Centre for Internet and Society

Analysing Latest List of Blocked Sites (Communalism & Rioting Edition)

pranesh — 2012-09-06T11:52:47Z

Pranesh Prakash does preliminary analysis on a leaked list of the websites blocked from August 18, 2012 till August 21, 2012 by the Indian government.

Note: This post will be updated as more analysis is done. Last update: 23:59 on August 22, 2012. This is being shared under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial licence.

How many items have been blocked?

There are a total of 309 specific items (those being URLs, Twitter accounts, img tags, blog posts, blogs, and a handful of websites) that have been blocked. This number is meaningless at one level, given that it doesn't differentiate between the blocking of an entire website (with dozens or hundreds of web pages) from the blocking of a single webpage. However, given that very few websites have been blocked at the domain-level, that number is still reasonably useful.

Please also note, we currently only have information related to what telecom companies and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) were asked to block till August 21, 2012. We do not have information on what individual web services have been asked to remove. That might take the total count much higher.

Why have these been blocked?

As far as I could determine, all of the blocked items have content (mostly videos and images have been targeted, but also some writings) that are related to communal issues and rioting. (Please note: I am not calling the content itself "communal" or "incitement to rioting", just that the content relates to communal issues and rioting.) This has been done in the context of the recent riots in Assam, Mumbai, UP, and the mass movement of people from Bangalore.

There were reports of parody Twitter accounts having been blocked. Preliminary analysis on the basis of available data show that parody Twitter accounts and satire sites have not been targetted solely for being satirical. For instance, very popular parody Twitter accounts, such as @DrYumYumSingh are not on any of the four orders circulated by the Department of Telecom. (I have no information on whether such parody accounts are being taken up directly with Twitter or not: just that they aren't being blocked at the ISP-level. Media reports indicate six accounts have been taken up with Twitter for being similar to the Prime Minister's Office's account.)

Are the blocks legitimate?

The goodness of the government's intentions seem, quite clearly in my estimation, to be unquestionable. Yet, even with the best intentions, there might be procedural illegalities and over-censorship.

There are circumstances in which freedom of speech and expression may legitimately be limited. The circumstances that existed in Bangalore could justifiably result in legitimate limitations on freedom of speech. For instance, I believe that temporary curbs — such as temporarily limiting SMSes & MMSes to a maximum of five each fifteen minutes for a period of two days — would have been helpful.

However it is unclear whether the government has exercised its powers responsibly in this circumstance. The blocking of many of the items on that list are legally questionable and morally indefensible, even while a some of the items ought, in my estimation, to be removed.

If the government has blocked these sites under s.69A of the Information Technology Act ("Power to Issue Directions for Blocking for Public Access of Any Information through any Computer Resource"), the persons and intermediaries hosting the content should have been notified provided 48 hours to respond (under Rule 8 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules 2009). Even if the emergency provision (Rule 9) was used, the block issued on August 18, 2012, should have been introduced before the "Committee for Examination of Request" by August 20, 2012 (i.e., within 48 hours), and that committee should have notified the persons and intermediaries hosting the content.

Importantly, even though many of the items on that list are repugnant and do deserve (in my opinion) to be removed, ordering ISPs to block them is largely ineffectual. The people and companies hosting the material should have been asked to remove it, instead of ordering Internet service providers (ISPs) to block them. All larger sites have clear content removal policies, and encouraging communal tensions and hate speech generally wouldn't be tolerated. That this can be done without resort to the dreadful Intermediary Guidelines Rules (which were passed last year) shows that those Rules are unnecessary. It is our belief that those Rules are also unconstitutional.

Are there any egregious mistakes?

Yes, there are numerous such examples of egregious mistakes.

Most importantly, some even people and posts debunking rumours have been blocked.
Some of the Twitter accounts are of prominent people who write for the mainstream media, and who have written similar content offline. If their online content is being complained about, their offline content should be complained about too.
Quite a number of the links include articles published and reports broadcast in the mainstream media (including a Times Now report, a Telegraph picture gallery, etc.), and in print, making the blocks suspect. Only the online content seems to have been targeted for censorship.

There are numerous mistakes and inconsistencies that make blocking pointless and ineffectual.

Some of the items are not even web addresses (e.g., a few HTML img tags were included).
Some of the items they have tried to block do not even exist (e.g., one of the Wikipedia URLs).
An entire domain was blocked on Sunday, and a single post on that domain was blocked on Monday.
For some Facebook pages, the secure version (https://facebook.com/...) is listed, for others the non-secure version (http://facebook.com/...) is listed.
For some YouTube videos, the 'base' URL of YouTube videos is blocked, but for other the URL with various parameters (like the "&related=" parameter) is blocked. That means that even nominally 'blocked' videos will be freely accessible.

All in all, it is clear that the list was not compiled with sufficient care.

Despite a clear warning by the DIT that "above URLs only" should be blocked, and not "the main websites like www.facebook.com, www.youtube.com, www.twitter.com, etc.", it has been seen that some ISPs (like Airtel) have gone overboard in their blocking.

Why haven't you put up the whole list?

Given the sensitivity of the issue, we felt it would be premature to share the whole list. However, we strongly believe that transparency should be an integral part of all censorship. Hence, this analysis is an attempt to provide some much-needed transparency. We intend to make the entire list public soon, though. (Given how porous such information is, it is likely that someone else will procure the list, and release it sooner than us.)

Why can I still access many items that are supposed to be blocked?

One must keep in mind that fresh orders have been issued on a day-by-day basis, that there are numerous mistakes in the list making it difficult to apply (some of these mistakes have been mentioned above), and the fact that that this order has to be implemented by hundreds of ISPs.

Your ISP probably has not have got around to enforcing the blocks yet. At the time of this writing, most ISPs don't seem to be blocking yet. This analysis is based on the orders sent around to ISPs, and not on the basis of actual testing of how many of these have actually been blocked by Airtel, BSNL, Tata, etc.

Additionally, if you are using Twitter through a client (on your desktop, mobile, etc.) instead of the web interface, you will not notice any of the Twitter-related blocks.

So you are fine with censorship?

No. I believe that in some cases, the government has the legal authority to censor. Yet, exercising that legal authority is usually not productive, and in fact there are other, better ways of limiting the harms caused by speech and information than censorship. Limiting speech might even prove harmful in situations like these, if it ends up restricting people's ability to debunk false rumours. In a separate blog post (to be put up soon), I am examining how all of the government's responses have been flawed both legally and from the perspective of achieving the desired end.

So what should the government have done?

Given that the majority of the information it is targeting is on Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter, the government could have chosen to fight alongside those services to get content removed expeditiously, rather than fight against them. (There are some indications that the government might be working with these services, but it certainly isn't doing enough.)

For instance, it could have asked all of them to expedite their complaints mechanism for a few days, by ensuring that the complaints mechanism is run 24x7 and that they respond quickly to any complaint submitted about communal incitement, spreading of panic, etc. This does not need the passing of an order under any law, but requires good public relations skills and a desire not to treat internet services as enemies. The government could have encouraged regular users to flag false rumours and hate speech on these sites. On such occasions, social networking sites should step up and provide all lawful assistance that the government may require. They should also be more communicative in terms of the help they are providing to the government to curtail panic-inducing rumours and hate speech. (Such measures should largely be reactive, not proactive, to ensure legitimate speech doesn't get curtailed.)

The best antidote for the rumours that spread far and wide and caused a mass movement of people from Bangalore to the North-Eastern states would have been clear debunking of those rumours. Mass outreach to people in the North-East (very often the worried parents) and in Bangalore using SMSes and social media, debunking the very specific allegations and rumours that were floating around, would have been welcome. However, almost no government officials actually used social media platforms to reach out to people to debunk false information and reassure them. Even a Canadian interning in our organization got a reassuring SMS from the Canadian government.

It is indeed a pity that the government notified a social media engagement policy today, when the need for it was so very apparent all of the past week.

And what of all this talk of cybersecurity failure and cyber-wars?

Cybersecurity is indeed a cause of concern for India, but only charlatans and the ignorant would make any connection between India's cybersecurity and recent events. The role of Pakistan deserves a few words. Not many Pakistani websites / webpages have been blocked by the Indian government. Two of the Pakistani webpages that have been blocked are actually pages that debunk the fake images that have been doing the rounds in Pakistan for at least the past month. Even Indian websites like Kafila have noted these fake images long ago, and Ayesha Siddiqa wrote about this on August 5, 2012, and Yousuf Saeed wrote about it on August 13, 2012. Even while material that may have been uploaded from Pakistan, it seems highly unlikely they were targeted at an Indian audience, rather than a Pakistani or global one.

Domain	Total Number of Entries	Tuesday, August 21, 2012	Monday, August 20, 2012	Sunday, August 19, 2012	Saturday, August 18, 2012
ABC.net.au	1				1
AlJazeera.com	4		4
AllVoices.com	1				1
WN.com	1				1
AtjehCyber.net	1				1
BDCBurma.org	1	1
Bhaskar.com	1			1
Blogspot.com	4			3	1
Blogspot.in	7	1	3		3
Catholic.org	1			1
CentreRight.in	2	2
ColumnPK.com	1			1
Defence.pk	4		2	1	1
EthioMuslimsMedia.com	1				1
Facebook.com (HTTP)	75	36	7	18	14
Facebook.com (HTTPS)	27		3	23	1
Farazahmed.com	5	1			4
Firstpost.com	2		1	1
HaindavaKerelam.com	1			1
HiddenHarmonies.org	1		1
HinduJagruti.org	2		1	1
Hotklix.com	1			1
HumanRights-Iran.ir	2				2
Intichat.com	1	1
Irrawady.org	1			1
IslamabadTimesOnline.com	1				1
Issuu.com	1				1
JafriaNews.com	1				1
JihadWatch.org	2		2
KavkazCenter	1			1
MwmJawan.com	1				1
My.Opera.com	1	1
Njuice.com	1		1
OnIslam.net	1				1
PakAlertPress.com	1	1
Plus.Google.com	4				4
Reddit.com	1		1
Rina.in	1				1
SandeepWeb.com	1		1
SEAYouthSaySo.com	1				1
Sheikyermami.com	1				1
StormFront.org	1				1
Telegraph.co.uk	1				1
TheDailyNewsEgypt.com	1				1
TheFaultLines.com	1				1
ThePetitionSite.com	1	1
TheUnity.org	1				1
TimesofIndia.Indiatimes.com	1		1
TimesOfUmmah.com	1				1
Tribune.com.pk	1	1
Twitter.com (HTTP)	1			1
Twitter.com (HTTPS)	11			1	10
Twitter account	18		16	2
TwoCircles.net	2			2
Typepad.com	1		1
Vidiov.info	1		1
Wikipedia.org	3			3
Wordpress.com	8	1	3	2	2
YouTube.com	85	18	39	14	14
YouTu.be	1			1
Totals	309	65	88	80	75

The analysis has been cross-posted/quoted in the following places:

LiveMint (September 4, 2012)
The Hindu (August 26, 2012)
Wall Street Journal (August 25, 2012)
tech 2 (August 25, 2012)
China Post (August 25, 2012)
The Hindu (August 24, 2012)
LiveMint (August 24, 2012)
Global Voices (August 24, 2012)
Reuters (August 24, 2012)
Outlook (August 23, 2012)
FirstPost.India (August 23, 2012)
IBN Live (August 23, 2012)
News Click (August 23, 2012)
Medianama (August 23, 2012)
KAFILA (August 23, 2012)
CIOL (August 23, 2012)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/analysing-blocked-sites-riots-communalism

CIS Position Paper on Net Neutrality in India (Background Submission to TRAI)

pranesh — 2016-03-25T16:35:12Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/net-neutrality/2015-06-29_PositionPaperonNetNeutralityinIndia

Aadhaar: Still Too Many Problems

pranesh — 2016-04-06T15:31:32Z

While one wishes to welcome govt’s attempt to bring Aadhaar within a legislative framework, the fact is there are too many problems that still remain unaddressed for one to be optimistic.

The article was published by Livemint on March 7, 2016.

The Aadhaar Bill has been introduced as a money bill, even though it doesn’t qualify as such under Article 110 of the Constitution. If the Speaker agrees to this, it will render the Rajya Sabha toothless in this matter, and will weaken our democracy. The government should reintroduce it as an ordinary legislative bill, which is what it is.

While the government has in the past argued before the Supreme Court that Aadhaar is voluntary, Section 7 of the bill allows the government to mandate an Aadhaar number (or application for an Aadhaar number) as a prerequisite for obtaining some subsidies, benefits, services, etc. This undermines its arguments before the Supreme Court, which led the court to pass orders holding that Aadhaar should not be made mandatory. This move to make it mandatory will now need the government to argue that rather than contravene the apex court order, it has instead removed the rationale for it.

Interestingly, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government seems to have done a U-turn on the issue of the unique identification number not being proof of citizenship or domicile. The previous Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government never meant the Aadhaar number to be proof of citizenship or domicile. This was attacked by the Yashwant Sinha-chaired standing committee on finance, which feared that illegal immigrants would get Aadhaar numbers. Now, the BJP and the NDA seem to be in agreement with the original UPA vision of Aadhaar.

Importantly, there is very strong language when it comes to the issue of privacy and confidentiality of the information that is held by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). Section 29 (1), for instance, says that no biometric information will be shared for any reason whatsoever, or used for any purpose other than Aadhaar number generation and authentication. However, that provision is undermined wholly by Section 33, which says that “in the interest of national security”, the biometric info may be accessed if authorized by a joint secretary. This will only fan the fears of those who have argued that the real rationale for Aadhaar was not, in fact, delivery of services, but to create a national database of biometric data available to government snoops.

Also Read

Pros and cons of Aadhaar bill

Further, there are no remedies available for governmental abuse of this provision.

Lastly, in terms of privacy, the concern of those people who have been opposing Aadhaar is not just that the biometric and other identity information may be leaked to private parties, but also that having a unique Aadhaar number helps private parties to combine and use other databases that are linked with Aadhaar numbers in a manner that is not within the subject’s control. This is not at all addressed in this bill, and we need a robust data protection law in order to do that.

There are some other crucial details that the law doesn’t address: Is user consent, to be taken by third parties that use the UID database for authentication, needed for each instance of authentication, or would a general consent hold forever? How can consent be revoked?

There were many other objections that were raised against the Aadhaar scheme that have not been addressed by the government. For instance, in a recent article in the Economic and Political Weekly, Hans Varghese Mathews points out that going by the test data UIDAI made available in 2012, for a population of 1.3 billion people, the incidence of false positives—the probability of the identities of two people matching—is 1/112.

This is far too high a ratio to be acceptable.

Actual data from the field in Andhra Pradesh—of people who were unable to claim rations under the public distribution system (PDS)—paints a worse picture. A survey commissioned by the Andhra Pradesh government said 48% of respondents pointed to Aadhaar-related failures as the cause of their inability to claim rations.

So, even if the Aadhaar numbers were no longer issued to Lord Hanuman (Rajasthan), to dogs (e.g., Tommy Singh, a mutt in Madhya Pradesh), and with photos of a tree (New Delhi), it might not prove to be usable in a country of India’s size, given the capabilities of the fingerprint machines. As my colleague Sunil Abraham notes, the law cannot fix technological flaws.

So, while one wishes one could welcome the government’s attempt to bring Aadhaar within a legislative framework, the fact is there are too many problems that still remain unaddressed for one to be optimistic.

Pranesh Prakash is policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society, a think tank.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/livemint-march-7-2016-pranesh-prakash-aadhaar-still-too-many-problems

CIS Welcomes Standing Committee Report on IT Rules

pranesh — 2013-04-03T10:54:52Z

The Centre for Internet and Society welcomes the report by the Standing Committee on Subordinate Legislation, in which it has lambasted the government and has recommended that the government amend the Rules it passed in April 2011 under section 79 of the Information Technology Act.

Click to read the Parliamentary Standing Committee Report on the IT Rules. A modified version was published in CiOL on March 27, 2013.

These rules have been noted by many, including CIS, Software Freedom Law Centre, and Society for Knowledge Commons, and many eminent lawyers, as being unconstitutional. The Standing Committee, noting this, has asked the government to make changes to the Rules to ensure that the fundamental rights to freedom of speech and privacy are safeguarded, and that the principles of natural justice are respected when a person’s freedom of speech or privacy are curtailed.

Ambiguous and Over-reaching Language

The Standing Committee has noted the inherent ambiguity of words like "blasphemy", "disparaging", etc., which are used in the Intermediary Guidelines Rules, and has pointed out that unclear language can lead to harassment of people as has happened with Section 66A of the IT Act, and can lead to legitimate speech being removed. Importantly, the Standing Committee recognizes that many categories of speech prohibited by the Intermediary Guidelines Rules are not prohibited by any statute, and hence cannot be prohibited by the government through these Rules. Accordingly, the Standing Committee has asked the government to ensure "no new category of crimes or offences is created" by these Rules.

Government Confused Whether Rules Are Mandatory or Advisory

The Standing Committee further notes that there is a discrepancy in the government’s stand that the Intermediary Guidelines Rules are not mandatory, and are only "of advisory nature and self-regulation", and that "it is not mandatory for the Intermediary to disable the information, the rule does not lead to any kind of censorship". The Standing Committee points out the flaw in this, and notes that the language used in the rules is mandatory language (“shall act” within 36 hours). Thus, it rightly notes that there is a "need for clarity on the aforesaid contradiction". Further, it also notes that there is "there should be safeguards to protect against any abuse", since this is a form of private censorship by intermediaries."

Evidence Needed Against Foreign Websites

The government has told the Standing Committee that "foreign websites repeatedly refused to honour our laws", however, it has not provided any proof for this assertion. The government should make public all evidence that foreign web services are refusing to honour Indian laws, and should encourage a public debate on how we should tackle this problem in light of the global nature of the Internet.

Cyber Cafes Rules Violate Citizens’ Privacy

The Standing Committee also pointed out that the Cyber Cafe Rules violated citizens’ right to privacy in requiring that "screens of the computers installed other than in partitions and cubicles should face open space of the cyber café". Unfortunately, the Standing Committee did not consider the privacy argument against retention of extensive and intrusive logs. Under the Cyber Cafe Rules, cyber cafes are required to retain (for a minimum of one year) extensive logs, including that of "history of websites accessed using computer resource at cyber café" in such a manner that each website accessed can be linked to a person. The Committee only considered the argument that this would impose financial burdens on small cybercafes, and rejected that argument. CIS wishes the Committee had examined the provision on log maintenance on grounds of privacy as well."

Government’s Half-Truths

In one response, the government notes that "rules under Section 79 in particular have undergone scrutiny by High Courts in the country. Based on the Rules, the courts have given reliefs to a number of individuals and organizations in the country. No provision of the Rules notified under Sections 43A and 79 of the IT Act, 2000 have been held ultra vires."

What the government says is a half-truth. So far, courts have not struck down any of the IT Rules. But that is because none of the High Court cases in which the vires of the Rules have been challenged has concluded. So it is disingenuous of the government to claim that the Rule have "undergone scrutiny by High Courts". And in those cases where relief has been granted under the Intermediary Guidelines, the cases have been ex-parte or have been cases where the vires of the Rules have not been challenged. The government, if it wants to defend the Rules, should point out to any case in which the vires of the Rules have been upheld. Not a single court till date has declared the Rules to be constitutional when that question was before it.

Lack of Representation of Stakeholders in Policy Formulation

Lastly, the Standing Committee noted that it is not clear whether the Cyber Regulatory Advisory Committee (CRAC), which is responsible for policy guidance on the IT Act, has "members representing the interests of principally affected or having special knowledge of the subject matter as expressly stipulated in Section 88(2) of the IT Act". This is a problem that we at CIS also noted in November 2012, when the CRAC was reconstituted after having been defunct for more than a decade.

CIS hopes that the government finally takes note of the view of legal experts, the Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, the Parliamentary motion against the Rules, and numerous articles and editorials in the press, and withdraws the Intermediary Guidelines Rules and the Cyber Cafe Rules, and instead replaces them with rules that do not infringe our constitutional rights.

The Centre for Internet and Society is a non-profit research organization that works on policy issues relating to freedom of expression, privacy, accessibility for persons with disabilities, access to knowledge and IPR reform, and openness, and engages in academic research on digital natives and digital humanities. It was among the organizations that submitted evidence to the Standing Committee on Subordinate Legislation on the IT Rules.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-welcomes-standing-committee-report-on-it-rules

Surveillance and the Indian Constitution - Part 1: Foundations

pranesh — 2014-01-23T15:12:30Z

In this insightful seven-part series, Gautam Bhatia looks at surveillance and the right to privacy in India from a constitutional perspective, tracing its genealogy through Supreme Court case law and compares it with the law in the USA.

Note: This was originally posted on the Indian Constitutional Law and Philosophy blog.

On previous occasions, we have discussed the ongoing litigation in ACLU v. Clapper in the United States, a challenge to the constitutionality of the National Security Agency’s (NSA) bulk surveillance program. Recall that a short while after the initial Edward Snowden disclosures, The Hindu revealed the extent of domestic surveillance in India, under the aegis of the Central Monitoring System (CMS). The CMS (and what it does) is excellently summarized here. To put thing starkly and briefly:

“With the C.M.S., the government will get centralized access to all communications metadata and content traversing through all telecom networks in India. This means that the government can listen to all your calls, track a mobile phone and its user’s location, read all your text messages, personal e-mails and chat conversations. It can also see all your Google searches, Web site visits, usernames and passwords if your communications aren’t encrypted.”

The CMS is not sanctioned by parliamentary legislation. It also raises serious privacy concerns. In order to understand the constitutional implications, therefore, we need to investigate Indian privacy jurisprudence. In a series of posts, we plan to discuss that.

Privacy is not mentioned in the Constitution. It plays no part in the Constituent Assembly Debates. The place of the right – if it exists – must therefore be located within the structure of the Constitution, as fleshed out by judicial decisions. The first case to address the issue was M. P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, in 1954. In that case, the Court upheld search and seizure in the following terms:

"A power of search and seizure is in any system of jurisprudence an overriding power of the State for the protection of social security and that power is necessarily regulated by law. When the Constitution makers have thought fit not to subject such regulation to Constitutional limitations by recognition of a fundamental right to privacy, analogous to the American Fourth Amendment, we have no justification to import it, into a totally different fundamental right. by some process of strained construction."

The right in question was 19(1)(f) – the right to property. Notice here that the Court did not reject a right to privacy altogether – it only rejected it in the context of searches and seizures for documents, the specific prohibition of the American Fourth Amendment (that has no analogue in India). This specific position, however, would not last too long, and was undermined by the very next case to consider this question, Kharak Singh.

In Kharak Singh v. State of UP, the UP Police Regulations conferred surveillance power upon certain “history sheeters” – that is, those charged (though not necessarily convicted) of a crime. These surveillance powers included secret picketing of the suspect’s house, domiciliary visits at night, enquiries into his habits and associations, and reporting and verifying his movements. These were challenged on Article 19(1)(d) (freedom of movement) and Article 21 (personal liberty) grounds. It is the second ground that particularly concerns us.

As a preliminary matter, we may observe that the Regulations in question were administrative – that is, they did not constitute a “law”, passed by the legislature. This automatically ruled out a 19(2) – 19(6) defence, and a 21 “procedure established by law” defence – which were only applicable when the State made a law. The reason for this is obvious: fundamental rights are extremely important. If one is to limit them, then that judgment must be made by a competent legislature, acting through the proper, deliberative channels of lawmaking – and not by mere administrative or executive action. Consequently – and this is quite apart from the question of administrative/executive competence - if the Police Regulations were found to violate Article 19 or Article 21, that made them ipso facto void, without the exceptions kicking in. (Paragraph 5)

It is also important to note one other thing: as a defence, it was expressly argued by the State that the police action was reasonable and in the interests of maintaining public order precisely because it was “directed only against those who were on proper grounds suspected to be of proved anti-social habits and tendencies and on whom it was necessary to impose some restraints for the protection of society.” The Court agreed, observing that this would have “an overwhelming and even decisive weight in establishing that the classification was rational and that the restrictions were reasonable and designed to preserve public order by suitable preventive action” – if there had been a law in the first place, which there wasn’t. Thus, this issue itself was hypothetical, but what is crucial to note is that the State argued – and the Court endorsed – the basic idea that what makes surveillance reasonable under Article 19 is the very fact that it is targeted – targeted at individuals who are specifically suspected of being a threat to society because of a history of criminality.

Let us now move to the merits. The Court upheld secret picketing on the ground that it could not affect the petitioner’s freedom of movement since it was, well secret – and what you don’t know, apparently, cannot hurt you. What the Court found fault with was the intrusion into the petitioner’s dwelling, and knocking at his door late at night to wake him up. The finding required the Court to interpret the meaning of the term “personal liberty” in Article 21. By contrasting the very specific rights listed in Article 21, the Court held that:

“Is then the word “personal liberty” to be construed as excluding from its purview an invasion on the part of the police of the sanctity of a man’s home and an intrusion into his personal security and his right to sleep which is the normal comfort and a dire necessity for human existence even as an animal? It might not be inappropriate to refer here to the words of the preamble to the Constitution that it is designed to “assure the dignity of the individual” and therefore of those cherished human value as the means of ensuring his full development and evolution. We are referring to these objectives of the framers merely to draw attention to the concepts underlying the constitution which would point to such vital words as “personal liberty” having to be construed in a reasonable manner and to be attributed that these which would promote and achieve those objectives and by no means to stretch the meaning of the phrase to square with any preconceived notions or doctrinaire constitutional theories.” (Paragraph 16)

A few important observations need to be made about this paragraph. The first is that it immediately follows the Court’s examination of the American Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, with their guarantees of “life, liberty and property…” and is, in turn, followed by the Court’s examination of the American Fourth Amendment, which guarantees the protection of a person’s houses, papers, effects etc from unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court’s engagement with the Fourth Amendment is ambiguous. It admits that “our Constitution contains no like guarantee…”, but holds that nonetheless “these extracts [from the 1949 case, Wolf v Colorado] would show that an unauthorised intrusion into a person’s home and the disturbance caused to him thereby, is as it were the violation of a common law right of a man – an ultimate essential of ordered liberty”, thus tying its own holding in some way to the American Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. But here’s the crucial thing: at this point, American Fourth Amendment jurisprudence was propertarian based – that is, the Fourth Amendment was understood to codify – with added protection – the common law of trespass, whereby a man’s property was held sacrosanct, and not open to be trespassed against. Four years later, in 1967, in Katz, the Supreme Court would shift its own jurisprudence, to holding that the Fourth Amendment protected zones where persons had a “reasonable expectation of privacy”, as opposed to simply protecting listed items of property (homes, papers, effects etc). Kharak Singh was handed down before Katz. Yet the quoted paragraph expressly shows that the Court anticipated Katz, and in expressly grounding the Article 21 personal liberty right within the meaning of dignity, utterly rejected the propertarian-tresspass foundations that it might have had. To use a phrase invoked by later Courts – in this proto-privacy case, the Court already set the tone by holding it to attach to persons, not places.

While effectively finding a right to privacy in the Constitution, the Court expressly declined to frame it that way. In examining police action which involved tracking a person’s location, association and movements, the Court upheld it, holding that “the right of privacy is not a guaranteed right under our Constitution and therefore the attempt to ascertain the movements of an individual which is merely a manner in which privacy is invaded is not an infringement of a fundamental right guaranteed by Part III.”

The “therefore” is crucial. Although not expressly, the Court virtually holds, in terms, that tracking location, association and movements does violate privacy, and only finds that constitutional because there is no guaranteed right to privacy within the Constitution. Yet.

In his partly concurring and partly dissenting opinion, Subba Rao J. went one further, by holding that the idea of privacy was, in fact, contained within the meaning of Article 21: “it is true our Constitution does not expressly declare a right to privacy as a fundamental right, but the said right is an essential ingredient of personal liberty.” Privacy he defined as the right to “be free from restrictions or encroachments on his person, whether those restrictions or encroachments are directly imposed or indirectly brought about by calculated measures.” On this ground, he held all the surveillance measures unconstitutional.

Justice Subba Rao’s opinion also explored a proto-version of the chilling effect. Placing specific attention upon the word “freely” contained within 19(1)(d)’s guarantee of free movment, Justice Subba Rao went specifically against the majority, and observed:

“The freedom of movement in clause (d) therefore must be a movement in a free country, i.e., in a country where he can do whatever he likes, speak to whomsoever he wants, meet people of his own choice without any apprehension, subject of course to the law of social control. The petitioner under the shadow of surveillance is certainly deprived of this freedom. He can move physically, but he cannot do so freely, for all his activities are watched and noted. The shroud of surveillance cast upon him perforce engender inhibitions in him and he cannot act freely as he would like to do. We would, therefore, hold that the entire Regulation 236 offends also Art. 19(1)(d) of the Constitution.”

This early case, therefore, has all the aspects that plague the CMS today. What to do with administrative action that does not have the sanction of law? What role does targeting play in reasonableness – assuming there is a law? What is the philosophical basis for the implicit right to privacy within the meaning of Article 21’s guarantee of personal liberty? And is the chilling effect a valid constitutional concern?

We shall continue with the development of the jurisprudence in the next post.

You can follow Gautam Bhatia on Twitter

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/surveillance-and-the-indian-consitution-part-1

Robert Horowitz

pranesh — 2010-01-13T07:04:34Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/home-images/RH.jpg

Eben Moglen

pranesh — 2008-12-11T07:40:59Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/ebenmoglen.jpg

Pixel Pirate II - Still 1

pranesh — 2008-12-14T15:52:20Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/PixelPirateII-01.jpg

Pixel Pirate II - Still 2

pranesh — 2008-12-14T15:53:16Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/PixelPirateII-02.jpg

Pixel Pirate II - Still 3

pranesh — 2008-12-14T16:28:35Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/ppii-still.jpg

Pixel Pirate II - DVD Cover

pranesh — 2008-12-14T16:29:19Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/dvd.jpg

Counter-proposal by the Centre for Internet and Society: Draft Information Technology (Intermediary Due Diligence and Information Removal) Rules, 2012

pranesh — 2016-04-24T11:48:49Z

Any restriction on freedom of speech should embody and be guided by the following principles, as identified by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/counter-proposal-by-cis-draft-it-intermediary-due-diligence-and-information-removal-rules-2012.pdf

Letter from Civil Society Organizations to CII

pranesh — 2011-04-02T15:15:44Z

A total of 29 groups and individuals expressed their concern about the drive by CII to introduce TRIPS-plus enforcement standards in India.

Original report in Business Standard

Govt accepts panel report against narrowing of Indian patent law

BS Reporter / New Delhi August 18, 2009, 1:14 IST

The central government has accepted the recommendations of an expert committee headed by former Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) chief R A Mashelkar on patent laws. The committee had concluded that limiting the grant of patents for pharmaceutical substances to new chemical entities will be a violation of the TRIPS agreement of the World Trade Organization (WTO).

In effect, the committee endorsed the current position taken by India, in allowing patenting of known medicines if they have substantial new therapeutic uses.

The Mashelkar committee was formed after the government got passed the Patent Bill in 2005. It was assigned to see if the demand for narrowing the patent laws would breach India’s obligations under the WTO agreement. Mashelkar had presented the committee report in 2007, only for it to be withdrawn due to complaints of “technical errors”. The revised copy, submitted to the government few months ago, was accepted recently.

The move has come as a setback to many civic groups who were hoping to see a a constriction of Indian patent laws. The domestic lobby groups were heartened after a committee of Parliamentarians recently recommended changes in the existing rules to limit patenting of medicines to just “new chemical entities”.

In a letter to commerce minister Anand Sharma, the National Working Group on Patent Laws asked for the “recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee to take precedence over those of the Mashelkar committee.” It wanted the Mashelkar committee recommendations to be disregarded and appropriate amendments introduced in the Patents Act, 1970.

The civil society groups are stepping up protest against the “alleged” move to link “counterfeit” issues with intellectual property protection. In an open letter to Confederation of Indian Industry today, 21 groups have protested against the intellectual property enforcement initiatives of the CII.

“It is disheartening to note that the CII, being an Indian industry organization, is hosting the Third International Conference on Counterfeiting and Piracy from 19-20th August 2009 in partnership with American Embassy and the Quality Brand Protection Committee (QBPC), China, a body that comprises over 80 multinational corporations”, Linu Mathew Phillip, acting director of the Delhi-based Centre for Trade and Development said. “It is of immense concern to all of us, since higher norms of intellectual property enforcement necessarily undermine various other rights of the people at large, including the right to access to medicines and access to knowledge,” he added.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/letter-from-civil-society-organizations-to-cii

On the Internet, how much is too much?

pranesh — 2011-04-02T15:19:33Z

The Hindu carried a piece on 05/08/2009, discussing the Avinash Kashyap / defamation of the President case.

On the Internet, how much is too much?

Deepa Kurup

BANGALORE (05/08/2009): As many as 9,740 website links are thrown up when running a search with a phrase ridiculing the Indian President on the popular search engine Google. Of these, at least a few hundred websites host content that criticise the first citizen, often in harsh terms; one even hosts a game on flash player where you can fling virtual tomatoes on the President’s portrait. The Internet is inundated with such attacks, arguably offensive and hurtful, on several public personalities.

Last week a Bangalore-based engineering student Avinash Kashyap was arrested for allegedly posting “obscene content” about the President on the Internet under Section 469 of the Indian Penal Code (forgery for purpose of harming reputation). Later, he was released on bail. Police sources said the message was objectionable and not “obscene or pornographic”, as reported in some sections of the media. Two unsubstantiated versions did the rounds: the student had hacked into an official government website, and posted on her behalf: “I am a rubber stamp”. The second story is that Avinash created an online profile under her name and posted the same.

SC refusal

Using the web to rant, make unwarrantable allegations or defame an individual is offensive, to say the least. However, those who campaign for a non-invasive Internet argue that laws are often misused to target individuals and stifle dissenting voices. Recently, the Supreme Court refused to quash criminal proceedings against a student, Ajith D. He had been prosecuted for creating an anti-Shiv Sena community on Orkut. Ajith had argued that he merely started the community, and also pleaded that his life would be under threat if he had to appear in a Maharashtra court. “Anything that is posted on the Internet goes to the public... you are a computer student and you know how many people access Internet portals,” the court said, adding that he will have to explain his conduct in a court of law.

Debate

This observation has triggered a debate among net users and academics who differ on the private — and public — nature of web space. Those who advocate boundless Internet freedom point to incidents in 2007 and 2008 where a political party consistently clamped down on individuals that criticised it, often resorting to violence and vandalism. But were these isolated cases? Or can the Rama Sene — seen beating up women in a pub in Mangalore — use defamation laws against the retaliatory and witty Pink Chaddi campaign that spread though a social-networking site?

The Internet, unlike traditional media, is complicated for various reasons, one of them being that it is difficult to accurately trace the author of a particular posting. Gurumurthy of the IT for Change, a non-profit organisation, feels that Internet norms have to be evolved. “The Internet is global, and the laws also must be. The real solution can be a global public policy process, which is being considered at the Internet Governance Forum (a UN body),” he says.

The Indian IT Act, as it stands today, is being criticised as restrictive. Sunil Abraham of the Centre for Internet and Society says the law is “unclear and over-expansive”. “If you are an individual blogger, a law like this could have a chilling effect on creativity and free speech. You could call this a scare tactic: by making examples of a few people and scaring people from doing what could be normal web activities like forwarding a joke,” Mr. Abraham explains.

The other argument is that technology and email gateways are seldom fool-proof. Lakshman Kailash, a software professional arrested in August 2007 for allegedly defaming Maratha king Shivaji by uploading an “offensive picture” on a social networking site, says “better clarity and awareness on laws is critical today”.

For no fault of his, he spent 50 days in jail because the Internet Service Provider made a mistake in tracking his IP (Internet Protocol) address. “I later decided to go public though this meant prolonging the agony for my family, because there is no awareness and accountability in the net space,” he says.

“I will never condone offending someone on the Internet — but if authorities want to keep the laws strict, then they must create awareness among users. Perhaps, websites can be asked to moderated content,” Mr. Kailash says.

Laws of the land

Google and such websites act in accordance with the laws of the land. Moreover, these IP addressed can be manipulated and a random cruise through websites or social networks reveal that the next offensive message is just a few clicks away.

As Mr. Kailash points out, thousands of bloggers continue to air their opinions, often extreme and offensive, oblivious to the repercussions. It is time they pause to think about the possible consequences, before going ahead with their blogging.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/on-the-internet-how-much-is-too-much

Open Debate

pranesh — 2011-04-02T14:34:00Z

Deepa Kurup's article in Frontline on the battle over open standards in e-governance.

Original report in Frontline.

Open Debate

With substantial public funding committed to e-governance projects, the issue of technological standards generates much heat.

by Deepa Kurup
(from Volume 26, Issue 23, dated November 07-20, 2009)

THE information technology (IT) industry in India is bitterly divided over the issue of technological standards to be adopted in e-governance processes. This problem stems from the fact that large, state-funded e-governance projects in the pipeline present the recession-hit IT sector with substantial business opportunities.

With the guidelines for setting these standards being finalised by the Department of Information Technology (DIT) under the National Policy on Open Standards for E-Governance, the debate on the nature of the standards – critical to the effective delivery of public e-services – is hotting up. Intense lobbying is on by those in favour of proprietary standards and by the Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) movement, which is against it.

When the draft policy was tabled at the meeting of the apex committee of standards for e-governance in June, the National Association of Software and Service Companies (NASSCOM) and the Manufacturers’ Association for Information Technology (MAIT) pushed for two modifications to it: the replacement of open and free standards with royalty-based ones, and allowing multiple standards in the same technological domain.

The FOSS community and open source technology firms have opposed these demands strongly. Fosscomm, a FOSS community network, wrote to the DIT seeking the withdrawal of both clauses. Leading open source technology firms such as Sun Microsystems, IBM and Red Hat have pointed out that the NASSCOM-MAIT position is at divergence with theirs and, therefore, does not reflect a unified “industry” perspective.

The DIT, which made public the first draft of the policy in June 2008, has not placed subsequent drafts for public review. Fosscomm has protested against the “unparticipatory nature” of this policymaking process, which has considerable public-interest implications, not to mention an outlay of over Rs.5,000 crore for 27 national e-governance projects.

The FOSS community believes that for a standard to be truly open, its specifications must be unconditionally accessible and royalty-free in perpetuity. This includes associated patents and extensions. NASSCOM, on the other hand, has sought standards that are open but tied to royalties, on what in policy parlance is called RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory) licensing terms.

However, RAND standards are inextricably linked to intellectual property right (IPR) regimes. The government may have to pay royalties to patent holders throughout the lifetime of the standards. Further, the FOSS community argues that “reasonable/non-discriminatory” is a loose term that can be interpreted to the advantage of the patent holder. And with licence confidentiality being what it is, violations will be hard to monitor, it feels.

Prabir Purkayastha of the Delhi Science Forum believes that the policy, if implemented in its current form, will create an “anomalous position” for the government. “That would imply that India still does not legally recognise software patents, yet is willing to accept patent protection in its standards.”

Standards diluted

The first draft of the policy unambiguously states that the open standard chosen must be royalty-free for its lifetime, but subsequent drafts allowed for RAND terms to be invoked in the absence of an existing open standard. This loophole, FOSS supporters fear, may allow powerful lobbies to hijack these standards in a non-transparent environment inside committee rooms.

If, as the proprietary camp wishes, open standards are redefined as RAND exclusively, a substantial portion of the taxpayers’ money will go towards royalties and software monopolies will be entrenched into this growing segment.

Leading Indian IT companies have supported proprietary software; this was evident from the debate on India’s vote at the International Standards Organisation (ISO) on the Open Document Format versus Microsoft’s OOXML controversy.

Open standards

“If we do not pay for using weights and measures in the physical world, why should we in the digital world?” asks Venkatesh Hariharan, corporate affairs director, Red Hat. “It’s a trap. Proprietary formats are controlled by monopolistic outfits that drive adoption of a technology, file a thicket of patents, and litigate if royalties aren’t paid.”

The Internet, built on several open standards, is the best example of how open standards form the basis of major technological innovations. It allows for a level playing field, particularly in developing economies. By framing a purely open standards policy, India can show the way for the developing world.

Developed countries (such as those of the European Union) are moving towards mandating open standards in government departments, processes and interactions. However, it is developing countries that stand to gain most from open standards. “Proprietary standards place a larger burden on developing economies than developed as they have a greater need to participate in the global network by using standards, but do have lesser capabilities than developed economies in terms of paying for royalties,” writes Pranesh Prakash, Centre for Internet and Society, in his letter to the DIT. The “industry view” is not in the interests of small- and medium-size enterprises.

An Indian case study of how open standards can cut costs, foster monopoly-free competition and provide interoperability is the Smart Card Operating System for Transport Applications (SCOSTA). A standard for smart card-based driving licences and vehicle registration projects handled by different State governments, SCOSTA was developed by the National Informatics Centre with help from the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur.

The number of vendors providing cards and card readers increased after an open standard was adopted and specifications were made freely available on a website.

While four foreign companies were marketing smart cards earlier, over a dozen Indian companies are doing the same now, according to a United Nations Development Programme report on e-government interoperability. More significantly, IPR rents dropped and the market price of a card came down from Rs.300 to Rs.30.

On the second issue – that of allowing multiple standards in a single technological domain – the policy allows adopting additional standards “in national interest”.

Multiple standards

Public data, like land records, lie at the core of every e-governance process; multiple standards create interoperability issues and increase the cost of conversion from one format to another. In fact, if a standard is truly open, and hence developed in a participative manner, it will automatically grow to incorporate any reasonable requirement of the community.

Although this tussle appears to be restricted to the e-governance space, much more is really at stake. In a developing economy such as India, open and royalty-free technological standards are critical because they enable domestic industries to grow and compete in a fair and monopoly-free market. And, by enabling access to technology, they foster an innovation-friendly environment.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/open-debate

Centre for Internet and Society

Analysing Latest List of Blocked Sites (Communalism & Rioting Edition)

How many items have been blocked?

Why have these been blocked?

Are the blocks legitimate?

Are there any egregious mistakes?

Why haven't you put up the whole list?

Why can I still access many items that are supposed to be blocked?

So you are fine with censorship?

So what should the government have done?

And what of all this talk of cybersecurity failure and cyber-wars?

CIS Position Paper on Net Neutrality in India (Background Submission to TRAI)

Aadhaar: Still Too Many Problems

Also Read

Pros and cons of Aadhaar bill

CIS Welcomes Standing Committee Report on IT Rules

Ambiguous and Over-reaching Language

Government Confused Whether Rules Are Mandatory or Advisory

Evidence Needed Against Foreign Websites

Cyber Cafes Rules Violate Citizens’ Privacy

Government’s Half-Truths

Lack of Representation of Stakeholders in Policy Formulation

Surveillance and the Indian Constitution - Part 1: Foundations

Robert Horowitz

Eben Moglen

Pixel Pirate II - Still 1

Pixel Pirate II - Still 2

Pixel Pirate II - Still 3

Pixel Pirate II - DVD Cover

Counter-proposal by the Centre for Internet and Society: Draft Information Technology (Intermediary Due Diligence and Information Removal) Rules, 2012

Letter from Civil Society Organizations to CII

Govt accepts panel report against narrowing of Indian patent law

On the Internet, how much is too much?

On the Internet, how much is too much?

SC refusal

Debate

Laws of the land

Open Debate

Open Debate

Standards diluted

Open standards

Multiple standards