The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 1 to 13.
2012 Conference on Trends in Knowledge Information Dynamics
https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/2012-conference-on-trends-in-knowledge-information-dynamics
<b>The 2012 Conference on Trends in Knowledge Information Dynamics convened a panel on Open Access. There was consensus amongst the panelist that the “big question” facing the open access movement no longer remains "if" or "why" open access, but rather "how" open access. The panel proved instructive for shifting the discussion away from ideology towards concrete questions facing the open access agenda and its implementation. </b>
<p> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This year’s<a class="external-link" href="http://drtc.isibang.ac.in/ictk/subthemes"> International Conference on Trends in Knowledge Information Dynamics</a> held in Bangalore brought together a panel of speakers who discussed the accomplishments of and future challenges facing the open access movement. There was an air of consensus amongst the panelists that the “big question” facing the OA movement today no longer remains <i>if</i> or <i>why</i> open access, but rather <i>how</i> open access<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[1]</span></span></a>. The speakers did a good job of moving the discussion beyond ideology or proof of principle and used the panel to discuss some of the challenges facing the OA agenda and its implementation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">More than ten years after the launch of the Budapest Open Access Initiative, the benefits of open access have been demonstrated through countless studies. Studies have demonstrated an increased impact factor for authors who self archive, for those who self-archive early, those who publish in OA journals, as well as for journals that have gone OA. Other studies have shown the benefits of open models for facilitating scientific collaboration and stimulating the knowledge economy; creating new opportunities for both big business and start-ups alike. Further, open models of publishing—both green and gold—are well recognized today as attractive alternatives for research institutions and universities seeking local and sustainable solutions for internal intellectual property management. In light of <span class="msoIns"><ins cite="mailto:Natasha%20Vaz" datetime="2012-07-17T16:08"></ins></span>this mounting body of evidence, policy makers and administration can no longer overlook the benefits of OA for the visibility and impact of their institution, faculty and research publications.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Fortunately, the wealth of studies demonstrating the benefits of OA for both the STM and HSS disciplines have grabbed the attention of national and international policy makers. On the international stage, models of scholarly research and communication that privilege the open sharing of knowledge are proving more favorable to closed models which remained (relatively) unresponsive to shifting scholarly needs and practices. The presentations given by Alma Swan from Key Perspectives Ltd and of Dr. Carlos Morais Pires of the European Commission reminded us that OA is no longer an fringe matter confined to the esoteric concerns of tech-savvy physicists. Both the unsustainable increase in journal licensing fees and the opportunities presented through digital publishing methods has allowed OA to emerge as a mainstream public policy issue. Leading inter-governmental institutions such as the World Bank, UNESCO and the European Commission have all committed themselves to the OA agenda through a range of initiatives.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The World Bank, for example, now releases all of their publications under the CC-BY license and deposits them within their Open Knowledge Repository. UNESCO continues to support the movement through capacity building initiatives such as policy guidelines and through the Global Open Access Portal. The European Unions’ recent “Digital Agenda” report has firmly recognized the importance of the OA movement to the European economy. Additionally, the Commission’s launch of the “OpenAIRE” repository has set an important valuable precedent and it is hoped that this move will encourage more organizations from the EU to maintain their own institutional repositories. With the support of big players like UNESCO and the European Commission, it remains probable that OA will continue to find its way into the policy agendas of more universities and funding agencies. This high level policy support has certainly reinforced the legitimacy of the OA movement and has proven valuable for the “open” shift in scholarly communication.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As support for OA continues to gain momentum at the international level, an environmental scan reveals a conducive—if not promising—environment for the future growth of open access in India. Indeed, the success the OA movement has seen to date is a cause for optimism in itself. However, these accomplishments must not obviate the real need for continued advocacy in India at all levels. At the national level, the Knowledge Commission of India has shown support for the OA agenda. The agenda has also been taken up by the Council on Scientific and Industrial Research in the form of a council recommendation and a growing network of institutional repositories. At the university level, the National Institute of Oceanography Goa and the National Institute of Technology Rourkela remain the only two institutions which have demonstrated a thorough and long-term commitment to OA in a <i>policy-based</i> capacity. Consequently, both institutions continue to witness growth of their repositories thanks to the support of administrative and library staff. However, it must be recognized that other institutional repositories in India continue to grow at impressive rates, even in the absence of a strong policy base.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Recognizing that most OA enthusiasts agree both upon the need for and benefits of OA, Dr. Norbert Lossau of the Geottingen State Library, Germany, reminded us of the need to focus less on reconfirming the known and taking advantage of opportunities to address concrete questions around implementation. Lossau’s presentation provided a concise and action-oriented framework for moving the OA agenda forward. In particular, he emphasized the need for resource reallocation within library units in order to provide the required institutional support for OA and also underlined importance of capacity and network building among actors who might be working in isolation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Given the inertia of many faculty and researchers in Indian universities and research institutions, more needs to be done at the policy level before OA can be said to enjoy mainstream success. Given the scope of the task ahead, Dr K Kanikaram Satyanarayana, Deputy Director General of ICMR reminds us that the changing landscape of scholarly communication may not lend indefinite and central importance to the scholarly journal and consequently, the OA movement. Recent internet-based innovations in scholarly publishing—such as the “PLOS Currents” project—reveals how the instantaneity of the digital research environment is inciting greater demand for raw data. Researchers no longer appear willing to wait for the publication of peer-reviewed articles in order to test and build upon the work of their peers. With related issues like open data moving center stage in the “openness” debate, it remains unclear if access to scholarly literature as a <i>finished product</i> and <i>medium </i>of scholarly communication—will remain a priority for policy makers in the long term.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Given the challenges ahead, champions of OA—in any context—need not, nor should not, do it alone. While recognizing the challenges related to maintaining global networks, the panel discussion served as an important reminder that the long-term success of any OA initiative rests in its’ ability to plug into regional, sub-regional and global networks. Global network building does not, however, imply that India need only integrate themselves into established networks (which are more often than not grounded in the Western experience). While greater representation and participation of advocates from the South would certainly be of benefit, it is also important that the distinct needs and conditions of scholarly communication in the Global South are not left unaddressed. Facilitating a truly <i>global</i> exchange of knowledge and building long-lasting south-south collaborations remains an important task ahead. This is particularly important if the Global South is to be recognized as more than mere “beneficiaries” of the OA and also receive visibility as knowledge producers.</p>
<div>
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
</div>
<p><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[1]</span></span></a> Phrase popularized by Neelie Kroes of the EC, in support of OA</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/2012-conference-on-trends-in-knowledge-information-dynamics'>https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/2012-conference-on-trends-in-knowledge-information-dynamics</a>
</p>
No publisherrebecca2012-07-18T10:47:44ZBlog EntryKnow your Users, Match their Needs!
https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/know-your-users
<b>As Free Access to Law initiatives in the Global South enter into a new stage of maturity, they must be certain not to lose sight of their users’ needs. The following post gives a summary of the “Good Practices Handbook”, a research output of the collaborative project Free Access to Law — Is it Here to Stay? undertaken by LexUM (Canada) and the South African Legal Institute in partnership with the Centre for Internet and Society.</b>
<p></p>
<p>Almost ten years have passed since the Montreal Declaration on
Free Access to Law (FAL) was signed by eight legal information institutes and other
FAL initiatives. Today, the Free Access to Law Movement (FALM) is growing with over 30 initiatives having signed onto the Declaration and providing free, online
access to legal information. While the movement continues to gain momentum, the
big question no longer remains <em>why</em> we need
free access to law, but instead <em>how</em> FAL initiatives can continue to do so sustainably in the long-term. The principles of access
and justice underpinning the FALM have been well-argued and few would dispute the
notion that citizens ought to have access to the laws under which they are
governed. As the Montreal Declaration states: "Public legal information from
all countries and international institutions is part of the common heritage of
humanity…Maximizing access to his information promotes justice and the rule of
law" (2002).</p>
<p>Regardless of legal system or political context, the
importance of securing free online access to the law has been recognized from a
variety of perspectives. Whether FAL is considered a critical democratic
function or simply an essential efficiency within any legal system, it is
difficult to contest that the internet has increased the accessibility of and
ease with which legal information is being published and shared online. Setting
the ideological and practical foundations of the movement aside, effectively
demonstrating the impact of FAL initiatives and to secure their sustainability in
the long-term remains the next big challenge for the FALM. Today, there is a
growing necessity for grounded and realistic indicators that can validate some
of the long-held assumptions around the impacts and outcomes of FAL initiatives.
Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, there is also a need for a more
nuanced understanding of the factors that influence the sustainability of FAL
initiatives— particularly in resource-scarce and often nebulous legal systems of
the Global South.</p>
<p>This blog post provides some insight into the questions
above through a brief summary of the results of the study <a class="external-link" href="http://crdi.org/ar/ev-139395-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html">Free Access to Law—Is
it Here to Stay?</a> This global comparative study was carried out by LexUM (Canada)
and the South African Legal Institute in partnership with the Centre for
Internet and Society. The project set out to begin providing answers to some of
these critical questions around the impacts and sustainability of the FALM. It
was initially hypothesized in the study that the sustainability of a FAL
initiative rests upon a particular string of contingent factors. To begin, a particular
condition would incentivize the creation of the FAL initiative — more often than
not meeting the unmet needs of those requiring access to legal information. Next, if the FAL initiative is able to provide
the service within a favourable context, it was suspected that it would produce
favourable outcomes for both users and society at large. In turn, if the FAL
initiative was able to provide benefits to users, it was theorized that these benefits
would then stimulate reinvestment into the FAL initiative — forming a positive
and sustainable feedback loop. </p>
<p>As the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.informationjuridique.ca/docs/a2k/Best%20Practices%20Hand%20Book_03sept11.pdf">Good Practices Handbook</a> highlights, the research
hypothesis provided an accurate reading of what the sustainability chain of a
FAL initiative might look like in<em> practice</em>.
If unable to keep up with the evolving information requirements of their users,
this study suggests that FAL initiatives run the risk of FAL becoming outdated
and even outperformed by either government-based or private sector
initiatives. This is why FAL initiatives
must continue to be innovative and find new ways to meet users’ needs. Approaches take my include keeping their
collections up to date, fine-tuning their services or even reinventing
themselves through the provision of value-added services. Gathered from the
experiences of the eleven countries across Africa and Asia examined in this
study, the following is a brief summary of the nine “Good Practices” that emerging
FAL initiatives can consider:</p>
<ol><li><strong>The FAL initiative
should establish clear objectives</strong>: Before doing anything, the FAL initiative
should decide what exactly it’s setting out to do…critical components such as
content selection, targeted audience, expected reach, search functionalities
and other website features help determine priorities and evaluate capacity to
achieve these objectives.</li><li><strong>How to be small and
do big things</strong>: Most of the FAL initiatives studied as part of this project
were formed of small teams (often less than five individuals). Initially, this may
appear to pose a risk for sustainability. However, we saw a number of ways in
which small teams have proven to be innovative, flexible, and able to thrive in
environments of scarcity. However, as much as small teams can be seen as a
source of innovation, they may also pose a risk in the medium to long-term. </li><li><strong>FAL initiatives
require expertise in both IT and legal information</strong>: Legal information management
experts understand how the law is applied, how different texts and parts of
texts speak to one another, and how these documents are used. IT experts can
imagine a variety of ways to address these needs. If both forms of expertise is
not available within the team of a FAL initiative, institutional partnerships
provide promising sites for collaborative support. For example, the FALM
constitutes a rich source of expertise and has proven to be a site of
collaboration between established and emerging FAL initiatives. Further,
universities have proven to be a significant source of human and financial
resources for several FAL initiatives.</li><li><strong>FAL initiatives
should look to where they are headed (but not too far ahead)</strong>: Because the
purpose of a FAL initiative is to provide free online access to the law, it
must secure access to this data for regular publication. How will legal
information be received and organized by the initiative? In what format will it
be published in? Early on, FAL initiatives need to develop both internal and
external workflow processes to ensure that the initiative is able to provide regular
access to updated information. Furthermore, an important finding of the study
suggests that context plays a much larger role in a project’s sustainability. Consideration
should be given to a country’s ICT infrastructure, the transparency of a
government and their access to information regimes, and the nature of the legal
information market when designing the workflows of an FAL initiative.</li><li><strong>FAL initiatives
should work with the ICT infrastructure in place</strong>: The quality and
consistency of internet access varies across countries in the Global South. FAL
initiatives should remain aware of how stakeholders and users are accessing the
internet and develop their service accordingly. Considering the often
intermittent nature of internet connectivity in the Global South, providing
users with offline access to databases is a practical alternative.</li><li><strong>FAL initiatives
should use Free and Open Source Software</strong>: FAL initiatives should maximise
their use of FLOSS. All FAL initiatives use FLOSS to some extent and without
these flexible and cost-effective alternatives, it would be safe to infer that
the FALM would have grown as quickly as it has.</li><li><strong>FAL initiatives
should be sensitive to culture</strong>: FAL initiatives rely on stakeholders and
communities of users. Staying mindful of the professional and organizational
cultures within a country may provide the initiative with a source of community
support which may become a sustainability strategy. Further, integrated or parallel social
networking platforms can play an essential role in community-building around
the FAL initiatives and can also serve as another source of content in
resource-scarce environments.</li><li><strong>Find your users,
match their needs</strong>: Project goals and appropriate strategies should be based
on an in-depth understanding of the needs of those using the FAL initiative. As
the sustainability chain suggests, when FAL initiatives produce positive
outputs and outcomes, stakeholders will reinvest in the initiative to ensure
its sustainability. If a user’s needs are effectively met by an FAL initiative,
this group can provide either the resources or impetus for its continued
success. Identifying who your users are and staying aware of their needs is a
good way to secure reinvestment into the project.</li><li><strong>FAL initiatives
should diversify funding sources</strong>: This may be easier said than
done — reinvestment can be the most challenging aspect of sustaining a FAL
initiative. Early on, initiatives that receive donor-based funding benefit
substantially upon investment. However, these initiatives are put at
significant risk once initial seed funding has been depleted. Similarly, FAL
initiatives that partnerships with other during their start up phase face
similar fates as securing long-term service delivery can become a challenge.
Possible funding sources included throughout the study include, among others:
government, international development agencies or NGOs, the judiciary, law
societies and the sale of value-added services.</li></ol>
<p> </p>
<p>In addition to these good practices, this study has emphasized
the role the that the FALM has played in helping redefine online legal information as a public good. Each
of the case studies demonstrates in a unique way the value openness plays in a
legal information ecosystem, and how a robust digital legal information commons can be of
benefit to users. Traditionally, the legal information market has been dominated by a select
number of commercial players. In response, the FALM has created an important
transnational space within which conversations around the provision of and
access to legal information as a political right <em>rather</em> than a commodity to be bought and sold
can take place. Encouragingly, governments in the Global South are catching and FAL initiatives from the South have proven to be immense sources of innovation in their own right. In Indonesia, for example, FAL initiatives have laid the
groundwork for emerging government initiatives that are now prioritizing the provision of free, online access to legal and other government information. Today, I believe that we are witnessing an important paradigm
shift as governments are beginning to recognize that “access” to legal information is a
right to be held by the public.</p>
<p>Despite such headway, it is needless to say that FAL initiatives in the Global South
continue to face immense sustainability challenges. However, it is hoped that this
study can provide some practical insights for emerging initiatives
and partnerships. However, as more FAL initiatives begin entering into the next
stage of maturity and growth, it is more important than ever that they are
able to adapt to adverse environmental changes and form
long-lasting partnerships with information sources within government. Most
importantly, FAL initiatives must remain dynamic and responsive to users’
needs. To do so, they must be able to tailor and expand their services, offerings
and user-base. To secure their sustainability and relevance in the long term, they must also be continuously strengthening their ties and maintain open communication flows with
users. If FAL initiatives are able to successfully make the
transition from being supply side initiatives to becoming demand driven services,
the FALM will be well-positioned for another decade of sustainable growth. </p>
<p>Download the collection below:</p>
<p><a href="https://cis-india.org/digital-natives/publications/Links%20in%20the%20Chain%20-%20Volume%20I%20issue%20I.pdf" class="internal-link" title="Links in The Chain - Volume I"><img src="https://cis-india.org/openness/pdf.png" title="Know your Users, Match their Needs!" height="16" width="16" alt="" class="subMenuTitle" /></a><a href="https://cis-india.org/openness/good-practices.pdf" class="internal-link" title="Good Practices Handbook">Good Practices
Handbook </a>(426 kb)<br /><a href="https://cis-india.org/digital-natives/publications/Links%20in%20the%20Chain%20-%20Volume%20I%20issue%20I.pdf" class="internal-link" title="Links in The Chain - Volume I"><img src="https://cis-india.org/openness/pdf.png" title="Know your Users, Match their Needs!" height="16" width="16" alt="" class="subMenuTitle" /></a><a href="https://cis-india.org/openness/environmental-scan.pdf" class="internal-link" title="Environmental Scan Report">Environmental Scan Report</a> (860 kb)<br /><a href="https://cis-india.org/digital-natives/publications/Links%20in%20the%20Chain%20-%20Volume%20I%20issue%20I.pdf" class="internal-link" title="Links in The Chain - Volume I"><img src="https://cis-india.org/openness/pdf.png" title="Know your Users, Match their Needs!" height="16" width="16" alt="" class="subMenuTitle" /></a><a href="https://cis-india.org/openness/local-researchers-methodology-guide.pdf" class="internal-link" title="Local Researcher's Methodology Guide">Local Researcher's Methodology Guide</a> (1225 kb)</p>
<p>The full collection of case studies and the Good Practices
Handbook was originally published on the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.informationjuridique.ca/cij/acces-libre-au-droit/resultats">Project Website</a>. The Centre for Internet and Society oversaw the following case studies: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.informationjuridique.ca/docs/a2k/resultats/indiafinaljul11.pdf">India</a>, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.informationjuridique.ca/docs/a2k/resultats/hongkongfinaljul11.pdf">Hong Kong</a>, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.informationjuridique.ca/docs/a2k/resultats/indonesiafinaljul11.pdf">Indonesia</a> and <a class="external-link" href="http://www.informationjuridique.ca/docs/a2k/resultats/Berne_Final_2011_July.pdf">Philippines</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/know-your-users'>https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/know-your-users</a>
</p>
No publisherrebeccaResearchFeaturedOpen AccessOpennessPublications2012-02-27T15:06:14ZBlog EntryReconceptualizing Privacy on Social Network(s) Sites
https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/reconceptualizing-privacy-on-social-network-s-sites
<b>While “privacy” on social network sites remains a highly ambiguous notion, much debate surrounding the issue to date has focused on privacy as the nonpublic-ness of personal information. However, as these social platforms become sites for diverse forms of “networking”, privacy must also be popularly conceptualized as control over personal data flows. </b>
<p></p>
<p><strong><br /></strong>The perils of information exposure and the loss of privacy
on social network sites (SNS) has become a talked about issue. Information once
considered has private has in many instances become viewable by unintended
audiences of parents, colleagues, college admission officers, employers, even the courts. The recent Facebook
<a href="http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/facebooks-new-privacy-changes-good-bad-and-ugly">privacy
scandal</a>, which left sensitive personal information for millions of users
open and searchable via Google, heightened privacy
consciousness amongst users, public interest groups, and Facebook itself<a name="_ftnref1" href="#_ftn1"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"></span></span></a>. As the free flowing nature of information on the
internet has redefined practices surrounding the disclosure of information, new and multidimensional privacy challenges have arose as a result. </p>
<p>The much-celebrated ethos of “openness” continues to attract
numerous and diverse users to SNS, and without a doubt, these platforms have
enabled users to stay connected and share information with the people around
them -- for better or worse. However, it is within this inherently open context
that notions of privacy are continuously being challenged and redefined. While a particular user may prefer to keep
certain information widely available to attract “potential friends” within a
certain network or social circle, it may go without saying that the same user
may not be comfortable with a family member viewing that same information, or
having personal information <a href="http://www.facebook.com/apps/application.php?id=114232425072">open access
to third parties</a>. It is this iterative
tension between “openness” and privacy which beckons the need to balance the
openness of SNS with the privacy of its members.</p>
<p><strong>Privacy as a
Semi-Public Personal Space</strong></p>
<p>Most commonly, privacy has been interpreted by users as a
“lack of access”, or the degree to which they are able to protect their
information from the public gaze. Various
research examining the privacy (mal)practices of users have also, by in large,
conceptualized privacy within this public/private binary. The most popular SNS today do allow users to
careful define their privacy level.
However, whether or not the information of a user remains open, restricted,
or private will depend on the privacy preferences unique to the user, and to
some degree, the architecture of a particular SNS. Inferring from privacy in practice,
researchers have generally labeled users as privacy fundamentalists, pragmatics,
or the marginally concerned <a name="_ftnref3" href="#_ftn3"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"></span></span></a>. While making
this distinction has been useful, is important to note that the diversity and
complexity of relationships within a single networked space obscures the
inherent simplicity of such typology.
With many online social networks becoming representative of offline
affiliation<a name="_ftnref4" href="#_ftn4"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"></span></span></a>,
the challenges inherent to maintaining a diverse number of social relations online may lead researchers to interpret uncertain privacy practices as paradoxical<a name="_ftnref5" href="#_ftn5"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"></span></span></a>. Such a notion also calls into question the
utility of categorizing users according to their privacy practices.</p>
<p>To illustrate such complexity, many users today are
compelled to join sub-networks or groups within these sites, which then cluster
users and relax the privacy settings between them. While a college student may wish to keep
weekend outings hidden from the professors they have connected with, they may
also be tempted to reveal such information with his network of peers-- to which
the professors may belong. The open nature of these sub-networks are
inherently valuable for maintaining offline affiliations, friendships and collegial relationship. However, this also increases the likelihood invisible audiences of unintended users may gain access to potentially
unflattering information to an . By joining a network on Facebook, for example,
the personal information of a users profile page becomes open to all “friends
and networks”, even if the users may previously had their information set
behind a more granular privacy settings. </p>
<p>Within these open spaces, the ability of users to make
appropriate or selective disclosures of information is becoming obscured. While Facebook does allow for users to alter
the settings after joining a network, such “openness by default” may catch many
users off guard or only be brought to their attention once they face its
negative repercussions. Because the maintenance of a wide variety of
such social relationships depends on the disclosure/non-disclosure of certain
types of information<a name="_ftnref6" href="#_ftn6"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"></span></span></a>,
privacy in praxis has become an act of balancing the utility of social network
with the privacy concerns they present. Users are now faced with the challenge
of classifying certain pieces of information public or non public, or
determining suitable practices of disclosures amongst a diverse social graph. It
is not to be expected that such decisions will become easier within a context
whose architecture is built on openness to make it “easier for friends to find, identify, and learn about you”. </p>
<p><strong>Privacy as Control
over the Flow of Information</strong></p>
<p>While the classification and coding of information vis-à-vis
a diverse set of relationships forms the base of practice for most of the
privacy conscious, this paradigm of privacy remains rather limited within a
defined network of individuals, whether they be “friends”, within an intended
audience, or not. Within this framework, information is understood as being either socially or
institutionally sensitive, <a name="_ftnref7" href="#_ftn7"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"></span></span></a>as its exposure may affect certain social or institutional relationships. Given the spatial and temporal context the
“social profile” gives to personal information, it is reasonable to see how
popular understandings of privacy have been within the public/private paradigm.</p>
<p>While this may be the case, it is important that users
observe how the inherently “networked” nature of these spaces complicates the
common privacy paradigm. When a user
joins a SNS, they enter into a complex and opaque set of networked relationships
beyond those with their “friends” and “friends of friends”. There exists sub-networks of third-party
actors which constitute corporate entities, their partners and
affiliates --may they be advertisers, third party developers, or a broad range
of other service providers. Many of
which are granted access to your information in varying forms and for differing
reasons. With the introduction of the Open Social
network, fronted by Google and various social advertising and developers
networks, the ability for one to maintain the control and integrity of their
information or “data” has become an increasingly complex endeavor. </p>
<p>While the importance of maintaining non-public social spaces
online should not be diminished, in a time when collecting, storing,
aggregating and disseminating information has become increasingly easy and
cost-effective, users of SNS must begin to conceptualize online privacy in a
way which extends past the social context popularly understood to give
“information” meaning. Once information
loses its contextual place of meaning, which may be the profile itself, users<a name="_ftnref8" href="#_ftn8"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"></span></span></a>
seem less apt to consciously consider the collection and dissemination of such
data as a breach of privacy, or even a concern at all. It may be true that the socially sensitive
nature of such data is reduced once it is disassociated with a particular user,
or that the click stream patterns and other information collected by
advertisers through cookies may not always pose a direct and potential threat
to our privacy as we’ve thus far conceived it.
However, a brief glance at the privacy policies, terms of use, and
on-site practices of a few SNS illuminates that privacy must be seen as
the control over the flows of personal information.that</p>
<p><strong>Privacy vis-à-vis
Third Parties</strong></p>
<p>As many have illuminated, SNS are commercial enterprises
with a business model based on the harvesting of personal information for
marketing and other purposes<a name="_ftnref9" href="#_ftn9"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"></span></span></a>. Therefore, it may be naive for a users to
believe what happens on these sites stays on these sites, or that privacy
settings, however granular they may be, grants them adequate control over their
information. While SNS such as Bebo
state that they “take your privacy very seriously”, the onus is on the user to
determine whether or not the privacy standards of third party applications are
up to par. The transfer of
responsibility for monitoring the privacy practices of third parties is
characteristic of many popular SNS.
MySpace states in their privacy policy that they do not “control third
parties” and cannot “dictate their actions”, while Facebook similarly states
that they cannot guarantee that such third parties will “follow their
rules”. </p>
<p>As third parties are often governed by their own privacy
policies, the unmonitored and unenforced <a name="_ftnref10" href="#_ftn10"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"></span></span></a>nature of these networked relationships places further responsibility<a id="_anchor_2" class="msocomanchor" name="_msoanchor_2" href="#_msocom_2"> </a>on the individual users to ensure that privacy practices
are adequate. This becomes quite
difficult on SNS like Facebook, where third party developers are granted access
to the personal information of all you and all your network
members, including photos, videos, and other biographical information<a name="_ftnref11" href="#_ftn11"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"></span></span></a>.</p>
<p>The relatively anonymous nature of
these parallel sub-networks also obscures the ability of the user to take
control over the accessibility of their information. Further, the privacy policies of the various
SNS give no indication as to “who” their affiliates, partners, and service
providers are. Most SNS also reserve the
right to transfer personally identifiable information to its partners and
affiliates if they have a “business reason to do so” and in all cases,
advertisers are subject to their own privacy policies with regards to the
information they collect -- some of it personally identifiable. To complicate matters, all of the leading
SNS, including Facebook, Orkut, Myspace, and Bebo, reserve the right to collect
information about you from other companies and publicly available sources. It is unclear as to what information is being
collected or for what purposes, and unfortunately, such information is effectively
kept “private”.</p>
<p><strong>Redefining
Privacy on Social Network Sites</strong></p>
<p>Social network sites can be seen as open spaces which allow
users to maintain diverse personal relationships. However, the somewhat anonymous parallel
networks of third parties which exist on these sites threatens the “open
nature” of these sites vis-à-vis our privacy.
While users may maintain that the information they have provided is kept
secure and private, these parallel third party networks negates the control an
individual may assert over the flow of their information. It is within this context that privacy needs
to be conceptually redefined in relation to<a id="_anchor_3" class="msocomanchor" name="_msoanchor_3" href="#_msocom_3"></a> both user “information” as it appears on a social
profile, and “data” once it is processed by third parties. There is a need for an alternative paradigm
to privacy on SNS which takes into consideration the flow, retention and use of
personal information. </p>
<p>While it may be too early to determine whether or not the expected
digital dossiers complete with complex user-specific biographical data
will be developed or come to threaten our privacy in a fundamentally new way,
it is also premature and erroneous to assume that traditional notions of
privacy are fundamentally antithetical to the net<a name="_ftnref12" href="#_ftn12"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"></span></span></a>. As communication become increasingly mediated
by digital technologies, so to should our perceptions of privacy and ways of
preserving it. SNS must also become
responsible for ensuring greater transparency in the flows and uses of personal
information, working to standardize the privacy policies in such a way that
makes the user experience one which is seamless with respect to privacy
practices. Initiatives such as the W3C’s
P3P are a promising step towards nurturing a more nuanced understanding of
privacy among internet users. Only through
understanding privacy as the control over the flows of personal information can
be balance the interests of SNS users with the business models of these “open”
networked spaces.</p>
<div>
<p align="center" style="text-align: center;">Top of Form</p>
</div>
<div>
<div id="ftn6">
<p><a name="_ftn6" href="#_ftnref6"><span class="FootnoteCharacters"><span class="FootnoteCharacters"></span></span></a></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div id="_com_3" class="msocomtxt">
<p> </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/reconceptualizing-privacy-on-social-network-s-sites'>https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/reconceptualizing-privacy-on-social-network-s-sites</a>
</p>
No publisherrebeccaCybercultures2011-08-18T05:07:09ZBlog Entry Free Access to Law—Is it here to Stay? An Environmental Scan Report
https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/free-access-to-law-is-it-here-to-stay-environmental-scan
<b>The following is a preliminary project report collaboratively collated by the researchers of the "Free Access to Law" research study. This report aims to highlight the trends, as well as the risks and opportunities, for the sustainability of Free Access to Law initiatives in each of the country examined. </b>
<p>
<p>The Environmental Scans are the first component of the “Free Access to Law – Is it Here to Stay” global study, examining the sustainability of Free Access to Law (FAL) initiatives. The overall goal of this research is to respond to a need to study what free access to law initiatives do and how they do it. This will lead to an understanding of the effects FAL initiatives have on society and to an exploration of the factors determining their sustainability.</p>
<p>For the Environmental Scans, Local Researchers were asked to collect data according to the Environmental Scan Matrix and draft a synopsis of the data, highlighting the trends, risks and opportunities for the field of online legal research publication in general and for the FAL initiative in particular. In sum, the researchers looked at how the individual indicators listed in the Environmental Scan Matrix work together to impact free access to law. The results of the Scans provided the local researchers and their audiences with a rich knowledge on the field of law and informatics in each respective country examined.</p>
<p>The project covers the following regions: (1) Southern and Eastern Africa, (2) Western Africa, (3) Asia and the Pacific and (4) Canada. In order to complete a cross-case comparative analysis, countries have been selected to represent multiple legal traditions with FAL initiatives at various stages of development.</p>
<div>The report can be accessed <a class="external-link" href="http://www.lexum.com/en/projects/fal-es.pdf">here</a>.</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/free-access-to-law-is-it-here-to-stay-environmental-scan'>https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/free-access-to-law-is-it-here-to-stay-environmental-scan</a>
</p>
No publisherrebeccaOpen Access2012-03-20T18:36:08ZBlog EntryDoes the Safe-Harbor Program Adequately Address Third Parties Online?
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/does-the-safe-harbor-program-adequately-address-third-parties-online
<b>While many citizens outside of the US and EU benefit from the data privacy provisions the Safe Harbor Program, it remains unclear how successfully the program can govern privacy practices when third-parties continue to gain more rights over personal data. Using Facebook as a site of analysis, I will attempt to shed light on the deficiencies of the framework for addressing the complexity of data flows in the online ecosystem. </b>
<p>To date, the EU-US Safe Harbor Program leads in governing
the complex and multi-directional flows of personal information online. As commerce began to thrive in the online
context, the European Union was faced with the challenge of ensuring that personal
information exchanged through online services were granted
levels of protect on par with provisions set out in EU privacy law. This was important, notably as the piecemeal
and sectoral approach to privacy legislation in the United states was deemed incompatible
with the EU approach. While the Safe
Harbor program did not aim to protect the privacy of citizens outside of the
European Union per say, the program has in practice set minimum standards for
online data privacy due to the international success of American online
services.</p>
<p>While many citizens outside of the US and EU benefit from
the Safe Harbor Program, it remains unclear how successful the program will be in an
online ecosystem where third-parties are being granted increasingly more rights
over the data they receive from first parties.
Using Facebook as a site of analysis, I will attempt to shed light on
the deficiencies of the framework for addressing the complexity of data flows
in the online ecosystem. First, I will argue
that the safe harbor program does not do enough to ensure that participants are
held reasonably responsible third party privacy practices. Second, I will argue that the information
asymmetries created between first party sites, citizens, and governance bodies
vis-à-vis third parties obscures the application of the Safe Harbor Model.</p>
<p><strong>The EU-US
Safe-Harbor Agreement</strong></p>
<p>In 1995, and based on earlier <a href="http://www.oecd.org/document/18/0,3343,en_2649_34255_1815186_1_1_1_1,00.html">OECD
guidelines</a>, the EU Data Directive on the “protection of individuals with
regard to the processing of personal data and the free movement of such data”
was passed<a name="_ednref1" href="#_edn1"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a> [1]. The original purpose of the EU Privacy
Directive was not only to increase privacy protection within the European
Union, but to also promote trade liberalization and a single integrated market
in the EU. After the Data Directive was
passed, each member state of the EU incorporated the principles of
the directive into national laws accordingly. </p>
<p>While the Directive was successful in harmonizing data
privacy in the European Union, it also embodied extraterritorial
provisions, giving in reach<a name="_ednref2" href="#_edn2"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a> beyond the EU. Article 25 of the Directive states that the
EU commission may ban data transfers to third countries that do not ensure “an
adequate level of protect’ of data privacy rights<a name="_ednref3" href="#_edn3"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a> [2]. Also, Article 26 of the Directive, expanding
on Article 25, states that personal data cannot be <em>transferred </em>to a country that “does not ensure an adequate level of
protection” if the data controller does not enter into a contract that adduces
adequate privacy safeguards<a name="_ednref4" href="#_edn4"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a> [3].
</p>
<p>In light of the increased occurrence of cross-border
information flows, the Data Directive itself was not effective enough to ensure that
privacy principles were enforced outside of the EU. Articles 25 and 26 of the Directive had essentially deemed all cross-border data-flows to the US in contravention of EU privacy law. Therefor, the EU-US Safe-Harbor was established by the
EU Council and the US Department of Commerce as a way of mending the variant
levels of privacy protection set out in these jurisdictions, while also promoting
online commerce. </p>
<p><strong>Social Networking
Sites and the Safe-Harbor Principles</strong></p>
<p>The case of social networking sites exemplifies the ease
with which data is transferred, processed, and stored between jurisdictionas. While many of the top social networking sites
are registered American entities, they continue to attract users not only from
the EU, but also internationally. In agreement
to the EU law, many social networking sites, including LinkedIn, Facebook,
Myspace, and Bebo, now adhere to the principles of the program. The enforcement of the Safe Harbor takes
place in the United States in accordance with U.S. law and relies, to a great
degree, on enforcement by the private sector.
TRUSTe, an independent certification program and dispute mechanism, has become the most popular governance mechanism for the safe harbor program
among social networking sites. </p>
<p>Drawing broadly on the principles embodied within the EU
Data Directive and the OECD Guidelines, the seven principles of the Safe-Harbor
were developed. These principles include
Notice, Choice, Onward Transfer, Access and Accuracy, Security, Data Integrity
and Enforcement. The principle of “Notice”
sets out that organizations must inform individuals about the purposes for
which it collects and uses information about them, how to contact the
organization with any inquiries or complaints, the types of third parties to
which it disclosures the information, and the choices and means the organization
offers individuals for limiting its use and disclosure. </p>
<p>“Choice” ensures that individuals have the opportunity to
choose to opt out whether their personal information is disclosed to a third
party, and to ensure that information is not used for purposes incompatible with the purposes for
which it was originally collected. The
“Onward Transfer” principle ensures that third parties receiving information
subscribes to the Safe Harbor principles, is subject to the Directive, or
enters into a written agreement which requires that the third party provide at
least the same level of privacy protection as is requires by the relevant
principles.</p>
<p>The principles of “Security” and “Data Integrity” seek to
ensure that reasonable precautions are taken to protect the loss or misuse of
data, and that information is not used in a manner which is incompatible with
the purposes for it is has been collected—minimizing the risk that personal
information would be misused or abused.
Individuals are also granted the right, through the access principle, to
view the personal information about them that an organization holds, and to
ensure that it is up-to-date and accurate.
The “Enforcement” principle works to ensure that an effective mechanism
for assuring compliance with the principles, and that there are consequences
for the organization when the principles are not followed.</p>
<p>The principles of the program are rather quite clear and
enforceable in the first party context, despite some prevailing ambiguities. The privacy policies of most social
networking services have become increasingly clear and straightforward since
their inception. Facebook, for example,
has revamped its <a href="http://www.facebook.com/privacy/explanation.php">privacy
regime</a> several times, and gives explicit notice to users how their
information is being used. The privacy
policy also explains the relationship between third parties and your personal information—including
how it may be used by advertisers, search engines, and fellow members. </p>
<p>With respect to third party advertisers, principles of
“choice” are clearly granted by most social networking services. For example, the <a href="http://www.networkadvertising.org/">Network Advertising Initiative</a>, a
self-regulatory initiative of the online advertising industry, clearly lists
its member websites and allows individuals to opt out of any targeted
advertising conducted by its members. In
Facebook’s description of “cookies” in their privacy policy, a direct link to NAI’s
opt out features is given, allowing individuals to make somewhat informed
choices about their participation in such programs. This point is, of course, in light of the
fact that most users do not read or understand the privacy policies provided by
social networking sites<a name="_ednref5" href="#_edn5"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a> [4].
It is also important to note that Google—a major player in the online
advertising business, does not grant users of Buzz and Orkut the same “opt-out”
options as sites such as Facebook and Bebo.</p>
<p>Under the auspices of the US Federal Trade Commission, the
Safe Harbor Program has also successfully investigated and settled several
privacy-related breaches which have taken place on social networking sites. Of the most famous cases is <a href="http://www.beaconclasssettlement.com/">Lane et al. v. Facebook et al.</a>,
which was a class action suit brought against Facebook’s Beacon Advertising
program. The US Federal Trade Commission
was quick to insight an investigation of the program after many privacy groups
and individuals became critical of its questionable advertising practices. The Beacon program was designed to allow
Facebook users to share information with their friends about actions taken on
affiliated, third party sites. This had included,
for example, the movie rentals a user had made through the Blockbuster website. </p>
<p>The Plaintiffs filed a suit, alleging that Facebook and its
affiliates did not give users adequate notice and choice about Beacon and the
collection and use of users’ personal information. The Beacon program was ultimately found to
be in breach of US law, including the <a href="http://epic.org/privacy/vppa/">Video
Privacy Protection Act</a>, which bans the disclosure of personally identifiable
rental information. Facebook has
announced the settlement of the lawsuit, not bringing individual settlements,
but a marked end to the program and the development of a 9.5 million dollar <a href="http://www.p2pnet.net/story/37119">Facebook Privacy Fund</a> dedicated to
privacy and data-related issues. Other privacy
related investigations of social networking sites launched by the FTC under the
Safe Harbor Program include Facebook’s <a href="http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/facebooks-new-privacy-changes-good-bad-and-ugly">privacy
changes</a> in late 2009, and the Google’s recently released <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/032910-lawmakers-ask-for-ftc-investigation.html">Buzz
application</a>.</p>
<p>Despite the headway the Safe Harbor is making, many privacy
related questions remain ambiguous with respect to the responsibilities social networking
sites through the program. For example,
Bebo <a href="http://www.bebo.com/Privacy2.jsp">reserves the right</a> to
supplement a social profile with addition information collected from publicly
available information and information from other companies. Bebo’s does adhere to the “notice principle”—as
it makes know to users how their information will be used through their privacy
policy. However, it remains unclear if appropriate disclosures are given by Bebo
as required by Safe Harbor Framework, notably as the sources of “publicly
available information” as a concept remains broad and obscured in the privacy policy. It is also unclear whether or not Bebo users
are able to, under the “Choice” principle, refuse to having their profiles from
being supplemented by other information sources. Also, under the “access
principle”, do individuals have the right to review all information held about them as “Bebo
users”? The right to review information
held by a social networking site is an important one that should be upheld. This is most notable as supplementary information
from outside social networking services is employed to profile individual users in ways which may
work to categorize individuals in undesirable ways.</p>
<p><strong>The Third Party Problem</strong></p>
<p>Cooperation between social networking sites and the Safe
Harbor has improved, and most of these sites now have privacy policies which
explicitly address the principles of the Program. It should also be noted that public interest
groups, such as Epic, the Center for Digital Democracy, and The Electronic
Frontier Foundation, have played a key role in ensuring that data privacy
breaches are brought to the attention of the FTC under the program. While the program has somewhat adequately
addressed the privacy practices of first party participants, the number of
third parties on social networking sites calls into question the
comprehensiveness and effectiveness of the Safe Harbor program. Facebook itself as a first party site may adhere
to the Safe Harbor Program. However, its
growing number third party platform members may not always adhere to best practices
in the field, nor can Facebook or the Safe Harbor Program guarantee that they
do so.</p>
<p>The Safe Harbor Program does require that all participants
take certain security measures when transferring data to a third party. Third parties must either subscribe to the
safe harbor principles, or be subject to the EU Data Directive. Alternatively, an organization can may also
enter into a written agreement with a third party requiring that they provide
at least the same level of privacy protection as is required by program
principles. Therefore, third parties of
participating program sites are, de facto, bound by the safe harbor principles by
the way of entering into agreement with a first party participant of the
program. This is the approach taken by
most social networking sites and their third parties.</p>
<p>It is important to note, however, that third parties are not
governed directly by the regulatory bodies, such as the FTC. The safe harbor website also <a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018476.asp">explicitly notes</a>
that the program does not apply to third parties. Therefore, as per these provisions, Facebook must
adhere to the principles of the program, while its third party platform members
(such as social gaming companies), only must do so indirectly as per a separate
contract with Facebook. The
effectiveness of this indirect mode of governing of third party privacy
practices is questionable for numerous reasons.</p>
<p>Firstly, while Facebook does take steps to ensure that
third parties use information from Facebook in a manner which is consistent to
the safe harbor principles, the company explicitly <a href="http://www.facebook.com/policy.php">waives any guarantee</a> that third
parties will “follow their rules”. Prior to allowing third parties to access any
information about users, Facebook requires third parties to <a href="http://www.facebook.com/terms.php">agree to terms</a> that limit their
use of information, and also use technical measures to ensure that they only
obtain authorized information. Facebook
also warns users to “always review the policies of third party applications and
websites to make sure you are comfortable with the ways in which they use
information”. Not only are users
required to read the privacy policies of every third party application, but are
also expected to report applications which may be in violation of privacy
principles. In this sense, Facebook not
only waives responsibility for third party privacy breaches, but also places further
regulatory onus upon the user.</p>
<p>As the program guidelines express, the safe harbor relies to
a great degree on enforcement by the private sector. However, it is likely that a self-regulatory
framework may lead the industry into a state of regulatory malaise. Under the safe harbor program, Facebook must
ensure that the privacy practices of third parties are adequate. However, at the same time, the company may
simultaneously waiver their responsibility for third party compliance with safe
harbor principles. Therefore, it remains
questionable as to where responsibility for third parties exactly lies. When third parties are not directly
answerable to the governing bodies of safe harbor program, and when first parties
can to waive responsibility for their practices, from where does the incentive to
effectively regulate third parties to come from? </p>
<p>While Facbeook may in fact take reasonable legal and technical
measures to ensure third party compliance, the room for potential dissonance
between speech and deed is worrisome. Facebook is required to ensure that third
parties provide “<a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018476.asp">at least the same
level of privacy protection</a>” as they do.
However, in practice, this has yet to become the case. A quick survey of twelve of the most popular
Platform Applications in the gaming category showed<a name="_ednref6" href="#_edn6"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a>
that third parties are not granting their users the “same level of privacy
protection”[5]. For example, section 9.2.3
of Facebooks “<a href="http://www.facebook.com/terms.php">Rights and
Responsibilities</a>” for Developers/Operators of applications/sites states
that they must “have a privacy policy or otherwise make it clear to users what
user data you are going to use and how you will use, display, or share that
data”. </p>
<p>However, out of the 12 gaming applications surveyed, four
companies failed to make privacy policies available to users <em>before</em> they granted the application
access to the personal information, including that of their friends<a name="_ednref7" href="#_edn7"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a> [6]. After searching for the privacy policies on
the websites of each of the four social gaming companies, two completely failed
to post privacy policies on their central websites. This practice is in direct breach of the
contract made between these companies and Facebook, as mentioned above. In addition to many applications failing to clearly
post privacy policies, many of provisions set out in these policies were
questionable vis-à-vis safe harbor principles. </p>
<p>For example Zynga, makes of popular games Mafia Wars and
Farmville, reserve the right to “maintain copies of your content
indefinitely”. This practice remains contrary
to Safe Harbor principles which states that information should not be kept for
longer than required to run a service.
Electronic Arts also maintains similar provisions for data retention in
its privacy policy. Such practices are
rather worrisome also in light of the fact that both companies also reserve the
right to collect information on users from other sources to supplement profiles
held. This includes (but is not limited
to) newspapers and Internet sources such as blogs, instant messaging services, and
other games. It is also notable to
mention that only one of the twelve social gaming companies surveyed directly
participates in the safe harbor program. </p>
<p>In addition to the difficulties of ensuring that safe harbor
principles are adhered to by third parties, the information asymmetries which
exist between first party sites, citizens, and governance bodies vis-à-vis
third parties complicate this model. Foremost,
it is clear that Facebook, despite its resources, cannot keep tabs on the
practices of all of their applications.
This puts into question if industry self-regulation can really guarantee
that privacy is respected by third parties in this context. Furthermore, the lack of knowledge or
understanding held by citizens about how third parties user their information
is particularly problematic when a system relies so heavily on users to report
suspected privacy breaches. The same is
likely to be true for governments, too. As
one legal scholar, promoting a more laisse-fair approach to third party
regulation, notes—multiple and invisible third party relationships presents
challenges to traditional forms of legal regulation<a name="_ednref8" href="#_edn8"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a> [7]. </p>
<p>In an “open “social ecosystem, the sheer volume of data
flows between users of social networking sites and third party players appears
to have become increasingly difficult to effectively regulate. While the safe harbor program has been
successful in establishing best practices and minimum standards for data
privacy, it is also clear that governance bodies, and public interest groups,
have focused most attention on large industry players such as Facebook. This has left smaller third party players on
social networking sites in the shadows of any substantive regulatory concern. If
one this has become clear, it is the fact that governments may no longer be
able to effectively govern the flows of data in the burgeoning context of “open
data”. </p>
<p>As I have demonstrated, it remains questionable whether or
not Facebook can regulate third parties data collection practices
effectively. Imposing more stringent
responsibilities on safe harbor participants could be a positive step. It is reasonable to assume that it would be
undue to impose liability on social networking sites for the data breaches of
third parties. However, it is not
unreasonable to require sites like Facebook go beyond setting “minimum
standards” for data privacy, towards taking a more active enforcement, if even
through TRUSTe or another regulatory body.
If the safe harbor is to be effective, it cannot allow program participants
to simply wave the liability for third party privacy practices. The indemnity granted to third parties on social
networking sites may deem the safe harbor program more effective in sustaining
the non-liability of third parties, rather than protecting the data privacy of
citizens.</p>
<div></div>
<div>
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
</div>
<p class="discreet"><a name="_edn1" href="#_ednref1"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a>[1] Official Directive 95/46/EC</p>
<p class="discreet"><a name="_edn2" href="#_ednref2"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a></p>
<p class="discreet"><a name="_edn3" href="#_ednref3"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a>[2] 95/46/EC</p>
<p class="discreet">[3] Ibid</p>
<p class="discreet"><a name="_edn4" href="#_ednref4"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a><a name="_edn5" href="#_ednref5"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></a>[4] See Acquisit,
A. a. (n.d.). Imagined Communities: Awareness, Information Sharing, and Privacy
on Facebook. <em>PET 2006</em></p>
<p class="discreet"><a name="_edn6" href="#_ednref6"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a>[5] Of the Privacy Policy browsed include, Zynga, Rock
You!, Crowdstar, Mind Jolt, Electronic Arts, Pop Cap Games, Slash Key, Playdom,
Meteor Games, Broken Bulb Studios, Wooga, and American Global Network.</p>
<p class="discreet"><a name="_edn7" href="#_ednref7"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a>[6] By adding an application, users are also sharing with
third parties the information of their friends if they do not specifically opt out of this practice.</p>
<p class="discreet">[7]See<strong>
</strong> Milina, S. (2003).
Let the Market Do its Job: Advocating an Integrated Laissez-Faire Approach to
Online Profiling. <em>Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal</em> .</p>
<pre></pre>
<div>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
</div>
<h2> </h2>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/does-the-safe-harbor-program-adequately-address-third-parties-online'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/does-the-safe-harbor-program-adequately-address-third-parties-online</a>
</p>
No publisherrebeccaPrivacyInternet GovernanceFacebookData ProtectionSocial Networking2011-08-02T07:19:34ZBlog Entrye-Accessibility: A Wiki Project
https://cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/e-accessibility-a-wiki-project
<b>Envisaged and funded by the National Internet Exchange of India, and executed by the Centre for Internet and Society, a Wiki site pertaining to issues of disability and e-accessibility has recently been launched. </b>
<p></p>
<p>Such a project is most timely as India has a
large percentage of disabled persons in its population— estimated to be over seven
per cent as per the Census of 2001. Taken
in figures, this amounts to roughly 70-100 million persons with disabilities in
the territory of India. Out of this number, a mere two per cent of persons with
disabilities residing in urban areas have access to information and assistive
technologies.</p>
<p>Regrettably, there still remains a
lack of awareness on how information and services can be best delivered to
persons with disabilities. Parents, teachers, government authorities and society
at large remain equally unaware of the options technology today presents to
enable persons with disabilities live independent and productive lives. Therefore, the wiki aims foremost to serve as
a resource for persons with disabilities and their families, NGO’s, as well as
the members of education and legal communities--providing valuable information surrounding
disability and electronic accessibility. </p>
<p>Covered in 125 article wiki project includes a broad collection of
articles pertaining to topics of accessibility for users, developers, organizations,
developments in India, and accessibility for nations. With hopes of expansion, wikipage can be accessed and
edited collaboratively at<a class="external-link" href="http://accessibility.cis-india.org/"> http://accessibility.cis-india.org.</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/e-accessibility-a-wiki-project'>https://cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/e-accessibility-a-wiki-project</a>
</p>
No publisherrebeccaAccessibilityProjects2011-08-23T04:51:08ZBlog EntryDoes the Social Web need a Googopoly?
https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/does-the-social-web-need-a-googopoly
<b>While the utility of the new social tool Buzz is still under question, the bold move into social space taken last week by the Google Buzz team has Gmail users questioning privacy implications of the new feature. In this post, I posit that Buzz highlights two privacy challenges of the social web. First, the application has sidestepped the consensual and contextual qualities desirable of social spaces. Secondly, Google’s move highlights the increasingly competitive and convergent nature of the social media landscape. </b>
<p></p>
<p>Last week, and for many a surprise, Google launched its new
social networking platform, Buzz. The
new service is Google’s effort to amplify the “social nature” of their services
by integrating them under one platform, and adding some extra social utility. The social application runs from the Gmail
interface, but also links other Google accounts a user may have, including
albums on Picasa, and Google Reader. The service also allows for the sharing from
external sources, such as photos on Flickr, and videos from YouTube. The service also allows users to post, like,
or dislike the status updates of others which may be publicly searchable if the
user opts. Before a Gmail user may fully
participate in Google Buzz service, a unique Google Personal Profile must be
created. </p>
<p><strong>User Consent</strong></p>
<p>Much of the buzz surrounding the new social networking
service last week wasn’t paying much lip service to the new application. Instead, an uproar of privacy concerns continued
to dominate the Buzz scene, with many critics quickly labeling Buzz a “<a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-31322_3-10451428-256.html">privacy nightmare</a>”. A <a href="http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20100216/epic-files-ftc-complaint-over-google-buzz/?mod=ATD_rss">formal
complaint</a> has been already filed with the US Federal Trade Commission in
response to Google’s new privacy violating service. A
second-year Harvard Law student has also filed a <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/google-buzz-draws-class-action-suit-harvard-student/story?id=9875095&page=1">class-action
suit</a> against the company for its privacy malpractices. </p>
<p>Much of the privacy talk thus far has focused on issues of
consent, or lack thereof, in this case. Upon
Buzz’s launch, Gmail users were automatically subscribed as “opting in” for the
service. Google has used the private
address books of millions of Gmail accounts to build social networks from the
contacts users email and chat with most.
To entice users into using the service, Gmail users were set to
auto-follow all of their contacts, and in turn, to be followed by them,
too. Furthermore, all new Buzz users had
been set to automatically share all public Picasa albums and Google Reader items
with their new social graph. It is
argued that social network services should be <a href="http://jonoscript.wordpress.com/2010/02/20/buzz-off-google-social-networks-should-always-be-opt-in-not-opt-out/">opt-in,
rather than opt-out</a>, and that Buzz has violated the consensual nature of
the social web. </p>
<p>Illuminating the complications of building a social graph
from ones inbox is the story of an Australian women, who remains anonymous. As she claims, most of the emails currently received
through her Gmail account, are those from her abusive ex-boyfriend. Due to Google’s assumption that Gmail users
would like to be “auto-followed” by their Gmail contacts (mirroring Twitters friendship
protocol), items shared between herself and new boyfriend through her Google
reader account had become public to her broader social graph, including her
ex-boyfriend and his harassing friends.</p>
<p>In a <a href="http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2010/02/fck-you-google/">blog response</a>
directed to Google’s Buzz team, the woman scornfully wrote- “<em>F*ck you, Google. My privacy concerns are
not trite. They are linked to my actual physical safety, and I will now have to
spend the next few days maintaining that safety by continually knocking down
followers as they pop up. A few days is how long I expect it will take before
you either knock this shit off, or I delete every Google account I have ever
had and use Bing out of f*cking spite</em>”.
As this case demonstrates, the people we mail most often may not be our
closest friends. As email has replaced
the telephone for many as the dominate mode of communication--some contacts may
be friends, however, many others may not be. </p>
<p>In response to the uproar, tweaks to Buzz’s privacy features
have since been made. Todd Jackson,
Buzz’s product manager, has also posted a <a href="http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/millions-of-buzz-users-and-improvements.html">public
apology</a> to the official Gmail Blog late last week for not “getting
everything quite right”. The service will
now assume the more user-centric “auto-suggest” model, allowing users to selectively
choose the contacts they wish to follow, and will also no longer auto-link Picasa
and Reader content. However, as the <a href="http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20100216/epic-files-ftc-complaint-over-google-buzz/?mod=ATD_rss">EPIC’s
complaint notes</a>, many are still unsatisfied with the opt-out nature of the
service, arguing that users should be able to opt-into the service if they so
choose, rather than having to delist themselves for a service they didn’t necessarily
sign up. Ethical quandaries also still
loom over Google’s misuse of the users’ private contact lists to jumpstart
their new service. </p>
<p><strong>Contextual Integrity </strong></p>
<p>The attacks on personal privacy resulting from Google’s model
are vast. As the case of the Australian
woman illuminates, the concept of the “online friend” has completely taken out
of context with Buzz’s initial auto-follow model. Many of the contacts we make on a daily basis
need not be made public through the Google profile. For most, this Buzz’s privacy breach may be
benign or annoying at most. However, those who are engaged in sensitive social
or political relationships via their Gmail chat or email accounts, the revelation
of common contact could have been potentially damaging for many. A reporter from CNET has cleverly labeled
Buzz’ as a “<a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10451703-2.html">socially
awkward networking</a>”, as bringing diverse contacts under one umbrella
doesn’t exactly make the most social sense. In response, Gmail users are
required to sort through and filter their Buzz followers according, or choose
to disable the service all together.</p>
<p>Besides questions of who is stalking whom, the assumptive
and public nature of Google’s new move
has cast a shadow of doubt among Gmail users regarding the ability of Google to
maintain the privacy and contextual integrity of the Gmail account. Should one account be the place to socialize,
and “do business”? Gmail is, and should remain, an email
service. However, Buzz takes the email
experience into new and questionable grounds.
Do Gmail users feel entirely comfortable having their personal email,
social graph, and chat functions all coming under the auspices of one platform?
Many users felt they had been lured
into using a social networking service that they didn’t sign up for in the
first place. </p>
<p><strong>Social Media Competition</strong></p>
<p>In addition to Google’s attempt to integrate their various
service offerings, Buzz is seen as an obvious attempt to bolster
competitiveness in the social media market.
In 2004, Google released Orkut. While the service has become big in
countries such as Brazil and India, it has been overshadowed by sites such as
Facebook in other jurisdictions, and has not been able to prove itself as a mainstream
space for networking. In the past year, Google
had also launched Google Wave, a tool that mixes e-mail, with instant messaging
and the ability for several people to collaborate on documents. However, the application failed to completely
win over audiences, and was considered one of the <a href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/top_10_failures_of_2009.php">top
failures of 2009</a>. </p>
<p>With Google unable to effectively saturate the social media
ecosystem, Buzz is an attempt to compete with the searchable and real time
experiences provided by social media giants, Facebook and Twitter. Increased competition within the social media
market could be a positive development for privacy, as social media companies
could arguably be compete on their ability to provide users with preferable privacy
architectures. To the contrary, however,
such competition has thus far had negative ramifications for user privacy, as
the recent Buzz and Facebook moves illustrates.
Facebook’s loosened privacy settings were a <a href="http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15350984">competitive
knee-jerk</a> to Twitters searchable and real time experience. Through a Twitter search, individuals can
come to know what people are saying about a certain topic, event, or product,
and as a result, the service has received a great deal attention from users,
and non-users such as advertisers, alike.
</p>
<p>In an attempt to one-up, their competition, the “Twitterization”
of Facebook followed in two distinct stages.
First was with the implementation of the Facebook News Feed, which gave
users a real time account of actions their friends on the site. Many argued that this feature invaded user
privacy. However, it was argued by
Facebook that they only were making available information that was already
accessible through individual profile pages.
The News Feed, as it happens, effectively took user information and
actions on the site out of original context by streaming this information live
for others easy viewing. Information
users once had to rummage for had become accessible in real time on the
homepage of the service. </p>
<p>Secondly, Facebooks’ recent <a href="http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/facebooks-new-privacy-changes-good-bad-and-ugly">privacy
scandal</a> was a step towards making profile information more searchable and accessible
to third parties, as is most often the case with the more public feeds on Twitter. As <a href="https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/•%09http:/www.simplyzesty.com/twitter/unrelenting-twitterization-facebook-continues/">one
commentator notes</a>, “<em>Facebook used to be very private but private
is not great for search, to have great search you need all of the data to be
publicly available as it mostly is on Twitter. Facebook have not quite nailed
real time search yet but they are getting there and it will soon be a great way
of examining sentiment across different demographics</em>”. As a result, information on Facebook, such as
name, profile picture, friends list, location and fan pages have become open
access information. In addition, users
on Facebook have been subjected to new privacy regime without notice, leaving
their profile pages generally more open, and searchable through Google. </p>
<p><strong>Converging the Online
Self</strong></p>
<p>The impact Buzz alone can make on the social media landscape
remains questionable (Gmail heralds only 140 million accounts, which is a deficient
cry from Facebooks’ 400+ million dedicated users). However, despite Googles’ in/ability to
become claim hegemony over the social web landscape, the abuse of private information
to launch a new service has raised serious debate over the privacy and the
future of social networking. The Buzz
service marks more than yet another new social networking service that brushes
aside the privacy of users. As user control
and privacy becomes an increasingly peripheral concern, Google’s shift toward privacy
decontrol also signifies a worrisome supply-side shift towards the
“convergence” of online identity.</p>
<p>Within this new dominant paradigm, privacy concerns are
often interpreted as antithetical to competitiveness in the social media
marketplace. Instead of an imagined ecosystem
based on user control and privacy preference, it can now be inferred that the
competiveness of social networking services will continue to disrupt the
delicate balance between the public and private online. Regardless that greater
visibility and searchability of the social profile may not be in the public
interest, Google’s recent move works to reinforcement of the new status quo of
“openness”. Furthermore, it is
questionable as to how concentrated and integrated a user may want their online
activities to become. A critical
discourse of online privacy must, therefore, take into account the ways in
which the social web has renders the user increasingly transparent through networks
of networking services. </p>
<p>Google’s Buzz illustrates this point quite well. Initially, Gmail was a straightforward email
service. Next, the AdWords advertising service
and Gmail chat had become integrated into the Gmail experience. Because Google was using the confidential
emails of its Gmail users, privacy concerns began to mount upon the launch of
the the AdWords service. However,
turmoil surrounding AdWords died down, notably as Google continues to reassert
that is is bots, not humans, that are scanning the emails in order to provide
the AdWords service. Next, there gradually
occurred a convergence of Google services under the single social profile, or
“email address”. A single Gmail account
potentially includes use of with Google reader, calendar, chat, groups and an Orkut
account. In terms of behavioral targeted
advertising, Google has recently announced that they will be providing
personalized search results even to users who have not signed up for Google
services. This will be done through the
placement a cookie on all machines to provide targeted advertising seamlessly
through each Google search and browsing session. </p>
<p>While many argue that the collection of non-personally
identifiable information poses no privacy harm, this assumption needs
reassessment. As Google comes to offer
us more, they also come to learn more, and Buzz signifies this trend towards a Googopolized
social web. To add another layer of
complexity to Googles hegemony, users of the Buzz service are also required to create
a “Google Profile”, which is searchable online and displays real time status
updates, comments, and connections from other social network services, such as
Facebook and Twitter. As Google recently
launched the beta version of the new <a href="http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/introducing-google-social-search-i.html">Social
Search</a>, Buzz was just the service required to increase the relevance to the
new service by encouraging Gmail users to publish even more personal
information. The creation of a personal
Google profile, which is indexed and searchable, raises many concerns about
privacy and identity, and doubts are continually raised over <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/hey-google-thi-i-why-privacy-matter-2010-2">how
much Google should come to know</a> about us.</p>
<p>While Google’s services have arguably made the online social
experience more seamless and tailored, it is questionable as to how relevant,
or even desirable, such a shift may be.
At present, it may appear that Google is wearing far too many hats, and
users should be wary of placing all eggs into one basket. As
the launch of Buzz has shown us, user consent and the contextual integrity of
private personal information can be compromised when a diverse number of online
services are integrated and given a social spin. When competition among social web providers
drives users to lose control of the private information which is inherently theirs,
critical questions surrounding competition, convergence and privacy require
critical exploration. </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/does-the-social-web-need-a-googopoly'>https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/does-the-social-web-need-a-googopoly</a>
</p>
No publisherrebeccaPrivacySocial NetworkingCompetitionGoogle Buzz2011-08-18T05:06:37ZBlog EntryThe (in)Visible Subject: Power, Privacy and Social Networking
https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking
<b>In this entry, I will argue that the interplay between privacy and power on social network sites works ultimately to subject individuals to the gaze of others, or to alternatively render them invisible. Individual choices concerning privacy preferences must, therefore, be informed by the intrinsic relationship which exists between publicness/privateness and subjectivity/obscurity. </b>
<strong><br />The Architecture of Openness</strong>
<p> </p>
<div>
<div id="parent-fieldname-text">
<p>Through a Google search or a quick scan of Facebook, people
today are able to gain “knowledge” on others in a way never once
possible. The ability to search and collect information
on individuals online only continues to improve as online social networks grow
and
search engines become more comprehensive.
Social networks, and the social web more broadly, has worked to
fundamentally alter the nature of personal information made available
online. Social networking services today enable the average person, with web access, to publish information through a “social
profile”. Personal
information made available online is now communicative, narrative and
biographic. Consequentially, social profiles have become
rich containers of personal information that can be searched, indexed
and
analyzed.</p>
<p>The architecture of the social web further encourages users
to enclose volumes of personally identifiable information. Most social
network sites embrace the “ethos
of openness” as, by default, most have relaxed privacy settings. While
most sites give users relative control
over the disclosure of personal information, services such as MySpace,
Facebook
and Live Journal are far ahead of the black and white public/private
privacy
models of sites such as Bebo and Orkut. Bebo,
for example, only allows users to disclose information to “friends” or
“everyone”, granting little granularity for diverse privacy
preferences. MySpace and Facebook, on the other hand, have
made room for “friends of friends”, among other customizable group
preferences. All networking sites also consider certain pieces
of basic information publicly available, without privacy controls. On
most sites, this includes name,
photograph, gender and location, and list of friends. Okrut, however,
considers far more
information to public—leaving the political views and religions of its’
members
public. This openness leaves the
individual with little knowledge or control over how their information
is
viewed, and subsequently used.</p>
<p>Search functionality has also increased the visibility of
individuals outside their immediate social network. For example, sites
such Facebook and LinkedIn
index user profiles through Google search.
Furthermore, all social network sites index their users, effectively
allowing profiles to be searched by other users through basic
registration data,
such as first and last name or registered email address. While most
services allow users to remove
their profiles from external search engines, they are often not able to
effectively control internal searches. Orkut,
for example, does not allow users to disable internal searches according
to
their first and last names. LinkedIn and
MySpace also maintains that users be searchable by their email
addresses.</p>
<p>Through this open architecture and search functionality, social
network sites have rendered individuals more “visible” vis-à-vis one
another. The social web has effectively
altered the spatial dimensions of our social lives as grounded, embodied
experience becomes ubiquitous and multiply experienced. Privacy, in the
online social milieu, assumes
greater fluidity and varied meaning—transcending spatially
constructed
understandings of the notion. </p>
<p>While the architecture of social networking sites encourages
users to be more “public”, heightened control, or “more privacy” is
generally
suggested as the panacea to privacy concerns.
However, the public/private binary of privacy talk often fails to
capture the complex nexus which exists between privacy and power in the
networked ecosystem. Privacy preferences
on social networks, and the consequences thereof, are effectively shaped
and
influenced by structures of power. In
this entry, I will argue that the interplay between privacy and power
works
ultimately to expose individuals to the subjective gaze of others, or to
render
them invisible. In this respect,
individual choices concerning privacy preferences must be informed by
the
intrinsic relationship between notions of publicness/privateness and
subjectivity/obscurity.</p>
<p><strong>Power and
Subjectivity </strong></p>
<p>The searchable nature of the social profile allows others to
quickly and easily aggregate information on one another. As privacy
scholar Daniel Solve <a href="http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/dsolove/Future-of-Reputation/text.htm">notes</a>,
social searching may be of genuine intent – individuals
use social networking services to locate old friends, and to connect
with current
colleagues. However, curiosity does not
always assume such innocence, as fishing expeditions for personal
information
may serve the purpose of judging individuals based perception of the
social
profile. The relatively power of search
and open information can be harnessed to weed out potential job
applicants, or
to rank college applicants. Made
possible through the architecture of the web and social constructions of
power,
individuals may be subjected to the deconstructive gaze of superiors. </p>
<p>The architecture of social networking sites significantly compliments
this nexus between privacy and power. As
individual behavior and preferences become more transparent, the act of
surveillance is masked behind the ubiquity and anonymity of online
browsing. Drawing
on Foucault’s panopticism, social networks make for the
“containerization” of social
space –allowing the powerful to subjectively hierarchize and classify
individuals in relation to one another<a href="https://cis-india.org/../others/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking-1#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"></span></span></a>
[1]. This practice becomes particularly
troublesome online, as individuals are often unable to control how they
are constructed
by others in cyberspace. </p>
<p>Perfect control is difficult to guarantee in an ecosystem
where personal information is easily searched, stored, copied, indexed,
and
shared. In this respect, the privacy
controls of social networking sites are greatly illusory. Googling an
individual’s name, for example,
may not reveal the full social profile of an individual, but may unveil
dialogue involving the individual in a public discussion group. The
searchable nature of personal information
on the web has both complicated and undesirable consequences for privacy
of the
person for, what I believe, to be two main reasons.</p>
<p>The first point refers to what Daniel J. Solve describes as
the “<a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID440200_code249137.pdf?abstractid=440200&rulid=39703&mirid=1">virtue
of knowing less</a>”.
Individuals may be gaining more “information” on others through the
internet, but this information is often insufficient for judging one’s
character as it only communicates one dimension of an individual. In <a href="http://heinonlinebackup.com/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/washlr79&section=16">her
work</a>, Helen Nissenbaum emphasizes the importance contextual
integrity holds for personal information.
When used outside its intended context, information gathered online may
not be useful for accurately assessing an individual. In addition, the
virtual gaze is void of the
essential components of human interaction necessary to effectively
understand
and situate each other. As Solve notes,
certain information may distort judgment of another person, rather than
increasing
its accuracy.</p>
<p>Secondly, the act of surveillance through social networks work
to undermine privacy and personhood, as individuals seek to situate
others as
“fixed texts” <a href="https://cis-india.org/../others/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking-1#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"></span></span></a>[2].
Due to the complex nature of the social self, such practice is undesirable. Online
social networks are socially constructed spaces, with diverse meanings
assigned
by varied users. One may utilize a social
network service to build and maintain professional relationships, while
another
may use it as an intimate space to share with close friends and family.
James Rachels’ <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/6152658/Why-Privacy-is-Important-James-Rachels">theory
of
privacy</a> notes that privacy is important, as it allows individuals
to
selectively disclose information and to engage in behaviors appropriate
and
necessary for maintaining diverse personal relationships. Drawing on
the work of performance theorists
such as <a href="http://books.google.co.in/books?id=gyWuhD3Q3IcC&dq=judith+butler+gender+trouble&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=5W56S_aTL4vo7APq4YmfCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CBgQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=&f=false">Judith
Butler</a>, we can assert that identity is not fixed or unitary, but is
constituted by performances that are directed at different audiences<a href="https://cis-india.org/../others/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking-1#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"></span></span></a>
[3]. Sociologist Erving Goffman also notes that we
“live our lives as performers…<span class="msoIns"><ins cite="mailto:lynda%20spark" datetime="2010-02-15T17:54"> </ins></span>[and]
play many different roles and
wear many different masks”<a href="https://cis-india.org/../others/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking-1#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"></span></span></a>
[4]. Individuals, therefore, are inclined to
perform themselves online according to their perceived audiences. It is
the audience, or the social graph,
which constructs the context that, in turn, informs individual behavior.</p>
<p>Any attempt to situate and categorize the individual becomes
particularly problematic in the context of social networks, where
information
is often not intended for the purpose for which it is being used. Due
to the complex nature of human behavior, judgments
of character based on online observation only effectively capture one
side of
the “complicated self”<a href="https://cis-india.org/../others/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking-1#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"></span></span></a>.
As Julie Cohen <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1012068">writes</a>,
the “law often fails to capture the mutually
constitutive interactions between self and culture, the social
constructions of
systems of knowledge, and the interplay between systems of knowledge and
systems of power”. Because the panoptic
gaze is decentralized and anonymous in the networked ecosystem,
individuals will
often bear little knowledge on how their identities are being digitally
deconstructed and rewired. Most importantly,
much of this judgment will occur without individual consent or
knowledge—emphasizing the transparent nature of the digital self. <strong></strong></p>
<p><strong>Power and
(in)visibility</strong></p>
<p>In response to the notion that the architecture of the
social web may render individuals transparent to the gaze of others, the
need
for more “control” over privacy on social network sites has captured the
public
imagination. Facebook’s abrupt <a href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_pushes_people_to_go_public.php">privacy
changes</a>, for example, have<span class="msoIns"><ins cite="mailto:lynda%20spark" datetime="2010-02-15T17:58"> </ins></span>received
widespread
attention in the <a href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/why_facebook_is_wrong_about_privacy.php">blogosphere</a>
and even by <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/dec/17/facebook-privacy-ftc-complaint">governments</a>.
While
popular privacy discourse often continues to fixate on the
public/private
binary—Facebook’s questionable move towards privacy decontrol has raised
important questions of power and privilege.</p>
<p>A recent <a href="http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2010/01/16/facebooks_move.html">blog
post</a> by danah boyd nicely touches upon the dynamics of
power, public-ness, and privilege in the context of online social networking.
As she notes, “Public-ness has always been a
privilege…<span class="msoIns"><ins cite="mailto:lynda%20spark" datetime="2010-02-15T18:00"> </ins></span>but now we've changed the
equation
and anyone can theoretically be public…<span class="msoIns"><ins cite="mailto:lynda%20spark" datetime="2010-02-15T18:00"> </ins></span>and
seen
by millions. However, there are still
huge social costs to being public…the privileged don’t have to worry
about the
powerful observing them online…but most everyone else does –forcing
people into
the public eye doesn’t <em>dismantle the
structures of privilege and power</em>, but only works to <em>reinforce
them</em>” (emphasis added). </p>
<p>This point touches upon an important idea —that publicity has value.
This nexus between visibility and power is
one which unfolds quite clearly in the social media ecosystem. One’s
relevance or significance could,
arguably, be measured relative to online visibility. Many individuals
who are seen as “leaders”
within their own professional or social circles often maintain public
blogs, maintain
a herd of followers on Twitter, and often manage large numbers of
connections
on social network sites. The more
information written by or on an individual online, arguably, the more
relevant
they appear to in the eyes of their peers and superiors alike.</p>
<p>Power and privilege, however experienced, will be mirrored
in the online context. While the participatory
and decentralized nature of Web 2.0 arguably works challenge traditional
structures of power, systemic hierarchies and are often reinforced
online –as Facebook’s
privacy blunders clearly illustrates. The privileged need not worry
about the
subjective gaze of their superiors, as boyd notes. Those who may be
compromised due to the lack
of privateness, however, do. As boyd
goes on to argue, “the privileged get more privileged, gaining from
being
exposed…<span class="msoIns"><ins cite="mailto:lynda%20spark" datetime="2010-02-15T18:04"> </ins></span>and those struggling to keep
their
lives together are forced to create walls that are constantly torn down
around
them”. As public exposure may over often
equate to power, we must <span class="msoDel"><del cite="mailto:lynda%20spark" datetime="2010-02-15T18:04"> </del></span>critically
challenge
the assumption that the move towards more privacy control on social
networks will best empower its members.</p>
<p> If publicity can
potentially have great value for the individual, the opposite also rings
true. Privacy, as polemic to publicness,
alternatively works to diminish the presence of the individual,
rendering them
invisible or irrelevant within hyper-linked networks. With
greater personal protectionism online,
an individual may go unnoticed or unrecognized, fizzling out dully
behind their
more public peers. Drawing on social
network theory, powerful people can be understood as “supernodes” as
they
connect more peripheral members of a network.
As <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=629283">Lior
Strahilevitz notes</a>, supernodes tend to be better
informed than the peripherals, and are most likely to be perceived as
“leaders”. </p>
<p>As the power of the supernode relates to privacy, Strahilevitz
states that that “supernodes
maintain their privileged status by<strong> </strong>continuing
to serve as information clearinghouses….and, in certain contexts, become
supernodes based in part on their willingness to share previously
private
information about themselves”. It is within
the context of visibility and power that the idea of (in)visibility and
powerlessness online unfold. Those who
have most at risk by going public, may chose not to do so. Those with in
comfortable positions with considerably less to lose by going public may
be
inclined to “open up”. Heightened privacy
controls on social network services, therefore, can work to reinforce
the very structures
of power they seek to dismantle. </p>
<p>This is
not to argue, however, that more privacy is necessarily bad, and that
less
privacy is good, or that users shouldn’t be selective in their
disclosures –<span class="msoIns"><ins cite="mailto:lynda%20spark" datetime="2010-02-15T18:08"> </ins></span>to
the contrary. As personal information
has become ubiquitous and tools for aggregating information improve,
maintaining
privacy online becomes more pertinent than ever. However, the concept of
privacy
will only continue to become increasingly complex as digital networks
continue
to deconstruct and reconfigure the spatial dimensions of the public and
private. How are we to effectively understand privacy
in a social environment which values openness and publicity? Can the
fluid and dynamic self gain
visibility online without becoming subject to the gaze of superiors?
Will those who selectively choose
friends and carefully disclose personal information fizzle out, while the powerful
and less inhibited continue to reassert privilege? The interplay
between power and privacy on
the social web is a multiply constitutive and reinforcing synergy
–understanding
how to effectively strike balance between the right to privacy and
self-determination
is the challenge ahead.</p>
<p> </p>
<div>
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<div id="ftn1">
<p><a href="https://cis-india.org/../others/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking-1#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1"><span class="FootnoteCharacters"><span class="FootnoteCharacters"></span></span></a><span class="footnotereference"><span class="footnotereference"></span></span>
1. see “Foucault in Cyberspace” by James Boyle</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn2">
<p><a href="https://cis-india.org/../others/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking-1#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2"><span class="FootnoteCharacters"><span class="FootnoteCharacters"></span></span></a></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn3">
<p><a href="https://cis-india.org/../others/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking-1#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3"><span class="FootnoteCharacters"><span class="FootnoteCharacters"></span></span></a><span class="footnotereference"><span class="footnotereference"></span></span>2.
Julie Cohen</p>
<p>3. Cohen citing Butler</p>
<p>4. Solve citing Goffman</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="viewlet-social-bookmarks">
<div id="shareit" class="hidden">
<div id="exit">
<h4>Bookmark & Share:</h4>
<ul id="viewlet_bookmarks"><li>
<a href="http://del.icio.us/post?url=http://www.cis-india.org/advocacy/others/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking-1&amp;title=The%20%28in%29Visible%20Subject:%20Power,%20Privacy%20and%20Social%20Networking">
<img src="../../../../++resource++sb_images/delicious.png" alt="Del.icio.us" />
</a>
</li><li>
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=http://www.cis-india.org/advocacy/others/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking-1">
<img src="../../../../++resource++sb_images/facebook.jpg" alt="Facebook" />
</a>
</li><li>
<a href="http://www.google.com/bookmarks/mark?op=add&bkmk=http://www.cis-india.org/advocacy/others/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking-1&title=The%20%28in%29Visible%20Subject:%20Power,%20Privacy%20and%20Social%20Networking">
<img src="../../../../++resource++sb_images/google.jpg" alt="Google Bookmarks" />
</a>
</li><li>
<a href="http://twitter.com/home?status=http://www.cis-india.org/advocacy/others/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking-1">
<img src="../../../../++resource++sb_images/twitter.gif" alt="Twitter" />
</a>
</li><li>
<a href="http://www.myspace.com/Modules/PostTo/Pages/?c=http://www.cis-india.org/advocacy/others/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking-1&amp;t=The%20%28in%29Visible%20Subject:%20Power,%20Privacy%20and%20Social%20Networking">
<img src="../../../../++resource++sb_images/myspace.png" alt="MySpace" />
</a>
</li><li>
<a href="http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&amp;url=http://www.cis-india.org/advocacy/others/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking-1&amp;title=The%20%28in%29Visible%20Subject:%20Power,%20Privacy%20and%20Social%20Networking">
<img src="../../../../++resource++sb_images/digg.png" alt="Digg" />
</a>
</li><li>
<a href="http://reddit.com/submit?url=http://www.cis-india.org/advocacy/others/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking-1&amp;title=The%20%28in%29Visible%20Subject:%20Power,%20Privacy%20and%20Social%20Networking">
<img src="../../../../++resource++sb_images/reddit.png" alt="Reddit" />
</a>
</li><li>
<a href="http://slashdot.org/bookmark.pl?title=The%20%28in%29Visible%20Subject:%20Power,%20Privacy%20and%20Social%20Networking&amp;url=http://www.cis-india.org/advocacy/others/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking-1">
<img src="../../../../++resource++sb_images/slashdot.png" alt="Slashdot" />
</a>
</li></ul>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="visualClear"></div>
<h5 class="hiddenStructure">Document Actions</h5>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking'>https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking</a>
</p>
No publisherrebeccaSocial NetworkingAttention EconomyFacebookPrivacy2011-08-18T05:06:52ZBlog EntryThe Role of ICT in Judicial Reform- An Exploration
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/what-will-be-the-role-of-ict-in-indias-judical-reform-process
<b>A seminar held this month by the Communications and Manufacturing Association of India (CMAI) explored the role that information and communication technology can assume in the process of India's judicial reform efforts. The broad consensus among panelists was that “law is not keeping pace with technology”. However, whether technology will be harnessed to actually facilitate much needed transparency and access to the justice system, or be simply used to improve efficiency within the judicial branch still remains unclear.</b>
<p> The Indian
judiciary is facing mounting pressures to reform its apparatus. Even the judiciary itself has come
to recognize, <a class="external-link" href="http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/report230.pdf">on the books</a>, that change is long overdue.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote1anc" href="#sdfootnote1sym"></a>
Some <a class="external-link" href="http://www.judicialreforms.org/files/PRS%20study%20on%20pendency%202009.pdf">estimates</a> have it that it would require almost three years to clear the current backlog of cases in High Courts<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote2anc" href="#sdfootnote2sym"></a>.
While technocrats herald that the enormous backlog of cases may
eventually be the death knell for India's judicial branch, reform
efforts must go beyond achieving the speedier delivery of justice
and work towards tackling other inadequacies of the system if “access to
justice for all”(1) is to become a reality.</p>
<p> The rural penetration of courts in
India is extremely low, which significantly limits access to justice for
the many citizens living far beyond the district courts of city
centers. An extremely low
judge to population ratio in India only contributes further to the
already high incidence of pending cases, making delays in justice a
regular occurrence. Mr. P.K. Malhotra from the Department of Legal
Affairs has noted that increased
litigation within the government has also caused a stark increase in
the number of pending cases<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote3anc" href="#sdfootnote3sym"></a>.
While the need for reform can be demonstrated quite clearly on a
practical level, the right to information (RTI) movement has also
provided further impetus for reform on a more fundamental level. Well organized citizens are now <a class="external-link" href="http://www.judicialreforms.org/">demanding
the right</a> to a more transparent and accountable judiciary.</p>
<p> As e-government initiatives continue
to transform the nature of
India's bureaucracy and enhance the quality of government
services, there is a mood of great optimism that ICT will also come
to play a central role in judicial reform efforts. Speakers at the
seminar enthusiastically cited innovative practices such as
Singapore's “paperless court” which makes a compelling case for
automation. Notable success in implementing
ICT in the judiciary have also been achieved in Canada,
Australia, and in several countries across Latin America. This is
not to say, however, that the appropriation of ICT
is uniform in every case. Variables such as political will and
context, institutional capacity and reform goals all
play a role in shaping the outcome. Plans
could, for example, take more of an operational approach by
prioritizing the improved efficiency and the rationalization of
resources by implementing electronic case
management systems. Other strategies may be designed and implemented from an access
perspective, seeking to restore faith in the justice system by
increasing transparency and accountability. This could be done, for
example, by installing video technology in court rooms, or publishing legal
information online.</p>
<p> At
the seminar, India's consortium of well-organized and highly
ambitious
technocrats were not shy in suggesting the many ways ICT may be used
to transform the judicial system, and, additionally, the many ways
such an endeavor provides the IT sector with “new opportunities”. Dr M. Veerappa Moily, Union Minister for Law and
Justice, has proposed for India a centrally funded and administered National
Judicial Technology Program. Such a program aims to use ICT in the courtrooms to free the legal system of “historical inefficiencies". It
is of no doubt that ICT can reduce the
duplicity of the paper world and make courts more green through
electronic case filing and video conferencing. Online case filing
systems can increase speed in which citizens can have their cases heard, and real time access to
online repositories of legal information drastically expedites
the case cycle.</p>
<p> Mr. C P Gurnani, CEO of Tech Mahindra
made the bold assertion that with ICT, India's 300 year case backlog
can be reduced to three years, in a span of only three years (2). Features of this newly envisioned e-justice system
include the use of video hearings to reduce transportation costs,
case filing operation systems, RFID based file tracking, and the
creation of a publicly accessible and easily searchable e-library.
While others were much less optimistic than Mr. Gurani and recognize
that the use of ICT in the reform process is “no instant coffee”,
the question of whether or not ICT can be a strategically appropriated in the Indian
context still remains.</p>
<p> Optimistic accounts of how ICT will increase
access to justice, incorporate the marginalized into the law-making
process, and increase judicial transparency and accountability all sounds uncomfortably techno-utopian. While ICT should facilitate the reform process, past
experiences have shown that the over zealous use of technology has too-often resulted in less than impressive results (3)<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote4anc" href="#sdfootnote4sym"></a>. To ensure that the reform process in India is not driven mainly by the IT sector, it is important that the use of technology remains complimentary to
a sound national judicial reform strategy. An abundant supply of technical
support with little demand for the reform process from within the judicial branch may spell disappointing results for all stakeholders. Seeing that
India's first seminar discussing the role of IT in the judiciary has been organized by the IT industry, it is safe to
assume that reform strategies are being crystallized through the gaze
of technocrats rather than the judiciary itself.
Technology has an important role to play, but
India's technocrats may be jumping the gun.</p>
<p> Many deep-seated challenges must be
overcome before the use of ICT can be truly transformative. Often cited
is the level of resistance judicial cultures express towards externally imposed change. Quite logically, those required to make
change are also those who may have the most
to lose in the short-term by doing so. Similarly, it is also
difficult garnering the levels of political support judicial reforms require to be effective. Because the judiciary is such a highly politicized apparatus, efforts to fundamentally transform the system will require the support of a vast number of stakeholders <a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote5anc" href="#sdfootnote5sym"></a>.
The low level of technological literacy which exists among India's
judges is also problematic. Not only will members of the
judiciary be open to new ways of doing business, they will also have
to be diligent in adopting a new skill-set in which they may be more
than a decade behind in acquiring.<br /></p>
<p>Other
deep-rooted limitations of India's judicial system are
becoming increasingly apparent today. Questions surrounding access to justice
remain deeply embedded in the asymmetries of class power, which are often reinforced by the political nature of the judiciary. Constitutional law
in India also remains unstable, as the principles informing judicial action have become
increasingly less clear (5). Furthermore, the courts have come to
maintain a disproportionate share of power and influence in the
Indian political sphere (6).<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote6anc" href="#sdfootnote6sym"></a> It is questionable if ICT can work to ameliorate some of these malignancies, or if its use will
only come to reinforce them. If technology is appropriated in a way which serves to make the judicial process more
transparent and accountable, protect the rights of citizens, and
provide greater and more equitable access to justice, it may be safe
to assume that a more tech-savvy judiciary is a positive development for citizens. Publishing legal information online, for example, currently allows for greater
transparency in the law making process and allows dialogue on
important issues of governance and citizenship. </p>
<p>However, it is almost unnecessary to
reiterate that such outcomes are not guaranteed. Technology is
often seen as neutral– the evaluative outcome of its
application remains dependent on numerous variable factors. Most important is whether or not the government provides
a legal framework conducive to the appropriation of ICT in ways which
are considered to further the public interest. It may be useful to
view the successful appropriation of ICT to judicial reform as a cumulative process, each
step being a precondition to the other. It is clear to see how basic
infrastructure such as civil courts in rural areas must be in place
before the use of ICT can facilitate access to justice for
individuals who remain peripheral to the legal system.
Similarly, one would assume that laws would have to first be to
be nondiscriminatory to all members of society before it could it can be widely accepted that more technology will better safeguard our rights and freedoms.</p>
<p> Without a legal framework which is considered to be socially just, greater speed of the judicial process, aided by technology, may become a tool which enables the judiciary to act more arbitrarily, more efficiency. This could be troubling for individuals who are already marginalized by certain policies or legal practices. Technology can also make it possible for judges
to insulate themselves from the necessary checks and balances required in the law-making process. While Mr Gurani stated that ICT can help preserve judicial independence, it is questionable if the use of technology is an appropriate strategy to mitigate politicization of the judicial branch. Any
frivolous efforts to spearhead the reform process through the introduction
of ICT without the required commitment of judges and policy makers may be
naïve at best. At worst, it could serve to reinforce what judicial
bodies believe they do well without critically re-examining the
fundamental roles, norms and principles of the Indian judicial system
itself.</p>
<p> Online case-filing services may
unintentionally, due to cost or lack of awareness, erect further
barriers to justice for individuals who traditionally remained
outside of the sphere of access. In the same vein, if ICT is favored for use in criminal rather than civil courts,
technology may simply become a tool used to sentence people, more quickly. This scenario sits quite polemic to visions of technology serving as a tool to empower individuals to better assert their rights and seek justice.
Foreshadowing the role ICT may play in the future of India's judicial reform process, SPANCO Technologies is currently piloting the use of
video technology in criminal courts. Furthermore, <a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote7anc" href="#sdfootnote7sym"></a>India's judiciary has made several attempts to insulate itself from
the provisions of the RTI act, indicating that new laws, and even new technologies, may not be able to change practice. There are also strong doubts looming that the
Gramin Nyayalayas Act will be successful in leveraging the required
financial support needed to construct civil courts in rural
areas. Without the basic building blocks, it is difficult to envision how a National
Judicial Technology Program will be successful in bringing "justice" to all who are awaiting it. Such instances serve as a light warning that technology,
even within a favorable legal framework, may not necessarily spell a more accessible, transparent and accountable justice system.</p>
<p>A well-functioning judicial system is required to keep up with the
demands of modern democratic society. It is unquestionable that technology can play an influential role in ensuring that the relationship
between citizens and the government is strong and communicative.
However, it is important to ask under what conditions may it be beneficial to implement technology’s
use. Inferring from last week’s
seminar, proposals and rationale behind potential reforms were made
from an economic perspective; how ICT can be used to see that cases
are filed and judgments are delivered more quickly to improve efficiency and rationalize resources. Whether
technology will be appropriated to facilitate a more equitable
justice system is unknown, but it is certain that such will require a coherent national reform strategy with long-term political backing. Short-shorted technological fixes may improve India's judicial efficiency in the short term, but may, however, overshadow opportunities to bring about a more transparent and accountable system in the long-term.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Notes</p>
<p>1. This was a notion emphasized often throughout the seminar.</p>
<p>2. Where these estimates were drawn is unknown.</p>
<p>3. For a concise account of how the use of ICT may be misappropriated in the judicial reform process, see E-Justice: Towards a Strategic Use of ICT in Judicial Reform by Waleed H. Malik</p>
<p>4. For an interesting account of India's judicial system, see "The Rise of Judicial Sovereignty" by Pratap Bhanu Mehta in "The State of India's Democracy", Oxford University Press, 2009.</p>
<p>5. Pratap Bhanu Mehta.</p>
<p>6. Ibid.</p>
<h1 class="western"></h1>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/what-will-be-the-role-of-ict-in-indias-judical-reform-process'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/what-will-be-the-role-of-ict-in-indias-judical-reform-process</a>
</p>
No publisherrebeccae-governance2011-08-02T07:17:22ZBlog EntryIs Copyright Law Censoring the Art World?
https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/could-copyright-law-be-censoring-the-art-world
<b>Last week, ART and the Center for Law and Policy Research held a workshop on “Copyright, Censorship and the Creative Commons” for individuals interested in examining the art/law nexus, and exploring its broader implications for individual artists and the creative commons. While it appears that artists are becoming more rights conscious, the increasing copyrightability of art today is compelling many artists to critically rethink the role of law in the art world.</b>
<p>The workshop drew individuals
affiliated with the arts in many different ways, making for a rich exploration of how legal governance has come to
shape art as praxis, influence modern conceptions of “art” and
alter the ecology of creativity. The two-day workshop offered
artists pragmatic legal tools and advice, as well as the opportunity
to discuss the friction between artistic freedom, legal rights, and
juridical power in the art world. Judging from the workshop, artists
appear to be increasingly concerned with their legal rights. With
this said, they also seem to be equally critical of how legal
systems may be shaping modes of artistic expression. This
ambivalence made for an interesting two days of discussion.</p>
<p>Upon first glance, intellectual
property regimes governing the sale, use and production of artistic
work may appear wrought with ambiguities for those unfamiliar with
legal technicalities. As the globalized nature of legal and
technological infrastructures has given rise to complex new
challenges for the governing of the art world, there was no shortage
of questions from the group in attempt to crystallize their
understandings. What does one do when a rights holder has not
responded to a licensing request? Can an artist copyright their work
when drawing from the public domain? The multiplexicity of the
questions made one thing clear – the modern artist must be legally
literate if they are to fulfill their rights and obligations under
the law. Determining who owns the rights to what, and under what
circumstances, can prove more challenging than one may initially
assume.</p>
<p>How, and to what extent, the legal
system is used by an artist depends
on a host of factors. Some of theses factors may include whether or
not the artwork has the potential to be commercially exploited, holds
intrinsic or traditional cultural value to the artist, or whether or
not it can be easily reproduced and distributed using digital
technologies. Some participants were interested to learn how they
could use the law to protect their work from illegal distribution,
while others were keen to how they can contribute to the public
domain, while maintaining certain rights to their their work. The
increasingly commercial nature of museums and galleries and the risks
they pose to artists seemed to be a pressing concern for many.
Individuals cited cases of galleries buying the rights to entire
bodies of work, thus rendering artists unable to reclaim
their artistic rights and integrity.</p>
<p>The monetary value placed on artistic
expression, coupled with a technological infrastructure which enables the
dissemination of artistic works, appear to have artists seeking
greater ownership of what they create. Furthermore, the threat of
commercial exploitation seemed to have many artists questioning the
possible implications of placing their work in the public domain.
The exploitation of art for commercial gain strongly illustrated the
need for legal rights to protect the moral and economic rights of
artists, and it is within this context that a discourse of rights and
proprietorship came to dominate much of the workshop. While only
briefly touched upon, A a more nuanced discussion of the rights
an artist may obtain under a creative commons license may have led discussion in more open directions. With such emphasis placed on how an artists is to protect their legal rights, the importance of public domain for the art world received little discussion.</p>
<p>While learning how to protect legal
rights seemed to be a focus, a leveling sense of ambivalence
prevailed as many began to critically questioned the role of the law
in shaping artistic expression. From the dominance of the
intellectual property framework to the very nature of legal language,
legal structures appear to play an increasingly influential, yet
ill-suited role, in answering the classic question “what is art?”.
In the early 20<sup>th</sup> century, legal and peer censorship
played a prominent, yet more traditional role in determining what did
or did not constitute art. India's 1954 nude art scandal involving
Akbar' Padamsee's painting “The Lovers” and the similar ostracism
of artist Marcel Duchamp for his Dada piece “The Fountain”,
demonstrates these more traditional forms of legal and peer
censorship, respectively. Today, a more nuanced method of
censorship appears to have evolved alongside the complex legal
structures governing artistic work. Under the intellectual property
rubric, judges and lawyers, as much so as artists, are critiquing the
integrity of art and, consequentially, shaping modern perceptions of
authorship and creativity.</p>
<p>Many participants found the
epistemological power of
law in the contemporary art world to be questionable. As new art
forms continue to transgress traditional boundaries of creativity and
legality, copyright law is becoming an increasingly complex arena.
To what extent does the pop art of of Andy Warhol blur the lines
between artistic expression and trademark infringement? Does a
series of painted lines a canvas demonstrate “some labor, skill and
judgment”? Should conceptual artists be able to copyright their
installations and freeze performances, however impermanent these
works they may be? The work of artist Jeff Koons clearly exemplifies
how copyright law may classify adaptive works as extralegal. His
sculpture “String of Puppies” –a playful and colorful
adaptation of a photograph, was determined by American courts to be
an infringement of copyright, even though it had been clear that a
great deal of “labor, skill and judgment” had been poured into
the piece. Through the artistic gaze, the work was seen as “original”
in its own right. To the legal eye, it was a clearly an infringement
of copyright. Such a case demonstrates how juridical authority can,
and is used, to impose rigid notions of creativity and authorship.</p>
<p>The role of intellectual property
regimes in exacerbating power imbalances within the art world was
another theme of concern for artists throughout the two days.
Participants gave many examples which demonstrated the cumbersome
processes artists must undergo to secure a performance license from
foreign rights holders. While one performance manager thought they
had secured the rights to a show, they were kindly notified by
authorities that they had only in fact been given rights to the
script, but were never granted permission to use the music. One can
imagine how the increasingly globalized nature of intellectual
property law can impose financial restrictions on small time
performance artist in Bangalore to acquire all the licenses necessary
to “legally” perform a classic Broadway show. Considering that
shows are normally performed for smaller audiences and do not garner
substantial profits, these legal structures often work to reinforce
an asymmetric balance of power in the art world. Other participants noted how emergent
Artists Guilds in India are taking almost draconian measures to
ensure copyright law is respected by artists and performers in and
around the art scene in Bangalore.</p>
<p>The politics of power also permeated
discussions of how governments are protecting traditional forms of
artistic expression through geographical indication. Geographical
indication seems to preserve the spatial contextuality intrinsic to
the production of traditional art forms. However, bringing
“traditional art” under the umbrella of intellectual property law
also raised a host of questions. Considering the disjuncture which
exists between supranational systems and local practice, who should hold the power to decide how folklore is protected? These
methods of protecting the intellectual property of “the local”
often present new tensions between geographical fluidity:rigidity,
individual:communal modes of production, and legal
representivity:invisibility.</p>
<p>It is evident that the law plays a
necessary and functional role for governing the art world and
protects many artists from undue exploitation. However, legal
structures continue to gain greater epistemological power within
the art world as a consequence. This has many questioning how the law may stifling artistic expression; notably as new technologies continue
encourage new art forms through the use, adaptation, and remixing of
copyrighted works. What will the future of art look like if judges,
and artists alike, continue to survey the practice through the lens
of legality to the extent they do today? As artistic and legal
practices continue to evolve, it may become increasingly difficult to
disentangle art from the complex political economy of interests that governs it.</p>
<p>Drawing
from such concerns, I am compelled to question why a discourse of
rights and protection, rather than one of obligation, continues to
dominate discussion of the art/law nexus? If artists are concerned
with these increasing legalisms, why aren't they encouraged to
preserve the creative commons as often as they are advised to assert
their proprietary rights? Wouldn't a discourse of artistic
“responsibility” rather than “rights” set the art world on a
path towards redefining the role of law and and reclaiming the power
of influence over artistic expression? There is a clear need
for the art world to recenter the line between legal rights and
creative subjectivity, and I feel that more focus on protecting the
public domain, rather than individual property rights, would be a
proper step towards achieving this. Only by doing so do I believe
that artists will be able to ensure that copyright law continues to
serve its functional role without becoming a new form of creative
censorship.</p>
<p><em>If the opinions </em><em>I
have expressed raise important questions for you, </em><em><a class="external-link" href="http://www.artscapeindia.org">A.R.T.</a>
will be holding another workshop exploring art in the context of
social media. As more artists are using the internet and social
networking tools to promote their work, new benefits, as well as
challenges have risen within this domain. A date for the workshop has
not yet been set, however it is planned to take place early on next
year. <br /></em></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<div id="refHTML"> </div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/could-copyright-law-be-censoring-the-art-world'>https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/could-copyright-law-be-censoring-the-art-world</a>
</p>
No publisherrebecca2011-08-18T05:09:09ZBlog EntryString of Puppies
https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/uploads/copy_of_koons_puppies.jpg
<b>Jeff Koons copyright infringing statue</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/uploads/copy_of_koons_puppies.jpg'>https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/uploads/copy_of_koons_puppies.jpg</a>
</p>
No publisherrebecca2009-10-31T09:40:48ZImageString of Puppies
https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/uploads/koons_puppies.jpg
<b>Jeff Koon's copyright infringing statue</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/uploads/koons_puppies.jpg'>https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/uploads/koons_puppies.jpg</a>
</p>
No publisherrebecca2009-10-31T09:39:42ZImageAfter 15 Years, Is Free Access to Law Here to Stay?
https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/after-15-years-is-free-access-to-law-here-to-stay
<b>CIS, in collaboration with partners LexUM and SAFLII, is undertaking a Global Free Access to Law Study. Being the first of its kind within the Free Access to Law Movement, this comparative study will examine what free access to law initiatives do, evaluate their core benefits and identify factors determining of their sustainability. In the end, the free access to law study will provide future initiatives and existing LII networks with proven and adoptable best practices which will support the continued growth of the legal information commons.</b>
<p>The question in the title is the
driving force behind a joint research initiative the Centre for
Internet and Society has recently undertaken in collaboration with pioneering institutions, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.lexum.org">LexUM</a>,and the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.saflii.org">South African Legal Information Institute</a>. Over the past fifteen years, institutions providing free access to
legal materials have transformed the modes in which legal information
is produced and used. However, there have been few analyses of the
ways in which legal information repositories operate. Lessons
learned, best practices and successful models have not been
systematically documented, and administrators may not have access to
useful guidance or peer support. The study will bridge this gap by
analyzing a variety of free access to law initiatives around the
world in greater detail.</p>
<p>In 1992, the first Legal Information
Institute (LII) at Cornell University began to place primary sources
of law and interpretive legal materials online, free of charge. The <a class="external-link" href="http://www.worldlii.org">Free Access to Law Movement</a>
soon expanded to form a broad network of LIIs who shared the belief
that legal information is <a class="external-link" href="http://www.worldlii.org/worldlii/declaration/">digital common property and should be accessible to all</a>.
Today, citizens around the world can access legal information in
multiple languages through easily searchable databases. Among the
resources available are statutes, bills, court decisions, bilateral
treaties, law journal articles, legal reform documents and much more.
This freely available legal information has helped make the law more
accessible to audiences previously underserved by costly commercial
databases, and has allowed comparative legal research to become more
practicable than ever before.</p>
<p>Research will focus on gauging the
broader societal effects of free access to law initiatives, as well
as on understanding the diverse factors which contribute to or
undermine their sustainability.The CIS will be overseeing research in
Asia, while SAFLII and LexUM will cover South and West Africa, the
South Pacific, Canada and Australia. The global scope of the study
will facilitate the sharing of expertise and best practices within
the global network of LIIs.</p>
<p>The value of creating a legal
information commons has been clearly demonstrated. Access to legal
materials helps to strengthen judicial systems, improve legal
expertise, guide policymaking and maintain the rule of law. Legal
transparency helps businesses assess risk and encourage
entrepreneurship. Citizens and civil society actors require access to
law to participate in the political process and assert their rights.
These audiences form an important constituency for open access to
legal scholarship and demonstrate the need to further examine the
core benefits of free access to law initiatives.</p>
<p>Online free access to legal materials
has also been an indispensable tool in underserved regions where a
host of factors often undermine access to legal information. The
following examples, derived from preliminary CIS research throughout
Asia, demonstrate how free access to law can bridge various gaps in
legal information accessibility. In some cases, laws may be
completely unavailable. For example, bureaucrats may demand bribes
before allowing access to copies of a law, or governments may wish to
keep certain implementing guidelines or regulations a secret. In
other cases, a law might have simply been lost through lack of proper
storage or record-keeping.</p>
<p>A second problem occurs when laws and
case law are available only in certain locations or certain forms. A
law may be available only in hard copy or in one or two libraries in
the capital city, for example. This causes difficulties for citizens
and practitioners in remote areas who lack the resources to travel.
Sometimes, the libraries containing the legal information also may
require special permissions to access. In other instances, legal
materials may have been digitized but not properly stored or
networked.</p>
<p>Digitizing and uploading laws to
organized, searchable databases presents its own challenges, and some
governments lack the technical capacity to do so. However, digitizing
and uploading laws does not guarantee general public access. In some
countries, laws may be online but placed in pay-per-use databases.
And some governments retain a copyright or similar intellectual
property rights in their laws and other documents. This may mean that
NGOs or LIIs cannot copy, consolidate, or re-post certain legal
information without exposing themselves to copyright liability. The
commercialization of legal information also restricts access to
individuals and firms able to pay costly subscription fees.</p>
<p>Copyright and the commercialization of
legal information can inhibit the free flow of legal
information—notably when legal information can be better organized,
preserved and disseminated further under more open standards.
Because of the importance of free access to law, a significant focus
of the research will be to identify factors that contribute to the
sustainability and success of free access to law initiatives. This
is of great importance in Asia, where the local capacities of LIIs
require further strengthening before their databases can begin to
rival their commercial counterparts.</p>
<p>Many <a class="external-link" href="http://law.bepress.com/unswwps/flrps/art42/">challenges</a>
remain for the development and sustainability of free access to law
initiatives in the Asian region. Searchable legal information must
be provided in both English and regional languages, while local
technical capacities require further development. Mariya
Badeva-Bright
of SAFLII also <a class="external-link" href="http://blog.law.cornell.edu/voxpop/2009/07/15/is-free-access-to-law-here-to-stay/">notes</a> that LIIs need to secure working partnerships
within the judicial branch of government in order to reduce the
burdens of digitization and to promote common standards in
preparation of legal material. The AsianLII has only begun to scrape
the surface of valuable legal information that is potentially
available and must continue to develop and strengthen partnerships
in the region.</p>
<p> The study will have several concrete
results. Upon completion of the study, a Free Access to Law Best
Practices Handbook will be published and will serve as a
comprehensive knowledge resource for both existing and nascent free
access law initiatives. The handbook will outline various steps in
creating and maintaining successful free access to law initiatives,
while ensuring that important aspects of design and sustainability
are not overlooked. Also, a comprehensive online library will host
current and future materials relating to the free access to law
movement, including a collection of free access to law case studies.</p>
<p>Research by the CIS, LexUM, SAFLII,
and their respective team of researchers is expected to commence
within the next few months. In the end, the free access to law study will provide
future initiatives and existing LII networks with proven and
adoptable best practices. This research will increase the chance
that nascent initiatives will be successful, and support the
continued growth of the thriving legal information commons.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/after-15-years-is-free-access-to-law-here-to-stay'>https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/after-15-years-is-free-access-to-law-here-to-stay</a>
</p>
No publisherrebeccaOpen Access2011-08-18T05:07:48ZBlog Entry