Centre for Internet and Society

Telecom

praskrishna — 2016-07-01T16:42:08Z

Telecom

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

ISPs start blocking escort websites following govt order

praskrishna — 2016-07-02T04:17:25Z

DoT on Monday ordered blocking of 240 URLs; blocking of websites takes place under Section 69A of the IT Act, and Information Technology Rules.

The article by Moulishree Srivastava was published in the Business Standard on June 14, 2016.

The Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have started blocking websites allegedly offering escort services after an order from the Department of Telecommunication (DoT).

The DoT on Monday asked ISPs to immediately block around 240 such URLs (Uniform Resource Locator) offering escort services, to filter out obscene content on the internet. Speaking to Business Standard, Internet Service Providers Association of India’s (ISPAI) President Rajesh Chharia said the ISPs were in process of shutting down these websites. ISPAI represents 60 ISPs including Bharti Airtel, Tata Teleservices, Reliance Communication, Vodafone and Idea Cellular.

“We received the order yesterday, and it entails a list of about 240 websites that the government wants us to block,” said Chharia. “CERT-In, which works under the Department of Electronics and Information Technology (Deity), advised the department on certain websites that it feels could be a national or social threat. Deity then reached out to DoT, which is our licensor. We are the licensee, and as per the licensing agreement, we have to comply with the order.”

While declining to comment on whether this is the first such order the association had received this year, Chharia said, “Since last few years, we have been receiving orders to block websites which hosts content that may be a threat to social order or national security.” Blocking of websites takes place under Section 69A of the IT Act, and a 2009 secondary legislation called the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules (“Blocking Rules”).

The rules empower the central government to direct any agency or intermediary to block access to information when satisfied that it is “necessary or expedient so to do” in the interest of the “sovereignty and integrity of India, defense of India, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognisable offence relating to above. Intermediaries failing to comply are punishable with fines and prison terms up to seven years.”

In December 2014, around six months after the Modi-led BJP government came into power, the DoT ordered ISPs to block 32 websites, including Vimeo, Dailymotion, GitHub and Pastebin.

According to an RTI filed by no-for-profit organisation Software Freedom Law Centre in March last year, Deity said 2341 URLs were blocked in 2014, adding that “barring few numbers, all URLs were blocked on the orders of the Court”.

Another RTI filed by Bangalore based think tank Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) found that 143 URLs were blocked in first three months of 2015 in order to comply with the directions of the competent courts. Later that year, the government attempted to block about 857 porn websites, but it had to revoke the order following the backlash online and offline.

The recent notice named a number of websites that need to be banned, including pinkysingh.com, jasmineescorts.com, onlyoneescorts.com, payalmalhotra.in, localescorts.in, pearlpatel.in, kavyajain.in, xmumbai.in, shimi.in and anchu.in.

According to Freedom on the Net 2015 report by Freedom House, which termed India as a “partly free” country on the internet, there were 129 operational ISPs in India as of May 2015.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-moulishree-srivastava-june-14-2016-isps-start-blocking-escort-websites-following-govt-order

Here is the entire list of 'escorts service' websites that the government has banned

praskrishna — 2016-07-02T04:51:30Z

Another day and another opaque order asking Indian service providers to block websites that allegedly offer or advertise escort services in India. In total, the government has ordered ban on 237 websites. But as it happens whenever the Indian government bans website, there has been no public communication about the same.

The article was published in India Today on June 16, 2016

Also, it has not been explained what, if any, process was followed before these websites were banned and what norms were applied for the order that the internet service providers have received.

However, now Centre for Internet and Society has caught hold of the list of the websites that have been banned. Here is what the organisation says, "Unfortunately, the government does not make available publicly the list of websites they have ordered ISPs to block. Given that knowledge of what is censored by the government is crucial in a democracy, we are publishing the entire list of blocked websites."

As for the websites and URLs here they are:

www.sterlingbioscience.com
rawpoint.biz
www.onemillionbabes.com
www.mumbaihotcollection.in
simranoberoi.in
rubinakapoor.biz
talita.biz
www.mumbaiescortsagency.net
www.mumbaifunclubs.com
www.alishajain.co.in
www.ankitatalwar.co.in
https://www.jennyarora.ind.in
www.riya-kapoor.com
shneha.in
missinimi.in
www.mumbaiglamour.in
kalyn.in
www.saumyagiri.co.in/city/mumbai/
bookerotic.com
www.divyamalik.in
www.suhanisharma.co.in
www.ruhi.biz
umbaiqueens.in
www.aliyaghosh.com
priyasen.in
www.highprofilemumbaiescorts.co.in
charmingmumbai.com
www.poojamehata.in
kiiran.in/
mansikher.in
www.newmumbaiescorts.in
www.mumbaifunclubs.com
www.punarbas.in
www.discreetbabes.in
www.alisharoy.in
www.arpitarai.in
www.nidhipatel.in
navimumbailescort.com
www.zoyaescorts.com
www.juhioberoi.in
shoniya.in
panchibora.in
rehu.in
www.nehaanand.com
www.aditiray.co.in
www.rakhibajaj.in
www.alianoidaescorts.in
www.sobiya.in
www.alishaparul.in
mumbai-escorts.leathercurrency.com
ankita-ahuja.in
www.yamika.in
mumbailescort.co
www.ranjika.in
www.aditiray.com
www.alinamumbailescort.in
www.sonikaa.com/services/
riyamodel.in
soonam.in
www.sejalthakkar.com
www.yomika-tandon.in
www.asika.in
www.siyasharma.org/
www.rubikamathur.in
www.mumbaiescortslady.com
www.sexyshe.in
www.indepandentescorts.com
www.saanvichopra.co.in
www.goswamipatel.in
ojaloberoi.in
www.naincy.in
www.sonyamehra.com
www.pinkgrapes.in
anjalitomar.in/
www.nishakohli.com/
sagentia.co.in
mumbai.vivastreet.co.in/escort+mumbai
www.deseescortgirls.in
guides.wonobo.com/mumbai/mumbai-escorts-service/.4299
jasmineescorts.com
www.shalinisethi.com
www.highclassmumbailescort.com
www.vipescortsinmumbai.com
www.mumbaiescorts69.co.in
monikabas.co.in
www.riyasehgal.com
onlycelebrity.in
www.greatmumbaiescorts.com/escort-service-mumbai.html
www.aishamumbailescort.com
www.jennydsouzaescort.com
www.desifun.in
www.siyaescort.co.in
masti-escort.in
www.sofya.in
www.mumbaiwali.in/navi-mumbai-escort-service.php
www.mumbaiwali.in
www.calldaina.com
www.mumbaiescortsservice.co.in
www.escortsgirlsinmumbai.com
www.passionmumbai.escorts.com
www.nehakapoor.in
meerakapoor.com
www.dianamumbaiescorts.net .in
www.allmumbailescort.in
www.rakhiarora.in
www.ritikasingh.com
www.rekhapatil.com
www.mumbaidolls.com
www.piapandey.com
www.mumbaicuteescorts.in
www.mumbaiescortssevice.com
www.onlycelebrity.com
www.meetescortservice.com
onlyoneescorts.com
simirai.org
www.riyamumbaiescorts.in
www.neharana.in
www.mumbaihiprofilegirls.in
www.sexyescortsmumbai.in
www.sexymumbai.escorts.com
www.four-seasons-escort.in
www.mumbaiescortsgirl.com
www.vdreamescorts.com
www.passionatemumbaiescorts.in
www.payalmalhotra.in
www.shrutisinha.com
www.juliemumbaiescorts.com
www.indiasexservices.com/mumbai.html
www.mumbai-escorts.co.in
www.aliyamumbaiescorts.net.in
shivaniarora.co.in/escort-service-mumbai.html
www.pinkisingh.com
soyam.in
www.arpitaray.com
www.localescorts.in
www.jennifermumbaiescorts.com
www.yanaroy.com
escorts18.in/mumbai-escorts.html
www.tinamumbaiescorts.com
www.mumbaijannatescorts.com
www.deepikaroy.com
www.nancy.co.in
www.pearlpatel.in
30minsmumbaiescorts.in
www.datinghopes.com
https://www.riyaroy.com/services.html
www.sonalikajain.com
www.zainakapoor.co.in
kavyajain.in
www.kinnu.co.in
exmumbai.in/
www.mansimathur.in/pinkyagarwal
exmumbai.in
www.mansimathur.in/pinkyagarwal
www.devikabatra.in
katlin.in
riyaverma.in
escortsinindia.co/
www.snehamumbaiescorts.in
shimi.in
www.mumbaiescortsforu.com/about
www.chetnagaur.co.in/chetna-gaur.html
www.escortspoint.in
www.rupalikakkar.in
www.hemangisinha.co.in
1escorts.in/location/mumbai.html
www.salini.in/navi-mumbai-independent-escort-service.php
www.salini.in/navi-mumbai-independent-escort-service.php
www.mumbaibella.in
mohitescortservicesmumbai.com
www.anchu.in
www.aliyaroy.co.in
jaanu.co.in/mumbai-escorts-service-call-girls.html
www.andyverma.com
dreams-come-true.biz
feel-better.biz
jellyroll.biz
dreamgirlmumbai.com
role-play.biz
mansi-mathur.com
www.zarinmumbaiescorts.com
mymumbai.escortss.com
www.goldentouchescorts.com
www.mumbaipassion.biz
ishitamalhotra.com
happy-ending.biz
juicylips.biz
www.escortsmumbai.name
www.kirstygbasai.net
www.hiremumbaiescorts.com
www.meeraescorts.com/mumbai-escorts.php
3-5-7star.biz
www.pranjaltiwari.com
www.richagupta.biz
way2heaven.biz
piya.co/
pinkflowers.info
www.beautifulmumbaiescorts.com
www.bestescortsinmumbai.com/charges-html
www.mumbaiescorts.me
www.tanikatondon.com
www.escortsinmumbai.biz
www.escortgirlmumbai.com
www.mumbaicallgrils.com
www.quickescort4u.com
www.mayamalhotra.com
www.legal-escort.com
escortsbaba.com/mumbai-escorts.html
rupa.biz
www.mumbaiescorts.agency/erotic-service-mumbai.html
www.escortscelebrity.com
www.independentescortservicemumbai.com/mumbai%20escort%20servi..
garimachopra.com
kajalgupta.biz
lipkiss.site
aanu.in
bombayescort.in
hotkiran.co.in
khushikapoor.in
joyapatel.in
rici.in
aaditi.in
andheriescorts.org.in
www.jiyapatel.in
spicymumbai.in
rimpyarora.in
lovemaking.co.in
riyadubey.co.in
escortservicesmumbai.in
mumbaiescorts.co.in
midnightprincess.in/
vashiescorts.co.in/
angee.in/
www.rozakhan.in/
www.mumbaiescortsvilla.in/
kylie.co.in/
escortservicemumbai.co.in

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/india-today-june-16-2016-here-is-the-entire-list-of-escorts-service-websites-that-govt-has-banned

Why Geospatial Bill is draconian and how it will hurt startups

praskrishna — 2016-07-02T04:57:35Z

Last week, the Indian government rejected Google’s plans to map Indian cities, tourist spots and mountain ranges, using the 360-degree panoramic Google Street View feature.

The article was published in Indian Express on June 13, 2016

Last week, the Indian government rejected Google’s plans to map Indian cities, tourist spots and mountain ranges, using the 360-degree panoramic Google Street View feature. The government officials cited “national security” as a reason for not granting permission to Google. It is expected that the Google’s Street View permission would be relooked at, once the draft Geospatial Information Regulation Bill, 2016, is enforced as law. Many however feel that this draft bill is draconian and will have serious repercussions on the startup ecosystem.

The Geospatial Bill seeks to make creating, accessing and distribution or sharing of map related information, illegal and that every company will have to take prior permission and license from the government for the same. Wayback in 2011, Google had announced the introduction of Street View for Bangalore, on Google Maps. But the project ran into trouble with Bangalore Police stopping Street View cars from plying in the city, citing security reasons.

Google Street View, launched in 2007, is popular in San Francisco, Las Vegas, Denver, New York and Miami, which allows users to navigate virtual streets from photographs gathered from directional cameras on special vehicles. While the service has been hugely successful it has caused problems of privacy in some countries.

In 2010 almost 250,000 Germans told Google to blur pictures of their homes on the Street View service, while Czech government also banned Google from taking any new photos for the service. In Switzerland, the matter went to the court and it was accepted that Google would be obliged to pixelate 99% of images to blur faces, vehicle registrations and that it would not be filming certain sensitive places such as schools, prisons and shelter homes.

This adds to the list of recent controversies on Google Earth, and the draft Geospatial Information Regulation Bill, on adoption of mapping technology in India. Commenting on the development, Sumandro Chattapadhyay, research director at the Centre for Internet and Society said, the key country where the Google Street View faced legal challenge, and was fined too, is Germany. This legal challenge, however, was not based on the concern for national security but on that for the privacy of the citizens. However, it was eventually allowed to roll out Street View in Germany provided that it asks for consent from the house owners before images of any house.”

“One of the crucial concerns with the draft Geospatial Information Regulation Bill remains its vast scope of application. Not only initiatives like Google Street View may be regulated under it (for capturing geo-referenced imagery from the street level) but absolutely any mobile application that requires the user’s geo-location (either automatically detected, or manually entered by the user) would be within the purview of this Bill. This evidently creates a great pressure upon the entire ICT-enable product and service sector in India,” Chattapadhyay added.

This would mean that, any company, particularly the new age startups, those in the food tech, fintech and e-commerce space, which uses geo-location to identify the customer location to either deliver goods, food products, or the likes of Ola and Uber which uses maps to pickup and drop customers, will have to obtain license from the government.

Raman Shukla, director—strategy and product, Medikoe, said, “At Medikoe we are helping users to locate the nearest healthcare service provider with the available technologies. Google Maps is one of key feature our company banks on. Though we understand the country’s security concerns, the draft bill, if implemented, would be a violation of independent internet. We believe that a much better solution can be identified to solve security concerns.”

Venu Kondur, founder of LOBB, the online truck booking platform said, “Geostatial data is a very important data for our business. Customers booking truck through LOBB platform get real-time track & trace facility. Our customers rely heavily on this data for their day-day activity. Startups like us depend largely on maps data for real-time tracking of consignment. Lot of our business intelligence data is drawn out of it.”

In case, if the draft gets implemented, many startups will be forced to change the business model and while it will also increase the product delivery time. A group of 15 volunteers created a SaveTheMap.in portal to educate the readers about the draft bill and also give complete information on how the bill have an impact on the citizen and users of certain application. Sajjad Anwar one of the volunteer, said, through the portal about 1700 mails have been sent to the ministry of home affairs airing their view on why they do not support the draft Bill.

Comparing with other countries, Chattapadhyay further said, “At first, other countries deal with the question of display of security establishments in publicly available maps through direct interactions with large mapping companies, and does not turn this into a financial and political burden for the entire economy. Secondly, it is the concern about privacy of the citizens that should frame the Indian government’s response to products and services like Google Street View, and not concerns regarding national security.”

What the draft bill says

No person shall, in any manner, make use of, disseminate, publish or distribute any geospatial information of India, outside India, without prior permission from the security vetting authority under the Central government.

Penalty

Whoever acquires any geospatial information of India in contravention to the rules, shall be punished with a fine ranging from Rs 1 crore to Rs 100 crore and /or imprisonment for a period upto seven years.

Application for license

Every person who has already acquired any geospatial imagery or data of any part of India either through space or aerial platforms such as satellite, aircrafts, airships, balloons, unmanned aerial vehicles or terrestrial vehicles shall within one year from the commencement of this Act, make an application along with requisite fees to the security vetting authority.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/financial-express-prabhu-mallikarjunan-june-13-2016-why-geospatial-bill-is-draconian-and-how-it-will-hurt-startups

NGOs tell PM not to succumb to pressure from US on IPR

praskrishna — 2016-07-02T05:04:03Z

A group of NGOs have appealed to Prime Minister Narendra Modi not to succumb to pressure from the US on the issue of intellectual property regime (IPR).

The article was published in the Economic Times on June 7, 2016

More than 10 eminent NGOs in a statement urged Modi to reconsider the implementation of the National IPR Policy and send the policy back to the drawing board.

It urged the Prime Minister to "withstand the pressure from the US government and corporations and to defend the people's interests" and to reject any demand to either initiate negotiation on free trade agreements and/or bilateral investment treaty with the US or joining the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP).

The NGOs are Forum Against FTAs, Lawyers Collective, All Indian Drug Action Network, Initiative for Health & Equity in Society, Third World Network, National Working Group on Patent Laws, Gene Campaign, New Trade Union Initiative, Navdanya, Software Freedom Law Centre, and Centre for Internet and Society.

The NGOs also urged Modi to ensure transparency and accountability in the engagements with the US on IP issues by tabling a White Paper in Parliament.

"We are concerned that the National Intellectual Property Rights Policy adopted by the Cabinet ignores India's experience of implementing a regime of IP protection that balances the rights of the IP holders and public interest, by proposing an 'IP maximalist' agenda," the NGOs said.

They alleged that the IP maximalist agenda in the policy fully ignores the socio-economic needs of people of India and serves the profit motives of Multi National Corporations (MNCs) that own an overwhelming majority of the world's IP.

"We urge the government to reconsider this anti-people policy," the NGOs said.

"We understand the primary intent of the policy is to respond to the aggressive demands of US government, backed by the corporate interests especially the pharmaceutical companies, to amend India's IP laws that include several safeguards to protect the public interest," it said.

"The government of India should remain committed to the welfare of its people's interest and should not succumb to the pressures that it is being subjected to. Above all, the government must fulfill its obligation to protect the rights of the citizens that have been guaranteed by the constitution, in particular, right to health, right to education, and right to food," they said.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/ngos-tell-pm-not-to-succumb-to-pressure-from-us-on-ipr

Climate change will be a priority in talks with Modi: U.S.

praskrishna — 2016-07-02T05:08:51Z

Mr. Modi will have a bilateral meeting with President Barack Obama on Tuesday and address a joint session of Congress on Wednesday.

The article was published in Hindu on June 6, 2016

“Advancing the ambitious climate change and clean energy agenda” and “further enhancing our security and diplomatic cooperation across the Indo-Pacific region,” would be the focus of discussions between India and the U.S during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit this week, a State Department official told The Hindu.

Mr. Modi is scheduled to arrive in Washington on Monday evening on a three-day tour.

Mr. Modi will have a bilateral meeting with President Barack Obama, to be followed by a lunch at the White House on Tuesday. On Wednesday, he will address a joint session of Congress, which will be a demonstration of the bipartisan support that the India-US relationship has acquired.

“Since 2014, there have been six meetings and countless phone calls between President Obama and Prime Minister Modi, and this visit reflects the significance that the two leaders place on our natural alliance,” the official said.

Wooing investors

Mr. Modi will interact with U.S CEOs and investors at the annual meeting of the U.S – India Business Council (USIBC) on Tuesday. USIBC President Mukesh Aghi said the meeting between Mr. Modi and Mr. Obama, “a PM who has not even completed half his term and a President who has only a few months left in office will be to strengthen the foundations of the relationship further and ensure continuity.”

Mr. Modi is visiting the U.S - the fourth time since he took over as PM in 2014 – at Mr Obama’s behest.

Mr. Aghi said the USIBC event would have CEOs of 25 Fortune 500 companies attending it. The event will also honour Amazon Founder and CEO Jeff Bezos, and Founder and Managing Director of Sun Pharmaceuticals Dilip Shanghvi with the Global Leadership Awards. “The PM’s interactions with U.S business leaders will be aimed to get more investment and technology to India,” Mr. Aghi said.

USIBC is also lobbying with the U.S and Indian governments to restart the negotiations for a bilateral investment treaty (BIT). In a letter to the U.S government last week, Mr. Aghi said: "While both governments took a break from the negotiations on account of revising the model BITs, it is important for us to come back to the negotiating table to develop a way-forward on concluding a high-quality BIT.” USIBC also sought U.S initiative to nominate India for membership of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC).

IPR, Human Rights

Mr. Modi is facing protests from groups in India on the intellectual property rights policy that his government announced recently. The government has claimed the new policy does not compromise the country’s ability to ensure affordable drugs, but several campaign groups believe the Modi government is coming under U.S pressure on the issue.

Seeking a White Paper in parliament on the government’s engagement with the U.S on IPR issues, 11 civil society groups in India urged Mr. Modi “to withstand the pressure from the US government and corporations and to defend the people’s interests,” during his talks in Washington.

“We understand the primary intent of the (recent) policy is to respond to the aggressive demands of United States government, backed by the corporate interests especially the pharmaceutical companies, to amend India’s IP laws that include several safeguards to protect the public interest. The government of India should remain committed to the welfare of its people’s interest and should not succumb to the pressures that it is being subjected to,” the groups said, demanding to reconsider the “implementation of the National IPR Policy and send the policy back to the drawing board.” The statement was signed by Forum Against FTAs, Lawyers Collective, All Indian Drug Action Network, Initiative for Health & Equity in Society, Third World Network, National Working Group on Patent Laws, Gene Campaign, New Trade Union Initiative, Navdanya, Software Freedom Law Centre and Centre for Internet and Society.

In the U.S Federation of Indian American Christian Organizations (FIACONA) has expressed “grave concerns about the increasing intolerance and violence against India's Christian communities.” Recalling President Obama’s statement in Delhi in January 2015 on religious freedoms, the group said “the concerns he raised in that speech are very important for the future of US-India relationship.” “While President Obama’s comments have raised the level of attention paid to this issue globally, there are several cases of Mr. Modi’s government officials continuing to protect local groups loyal to him from prosecution. The general socio-political environment created by Mr. Modi and his party has only caused greater damage to the Union of India,” John Prabhudoss, FIACONA president said.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/the-hindu-varghese-k-george-june-6-2016-climate-change-will-be-a-priority-in-talks-with-modi-us

NGOs tell Modi not to succumb to US pressure on intellectual property

praskrishna — 2016-07-02T05:14:48Z

A group of NGOs have appealed to Prime Minister Narendra Modi not to succumb to pressure from the US on the issue of intellectual property regime (IPR).

The article by Rinku Patel was published in India Tribune on June 7, 2016.

The NGOs are Forum Against FTAs, Lawyers Collective, All Indian Drug Action Network, Initiative for Health & Equity in Society, Third World Network, National Working Group on Patent Laws, Gene Campaign, New Trade Union Initiative, Navdanya, Software Freedom Law Centre, and Centre for Internet and Society.

The NGOs also urged Modi to ensure transparency and accountability in the engagements with the US on IP issues by tabling a White Paper in Parliament.

They alleged that the IP maximalist agenda in the policy fully ignores the socio-economic needs of people of India and serves the profit motives of Multi National Corporations

“We understand the primary intent of the policy is to respond to the aggressive demands of US government, backed by the corporate interests especially the pharmaceutical companies, to amend India’s IP laws that include several safeguards to protect the public interest,” it said.

“The government of India should remain committed to the welfare of its people’s interest and should not succumb to the pressures that it is being subjected to. Above all, the government must fulfill its obligation to protect the rights of the citizens that have been guaranteed by the constitution, in particular, right to health, right to education, and right to food,” they said.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/india-tribune-rinku-patel-june-7-2016-ngos-tell-modi-not-to-succumb-to-us-pressure-on-intellectual-property

June 2016 Newsletter

praskrishna — 2016-08-04T01:57:04Z

Welcome to the June 2016 newsletter of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS).

Previous issues of the newsletters can be accessed here.

Highlights
The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) held a consultation on Free Data. CIS sent its comments to the 4 questions that TRAI posed: (a) need to have TSP agnostic platform to provide free data or suitable reimbursement to users; (b) whether such platforms need to be regulated by TRAI; (c) whether free data to users should be limited; and (d) any other issue related to the matter of consultation. IANA transition is a sham since it doesn't address the most important question - that of jurisdiction. Pranesh Prakash has explored why the issue of jurisdiction is the most important question and why it remains unaddressed. On April 20, 2016, DNA carried a report on a PIL seeking action against advertisements for prostitution in newspapers and on websites. The report noted that the Mumbai Police had obtained an order from a magistrates court to block 174 objectionable websites. The Mumbai Police has not proceeded against any of the people who run these websites. CIS in a blog post has listed out 239 websites that were blocked by the government. Wikipedia is the source for different kinds of knowledge for any one starting-off in a particular field of study. Indian languages are the default languages for study in classroom in India. In this light strengthening the quality of material available on Indian language Wikipedias is certain to have widespread tangible and intangible impact according to Tejaswini Niranjana. An extended survey of digital initiatives in arts and humanities practices in India was undertaken during the last year. Provocatively called 'mapping digital humanities in India', this enquiry began with the term 'digital humanities' itself, as a 'found' name for which one needs to excavate some meaning, context, and location in India at the present moment. The final section has been published. The Reserve Bank of India published a Consultation Paper on Peer to Peer Lending on April 28, 2016, and invited comments from the public. CIS submitted its response. The Department of Science and Technology published the first public draft of the National Geospatial Policy (v.1.0) on May 05, 2016, and invited comments from the public. CIS submitted its comments. The first public draft of the open data license to be used by Government of India was released by the Department of Legal Affairs. CIS was a member of the committee constituted to develop the license concerned, and we contributed substantially to the drafting process. Harsh Gupta and Aditya Tejas wrote a blog post on the Airtel Open Network that was launched recently. The web page displays visualization data on network coverage and signal strength across the country, as well as a detailed breakdown of cell tower placement, including towers that are shutdown or still being planned. CIS organized a one-day workshop in Delhi on Tuesday, July 12 on the evolution and state of the set-top box as an access device in India.

CIS in the News

CIS gave inputs to the following media coverage:

Why Geospatial Bill is draconian and how it will hurt startups (Prabhu Mallikarjunan; Financial Express; June 13, 2016).
ISPs start blocking escort websites following govt order (Moulishree Srivastava; Business Standard; June 14, 2016).
Here is the entire list of 'escorts service' websites that the government has banned (India Today; June 16, 2016).
Indian experts doubt government ban on porn sites will be effective (VL Srinivasan; ZD Net; June 20, 2016).
Slow internet driving you nuts? Here is how your service provider is fleecing you (Kalyan Parbat; Economic Times; June 23, 2016).
Behind the scenes of Escort Economy 2.0 (Sharmila Ganeshan Ram; The Times of India; June 26, 2016).
Call drops: Dealing with the menace or just shifting goal posts? (India TV News; June 26, 2016).

CIS members wrote the following pieces:

Tweak the Make in India Recipe (Rohini Lakshané; Business Today; June 3, 2016).

ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆର ବିକାଶ (Subhashish Panigrahi; The Samaja; June 2, 2016).
ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ: ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟରେ ବିଶାଳତମ ଅନଲାଇନ ଜ୍ଞାନକୋଷ ଗଢ଼ିବାର ଅଭିଯାନ (Subhashish Panigrahi; Your Story Odia; June 3, 2016).
ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ: ଏକ ଅଭିଯାନ (Subhashish Panigrahi; Suryaprava; June 3, 2016).
ଅନଲାଇନ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଜ୍ଞାନକୋଷ ଗଢ଼ା (Subhashish Panigrahi; Samanya Kathan; June 5, 2016).
Digital native: Control A, Backspace (Nishant Shah; Indian Express; June 5, 2016).

-------------------------------------
Accessibility & Inclusion
-------------------------------------
India has an estimated 70 million persons with disabilities who don't have access to read printed materials due to some form of physical, sensory, cognitive or other disability. As part of our endeavour to make available accessible content for persons with disabilities, we are developing a text-to-speech software in 15 languages with support from the Hans Foundation. The progress made so far in the project can be accessed here.

►NVDA and eSpeak

June 2016 Report (Suman Dogra; June 30, 2016).

-----------------------------------
Access to Knowledge
-----------------------------------
Our Access to Knowledge programme currently consists of two projects. The Pervasive Technologies project, conducted under a grant from the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), aims to conduct research on the complex interplay between low-cost pervasive technologies and intellectual property, in order to encourage the proliferation and development of such technologies as a social good. The Wikipedia project, which is under a grant from the Wikimedia Foundation, is for the growth of Indic language communities and projects by designing community collaborations and partnerships that recruit and cultivate new editors and explore innovative approaches to building projects.

►Pervasive Technologies

Article

Tweak the Make in India Recipe (Rohini Lakshané; Business Today; June 3, 2016).

Media Coverage

NGOs urge PM to ‘resist pressure’ from U.S. on IPRs (Hindu; June 2, 2016).
Climate change will be a priority in talks with Modi: U.S. (Varghese K. George; Hindu; June 6, 2016).
NGOs tell Modi not to succumb to US pressure on intellectual property (Rinku Patel; India Tribune; June 7, 2016).
NGOs tell PM not to succumb to pressure from US on IPR (Economic Times, June 7, 2016).

►Wikipedia

As part of the project grant from the Wikimedia Foundation we have reached out to more than 3500 people across India by organizing more than 100 outreach events and catalysed the release of encyclopaedic and other content under the Creative Commons (CC-BY-3.0) license in four Indian languages (21 books in Telugu, 13 in Odia, 4 volumes of encyclopaedia in Konkani and 6 volumes in Kannada, and 1 book on Odia language history in English).

Articles

ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆର ବିକାଶ (Subhashish Panigrahi; The Samaja; June 2, 2016).
ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ: ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟରେ ବିଶାଳତମ ଅନଲାଇନ ଜ୍ଞାନକୋଷ ଗଢ଼ିବାର ଅଭିଯାନ (Subhashish Panigrahi; Your Story Odia; June 3, 2016).
ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ: ଏକ ଅଭିଯାନ (Subhashish Panigrahi; Suryaprava; June 3, 2016).
ଅନଲାଇନ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଜ୍ଞାନକୋଷ ଗଢ଼ା (Subhashish Panigrahi; Samanya Kathan; June 5, 2016).
Digital native: Control A, Backspace (Nishant Shah; Indian Express; June 5, 2016).

Blog Entry

Beyond Editor Count: Assessing Quality on Wikipedia (Tejaswini Niranjana; June 12, 2016).

Media Coverage

Online space for Odia (Diana Sahu; New Indian Express; June 10, 2016).
शंभर वर्षापूर्वीचे ग्रंथ मराठी विकिपीडियावर (Maharashtra Times; June 15, 2016).

Event Organized

Wikipedia edit-a-thon at TEDSummit 2016 (Organized by CIS-A2K and Wikimedians Netha Hussain and Ayyappadas; Banff, Canada; June 26 - 30, 2016). Abhinav Garule represented CIS-A2K.

►Openness

Submission

Comments on the National Geospatial Policy (Draft, V.1.0), 2016 (Adya Garg, Anubha Sinha, and Sumandro Chattapadhyay; June 1, 2016).

Blog Entry

Public Consultation for the First Draft of 'Government Open Data Use License - India' Announced (Anubha Sinha; June 30, 2016).

-----------------------------------
Internet Governance
-----------------------------------

As part of its research on privacy and free speech, CIS is engaged with two different projects. The first one (under a grant from Privacy International and IDRC) is on surveillance and freedom of expression (SAFEGUARDS). The second one (under a grant from MacArthur Foundation) is on restrictions that the Indian government has placed on freedom of expression online.

►Freedom of Expression

Submission

Submission by the Centre for Internet and Society on Revisions to ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior (Vidushi Marda with inputs from Nirmita Narasimhan and Sunil Abraham; June 29, 2016).

Blog Entries

UN Special Rapporteur Report on Freedom of Expression and the Private Sector: A Significant Step Forward (Vidushi Marda; June 8, 2016).
Jurisdiction: The Taboo Topic at ICANN (Pranesh Prakash; June 27, 2016).

►Privacy

Article

Criminal Defamation and the Supreme Court’s Loss of Reputation (Bhairav Acharya; June 3, 2016). The article was published in the Wire on May 14 but mirrored in June on CIS website.

Blog Entry

Smart City Policies and Standards: Overview of Projects, Data Policies, and Standards across Five International Smart Cities (Kiran A. B., Elonnai Hickok and Vanya Rakesh; June 8, 2016).

Event Organized

Stand up for Digital Rights (CIS, Bangalore, June 15, 2016)

-----------------------------------
Researchers at Work
-----------------------------------
The Researchers at Work (RAW) programme is an interdisciplinary research initiative driven by an emerging need to understand the reconfigurations of social practices and structures through the Internet and digital media technologies, and vice versa. It aims to produce local and contextual accounts of interactions, negotiations, and resolutions between the Internet, and socio-material and geo-political processes:

Submission

Comments on the RBI's Consultation Paper on Peer to Peer Lending (Elonnai Hickok, Pavishka Mittal, Sumandro Chattapadhyay, Vidushi Marda, and Vipul Kharbanda; June 1, 2016).

Blog Entries

Creativity, Politics, and Internet Censorship (P.P. Sneha; June 16, 2016).
Digital Humanities in India – Concluding Thoughts (P.P. Sneha; June 30, 2016).

-----------------------------------
Telecom
-----------------------------------
CIS is involved in promoting access and accessibility to telecommunications services and resources, and has provided inputs to ongoing policy discussions and consultation papers published by TRAI. It has prepared reports on unlicensed spectrum and accessibility of mobile phones for persons with disabilities and also works with the USOF to include funding projects for persons with disabilities in its mandate:

Blog Entry

Airtel Open Network (Harsh Gupta and Aditya Tejas; June 17, 2016).

Event

Workshop on Set-top Boxes (Organized by CIS, Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar IV, New Delhi; July 12, 2016).

-----------------------------------
About CIS
-----------------------------------
The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) is a non-profit organisation that undertakes interdisciplinary research on internet and digital technologies from policy and academic perspectives. The areas of focus include digital accessibility for persons with diverse abilities, access to knowledge, intellectual property rights, openness (including open data, free and open source software, open standards, open access, open educational resources, and open video), internet governance, telecommunication reform, digital privacy, and cyber-security. The academic research at CIS seeks to understand the reconfigurations of social and cultural processes and structures as mediated through the internet and digital media technologies.

► Follow us elsewhere

Twitter: http://twitter.com/cis_india
Twitter - Access to Knowledge: https://twitter.com/CISA2K
Twitter - Information Policy: https://twitter.com/CIS_InfoPolicy
Facebook - Access to Knowledge: https://www.facebook.com/cisa2k
E-Mail - Access to Knowledge: a2k@cis-india.org
E-Mail - Researchers at Work: raw@cis-india.org
List - Researchers at Work: https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/researchers

► Support Us

Please help us defend consumer and citizen rights on the Internet! Write a cheque in favour of 'The Centre for Internet and Society' and mail it to us at No. 194, 2nd 'C' Cross, Domlur, 2nd Stage, Bengaluru - 5600 71.

► Request for Collaboration

We invite researchers, practitioners, artists, and theoreticians, both organisationally and as individuals, to engage with us on topics related internet and society, and improve our collective understanding of this field. To discuss such possibilities, please write to Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, at sunil@cis-india.org (for policy research), or Sumandro Chattapadhyay, Research Director, at sumandro@cis-india.org (for academic research), with an indication of the form and the content of the collaboration you might be interested in. To discuss collaborations on Indic language Wikipedia projects, write to Tanveer Hasan, Programme Officer, at tanveer@cis-india.org.

CIS is grateful to its primary donor the Kusuma Trust founded by Anurag Dikshit and Soma Pujari, philanthropists of Indian origin for its core funding and support for most of its projects. CIS is also grateful to its other donors, Wikimedia Foundation, Ford Foundation, Privacy International, UK, Hans Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, and IDRC for funding its various projects.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/newsletters/june-2016-newsletter

Cyberstalkers, the new bullies in town

praskrishna — 2016-07-04T02:44:39Z

The advent of social media and an increase in accessibility has led to increasing concerns with regard to cyber safety.

The article by S. Poorvaja was published in the Hindu on July 4, 2016. Pranesh Prakash gave inputs.

Bombarded with messages, poems and photographs from a cyber stalker across multiple social networking platforms, Shradha Muralidharan, a consultant in the city, said that being curt and asking the stalker to stop bothering was of no use.

“I initially did not want to engage with him as I was afraid that it would only provoke him more. But then ignoring him did not help as well and I was forced to speak to him. He, however, went ahead and contacted a host of my friends on these sites and asked them if they could introduce me to him,” she recalled.

Cyberstalking is now on the increase with people being flooded with messages and having their information online manipulated and used to threaten them with.

Vandhana,* an engineer from the city, says she thinks twice before posting content online — be it on her Instagram or her Facebook profile.

“Despite having adequate privacy tools, I later found that my photos and other information were being shared by a colleague who was on my friends’ list to his friend, who then proceeded to cyberstalk me,” she said.

What to share?

While multiple tools that social media sites offer do allow people to mute, block or even report people, Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director for the Centre for Internet and Society, said technical restrictions didn’t play much of a part in a situation where information one posts to a private audience is shared further, without their consent.

“Trust plays a large role in what you share online since someone can find a way to get around technological restrictions. While there are some violations that can be addressed by the law, a few cannot be, and it is important for people to be aware of the legal provisions that exist,” he added.

Be it social media meet-ups, Facebook friends catching up outside of the virtual world or web writers meeting to brainstorm ideas, the last five years have seen a gradual increase in such socialising and new safety concerns have cropped up.

Karthika, a chartered accountant from the city who went through an unpleasant experience of being stalked on social media sites and cyber-bullied, said that while the police were helpful when she sought them out, she was also constantly questioned as to why she was befriending people online in the first place.

“I tried not to keep mum about what was happening to me but was also simultaneously told by people that it would seem like I was drawing unnecessary attention to myself if I made public what was happening to me. More people should come forward and support the person who is getting stalked, rather than be intimidated,” she said.

The use of internet, email or any form of electronic communication to contact and harrass a person who has expressed disinterest, and to cause them trauma is what qualifies as Cyberstalking

To prevent misuse of information, social media users can use privacy tools and settings that enable them have a control on who vies their information

With smartphone apps for social media sites that have access to the user's location, caution must be exercised by the user in knowing who is privy to such information

With children being active online as well, the use of parental control softwares that helps monitor the content they share is necessary as they are vulnerable victims to stalking and cyber bullying

Knowledge about the cyber crime laws and where/whom to report incidences of the same to.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-s-poorvaja-july-4-2016-cyberstalkers-the-new-bullies-in-town

June 2016 Report

praskrishna — 2016-07-04T14:29:24Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/accessibility/resources/june-2016-report

Sunil Abraham

praskrishna — 2016-07-07T16:56:11Z

Sunil Abraham

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/home-images/copy6_of_Sunil.png

FB & Google have already monopolised Indian cyberspace

praskrishna — 2016-07-08T15:59:46Z

In an interview with Catch, Sunil Abraham, executive director of Center for Internet & Society, puts the recent US-India cyber relationship framework into perspective. Abraham also talks about how Indian surveillance policies are outdated and why the country has failed to check the hegemonic tendencies of companies like Facebook and Google.

The interview was published by Catch News on July 3, 2016.

US-India signed a cyber relationship framework earlier this month. Could you explain some of the takeouts that may have important implications in the near future?

In the framework, both sides have made a "commitment to the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance" - in immediate practical terms that means India will accept the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) transition proposed for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). Unfortunately, as my colleague Pranesh Prakash points out "U.S. state control over the core of the internet's domain name system is not being removed by the transition that is currently underway."

India along with Brazil and other emerging powers should have insisted that the question of jurisdiction be addressed before the transition. We must remember, that the multi-stakeholder model is just a fancy name for open and participatory self-regulation by the private sector. While the multi-stakeholder model is useful as a complement to traditional state-led regulation, it cannot be used to protect human rights or ensure the security of a nation state.

[That is precisely why - the very next sentence in the announcement for the the framework for the US-India Cyber Relationship says "a recognition of the leading role for governments in cyber security matters relating to national security". This is because ICANN-style multistakeholderism requires all stakeholders to be on "equal footing" without "distinct roles and responsibilities". In other words, the governments are saying that the multistakeholder model is fine for all Internet Governance areas with the exception of Cyber Security. Given the limits of the multistakeholder model this is indeed the wise thing to do. Since American corporations dominate the Internet, US foreign policy has historically pushed for the multistakeholder model as fig leaf for forbearance and reduced foreign regulatory burden American corporations operating in other jurisdictions. Therefore India must not drink the multistakeholder cool-aid whole sale. It cannot afford a laissez-faire approach where it waits for corporations to self-regulate - it must regulate whenever public interest or human rights are harmed. In other words, it must go beyond the multistakeholder model and produce appropriate regulation where necessary. Needless to add - it must also deregulate in areas where harms don't exist. Apart from this many of the details of the announcement are positive steps that will increase security in India and the USA, and indeed the also across the world.]

What are some aspects of Intellectual Property Rights that should be looked at, in the context of the framework?

There is some language around Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) that should be examined carefully too. The US corporations benefit from a maximalist IP regime. But Make in India, Digital India and Startup India all depend on flexibilities to the IP regime and therefore India should refuse signing. Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) obligations like the "Digital 2 Dozen" which the US is actively proselytizing across the Pacific. If we make that mistake, we will make zero progress in indigenous security research and product development and also many other areas of our economy, health sector and education sector will be severely compromised. Therefore it would be best to keep IP rights expansion and enforcement out of the framework for the US-India Cyber Relationship.

The PIL seeking a ban on WhatsApp was refused by the SC recently. Encrypted messaging services like Telegram however, have been used in the past by terror groups. What's your take on such end-to-end encryption services?

Privacy and security are two sides of the same coin. You cannot have one without the other. End-to-end encryption is the basis for online privacy. End-to-end encryption is a pre-requisite for many legitimate actions of law abiding citizens online such as commerce, banking, tele-medicine, protection of intellectual property, witness/source protection, client confidentiality etc. Therefore, banning end-to-end encryption would mean the death of individual privacy and national security.

If the government wants to promote cyber security it should promote the use of end-to-end encryption amongst law abiding citizens.

Terrorist have to be stopped through targeted profiling, surveillance and interception. Big data analytics may be useful to watch for patterns in the meta data but there is no replacement for good old fashioned police work.

Once suspects have been identified the encrypted channels can be compromised by:

Placing trojans on the end-user devices
Performing man-in-the-middle attacks and
Using brute force attacks with super computers.

Snowden's revelations have made it very clear that blanket and mass surveillance does not help foil terror attacks or stop organised crime. So far, research and government reports from across the world indicate that only a minority of terrorists use encryption. However, this situation may change.

We don't have any proper encryption policy under the IT Act yet. What's taking so long and what are the key points that any policy in this matter must include in future?

We need many different types of encryption policies. We need a policy that mandates encryption and digital signature for all government personnel and also for all government transactions. We need policies that promote research and development in cryptography and mathematics. We need to update our criminal procedure code so that encrypted communications and data can be targeted by law enforcement and used effectively in the criminal justice process.

However, we should not have any broad encryption policy that tries to regulate encryption as a technology. That would be a highly regressive move and will be impossible to enforce. That would breed contempt for rule of law.

Surveillance and the tech around it has been contentious for various governments. Where do we stand vis-a-vis regulating surveillance measures by the state?

Our surveillance and interception laws are outdated. They need to be modernized to deal with advancements in technology and also global developments when it comes to data protection and privacy law.

In fact, our organisation was part of a global effort called Necessary and Proportionate which identified 13 principles to modernise surveillance which are connected to various aspects such as Legality, Legitimate aim, Competent judicial authority, Integrity of communications and systems and more. Some of these principles may have to be customised for the Indian context. [For example, given the load on courts perhaps India should stay with executive authorization of interceptions and data access requests. However, getting the law correct is only half the job. For the law cannot fix what the technology has broken. Some surveillance projects are well designed. For ex. the NATGRID - from what I understand it is a standard and platform that which will allow 12 security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies to temporarily make unions of sub-sets of 21 data sources. These automated temporary databases will be created under existing data access provisions of the law. I also hope the NATGRID is also using cryptography to ensure the maintenance of a non-repudiable log that will identify all officers involved in authorizing the each request and accessing the resultant data. Unfortunately, other surveillance projects are unmitigated disasters. For example, UID or Aadhaar. Many Indians don't realize that Aadhaar is a surveillance project. Biometrics is just a fancy name for remote, covert and non-consensual identification technology. Using the UID database the government can identify every single Indian without their consent. The so called "consent layer" in the India Stack is being developed by volunteers outside the UIDAI to avoid transparency under the Right to Information Act. Nothing in the current layer of the "consent layer" allows citizens to revoke consent. There is no facility in the UID Act to delete yourself from the database. Identity information aka the UID number and authentication information aka your biometrics for about a billion Indians have been collected and stored in a centralized location. It is as if our parliamentarians have written an open letter to criminals and foreign governments says "here is the information you need to wreck whole sale damage - come and get it". Hopefully the Supreme Court will save us from this impending disaster.]

With a sluggish US market, India has the biggest potential for companies like FB & Google, next only to China. Do you feel that in the quest to take over the Indian market, FB & Google are going to monopolise cyberspace in India?

I have news for you - they have already monopolised Indian cyberspace. They have completely wiped out competition in certain domains.

One of the many reasons they have done this is because we don't have laws and regulations to temper their hegemonic tendencies. For example, we could use data portability and interoperability mandates for social media to spark competition in markets where there are entrenched monopolies.

Competition law can be used to protect other firms from abuse of market power. Consumer protection law and privacy law could be used to ensure that user's rights are not compromised in the race for market share. In addition, a modern privacy law compliant with the best practices in the European Data Protection Regulation 2016, would allow emerging Indian companies to compete with giants like Facebook and Google on a level playing field. [Speaking of level playing field - only recently has the government introduced the "equalization levy". This was long overdue. Imagine the amount of tax that could have been collected so far and damage that has been done to competition. Regardless the current NDA government deserves our kudos for ensuring that Facebook and Google contribute their fair share of taxes. The new IPR Policy was also an opportunity to address the monopoly of Google and Facebook. There should have been a concerted attempt to use free/open source software, open standard and open content to bolster Indic language technologies. A billion dollars from every spectrum auction should be used to create incentives for Indian private sector, research and academic organisation who can contribute openly to the Indic cyberspace. This is the market where we can still build a highly competitive market. Today, given government inaction - millions of Indians are training Google's language platforms every time they use machine translation or speech to text technologies. This corpus of information will not be available for public interest research. Ideally we should also have Indians contributing to commons-based peer production projects like Wikipedia for their Indic language needs. Unfortunately the government totally missed this opportunity.]

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/catch-news-asad-ali-july-3-2016-fb-and-google-have-already-monopolised-indian-cyberspace

Sub-$100 Mobile Phones Browser Compatibility Tests

praskrishna — 2016-07-10T14:12:22Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sub-100-mobile-phones-browser-compatibility-tests

Flashpoint #TrollControl: Maneka versus NCW

praskrishna — 2016-07-09T02:11:59Z

Amidst the debate over controlling online trolls - the proposal by Union Women and Child Development Minister to curb violence against women on the internet has triggered a fight between the minister and the National Commission for Women (NCW).

While Maneka Gandhi asked the NCW to monitor the internet to control trolls against women - NCW Chief Lalitha Kumaramangalam questioning the feasibility of the Minister's proposal, saying the internet is too big a space to be monitored. Sunil Abraham was interviewed. Times Now Television interviewed Sunil Abraham on this. Watch the video here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/times-now-july-8-2016-flashpoint-troll-control-maneka-versus-ncw

India No Haven For Net Freedom But It Did Not Oppose UN Move on Internet Rights

praskrishna — 2016-07-09T02:25:51Z

India hasn’t had the best record when it comes to Internet rights. The country regularly carries out Internet shutdowns under flimsy pretexts, is still fumbling when it comes to the drafting of a comprehensive privacy bill, and most recently came out with a geospatial information regulation bill that would establish ownership over all forms of location data.

The article by Anuj Srinivas was published in the Wire on July 6, 2016.

So, last week, when the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) passed a resolution on the “promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet”, it wasn’t surprising to see the wave of media criticism of the amendments that were proposed by countries such as China and Russia – and which were supported by India.

South Africa’s Mail & Guardian ran a story headlined “South Africa votes with China, Russia and India against Internet freedoms in UN resolution”. Private Internet Access’s headline was “These 17 Countries Don’t Believe that Freedom of Expression on the Internet is a Human Right”. Popular tech website The Verge noted that the resolution was opposed “by a minority of authoritarian regimes including Russia, China and Saudi Arabia, as well as democracies like South Africa and India. These nations called for the UN to delete a passage in the resolution that ‘condemns unequivocally measures to intentionally prevent or disrupt access to our dissemination of information online’.”

The Verge‘s report was followed up by a number of Indian publications including IndiaToday and Medianama – the latter incorrectly stating that the UNHRC resolution “recognised Internet usage as a basic human right – as well a host of other global publications.

The facts
There were two fundamental mistakes with some of these reports. Firstly, the resolution was adopted without vote (with oral revision) as noted by the UNHRC. Therefore, while there were a number of countries which co-sponsored the resolution and many that didn’t, it is completely wrong to state that India – as the Mail & Guardian reported – or any other country, voted against the resolution.

Secondly, as noted by the Centre for Internet and Society, none of the four amendments supported by India called for the deletion of a passage that condemned the prevention or disruption of Internet access and online information dissemination. Although it may fit neatly within India’s history of issuing Internet block orders, no country was opposed to this paragraph at the UNHRC forum (although many countries including India flout this clause in spirit back at home). No such amendment was proposed.

What then were these four amendments, which Article 19, an organisation that advocates freedom of expression, statedwould “substantially weaken the resolution”? Out of the four amendments (referred to as L85-88 in the UNHRC resolution), the first amendment (L85) – which sought to include a reference to fighting against the exploitation of children online – was withdrawn by Russia before it was considered by member states.

The other three amendments, while not completely endorsed by the countries that co-sponsored the resolution, do carry a certain level of nuance. Only one of the amendments (L86) can truly be described as diluting language regarding freedom of expression online, although this could have been potentially a result of procedural politics.

L88: Including Reference to Hate Speech
This amendment – proposed by Belarus, China, Iran and the Russian Federation – asks to introduce a new paragraph that states:

“Expresses its concern at the use of the Internet and information and communications technology to disseminate ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, and incitement to racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.”

Article 19 says of this amendment that it would “undermine the intended focus of the draft resolution on protecting human rights online, in particular freedom of expression..” While it is true that a few paragraphs of the resolution’s preamble include a reference to hate speech, it is difficult to see what harm this amendment would have brought in and even more difficult to accept that it would dilute the focus of the overall resolution.

Using the Internet and other online media technologies for incitement and as a means of propagating intolerance and xenophobia is a very real problem in India and other Asian countries, the most notable example of which was the role that social media played in the exodus of north-east Indian migrants from Bangalore four years ago. While shutdowns are obviously not the best way of dealing with this, it is important to acknowledge the role of the Internet as a medium in this aspect. In sum, this amendment certainly would not have diluted the resolution’s aim of promoting freedom of expression online.

L87: Human-Rights Approach
The second amendment replaces the term “human rights-based approach” with “comprehensive and integrated approach” in two paragraphs on expanding Internet access:

PP17: Stressing the importance of applying a comprehensive and integrated (human rights-based approach) in providing and expanding access to the Internet and for the Internet to be open, accessible and nurtured by multistakeholder participation,

OP5: Affirms also the importance of applying a comprehensive and integrated (human rights-based approach) in providing and in expanding access to Internet and requests all States to make efforts to bridge the many forms of digital divides..

This amendment was a little trickier. According to people involved in the country stakeholder discussions, whom The Wirespoke with, the aversion to a ‘human-rights’ approach towards expanding Internet access came as a result of China and Russia playing procedural politics. The language that was proposed in the amendment – “comprehensive and integrated” – while certainly not the strongest possible language that could have been used, would not have legally diluted the proposal to expand Internet access while maintaining an open and multistakeholder approach towards Internet governance.

Stepping back, what would a human rights-based approach in expanding Internet access look like? Would it include legitimising the act of zero-rating and the approval of schemes such as Facebook’s Free Basics? Both of which, incidentally, have been banned in India. While the proposed amendment certainly does not speak well of the motivations of China, Russia and India, the term is also vague enough that its mere removal doesn’t indicate a lack of support towards Internet freedom.

L88 – Right to privacy and removal of UDHR reference
This amendment, proposed by China and the Russian Federation, was more straightforward. In two paragraphs, it sought to add the specific term ‘right to privacy’, while in another paragraph it proposed removing reference to language from, and articles in, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Had the amendment been passed, the changes in the following paragraphs would have been made:

PP7: Noting that the exercise of human rights, in particular the right to freedom of expression and the right to privacy, on the Internet is an issue of increasing interest and importance as the rapid pace of technological development enables individuals all over the world to use new information and communication technologies,

OP15: Decides to continue its consideration of the promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights, including the right to freedom of expression and the right to privacy, on the Internet and other information and communication technology, as well as of how the Internet can be an important tool for fostering citizen and civil society participation, for the realisation of development in every community and for exercising human rights, in accordance with its programme of work.

OP1: Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, in particular freedom of expression ~~which is applicable regardless of frontiers and through any media of one’s choice~~, and the right to privacy in accordance with articles 17 and 19 of the ~~Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the~~ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;

On one hand, this amendment would have added specific reference to the right to privacy. That specific term doesn’t appear in the draft resolution, although there are a few references to privacy in general in the resolution’s preamble.

However, the addition of a ‘right to privacy’ is coupled with a watering down of clear references to the protection of freedom of expression. Cynical observers would rightly note that China and Russia are probably less concerned with online privacy and more irked with the clear support of freedom of expression “regardless of frontiers” and “in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights”; which is probably why this particular proposed amendment combined both issues to improve its chances of passing. While there is little doubt that this amendment would have diluted the resolution’s focus on protecting freedom of expression, the alternative phrasing also doesn’t create legal loopholes that renders it useless. Moreover, it still contains reference to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, especially Article 19, which goes beyond Article 19 of the UDHR .

India, a guardian?
It would be naive and wrong to take a strong position either way. To state that the amendments supported by India are all antithetical to the spirit of the UNHRC resolution, as some have done, is simply incorrect. On the other hand, this doesn’t mean India, and even less, China and Russia, are guardians of Internet freedom.

The UNHRC resolution in its entirety is a fine document. While non-binding, it provides a foundation for claiming that the same rights people have offline “must also be protected online”. Other crucial sections state that governments “should ensure accountability for all human rights violations and abuses committed against persons for exercising their human rights online”, while condemning “measures to intentionally prevent or disrupt access to or dissemination of information online”.

While the amendments India supported may not wholly oppose this resolution, it is also true that successive Indian governments also do not have an admirable track-record of upholding the resolution’s aims. Freedom for online speech had to be reclaimed in the form of court judgements, with the current government still supporting regulations that would allow it clamp down on online freedom of expression. In certain states within the country, Internet shutdowns happen without public explanations or justifiable reasoning. Over the last four years, for instance, Jammu and Kashmir has lost 18 days of Internet access. While it may not have wholly opposed the UNHRC resolution, the country still has a ways to go in terms of Internet freedom.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-week-anuj-srinivas-july-6-2016-india-no-haven-for-net-freedom-but-did-not-oppose-un-move-on-internet-rights