" style="text-align: justify; ">I stand by that analysis. But given that it is quite sparse, in this post I will examine s.66A in detail.</p>
<p class="visualClear" style="text-align: justify; ">Here's what s. 66A of the IT (Amendment) Act, 2008 states:</p>
<p class="callout" style="text-align: justify; "><b>66A. Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc.,<br /></b>Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device,—<br />(a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character;<br />(b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device,<br />(c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages<br /><br />shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.<br /><br />Explanation: For the purposes of this section, terms "electronic mail" and "electronic mail message" means a message or information created or transmitted or received on a computer, computer system, computer resource or communication device including attachments in text, images, audio, video and any other electronic record, which may be transmitted with the message.<a href="#fn2" name="fr2">[2]</a></p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">A large part of s.66A can be traced back to s.10(2) of the UK's Post Office (Amendment) Act, 1935:</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY" class="callout">If any person —<br />(a) sends any message by telephone which is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene, or menacing character; or<br />(b) sends any message by telephone, or any telegram, which he knows to be false, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, or needless anxiety to any other person; or<br />(c) persistently makes telephone calls without reasonable cause and for any such purposes as aforesaid;<br />he shall be liable upon summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month, or to both such fine and imprisonment.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Section 66A bears a striking resemblance to the three parts of this law from 1935, with clauses (b) and (c) being merged in the Indian law into a single clause (b) of s.66A, with a whole bunch of new "purposes" added. Interestingly, the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, was never amended to add this provision.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">The differences between the two are worth exploring.</p>
<h3 align="JUSTIFY">Term of Punishment</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The first major difference is that the maximum term of imprisonment in the 1935 Act is only one month, compared to three years in s.66A of the IT Act. It seems the Indian government decided to subject the prison term to hyper-inflation to cover for the time. If this had happened for the punishment for, say, criminal defamation, then that would have a jail term of up to 72 years! The current equivalent laws in the UK are the Communications Act, 2003 (s. 127) and the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27/section/1">Malicious Communications Act</a> 1988 (s.1) for both of which the penalty is up to 6 months' imprisonment or to a maximum fine of £5000 or both. What's surprising is that in the Information Technology (Amendment) Bill of 2006, the penalty for section 66A was up to 2 years, and it was changed on December 16, 2008 through an amendment moved by Mr. A. Raja (the erstwhile Minister of Communications and IT) to 3 years. Given that parts of s.66A(c) resemble nuisance, it is instructive to note the term of punishment in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for criminal nuisance: a fine of Rs. 200 with no prison term.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">"Sending" vs. "Publishing"</h3>
<p align="JUSTIFY">J. Sai Deepak, a lawyer, has made an interesting point that <a class="external-link" href="http://thedemandingmistress.blogspot.in/2012/11/does-section-66a-of-information.html">the IT Act uses "send" as part of its wording, and not "publish"</a>. Given that, only messages specifically directed at another would be included. While this is an interesting proposition, it cannot be accepted because: (1) even blog posts are "sent", albeit to the blog servers — s.66A doesn't say who it has to be sent to; (2) in the UK the Communications Act 2003 uses similar language and that, unlike the Malicious Communication Act 1988 which says "sends to another person", has been applied to public posts to Twitter, etc.; (3) The explanation to s.66A(c) explicitly uses the word "transmitted", which is far broader than "send", and it would be difficult to reconcile them unless "send" can encompass sending to the publishing intermediary like Twitter.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Part of the narrowing down of s.66A should definitely focus on making it applicable only to directed communication (as is the case with telephones, and with the UK's Malicious Communication Act), and not be applicable to publishing.</p>
<h3 align="JUSTIFY">Section 66A(c)</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Section 66A(c) was also inserted through an amendment moved by Mr. Raja on December 16, 2008, which was passed by the Lok Sabha on December 22, 2008, and a day after by the Rajya Sabha. (The version introduced in Parliament in 2006 had only 66A(a) and (b).) This was done in response to the observation by the Standing Committee on Information Technology that there was no provision for spam. Hence it is clear that this is meant as an anti-spam provision. However, the careless phrasing makes it anything but an anti-spam provision. If instead of "for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages" it was "for the purpose of causing annoyance and inconvenience and to deceive and to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages", it would have been slightly closer to an anti-spam provision, but even then doesn't have the two core characteristics of spam: that it be unsolicited and that it be sent in bulk. (Whether only commercial messages should be regarded as spam is an open question.) That it arise from a duplicitous origin is not a requirement of spam (and in the UK, for instance, that is only an aggravating factor for what is already a fine-able activity).<br /><br />Curiously, the definitional problems do not stop there, but extend to the definitions of "electronic mail" and "electronic mail message" in the 'explanation' as well. Those are so vast that more or less anything communicated electronically is counted as an e-mail, including forms of communication that aren't aimed at particular recipients the way e-mail is.<br /><br />Hence, the anti-spam provision does not cover spam, but covers everything else. This provision is certainly unconstitutional.</p>
<h3 class="visualClear" style="text-align: justify; ">Section 66A(b)</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Section 66A(b) has three main elements: (1) that the communication be known to be false; (2) that it be for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will; (3) that it be communicated persistently. The main problem here is, of course, (2). "Annoyance" and "inconvenience", "insult", "ill will" and "hatred" are very different from "injury", "danger", and "criminal intimidation". That a lawmaker could feel that punishment for purposes this disparate belonged together in a single clause is quite astounding and without parallel (except in the rest of the IT Act). That's akin to having a single provision providing equal punishment for calling someone a moron ("insult") and threatening to kill someone ("criminal intimidation"). While persistent false communications for the purpose of annoying, insulting, inconveniencing, or causing ill will should not be criminalised (if need be, having it as a civil offence would more than suffice), doing so for the purpose of causing danger or criminal intimidation should. However, the question arises whether you need a separate provision in the IT Act for that. Criminal intimidation is already covered by ss. 503 and 506 of the IPC. Similarly, different kinds of causing danger are taken care of in ss.188, 268, 283, 285, 289, and other provisions. Similarly with the other "purposes" listed there, if, for instance, a provision is needed to penalise hoax bomb threats, then the provision clearly should not be mentioning words like "annoyance", and should not be made "persistent". (At any rate, s. 505(1) of the IPC suffices for hoax bomb threats, so you don't need a separate provision in the IT Act).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">I would argue that in its current form this provision is unconstitutional, since there is no countervailing interest in criminalising false and persistent "insults", etc., that will allow those parts of this provision to survive the test of 'reasonableness' under Art.19(2). Furthermore, even bits that survive are largely redundant. While this unconstitutionality could be cured by better, narrower wording, even then one would need to ensure that there is no redundancy due to other provisions in other laws.</p>
<h3>Section 66A(a)</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In s.66A(a), the question immediately arises whether the information that is "grossly offensive" or "menacing" need to be addressed at someone specific and be seen as "grossly offensive" or "menacing" by that person, or be seen by a 'reasonable man' test.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Additionally, the term "grossly offensive" will have to be read in such a heightened manner as to not include merely causing offence. The one other place where this phrase is used in Indian law is in s.20(b) of the Indian Post Office Act (prohibiting the sending by post of materials of an indecent, obscene, seditious, scurrilous, threatening, or grossly offensive character). The big difference between s.20(b) of the IPO Act and s.66A of the IT Act is that the former is clearly restricted to one-to-one communication (the way the UK's Malicious Communication Act 1988 is). Reducing the scope of s.66A to direct communications would make it less prone to challenge.<br /><br />Additionally, in order to ensure constitutionality, courts will have to ensure that "grossly offensive" does not simply end up meaning "offensive", and that the maximum punishment is not disproportionately high as it currently is. Even laws specifically aimed at online bullying, such as the UK's Protection from Harassment Act 1997, can have unintended effects. As George Monbiot notes, the "first three people to be prosecuted under [the Protection from Harassment Act] were all peaceful protesters".</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Constitutional Arguments in Importing Laws from the UK</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The plain fact is that the Indian Constitution is stronger on free speech grounds than the (unwritten) UK Constitution, and the judiciary has wide powers of judicial review of statutes (i.e., the ability of a court to strike down a law passed by Parliament as 'unconstitutional'). Judicial review of statutes does not exist in the UK (with review under its EU obligations being the exception) as they believe that Parliament is supreme, unlike India. Putting those two aspects together, a law that is valid in the UK might well be unconstitutional in India for failing to fall within the eight octagonal walls of the reasonable restrictions allowed under Art.19(2). That raises the question of how they deal with such broad wording in the UK.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Genealogy of UK Law on Sending 'Indecent', 'Menacing', 'Grossly Offensive' Messages</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Quoting from the case of DPP v. Collins [2006] UKHL 40 [6]:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The genealogy of [s. 127(1) of the Communication Act] may be traced back to s.10(2)(a) of the Post Office (Amendment) Act, 1935, which made it an offence to send any message by telephone which is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character. That subsection was reproduced with no change save of punctuation in s.66(a) of the Post Office Act 1953. It was again reproduced in s.78 of the Post Office Act 1969, save that "by means of a public telecommunication service" was substituted for "by telephone" and "any message" was changed to "a message or other matter". Section 78 was elaborated but substantially repeated in s.49(1)(a) of the British Telecommunications Act 1981 and was re-enacted (save for the substitution of "system" for "service") in s.43(1)(a) of the Telecommunications Act 1984. Section 43(1)(a) was in the same terms as s.127(1)(a) of the 2003 Act, save that it referred to "a public telecommunication system" and not (as in s.127(1)(a)) to a "public electronic communications network". Sections 11(1)(b) of the Post Office Act 1953 and 85(3) of the Postal Services Act 2000 made it an offence to send certain proscribed articles by post.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While the above quotation talks about s.127(1) it is equally true about s.127(2) as well. In addition to that, in 1988, the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27/section/1">Malicious Communications Act</a><a class="external-link" href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27/section/1"></a> (s.1) was passed to prohibit one-to-one harassment along similar lines.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The UK's Post Office Act was eclipsed by the Telecommunications Act in 1984, which in turn was replaced in 2003 by the Communications Act. (By contrast, we still stick on to the colonial Indian Post Office Act, 1898.) Provisions from the 1935 Post Office Act were carried forward into the Telecommunications Act (s.43 on the "improper use of public telecommunication system"), and subsequently into s.127 of the Communications Act ("improper use of public electronic communications network"). Section 127 of the Communications Act states:</p>
<p class="callout" style="text-align: justify; ">127. Improper use of public electronic communications network<br />(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he — <br />(a) sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or<br />(b) causes any such message or matter to be so sent.<br />(2) A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he —<br />(a) sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,<br />(b) causes such a message to be sent; or<br />(c) persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.<br />(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.<br />(4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to anything done in the course of providing a programme service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42)).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Currently in the UK there are calls for repeal of s.127. In a separate blog post I will look at how the UK courts have 'read down' the provisions of s.127 and other similar laws in order to be compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Comparison between S. 66A and Other Statutes</h3>
<p>Section 144, IPC, 1860</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Power to issue order in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger</p>
<ol>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">...<b>obstruction, annoyance or injury</b> to any person lawfully employed, or <b>danger </b>to human life, health or safety, or a disturbance of the public tranquillity</li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Babulal Parate v. State of Maharastra and Ors. [1961 AIR SC 884] (Magistrates order under s. 144 of the Cr. PC, 1973 was in violation of Art.19(1)(a) of the Constitution).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>A special thanks is due to Snehashish Ghosh for compiling the below table.<br /></i></p>
<table class="grid listing">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th>Section</th><th>Term(s)/phrase(s) used in 66A</th><th>Term(s)/ phrase(s) used in similar sections</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Section 66A (heading)</td>
<td style="text-align: justify; ">Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc</td>
<td>Section 127, CA, 2003, "Improper use of public electronic communications network"</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Section 66A(a)</td>
<td style="text-align: justify; ">Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device</td>
<td>Section 1(1), MCA 1988, "Any person who sends to another person..."</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Section 66A(a)</td>
<td>Grossly offensive</td>
<td style="text-align: justify; ">Section 1(1)(a)(i), MCA 1988; <br />Section 127(1)(a),CA, 2003; <br />Section 10(2)(a), Post Office (Amendment) Act, 1935*; <br />Section 43(1)(a), Telecommunications Act 1984*;<br /> Section 20, India Post Act 1898</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Section 66A(a)</td>
<td>Menacing character</td>
<td>Section127(1)(a),CA, 2003</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Section 66A(b)</td>
<td>Any information which he knows to be false</td>
<td style="text-align: justify; ">Section 1(1)(a)(iii), MCA 1988 "information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender"; <br />Section 127(2)(a), CA, 2003, "a message that he knows to be false"<br /></td>
</tr>
<tr style="text-align: justify; ">
<td>Section 66A(b) “purpose of...” <br /></td>
<td>Causing annoyance</td>
<td>Section127(2), CA, 2003</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Inconvenience</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: justify; ">Section 127 (2), CA, 2003</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>Danger</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>Insult</td>
<td>Section 504, IPC, 1860</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>Injury</td>
<td style="text-align: justify; ">Section 44 IPC, 1860, "The word 'injury' denotes any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or property."<br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>Criminal intimidation</td>
<td>Sections 503 and 505 (2), IPC, 1860</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>Enmity, hatred or ill-will</td>
<td>Section 153A(1)(a), IPC, 1860</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>Persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device</td>
<td>Section 127(2)(c), CA, 2003, "persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network."</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Section 66A(c)</td>
<td>
<p>Deceive or to mislead</p>
</td>
<td>-</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<hr />
<p><b>Notes</b><br />MCA 1988: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27/section/1">Malicious Communications Act</a> (s.1)<br />CA: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127">Communications Act 2003</a> (s.127)<br />*Replaced by Communications Act 2003</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr1" name="fn1">1</a>]. The Information Technology (Amendment) Bill, 2008, was one amongst the eight bills that were passed in fifteen minutes on December 16, 2008.<br />[<a href="#fr2" name="fn2">2</a>]. Inserted vide Information Technology Amendment Act, 2008.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This was re-posted in <a class="external-link" href="http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?283149">Outlook </a>(November 28, 2012)</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/breaking-down-section-66-a-of-the-it-act'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/breaking-down-section-66-a-of-the-it-act</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIT ActFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceFeaturedHomepage2012-12-14T09:51:17ZBlog EntryIndian government at second position after U.S.A for demanding user data from Google
https://cis-india.org/news/whdi-reviews-nov-22-2012-indian-government-at-second-position-after-usa-for-demanding-user-data-from-google
<b>The Indian government has secured 2nd position in the list of the governments demanding for Web user information. It is behind only from the United States government.</b>
<hr />
<p>This blog entry was <a class="external-link" href="http://whdi-reviews.com/2012/11/indian-government-at-second-position-after-u-s-a-for-demanding-user-data-from-google/">published in WHDI Reviews</a> on November 22, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p>This fact came to light in the ‘Transparency Report’ published by web services major. The report covers the time period from January to June in the present year. During this time period, the Govt. of India has asked Google for user information 2,319 times over 3,647 user accounts.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This has been done by the way of court orders and requests made by police. Google has allowed the disclosure of the information sometimes partially and sometimes completely. The U.S.A government on the other hand requested for more information 7,969 requests over 16,281 accounts. The compliance rate by Google to Indian and U.S requests was 64% and 90% respectively. The report gives details about two categories of interactions: firstly to divulge data and secondly to pull down content. India now ranks 7th in the list of countries which had made requests to pull down data. India could have achieved even a better rank but owing to the lack of any constitutional power which backs its action, it has to be satisfied with the seventh position. According to Pranesh, (policy director with Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society) these requests for pulling down data are an attempt made by the government so that its criticism is not able to reach a wide audience.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Google (which is banned in China) supports the cause of disclosure of the information related to governments. The other net service providers which put out similar transparency reports are twitter, Linkedin and Cloud storage service Dropbox. These content pull down request made by the government is not healthy for a democratic country like India.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/whdi-reviews-nov-22-2012-indian-government-at-second-position-after-usa-for-demanding-user-data-from-google'>https://cis-india.org/news/whdi-reviews-nov-22-2012-indian-government-at-second-position-after-usa-for-demanding-user-data-from-google</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaInternet GovernanceIntermediary Liability2012-11-30T05:05:01ZNews ItemAmnesty International calls for review of 66A of IT act
https://cis-india.org/news/business-standard-november-28-2012-nirmalya-behera-amnesty-international-calls-for-review-of-66a-of-it-act
<b>The review seeks to bring the Act in line with international human rights law standards on freedom of expression.</b>
<hr />
<p>This article by Nirmalya Behera was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/amnesty-international-calls-for-review66ait-act/197621/on">published in the Business Standard</a> on November 28, 2012.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span>Joining in the row over arrest of two girls in Maharastra for <a href="http://www.business-standard.com/india/prof_page.php?search=Facebook&select=1" target="_blank">Facebook</a> comments, the human rights group, Amnesty International, has called for review of the Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. </span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In a letter to Kapil Sibal, Union minister for Communications and Information Technology, the London based human right watchdog has asked for reviewing the section and bringing it in line with international human rights law standards on freedom of expression.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span>The human rights group and the Centre for Internet and Society believe that Section 66A, which was amended in 2008, is not in line with the constitution of India and internationally accepted standards on freedom of expression. They termed the section as imprecise and over board.<br /><br />Amnesty has also called for laying down clear and comprehensive explanations of the restrictions on free speech either in the IT act or in the rules in order to prevent the abuse of the provision by various state law enforcement officials and frame the explanations after consulting it with the public.<br /><br />“The Internet should be a force for political freedom, not repression. People have the right to seek and receive information and to express their peaceful beliefs without fear, or interference. But under Section 66A, even a peaceful posting could lead to a prison sentence of up to three years”, it said in its letter.<br /><br />It may be noted that two girls- Shaheen Dhada and her friend Renu Srinivasan were arrested on November 19, after Dhada had lamented in a Facebook post about the shutdown in Mumbai due to Bal Thackeray's funeral and were later released on bail. </span></span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/business-standard-november-28-2012-nirmalya-behera-amnesty-international-calls-for-review-of-66a-of-it-act'>https://cis-india.org/news/business-standard-november-28-2012-nirmalya-behera-amnesty-international-calls-for-review-of-66a-of-it-act</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaInternet GovernanceInformation Technology2012-11-30T06:19:45ZNews ItemCivil society & industry oppose India’s plans to modify ITRs
https://cis-india.org/news/the-hindu-nov-23-2012-shalini-singh-civil-society-and-industry-oppose-indias-plans-to-modify-itrs
<b>Industry fears ITU control over Internet; excessive content control and surveillance an issue for civil society.</b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Shalini Singh's article was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/civil-society-industry-oppose-indias-plans-to-modify-itrs/article4124046.ece">published in the Hindu</a> on November 23, 2012.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India’s proposal on International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs), submitted last month to the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), the U.N. agency responsible for information and communication technologies, has drawn opposition from, and fears of content control among, civil society and the industry alike.<br /><br />Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, Centre for Internet Society, told The Hindu: “The Indian government’s position on the ITRs can be improved, particularly with regard to the proposed definitions, approach to cyber security, scope of regulation.” However, he said, “we are confident that the Indian position will protect consumer and citizen interest once the government implements changes based on inputs from all… stakeholders.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span>The National Association of Software and Services Companies (NASSCOM), which represents the $100-billion IT and BPO industry, has strong views against the Internet governance model of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Numbers and Names (ICANN), but favours self-regulation. Its president Som Mittal says: “NASSCOM does not favour oversight by an existing U.N. organisation like ITU. Internet and infrastructure have to be in the hands of expert organisations with proven experience.” NASSCOM has also expressed discomfort with the inclusion of “ICTs along with processing” in Section 21E of India’s proposal, since this would subject IT and BPO industries to inter-governmental regulation through the ITRs.</span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI), which represents India’s largest mobile operators with nearly 700 million subscribers, has also opposed any role for ITU in the areas of international roaming and Internet governance, fearing a direct impact on domestic network architecture, costs and technology choices. COAI director-general Rajan Mathews said: “We are already regulated by the Department of Telecom (DoT) and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). Placing the ITU’s jurisdiction over us — where we neither have voice nor recourse — is unacceptable.” The COAI’s position is consistent with the GSM Association (GSMA), the world’s largest association of mobile companies representing 800 operators spanning 220 countries. The COAI further alleges that most of its inputs “have been rejected without reasons assigned or even a meeting.” It has lodged a protest with the DoT.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Internet Service Providers Association of India (ISPAI) has similarly protested against ITU’s jurisdiction over issues of Internet governance, architecture and cost.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Subho Ray, president, Internet & Mobile Association of India (IAMAI), said: “We represent a vast majority of Internet companies but have not been consulted by the DoT. We are completely opposed to ITU’s jurisdiction in any area related to Internet policy.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The FICCI has also given detailed inputs on the dangers of allowing ITU’s jurisdiction, especially in areas of Internet policy and governance. It supports a bottom-up consultative and consensus-led multi-stakeholder approach, similar to the one propounded by Telecom Minister Kapil Sibal at the Internet Governance Forum, the world’s largest multi-stakeholder conference, held in Baku.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Several prominent civil society groups and members of academia involved in Internet governance also have apprehensions about expanding the ITU’s reach to Internet regulation through the ITRs. In a November 15, 2012 letter to Telecom Secretary R. Chandrashekhar, Society for Knowledge Commons, Internet Democracy Project, Free Software Movement of India, Delhi Science Forum, Media for Change and Software Freedom Law Center have complained about not having been consulted, while warning that India’s proposal “could have far reaching implications for the Internet.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On the issue of cyber security, industry associations and several civil society groups are unanimously against any role for ITU, pointing out that including ill-defined terms such as ‘spam’ and ‘network fraud’ in a binding treaty is a terrible idea. Further, cyber security commitments can force India to cooperate with countries whose military and strategic interests are against it.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Kamlesh Bajaj, CEO, Data Security Council of India, and head of NASSCOM’s security initiatives, said: “Cyber security is sought to be taken over by ITU — an area in which it has little experience. Cyber security includes areas of application security, identity and access management, web security, content filtering, cyber forensics, data security, including issues such as cyber espionage and cyber warfare. The ITU has had no involvement in these matters over the last two decades, and should therefore stay out of them.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Similar views have been expressed in varying degrees by the COAI, the IAMAI, the ISPAI and the FICCI. Dr. Ray of the IAMAI says: “cyber security is essentially a state prerogative and should not be part of an external treaty obligation. Any attempt to channel it through the ITU may be counter productive.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span>Mr. Sibal, who has already been challenged by opposition to the domestic IT rules, is aware that if left unaddressed, opposition to India’s stance on ITRs will only escalate at a national and global level, and that if corrections have to be made in India’s position, those will have to be done consensually within the governance structure. Mr. Sibal confirmed that while cyber security was an area of discussion with the ITU, “the ITU does not have any role in Internet governance.”</span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">According to him, either he or the Department will hold meetings on these issues with the industry to further evolve India’s position.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mr. Chandrashekhar further confirmed that similar to several global national delegations, the government would include media and industry experts as part of its delegation to Dubai, the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12) will be held from December 3 to 14. The final decisions on the ITRs and the composition of the delegation would be announced the coming week.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A deeply divided house in Dubai is a strong possibility, with countries which favour democracy and free speech taking a stance against those who, due to political compulsions, have proposed inter-governmental control through the ITRs by the ITU, not just on Internet policy, but also its traffic and content, most of which automatically fall under the definitions of the ICTs.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The 193-countries at THE WCIT may well spend 11 days discussing national proposals to separate issues that can be addressed nationally from those which require inter-governmental cooperation, while further debating which platforms may be best to address global cooperation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It is equally clear that the existing Internet governance system is unacceptable to most countries, and therefore a more evolved democratic and internationally equitable system, which is managed through a multi-stakeholder process and yet with a definite role for countries like India, appears the only way forward.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mr. Sibal, at meetings with global Internet governance bodies in Baku, is learnt to have bargained hard for India’s explicit role in the existing Internet governance processes.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/the-hindu-nov-23-2012-shalini-singh-civil-society-and-industry-oppose-indias-plans-to-modify-itrs'>https://cis-india.org/news/the-hindu-nov-23-2012-shalini-singh-civil-society-and-industry-oppose-indias-plans-to-modify-itrs</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaTelecomInternet GovernanceICT2012-11-30T09:42:17ZNews ItemHow to Steer Clear of India’s Strict Internet Laws
https://cis-india.org/news/india-blogs-nytimes-november-20-2012-how-to-steer-clear-of-indias-strict-internet-laws
<b>The arrest of two women in Mumbai for a Facebook post is the latest heavy-handed move by India’s government to curb what Indian citizens say on the Internet.</b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Sangeeta Rajesh and Heather Timmons was published in the New York Times on November 20, 2012. Sunil Abraham and Pranesh Prakash are quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p><span><span>The two women <a href="http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/19/women-arrested-in-mumbai-for-complaining-on-facebook/#postComment">were</a><a href="http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/19/women-arrested-in-mumbai-for-complaining-on-facebook/#postComment"> arrested</a> Sunday under a section of the <a href="http://eci.nic.in/archive/manuals/part2/acts_1d.htm">Indian Penal Code</a> that outlaws spreading “statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill- will between classes” after one complained about the citywide strike sparked by the death of the Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray and the second woman “liked” her statement. </span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">But the incident was just the latest in a string of recent arrests, detentions and account suspensions in India over online comments. If you live in India and have an opinion someone might not like, but you don’t want to become a target of the law, there’s one easy rule you need to follow, experts say: stay off social media.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Right now, “there’s nothing one can do but to close up your social media accounts” and stop voicing your opinion on the Internet entirely, if you want to guarantee you won’t be arrested in India, said Sunil Abraham, executive director at the Center for Internet and Society in Bangalore. (To be sure, that’s not what most free speech advocates recommend that you do. India Ink will soon have more on a social media activist who is fighting India’s strict Internet controls.)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mr. Abraham advises extreme caution because India’s free speech rules have been historically weak (read more about India’s long history of censorship <a href="http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/08/newswallah-censorship/">here</a>), a relatively new Internet law is extremely broadly defined and police and <a href="http://ibnlive.in.com/news/may-review-it-act-to-prevent-misuse-kapil-sibal-on-girls-arrest/306432-3-244.html">lawmakers themselves</a> are sometimes confused about what the actual rules themselves say.</p>
<p style="text-align: center; "><img alt="A screenshot of Ravi Srinivasan's twitter page. Mr. Srinivasan was arrested for a tweet he posted." height="268" id="100000001894388" src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/11/09/world/asia/9-Twitter-arrest-IndiaInk/9-Twitter-arrest-IndiaInk-blog480.jpg" width="480" /></p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>A screenshot of Ravi Srinivasan’s twitter page. Mr. Srinivasan was arrested for a tweet he posted.</i></p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Late last month, Ravi Srinivasan, a Puducherry businessman and an India Against Corruption volunteer, was arrested for his Twitter post that alleged Karti Chidambaram, the son of Finance Minister P. Chidambaram, had amassed a large amount of wealth. Mr. Srinivasan was arrested Oct. 30 but was later released on bail.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Earlier in October, an associate professor of the National Institute for Fashion Technology in Chennai was arrested after what the Tamil Nadu singer Chinmayi said was a <a href="http://www.chinmayisripada.com/2012/10/facing-abuse-and-backlash-of-rumours.html">long period of harassment on the Internet</a>, including negative Twitter messages. In August, the Indian government demanded Internet service providers <a href="http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/23/indian-government-casts-a-wide-puzzling-net-over-internet/">suspend hundreds of Web pages</a> to curb ethnic tension and asked Twitter to <a href="http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/outrage-in-india-over-twitter-crackdown-on-twitter-at-least/">suspend accounts</a> parodying government officials. Last year, the central government asked social media companies to <a href="http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/india-asks-google-facebook-others-to-screen-user-content/">prescreen content</a> about India for objectionable remarks.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The key culprits here are revisions to India’s Information Technology Act made in 2008 and 2011, experts say, that leave nearly everything that is transmitted via the Internet open to interpretation by nearly everyone who reads it on the Internet. Things that are considered “annoying” and “offensive” can, under the law, land their sender in jail for up to three years.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While some of India’s nearly 50 million Facebook users and millions of Twitter users are up in arms about the recent arrests in Mumbai and are sharing the woman’s original post, under the theory that the police can’t arrest everyone, conservative advocates don’t recommend that sort of action on the Internet.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">V. Vijaya Baskar, an advocate with Madras High Court practicing civil, criminal and family law for over 10 years, said that there are basic guidelines of free speech behavior that should be followed, even by Internet users. The most important, he said, is to avoid the use of obscene language and pictures, which are considered a direct threat. He also advised against getting into confrontations with people you don’t know or recognize on social media.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“If you have a true and verifiable source or documented evidence, then making a public statement is not defamation, but making passing comments of any person, particularly people in public life, will amount to defaming the person and is punishable,” he said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While India’s government and law officials sometimes come across as not very tech-savvy, Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Center for Internet and Society, said that lawmakers in many countries with a much higher Internet penetration are just as challenged by the Internet. And in India, while the laws are strict, people seldom land in jail for Internet-related offenses, he said.</p>
<p>“The detention law in India, sensibly, defaults to ‘bail, not jail,’ ” he said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mr. Prakash said he could not offer any global guidelines to avoid being arrested, and concluded that “each forum has its own rules of etiquette, which cannot be codified or enforced by legislation.” Online speech can be disagreed upon and opinions should be made known, since it is only the “natural tendency for people with extreme views to be more vocal online.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Not surprisingly, the authorities in India who have been involved in arrests insist they are just doing their job, and doing it well. The Tamil Nadu police, for example, said they acted appropriately in Mr. Srinivasan’s arrest.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">R. S. Krishna, inspector general for law and order, told the media that the Puducherry police could not be faulted for filing a First Investigation Report, the precursor to filing charges, against Mr. Srinivasan.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“I am very clear that we have acted purely on the basis of the merit of the complaint, in accordance with the rule of law,” he said. “We are right on our part.”</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/india-blogs-nytimes-november-20-2012-how-to-steer-clear-of-indias-strict-internet-laws'>https://cis-india.org/news/india-blogs-nytimes-november-20-2012-how-to-steer-clear-of-indias-strict-internet-laws</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet Governance2012-11-30T10:13:53ZNews ItemSecond International e-Governance Conference
https://cis-india.org/news/second-international-e-governance-conference-at-baghdad
<b>The second international conference on governance and electronics which is held under the motto "Together Toward Digital Inclusion" is organized by the National Committee for Corporate Governance Electronic Iraq and the United Nations Development Programme at Rashid Hotel in Baghdad from December 2-3, 2012. The event aims to review the achievements of the program e-governance Iraqi national, and discuss the challenges of applying e-governance as a tool to achieve public sector reform and digital inclusion.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sunil Abraham is a speaker at this event and is presenting on "Review of the Legal Environment in Iraq for Effective e-Governance", and "Government Interoperability Frameworks: Global Overview and implications for Iraq".</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">Conference Agenda</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Sunday, December 2, 2012 </b></p>
<table class="listing">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>09:00 – 10:00</td>
<td>Conference Registration</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>10:00 – 11:00</td>
<td>
<ul>
</ul>
<p>Opening Ceremony</p>
<ul>
<li>H.E. Nuri Al-Maliki, Prime Minister of Iraq</li>
<li>Ms. Helen Clark, UNDP Administrator </li>
<li>H.E. Dr. Abdul Kareem Al-Samaraii, Minister of Science and Technology</li>
</ul>
<ul>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>11:00 – 11:30</td>
<td>Break <br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>11:30 – 12:30</td>
<td>
<p>Plenary session 1: e-Governance and Public Sector Reform<br />Chairman: Dr. Adil Matloob, Minister IT Advisor – Ministry of Science and Technology</p>
<ul>
<li>Mr. Thamir Al Ghadban, Head of the Prime Minister’s Advisory Commission (PMAC) </li>
<li>Prof. Subhash Bhatnagar, UNDP Expert </li>
<li>Q & A</li>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>12:30 – 13:30</td>
<td>
<p>Plenary session 2: Citizen Inclusion into the Digital Society</p>
<ul>
<li>Chairman: Mr. Imad Naji, Director General - Ministry of Planning</li>
<li>Dr. Laurence Millar, UNDP Expert</li>
<li>Dr. Kathim Ibrisim, Director General - Ministry of Planning</li>
<li>Q & A </li>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>13:30 – 13:40</td>
<td>
<p>Plenary Session 3: Challenges of e-Governance Implementation</p>
<ul>
<li>Chairman: Dr. Mahmood Kassim Sharief, Director General – Ministry of Science and Technology</li>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>13:40 – 14:00</td>
<td>Break</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>14:00 – 15:30</td>
<td style="text-align: justify; ">
<p>Workshop 1: Challenges of implementing an adequate telecommunications infrastructure and Highlighting the role of the private sector and the establishment of the concept of true public-private sector partnership in the field of e-governance</p>
<ul>
<li>Chairman: Mr. Jaber Zwayed Atiyah, Director General – National Security Commission</li>
<li>Dr. Rohan Samarajiva Lirne, UNDP Expert </li>
<li>Dr. Shahani Markus Weerawarana, UNDP Expert </li>
<li>Ms. Raghad Abdulrasoul National Centre for Consultation and Management Development/Ministry of Planning </li>
<li>Q&A </li>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>13:30 – 14:30</td>
<td>Lunch @ AL-Rashid <br /></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Monday, December 3, 2012</b></p>
<table class="listing">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>09:00 – 09:15</td>
<td>Closure of the Plenary Session 3<br />Presentation of workshop results</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>09:15 – 10:45</td>
<td>Plenary Session 4: Effective Role of Local Governments in Framework of e-Governance Program<br />
<ul>
<li>Chairman: Dr. Kathim Ibrisim, Director General - Ministry of Planning </li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Mr. Manu Srivastava, UNDP Expert </li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Dr. Adil Abdullah Shuhaieb, member of e-Governance Committee in Missan Governorate </li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Mr. Anmar Natik Mohammed, Manager of e-Governance Programme in Ninawa Governorate </li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Eng Haider Shaker Yaji , Muthana Governorate </li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Q&A </li>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>10:45 – 11:00</td>
<td>Break</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>11:00 – 12:00</td>
<td>Plenary Session 5: Challenges of Government Interoperability Framework Implementation, Standards and Information<br />
<ul>
<li>Chairman: Mr. Mohammed Raji Mousa, Council of Ministers Secretariat (COMSEC)</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Mr. Sunil Abraham, UNDP Expert </li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Mr. Ammar Salih and Dr. Firas Hamadani/ Minister of Foreign Affairs </li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Q&A</li>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>12:00 – 13:00</td>
<td>
<p>Plenary Session 6: Building e-Services</p>
<ul>
<li>Chairman: Dr. Saad Najem / University of Mustanserieh </li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Mr. Emilio Bugli Innocenti, UNDP Expert </li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Dr. Adil Matloob, Minister IT Advisor – Ministry of Science and Technology </li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Mr. Ahmed Saad, Director General – Ministry of Municipality and Public Work </li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Q&A</li>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>13:00 – 14:30</td>
<td>Conference Closing Session<br />
<ul>
<li>Chairman: Dr. Samir Attar, Deputy Minister – Ministry of Science and Technology </li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Looking forward</li>
<li>Adopt conference recommendation</li>
<li>UNDP Closing Speech</li>
<li>Government of Iraq Speech</li>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>14:30 – 15:30</td>
<td>Lunch @ AL-Rashid <br /></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<hr />
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">Papers/Speakers Bio Summary</h2>
<h3>Plenary Session 1: e-Governance and Public Sector Reform</h3>
<p>Chairman: Dr. Adil Matloob, Minister IT Advisor – Ministry of Science and Technology</p>
<table class="vertical listing">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>e-Governance and public sector reform/ Subhash Bhatnagar</b><br />The paper shares experiences from different countries of implementing e-Governance projects that have significantly contributed to governance reform by enhancing transparency and reducing corruption in delivery of public services. Some lessons are drawn for Iraq. E-Governance should be used as a means of implementing public sector reform agenda. The implementation of projects should be accelerated.</p>
<p><b><i>Subhash Bhatnagar</i></b><i> is an alumnus of Indian Institute of Technology, Madras and Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad (IIMA). Currently he is an honorary adjunct professor at the IIMA. He was a </i><i>Chair Professor, member of Board of Governors and the Dean of IIMA in his 30 year tenure at IIMA. </i></p>
<p><i> </i></p>
<p><i>He has been a visiting Professor in universities in the US and Africa. He worked with the World Bank in Washington DC for six years serving as an advisor to to mainstream e-Governance in the operations of the Bank. </i><i>He has been a lead speaker in training workshops for ministers and legislators for 16 states in India. </i><i> </i><i>His research and consulting work has covered E-Governance, ICT for development, National IT Policy, and Corporate IT Strategy. He has hundred research papers and seven books to his credit which include two books on eGovernance. </i></p>
<p><i> </i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>He is on the editorial boards of seven international journals and has served as Chairman of International Committees in the ICT field. He serves on a number of central and state Government committees in Inda including the steering committee for ICT sector for formulating India’s 12<sup>th</sup> Five Year Plan. He was made a Fellow of the Computer Society of India in 1994. He has served on the boards of a number of educational institutions and private enterprises in India. He has travelled to nearly 60 countries, delivering public lectures and conference key notes</i></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h3>Plenary Session 2: Citizen Inclusion into the Digital Society</h3>
<p>Chairman: Mr. Imad Naji, Director General - Ministry of Planning</p>
<table class="vertical listing">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p><b>Citizen Inclusion into the Digital Society/ Laurence Millar </b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This paper describes the importance of digital inclusion to achieve the e-governance Vision for Iraq. The paper reports on international experience in digital inclusion and e-governance, using examples from New Zealand, United Kingdom, Bahrain and Taiwan. These experiences illustrate how to develop a plan for increasing digital inclusion in Iraq which is aligned to the wider priorities for social and economic outcomes.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Laurence Millar</b> is an independent advisor in the use of ICT by governments, and Editor at Large for FutureGov magazine. He is the lead advisor for the e-government strategy and second action plan for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and has also worked with other GCC countries on their e-government strategies. He provides expert advice to the government on the adoption of digital technology and broadband in schools; he is also Chair of 2020 Communications Trust, which is the leading provider of digital literacy programmes in New Zealand.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">During his career of more than 35 years, he has worked in the public and private sector, in the UK, USA, Asia and New Zealand. From 2004, he led the New Zealand e-government programme providing leadership in strategy and policy, establishing a foundation of shared infrastructure, and maintaining oversight of government ICT investment; he finished in the role of NZ Government CIO on 1 May 2009.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">He is married with four adult children and lives in Wellington, New Zealand; he has a MA from Cambridge University and an MSc with distinction from London University.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p><b>The role of ICTs in promoting public participation/ Dr. Kathim Ibrisim </b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Participation is a basic feature of good governance, which suggests providing a democratic environment in the community that allows the integration of citizens, institutions of civil society, stakeholders and the poor and marginalized groups into policy-making and follow-up implementation. As much a democratic atmosphere allows for participation good governance can achieve the hopes of community regardless of its different components.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This paper provides an assessment of the reality of public participation in Iraq which is based on a survey of public participation in four sectors concerned with providing services (Health/Education/Higher Education/Water and Sanitation). It was carried out by the National Centre and the support of the ESCWA in 2011 - in the light of identification the main challenges facing the participation. It will focus on how to use ICT in promoting public participation in setting priorities and policy-making and follow-up implementation.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: justify; ">
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Dr. Kathim Mohammed Breisem Okabi, </b>Director General of the National Center for Administrative Development and Information Technology since 2008, holds Ph.D. in object-oriented software engineering, M.A. in empirical computer science – 1989, Higher Diploma in systems analysis – 1982, and B.A. of Statistics – 1980.</p>
<p>Dr. Kazem served as a professor at the universities of Jordan (Al al-Bayt University/Philadelphia University) for the period 1996-2008, a professor at the Al-Tahadi University/Libya for the period 1983 – 1992, and a statistician for the period 1980 -1983.</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Plenary Session 3: Workshop 1 (Challenges of implementing an adequate telecommunications infrastructure and<i> Highlighting the role of the private sector and the establishment of the concept of true public-private sector partnership in the field of e-governance</i>)</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Chairman: Dr. Mahmood Kassim Sharief, Director General – Ministry of Science and Technology</p>
<table class="vertical listing">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>ICT Infrastructure for e-Government and e-Governance in Iraq / Rohan Samarajiva Lirne</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Governments provisioning e government services have to address two specific policy principles with regard to infrastructure: ensure universal access to their services and assure a higher level of reliability than with comparable private services. Unlike a decade or so ago, governments today do not have to rely solely on common-access centers (telecenters) to provide universal access. In most countries, mobile signals cover almost the entirety of the population; most households have at least one electronic access device; the few that do not, can gain such access. Today’s smartphones have capabilities little different from the early telecenters, except for functionalities such as printing, scanning, etc. and the support of intermediaries. Therefore, delivering voice-based e government services in the short term and mobile-optimized web-based services in the medium term, with common-access centers performing specialized backup functions, is a viable strategy. Conventional web interfaces that adhere to common standards must be maintained but articulated with mobile applications and voice-based services provided through a government call center. In light of difficulties in supplying continuous electricity and security at the present time, special attention has to be paid to reliability. Reliability can be achieved, beginning with a proper understanding of requirements such as the importance of ensuring redundancy of suppliers, paths and media.</p>
<p><b><i> </i></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Samarajiva is founder Chair and CEO of LIRNEasia, a regional think tank focusing on ICT policy and regulation in the emerging Asia Pacific. He most recently completed a diagnostic report on the potential of the ICT Sector for inclusive growth in Bhutan for the Asian Development Bank. He is a member of the team supporting the World Bank to establish the Pacific ICT Regulatory Resource Center, based at the University of the South Pacific in Suva, Fiji. He served as policy advisor to the Ministry of Post and Telecom in Bangladesh in 2006-07 and 2009. In 2002-2004, Samarajiva served as Team Leader of the Public Interest Program Unit of the Ministry for Economic Reform, Science & Technology of Sri Lanka. He was one of the designers of the USD 53 million plus e Sri Lanka Initiative (that had a major e gov focus) that led the way to rapid growth of fixed and mobile broadband in Sri Lanka. He was one of the founder directors of the ICT Agency. Samarajiva has been active in ICT (including telecom) policy and regulation for over 20 years. From 1998-1999, he served as Director General of Telecommunications in Sri Lanka at the invitation of the Government of Sri Lanka. He taught at the Ohio State University in the US (1987-2000) and at the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands (2000-2003). </i></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: justify; ">
<p><b>The role of private sector software development services companies in e-Government solution implementation/ Shahani Markus Weerawarana</b></p>
<p>Iraq is a country in transformation and has embarked on a compelling vision for e-Government based on a National e-Governance Strategy and Action Plan. Since the private sector plays an important and pivotal role in any national e-Government program, it is important to develop a comprehensive roadmap towards establishing a true public-private sector partnership in Iraq. As a prerequisite for such an endeavor, we review the current status of the e-Government program implementation in Iraq, the critical challenges that need to be addressed in achieving a robust public-private sector partnership in Iraq and the best practices prevalent globally and regionally with respect to addressing such issues along with the resultant policy and program implications. Based on this critical analysis, we formulate many recommendations that could be included in a public-private sector partnership development roadmap that would create momentum in establishing a competitive and vibrant private-sector role in a knowledge-based economic environment geared towards enabling the vision of e-Iraq.</p>
<p><b> </b></p>
<p><i>Shahani Markus Weerawarana has<b> </b>global experience in the IT industry, government and academia, in a professional career has spanned many different roles, including being an educator, engineer, entrepreneur, manager and researcher.</i></p>
<p><i> </i></p>
<p><i>Currently, she is a Visiting Scientist at Indiana University, USA and a Visiting Lecturer at the University of Moratuwa, Sri Lanka. Previously, she was the CTO at the ICT Agency (ICTA) of Sri Lanka, which is the country's apex IT policy & planning agency for implementing the e-Sri Lanka program. At ICTA, she played a key role in providing technical guidance for many eGovernment projects, including spearheading the design and implementation of LankaGate, a 'FutureGov' Award winning project. Prior to joining ICTA, Shahani was the Head of Engineering at Virtusa (Sri Lanka), where she directly and indirectly led more than 600 IT professionals. Before joining Virtusa Shahani worked in the USA, at Prescient Markets Inc and at the IBM TJ Watson Research Center in New York.</i></p>
<p><i> </i></p>
<p><i>Her professional activities have included being a member in the Sri Lankan Presidential Task Force in English and IT, an adviser to the Royal Government of Bhutan in their Interoperability Framework and Enterprise Architecture initiative, and a member of the Open eGovernance Forum Advisory Board in the Pan Asia Network for Democratic eGovernance. She is a free & open source software advocate and is a Committer and PMC member in the Apache Software Foundation.</i></p>
<p><i> </i></p>
<p><i>Shahani has more than 50 academic publications and her academic activities include the formulation of Asia's first MBA in eGovernance program for the University of Moratuwa, and the supervision of more than 30 MBA and MSc research projects. Her research interests include e-governance, software engineering, parallel & distributed systems, e-science, and TLA practices in higher education. </i></p>
<p><i>Shahani has a Ph.D. in Computer Science from Purdue University, USA. </i></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Assess the reality of the public-private partnership (PPP) and its role in promoting ICT for development/ Raghad Abdulrasoul</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This paper, a field survey in four service sectors (health, education, higher education, water and sanitation), aims at identifying the reality and types of PPPs and how could such partnerships contribute in the provision of or complement services within the target sectors in addition to understand and recognize the quality of the services provided by the private sector than in the public sector with a focus on the role of PPP in the promotion of ICT to support national development efforts and improve the quality of public services.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Raghad Abdulrasoul, an expert at the National Center for Administrative Development and Information Technology, Higher Diploma in Development Planning/specialty in feasibility studies and B.A. of Statistics.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">She has functional experience and participated in implementing projects with international organizations (UNICEF/UNDP/ESCWA) in different subjects dealing with the reform and modernization of the Iraqi public sector. She performed many advisory tasks for various institutions in the state in subjects (performance evaluation, organizational structures, job descriptions , mainstreaming of procedures). She provided a variety of lectures at the National Centre and state institutions in the areas of administration, planning and feasibility studies.</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Workshop 2 Challenges for creating an enabling legal environment</span><br />Chairman: Mrs Afaf Khairallah Hussein, Prime Minister Office</p>
<table class="vertical listing">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p>Review of the legal environment in Iraq for effective e-Governance/ Sunil Abraham</p>
<p class="Standard" style="text-align: justify; ">This paper examines the legal environment and compares it to international best practices for information society aspects that have direct implication for e-governance. It begins with transparency and openness law where there is an examination of right to information/access to information law and subsidiary policies such as free/open source software policy, open content or access policy, open standards policy, electronic accessibility policy, open government data policy. Then it examines privacy law looking at various options for the horizontal statute and also the vertical statutes necessary to comprehensive protect citizen/consumer rights and also public interest simultaneously. This is followed by an examination of intellectual property rights law overall before a more focussed examination patent law and copyright law. The paper ends with examination of some miscellaneous statutes such as the Cyber Crime Law and Electronic Signature and Electronic Transactions Act.</p>
<p><b> </b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Sunil Abraham is the executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), Bangalore. CIS is a 4 year old policy and academic research organisation that focuses on accessibility by the disabled, intellectual property rights policy reform, openness [Free/Open Source Software, Open Standards, Open Content, Open Access and Open Educational Resources], internet governance, telecom, digital natives and digital humanities.</i></p>
<p><i> </i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>He is also the founder of Mahiti, a social enterprise aiming to reduce the cost and complexity of information and communication technology for the voluntary sector by using free software. Sunil continues to serve on the board of Mahiti. He is an Ashoka fellow and was elected for a Sarai FLOSS fellowship. For three years, Sunil also managed the International Open Source Network, a project of United Nations Development Programme's Asia-Pacific Development Information Programme, serving 42 countries in the Asia-Pacific region. In 2007 - 2008, he managed ENRAP an electronic network of International Fund for Agricultural Development projects in the Asia-Pacific, facilitated and co-funded by International Development Research Centre, Canada.</i></p>
<p><i> </i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Sunil currently serves on the advisory boards of Open Society Foundations - Information Programme, Mahiti, Tactical Technology Collective, Samvada and International Centre for Free/Open Source Software.</i></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><b>Implementation of the e-system in the Iraqi elections/<i>Dr. Tariq Kazim Ajil, University of Thi Qar</i></b>
<ul>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h3>Plenary Session 4: Effective Role of Local Governments in framework of e-Governance Program</h3>
<p>Chairman: Dr. Kathim Ibrisim, Director General - Ministry of Planning</p>
<table class="vertical listing">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p>Municipal e-Governance Platform / Manu Srivastava</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The paper discusses the Municipal eGovernance Platform developed by eGovernments Foundation (eGov). The paper sees this in the back ground of the policies and frameworks that the shaped the Municipal eGovernance sector in India. The paper discusses the basic design approach for developing the platform, the platform itself and then discusses the future direction for the platform.</p>
<p><b><i>Manu Srivastava</i></b><i> Bio: </i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Manu Srivastava managed and a founding member of the eGovernments Foundation since 2003, that aims at creating an eGovernance Platform (Municipal ERP) to improve the efficiencies of City Municipalities leading to better delivery of services. </i><i> </i></p>
<p><i> </i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Between 2000 and 2003, Manu was the project leader of GlobeTrades (Silicon Valley), for creation an Internet platform for medium and large companies to set up industry specific Internet-based solutions to streamline global Procurement and Distribution. </i><i> </i></p>
<p><i> </i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>He </i><i>Architected and delivered award winning Citizen Services Solutions in area of eGovernance such as </i><i>Nirmala Nagara. </i><i> </i></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: justify; "><b>Ninawa e-Governance Roadmap/ Anmar Natik Mohammed, Manager of e-Governance Programme in Ninawa Governorate </b><br /></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Plenary Session 5: Challenges of Government Interoperability Framework Implementation, Standards and Information</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Chairman: Mr. Mohammed Raji Mousa, Council of Ministers Secretariat (COMSEC)</p>
<table class="vertical listing">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p><b>Government Interoperability Frameworks: Global Overview and implications for Iraq/ Sunil Abraham</b></p>
<p class="Standard" style="text-align: justify; ">This paper attempts to identify some next steps for the implementation of the Iraqi Government Interoperability Framework and National Enterprise Architecture[GIF/NEA]. The paper begins with an introduction which provides an historical overview of the GIF/NEA formulation process an the policy document itself. This is followed by a discussion of Open Standards to understand why the GIF/NEA and other open standards policies in the Iraqi government remain critical from a variety of perspectives. The paper then proceeds to look at GIFs across the world and attempts to characterize some of the strategies employed by governments to reach their policy objectives. The paper also features a examination of emerging semantic standards that are most useful from the perspective of storing government data. The paper ends with certain concrete recommendations for taking the open standards agenda forward with Iraqi e-governance.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Sunil Abraham is the executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), Bangalore. CIS is a 4 year old policy and academic research organisation that focuses on accessibility by the disabled, intellectual property rights policy reform, openness [Free/Open Source Software, Open Standards, Open Content, Open Access and Open Educational Resources], internet governance, telecom, digital natives and digital humanities.</i></p>
<p><i> </i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>He is also the founder of Mahiti, a social enterprise aiming to reduce the cost and complexity of information and communication technology for the voluntary sector by using free software. Sunil continues to serve on the board of Mahiti. He is an Ashoka fellow and was elected for a Sarai FLOSS fellowship. For three years, Sunil also managed the International Open Source Network, a project of United Nations Development Programme's Asia-Pacific Development Information Programme, serving 42 countries in the Asia-Pacific region. In 2007 - 2008, he managed ENRAP an electronic network of International Fund for Agricultural Development projects in the Asia-Pacific, facilitated and co-funded by International Development Research Centre, Canada.</i></p>
<p><i> </i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Sunil currently serves on the advisory boards of Open Society Foundations - Information Programme, Mahiti, Tactical Technology Collective, Samvada and International Centre for Free/Open Source Software.</i></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Plenary Session 6: Building e-services</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Chairman: Dr. Saad Najem / University of Mustanserieh</p>
<table class="vertical listing">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Breaking information silos: towards an Iraqi e-Service ecosystem supporting the life-event approach/ Emilio Bugli Innocenti</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This paper analyses the current status of the e-Service implementation within the e-Governance programmes in developing countries with a specific focus on the Life Event approach delivery of-e-Services along with the related Service Oriented Architecture. Then, it discusses the most suited SOA engineering methodology in order to boost e-Service re-use and integration. Finally, a combined SOA and Cloud Computing approach is proposed in order to provide an effective/efficient implementation of Iraqi e-Governance Action Plan along with a possible fast take-up of e-Services.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Emilio Bugli Innocenti has 27 year experience in the ICT domain and over 20 in the e-Governance domain. As Senior e-Governance Consultant he has been working with assignments in transition and developing countries in the Balkans, Caucasus, Middle East, South America and South East Asia. He has been Project Manager of large International ICT projects targeting different sectors and e-Governance, in particular dealing with the implementation of e-Services. He is member of the Italian Industry Executive Association, IEEE Computer Society and Association for Computing Machinery. He holds a MSc in Physics and speaks English, Italian and French.</i></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: justify; ">
<p><b>E-governance and cloud computing services</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This lecture addresses the historical perspective of cloud computing from a virtual concept to provide computing as a public facility launched in the mid-sixties of the last century as well as the phases of computing services offered by individual computers and then the network to the services provided on line. It also addresses the benefits and types of cloud computing comparing between the benefits and weaknesses of each type. Furthermore, it particularly tackles the economic benefits of balancing security with information, through the architecture and various levels of cloud computing and its impacts on architectures that must be taken into consideration.</p>
<p>Furthermore, the ten risks will be put in cloud computing in particular.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Adil Matloob is one of the advisors to the Ministry of Science & Technology Baghdad, Iraq. He works in the field of knowledge based systems and artificial intelligence for the last 30 plus years. He was the managing director of the SoftDev limited; a British based company, and a technical director for the Washington based multinational company; the United Press International. He is one of the pioneers’ researchers on machine translation software in the beginning of the nineties with the product known as ArabTrans software. He works on Arabic data mining as well as Arabic abstraction and Arabic knowledge based system.</p>
Adil has M.Sc and PhD from Manchester University, Manchester, United Kingdom in 1977 & 1980 respectively.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/second-international-e-governance-conference-at-baghdad'>https://cis-india.org/news/second-international-e-governance-conference-at-baghdad</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaOpen StandardsInternet GovernanceICT2012-12-11T10:50:29ZNews ItemTranscripts from WCIT-12
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/transcripts-of-wcit-2012
<b>We are archiving copies of the live-transcripts from the World Conference on International Telecommunications, 2012 (WCIT-12) which is being held in Dubai from 3–14 December, 2012.</b>
<p>This is an unedited rough transcript of the discussions/sessions at the WCIT,2012 which is <a href="http://www.streamtext.net/player?event=CFI-WCIT">live-streamed and made available by the ITU</a>. We are hosting the live-streamed text for archival purposes: </p>
<p><a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/transcript-of-the-opening-ceremony-wcit-2012" class="external-link">Day 1 - WCIT-2012: Opening Ceremony (December 3, 2012)</a></p>
<p><a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/transcript-of-the-plenary-1-wcit-12" class="external-link">Day 1 - WCIT-2012: Plenary 1 (December 3, 2012)<br /></a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/transcripts-of-wcit-2012'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/transcripts-of-wcit-2012</a>
</p>
No publishersnehashishLive BlogInternet Governance2012-12-03T14:00:21ZBlog Entry