The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 1 to 15.
Zuckerberg's Plan Spurned as India Backs Full Net Neutrality
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bloomberg-adi-narayan-bhuma-srivastava-february-8-2016-zuckerberg-plan-spurned-as-india-backs-full-net-neutrality
<b>Facebook Inc.’s plans for expansion in India have suffered a major setback.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Adi Narayan and Bhuma Srivastava was published in <a class="external-link" href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-08/facebook-faces-setback-as-india-bans-differential-data-pricing">Bloomberg</a> on February 8, 2016. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.</p>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
<li>Telecom regulator bans differential Internet data plans</li>
<li>Facebook had lobbied India to approve its Free Basics plan</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">After the company spent months lobbying the country to accept its Free Basics service -- a way of delivering a limited Internet that included Facebook, plus some other tools, for no cost -- India’s telecom regulator ruled against any plans from cellular operators that charge different rates to different parts of the Web.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Telecom operators can’t offer discriminatory tariffs for data services based on content, and aren’t allowed to enter into agreements with Internet companies to subsidize access to some websites, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India <a href="http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/WhatsNew/Documents/Regulation_Data_Service.pdf" target="_blank" title="Link to website">said</a> in a statement Monday. Companies violating the rules will be fined, it said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“This is the most extensive and stringent regulation on differential pricing anywhere in the world,” Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society, said via phone. “Those who suggested regulation in place of complete ban have clearly lost.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">With this decision, India joins countries such as the U.S., Brazil and the Netherlands in passing laws that restrict telecom operators from discriminating Internet traffic based on content. It is a <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-14/india-facebook-s-fight-to-be-free" title="Facebook’s Fight to Be Free">big blow</a> to Facebook’s Internet sampler plan known as Free Basics, which is currently offered in about <a href="https://info.internet.org/en/story/where-weve-launched/" target="_blank" title="Link to Internet.org page">three dozen</a> countries including Kenya and Zambia, none of which come close to the scale or reach that could’ve been achieved in India.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">With 130 million Facebook users, 375 million people online, and an additional 800 million-plus who aren’t, India is the biggest growth market for the social network, which remains blocked in China.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook said in a statement that it’s “disappointed with the outcome.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg said the decision won’t cause Facebook to give up on connecting people to the Internet in India, “because more than a billion people in India don’t have access to the Internet.” The company will continue to focus on its other initiatives, like extending networks using satellites, drones and lasers.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Freebies Curtailed</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The rule will put an end to prepaid plans that offered free access to services such as Google searches, the WhatsApp messaging application and Facebook. These packages were popular with low-income users by giving them an incentive to get online, said Rajan Mathews, director general of the lobby group Cellular Operators Association of India.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“These types of plans were being used by operators to meet the policy goals of connecting one billion people,” Matthews said. “With these gone, the government needs to tell us what alternatives are there.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The regulator’s decision comes after months of public <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-28/zuckerberg-makes-personal-appeal-in-india-for-free-net-service" title="Zuckerberg Makes Personal Appeal for Free Internet in India (1)">lobbying by Facebook</a> for India to approve Free Basics, which allows customers to access the social network and other services such as education, health care, and employment listings from their phones without a data plan.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Free Basics was criticized by activists who said it threatened net neutrality, the principle that all Internet websites should be equally accessible, and could change pricing in India for access to different websites.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The regulator, which had sought stakeholders’ views, said it was seeking to ensure data tariffs remain content agnostic. Operators will have six months to wind down existing differential pricing services.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Google Unaffected</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“Anything on the Internet can’t be priced based on content, applications, source and destination,” R.S. Sharma, the regulator’s chairman, told reporters in New Delhi. Some Internet companies’ plans to offer free WiFi at public venues, like Google Inc.’s <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-16/data-too-dear-set-youtube-to-download-in-india-while-you-sleep" title="Data Too Dear? Set YouTube to Download in India While You Sleep">project</a> with Indian Railways, are not affected by this ruling, he said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">For Free Basics, one or two carriers in a given country offer the package for free at slow speeds, betting that it will help attract new customers who’ll later upgrade to pricier data plans. In India, Facebook had tied up with Reliance Communications Ltd., though the service was suspended in December as the government solicited comments from proponents and opponents.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Since the government’s telecommunications regulator announced the suspension, Facebook bought daily full-page <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-14/india-facebook-s-fight-to-be-free" title="Facebook’s Fight to Be Free">ads</a> in major newspapers and plastered billboards with pictures of happy farmers and schoolchildren it says would benefit from Free Basics. Zuckerberg has frequently made the case himself via phone or newspaper op-eds, asking that Indians petition the government to approve his service.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Entrepreneurs, business people and activists took to Twitter to share their views after the decision came out on Monday.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“Great to see TRAI backing <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NetNeutrality?src=hash" target="_blank" title="Click to view webpage.">#</a><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NetNeutrality?src=hash" target="_blank" title="Click to view webpage.">NetNeutrality</a>,” Kunal Bahl, founder of Snapdeal.com, one of India’s biggest e-commerce sites, said. “Let’s keep the Internet free and independent.”</p>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
</ul>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bloomberg-adi-narayan-bhuma-srivastava-february-8-2016-zuckerberg-plan-spurned-as-india-backs-full-net-neutrality'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bloomberg-adi-narayan-bhuma-srivastava-february-8-2016-zuckerberg-plan-spurned-as-india-backs-full-net-neutrality</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial MediaFree BasicsTRAINet NeutralityFacebookInternet Governance2016-02-15T02:18:54ZNews ItemWSIS+10 High Level Event: A Bird's Eye Report
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/wsis-10-high-level-event-a-birds-eye-report
<b>The WSIS+10 High Level was organised by the ITU and collaborative UN entities on June 9-13, 2014. It aimed to evaluate the progress on implementation of WSIS Outcomes from Geneva 2003 and Tunis 2005, and to envision a post-2015 Development Agenda. Geetha Hariharan attended the event on CIS' behalf.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>The World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) +10 </span><a href="http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2014/forum/">High Level Event</a><span> (HLE) was hosted at the ITU Headquarters in Geneva, from June 9-13, 2014. The HLE aimed to review the implementation and progress made on information and communication technology (ICT) across the globe, in light of WSIS outcomes (</span><a href="http://www.itu.int/wsis/index-p1.html">Geneva 2003</a><span> and </span><a href="http://www.itu.int/wsis/index-p2.html">Tunis 2005</a><span>). Organised in three parallel tracks, the HLE sought to take stock of progress in ICTs in the last decade (High Level track), initiate High Level Dialogues to formulate the post-2015 development agenda, as well as host thematic workshops for participants (Forum track).</span><span> </span></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">The High Level Track:</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/copy2_of_HighLevelTrack.jpg/@@images/be5f993c-3553-4d63-bb66-7cd16f8407dc.jpeg" alt="High Level Track" class="image-inline" title="High Level Track" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Opening Ceremony, WSIS+10 High Level Event </i>(<a class="external-link" href="https://twitter.com/ITU/status/334587247556960256/photo/1">Source</a>)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The High Level track opened officially on June 10, 2014, and culminated with the endorsement by acclamation (as is ITU tradition) of two <a href="http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2014/forum/inc/doc/outcome/362828V2E.pdf">Outcome Documents</a>. These were: (1) WSIS+10 Statement on the Implementation of WSIS Outcomes, taking stock of ICT developments since the WSIS summits, (2) WSIS+10 Vision for WSIS Beyond 2015, aiming to develop a vision for the post-2015 global information society. These documents were the result of the WSIS+10 <a href="http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/mpp/">Multi-stakeholder Preparatory Platform</a> (MPP), which involved WSIS stakeholders (governments, private sector, civil society, international organizations and relevant regional organizations).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The <strong>MPP</strong> met in six phases, convened as an open, inclusive consultation among WSIS stakeholders. It was not without its misadventures. While ITU Secretary General Dr. Hamadoun I. Touré consistently lauded the multi-stakeholder process, and Ambassador Janis Karklins urged all parties, especially governments, to “<i>let the UN General Assembly know that the multi-stakeholder model works for Internet governance at all levels</i>”, participants in the process shared stories of discomfort, disagreement and discord amongst stakeholders on various IG issues, not least human rights on the Internet, surveillance and privacy, and multi-stakeholderism. Richard Hill of the Association for Proper Internet Governance (<a href="http://www.apig.ch/">APIG</a>) and the Just Net Coalition writes that like NETmundial, the MPP was rich in a diversity of views and knowledge exchange, but stakeholders <a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/2014/06/16/what-questions-did-the-wsis10-high-level-event-answer/">failed to reach consensus</a> on crucial issues. Indeed, Prof. Vlamidir Minkin, Chairman of the MPP, expressed his dismay at the lack of consensus over action line C9. A compromise was agreed upon in relation to C9 later.<span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Some members of civil society expressed their satisfaction with the extensive references to human rights and rights-centred development in the Outcome Documents. While governmental opposition was seen as frustrating, they felt that the <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">MPP had sought and achieved a common understanding</span></strong>, a sentiment <a href="https://twitter.com/covertlight/status/476748168051580928">echoed</a> by the ITU Secretary General. Indeed, even Iran, a state that had expressed major reservations during the MPP and felt itself unable to agree with the text, <a href="https://twitter.com/covertlight/status/476748723750711297">agreed</a> that the MPP had worked hard to draft a document beneficial to all.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Concerns around the MPP did not affect the <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">review of ICT developments</span></strong> over the last decade. High Level Panels with Ministers of ICT from states such as Uganda, Bangladesh, Sweden, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and others, heads of the UN Development Programme, UNCTAD, Food and Agriculture Organisation, UN-WOMEN and others spoke at length of rapid advances in ICTs. The focus was largely on ICT access and affordability in developing states. John E. Davies of Intel repeatedly drew attention to innovative uses of ICTs in Africa and Asia, which have helped bridge divides of affordability, gender, education and capacity-building. Public-private partnerships were the best solution, he said, to affordability and access. At a ceremony evaluating implementation of WSIS action-lines, the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC), India, <a href="https://twitter.com/covertlight/status/476748723750711297">won an award</a> for its e-health application MOTHER.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>The Outcome Documents themselves shall be analysed in a separate post. But in sum, the dialogue around Internet governance at the HLE centred around the success of the MPP. Most participants on panels and in the audience felt this was a crucial achievement within the realm of the UN, where the Tunis Summit had delineated strict roles for stakeholders in paragraph 35 of the </span><a href="http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html">Tunis Agenda</a><span>. Indeed, there was palpable relief in Conference Room 1 at the </span><a href="http://www.cicg.ch/en/">CICG</a><span>, Geneva, when on June 11, Dr. Touré announced that the Outcome Documents would be adopted without a vote, in keeping with ITU tradition, even if consensus was achieved by compromise.</span></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">The High Level Dialogues:</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/HighLevelDialogues.jpg/@@images/3c30d94f-7a65-4912-bb42-2ccd3b85a18d.jpeg" alt="High Level Dialogues" class="image-inline" title="High Level Dialogues" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Prof. Vladimir Minkin delivers a statement.</i> (<a class="external-link" href="https://twitter.com/JaroslawPONDER/status/476288845013843968/photo/1">Source</a>)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The High Level Dialogues on developing a post-2015 Development Agenda, based on WSIS action lines, were active on June 12. Introducing the Dialogue, Dr. Touré lamented the Millennium Development Goals as a “<i>lost opportunity</i>”, emphasizing the need to alert the UN General Assembly and its committees as to the importance of ICTs for development.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As on previous panels, there was <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">intense focus on access, affordability and reach in developing countries</span></strong>, with Rwanda and Bangladesh expounding upon their successes in implementing ICT innovations domestically. The world is more connected than it was in 2005, and the ITU in 2014 is no longer what it was in 2003, said speakers. But we lack data on ICT deployment across the globe, said Minister Knutssen of Sweden, recalling the gathering to the need to engage all stakeholders in this task. Speakers on multiple panels, including the Rwandan Minister for CIT, Marilyn Cade of ICANN and Petra Lantz of the UNDP, emphasized the need for ‘smart engagement’ and capacity-building for ICT development and deployment.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A crucial session on cybersecurity saw Dr. Touré envision a global peace treaty accommodating multiple stakeholders. On the panel were Minister Omobola Johnson of Nigeria, Prof. Udo Helmbrecht of the European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA), Prof. A.A. Wahab of Cybersecurity Malaysia and Simon Muller of Facebook. The focus was primarily on building laws and regulations for secure communication and business, while child protection was equally considered.<span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The lack of laws/regulations for cybersecurity (child pornography and jurisdictional issues, for instance), or other legal protections (privacy, data protection, freedom of speech) in rapidly connecting developing states was noted. But the <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">question of cross-border surveillance and wanton violations of privacy went unaddressed</span></strong> except for the customary, unavoidable mention. This was expected. Debates in Internet governance have, in the past year, been silently and invisibly driven by the Snowden revelations. So too, at WSIS+10 Cybersecurity, speakers emphasized open data, information exchange, data ownership and control (the <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/ecj-rules-internet-search-engine-operator-responsible-for-processing-personal-data-published-by-third-parties">right to be forgotten</a>), but did not openly address surveillance. Indeed, Simon Muller of Facebook called upon governments to publish their own transparency reports: A laudable suggestion, even accounting for Facebook’s own undetailed and truncated reports.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In a nutshell, the post-2015 Development Agenda dialogues repeatedly emphasized the importance of ICTs in global connectivity, and their impact on GDP growth and socio-cultural change and progress. The focus was on taking this message to the UN General Assembly, engaging all stakeholders and creating an achievable set of action lines post-2015.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">The Forum Track:</h3>
<p><img src="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/copy_of_ForumTrack.jpg/@@images/dfcce68a-18d7-4f1e-897b-7208bb60abc9.jpeg" alt="Forum Track" class="image-inline" title="Forum Track" /></p>
<p><i>Participants at the UNESCO session on its Comprehensive Study on Internet-related Issues</i> (<a class="external-link" href="https://twitter.com/leakaspar/status/476690921644646400/photo/1">Source</a>)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The HLE was organized as an extended version of the WSIS Forum, which hosts thematic workshops and networking opportunities, much like any other conference. Running in parallel sessions over 5 days, the WSIS Forum hosted sessions by the ITU, UNESCO, UNDP, ICANN, ISOC, APIG, etc., on issues as diverse as the WSIS Action Lines, the future of Internet governance, the successes and failures of <a href="http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/12/18/itu-phobia-why-wcit-was-derailed/">WCIT-2012</a>, UNESCO’s <a href="http://www.unesco.org/new/internetstudy">Comprehensive Study on Internet-related Issues</a>, spam and a taxonomy of Internet governance.<span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Detailed explanation of each session I attended is beyond the scope of this report, so I will limit myself to the interesting issues raised.<span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">At ICANN’s session on its own future (June 9), Ms. Marilyn Cade emphasized the <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">importance of national and regional IGFs</span></strong> for both issue-awareness and capacity-building. Mr. Nigel Hickson spoke of engagement at multiple Internet governance fora: “<i>Internet governance is not shaped by individual events</i>”. In light of <a href="http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/04/16/icann-anything-that-doesnt-give-iana-to-me-is-out-of-scope/">criticism</a> of ICANN’s apparent monopoly over IANA stewardship transition, this has been ICANN’s continual <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014-06-06-en">response</a> (often repeated at the HLE itself). Also widely discussed was the <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">role of stakeholders in Internet governance</span></strong>, given the delineation of roles and responsibilities in the Tunis Agenda, and governments’ preference for policy-monopoly (At WSIS+10, Indian Ambassador Dilip Sinha seemed wistful that multilateralism is a “<i>distant dream</i>”).<span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This discussion bore greater fruit in a session on Internet governance ‘taxonomy’. The session saw <a href="https://www.icann.org/profiles/george-sadowsky">Mr. George Sadowsky</a>, <a href="http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/faculty/kurbalija">Dr. Jovan Kurbalija</a>, <a href="http://www.williamdrake.org/">Mr. William Drake</a> and <a href="http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2014/forum/agenda/session_docs/170/ThoughtsOnIG.pdf">Mr. Eliot Lear</a> (there is surprisingly no official profile-page on Mr. Lear) expound on dense structures of Internet governance, involving multiple methods of classification of Internet infrastructure, CIRs, public policy issues, etc. across a spectrum of ‘baskets’ – socio-cultural, economic, legal, technical. Such studies, though each attempting clarity in Internet governance studies, indicate that the closer you get to IG, the more diverse and interconnected the eco-system gets. David Souter’s diagrams almost capture the flux of dynamic debate in this area (please see pages 9 and 22 of <a href="http://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/ISOC%20framework%20for%20IG%20assessments%20-%20D%20Souter%20-%20final_0.pdf">this ISOC study</a>).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There were, for most part, insightful interventions from session participants. Mr. Sadowsky questioned the effectiveness of the Tunis Agenda delineation of stakeholder-roles, while Mr. Lear pleaded that techies be let to do their jobs without interference. <a href="http://internetdemocracy.in/">Ms. Anja Kovacs</a> raised pertinent concerns about <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">including voiceless minorities in a ‘rough consensus’ model</span></strong>. Across sessions, <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">questions of mass surveillance, privacy and data ownership rose</span></strong> from participants. The protection of human rights on the Internet – especially freedom of expression and privacy – made continual appearance, across issues like spam (<a href="http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/CDS/sg/rgqlist.asp?lg=1&sp=2010&rgq=D10-RGQ22.1.1&stg=1">Question 22-1/1</a> of ITU-D Study Group 1) and cybersecurity.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Conclusion:</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The HLE was widely attended by participants across WSIS stakeholder-groups. At the event, a great many relevant questions such as the future of ICTs, inclusions in the post-2015 Development Agenda, the value of muti-stakeholder models, and human rights such as free speech and privacy were raised across the board. Not only were these raised, but cognizance was taken of them by Ministers, members of the ITU and other collaborative UN bodies, private sector entities such as ICANN, technical community such as the ISOC and IETF, as well as (obviously) civil society.<span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Substantively, the HLE did not address mass surveillance and privacy, nor of expanding roles of WSIS stakeholders and beyond. Processually, the MPP failed to reach consensus on several issues comfortably, and a compromise had to be brokered.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>But perhaps a big change at the HLE was the positive attitude to multi-stakeholder models from many quarters, not least the ITU Secretary General Dr. Hamadoun Touré. His repeated calls for acceptance of multi-stakeholderism left many members of civil society surprised and tentatively pleased. Going forward, it will be interesting to track the ITU and the rest of UN’s (and of course, member states’) stances on multi-stakeholderism at the ITU Plenipot, the WSIS+10 Review and the UN General Assembly session, at the least.</span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/wsis-10-high-level-event-a-birds-eye-report'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/wsis-10-high-level-event-a-birds-eye-report</a>
</p>
No publishergeethaWSIS+10PrivacyCybersecurityHuman Rights OnlineSurveillanceFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceFacebookData ProtectionMulti-stakeholderICANNInternet AccessITUInternet StudiesE-GovernanceICT2014-06-20T15:57:32ZBlog EntryWhat Bengaluru Thinks of the Big Tech Announcements in Silicon Valley
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/ndtv-maya-sharma-september-29-2015-what-bengaluru-thinks-of-big-tech-announcements-in-silicon-valley
<b>There is a split verdict on the big tech announcements made out of California during the Prime Minister's visit, in the desi version of Silicon Valley - Bengaluru.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This was published by <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ndtv.com/bangalore-news/what-bengaluru-thinks-of-silicon-valleys-promises-to-pm-modi-1224320">NDTV</a> on September 29, 2015. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Companies here are still assessing how they will be impacted by the big connectivity projects that Google, Microsoft and others announced when Prime Minister Narendra Modi dropped in at Silicon Valley, the global hub for innovation and technology, over the weekend.<br /><br /> CEO Sunder Pichai said Google would tie up with the government to provide free Wi-Fi at 500 railway stations across the country. Microsoft's Satya Nadela said his company would take broadband connectivity to five lakh villages across the country.<br /><br />And that its cloud services would operate out of India's data centres.<br /><br /> Some smaller companies in Bengaluru hope they will get some business when these giant projects are implemented. "Smaller companies like ours would be hoping we get a share of the pie when it comes to implementation. The government should ensure that," said Soujanya Prakash, a General Manager at Vee Technologies, to NDTV. Vee one of the companies assigned to implement part of the massive Aadhar identity card project.<br /><br /> Ms Prakash said companies like Microsoft and Google bring great technological expertise with them.<br /><br /> Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director for the Centre for Internet and Technology, had a word of caution as he voiced concern about the privacy policies of some big global companies. "The government should push for a strong data protection regime in India and force these companies to abide by that," he said.<br /><br /> Mr Prakash also said, "These companies need India more than we need them since there are more than one billion customers here. The Indian government must be wise in using this bargaining power."</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/ndtv-maya-sharma-september-29-2015-what-bengaluru-thinks-of-big-tech-announcements-in-silicon-valley'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/ndtv-maya-sharma-september-29-2015-what-bengaluru-thinks-of-big-tech-announcements-in-silicon-valley</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial MediaFacebookInternet Governance2015-10-18T13:26:35ZNews ItemWe Truly are the Product being Sold
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/hindustan-times-vidushi-marda-august-31-2016-we-truly-are-the-product-being-sold
<b>WhatsApp has announced it will begin sharing user data such as names, phone numbers, and other analytics with its parent company, Facebook, and with the Facebook family of companies. This change to its terms of service was effected in order to enable users to “communicate with businesses that matter” to them. How does this have anything to do with Facebook?
</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/analysis/we-truly-are-the-product-being-sold/story-fz6FN77xizMuxOBS3KBNtJ.html">published in the Hindustan Times</a> on August 31, 2016.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">WhatsApp clarifies in its blog post, “... by coordinating more with Facebook, we’ll be able to do things like track basic metrics about how often people use our services and better fight spam on WhatsApp. And by connecting your phone number with Facebook’s systems, Facebook can offer better friend suggestions and show you more relevant ads if you have an account with them.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">WhatsApp’s further clarifies that it will not post your number on Facebook or share this data with advertisers. This means little because it will share your number with Facebook for advertisement. It is simply doing indirectly, what it has said it won’t do directly. This new development also leads to the collapsing of different personae of a user, even making public their private life that they have so far chosen not to share online. Last week, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/08/19/98-personal-data-points-that-facebook-uses-to-target-ads-to-you/?tid=sm_tw" shape="rect" title="www.washingtonpost.com">Facebook published a list of 98 data points it collects on users</a>. These data points combined with your WhatsApp phone number, profile picture, status message, last seen status, frequency of conversation with other users, and the names of these users (and their data) could lead to a severely uncomfortable invasion of privacy.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Consider a situation where you have spoken to a divorce lawyer in confidence over WhatsApp’s encrypted channel, and are then flooded with advertisements for marriage counselling and divorce attorneys when you next log in to Facebook at home. Or, you are desperately seeking loans and get in touch with several loan officers; and when you log in to Facebook at work, colleagues notice your News Feed flooded with ads for loans, articles on financial management, and support groups for people in debt.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It is no secret that Facebook makes money off interactions on its platform, and the more information that is shared and consumed, the more Facebook is benefitted. However, the company’s complete disregard for user consent in its efforts to grow is worrying, particularly because Facebook is a monopoly. In order for one to talk to friends and family and keep in touch, Facebook is the obvious, if not the only, choice. It is also increasingly becoming the most accessible way to engage with government agencies. For example, Indian embassies around the world have recently set up Facebook portals, the Bangalore Traffic Police is most easily contacted through Facebook, and heads of states are also turning to the platform to engage with people. It is crucial that such private and collective interactions of citizens with their respective government agencies are protected from becoming data points to which market researchers have access.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Given Facebook’s proclivity for unilaterally compromising user privacy, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in 2011 charged the company for deceiving consumers by misleading them about the privacy of their information. Following these charges, Facebook reached an agreement to give consumers clear notice and obtain consumers’ express consent before extending privacy settings that they had established. The latest modification to WhatsApp’s terms of service seems to amount to a clear violation of this agreement and brings out the grave need to treat user consent more seriously.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There is a way to opt out of sharing data for Facebook ads targeting <a href="https://www.whatsapp.com/faq/general/26000016" shape="rect" title="www.whatsapp.com">that is outlined by WhatsApp on its blog</a>, which is the best example for a case of invasion-of-privacy-by-design. WhatsApp plans to ask the users to untick a small green arrow, and then click on a large green button that says “Agree” (which is the only button) so as to indicate that they are opting-out. The interface of the notice seems to be consciously designed to confuse users by using the power of default option. For most users, agreeing to terms and conditions is a hasty click on a box and the last part of an installation process. Predictably, most users choose to go with default options, and this specific design of the opt-out option is not meaningful at all.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In 2005, Facebook’s default profile settings were such that anyone on Facebook could see your name, profile picture, gender and network. Your photos, wall posts and friends list were viewable by people in your network. Your contact information, birthday and other data could be seen by friends and only you could view the posts that you liked. Fast forward to 2010, and the entire internet, not just all Facebook users, can see your name, profile picture, gender, network, wall posts, photos, likes, friends list and other profile data. There hasn’t been a <a href="http://mattmckeon.com/facebook-privacy/" shape="rect" title="mattmckeon.com">comprehensive study since 2010</a>, but one can safely assume that Facebook’s privacy settings will only get progressively worse for users, and exponentially better for Facebook’s revenues. The service is free and we truly are the product being sold.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/hindustan-times-vidushi-marda-august-31-2016-we-truly-are-the-product-being-sold'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/hindustan-times-vidushi-marda-august-31-2016-we-truly-are-the-product-being-sold</a>
</p>
No publishervidushiSocial MediaWhatsAppFacebookInternet Governance2016-09-01T02:08:37ZBlog EntryThere is No Such Thing as Free Basics
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/bangalore-mirror-subhashish-panigrahi-february-9-2016-there-is-no-such-thing-as-free-basics
<b>India would not see the rain of Free Basics advertisements on billboards with images of farmers and common people explaining how much they could benefit from this Firefox project. Because the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has taken a historical step by banning the differential pricing without discriminating services.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article was published in <a class="external-link" href="http://www.bangaloremirror.com/news/india/There-is-No-such-thing-as-Free-basics/articleshow/50908289.cms">Bangalore Mirror</a> on February 9, 2016.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In their notes, TRAI has explained, "In India, given that a majority of the population are yet to be connected to the Internet, allowing service providers to define the nature of access would be equivalent of letting TSPs shape the users' Internet experience." Not just that, violation of this ban would cost Rs 50,000 every day.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook's earlier plan was to launch Free Basics in India by making a few websites—that are mostly partners with Facebook—available for free. The company not just advertised heavily on billboards and commercials across the nation, it also embedded a campaign inside Facebook asking users to vote in support of Free Basics.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">TRAI criticised Facebook's attempt for such a manipulative public provocation. However, Facebook was heavily criticised by many policy and Internet advocates, including non-profits groups like Free Software Movement of India and Savetheinternet.in campaign.<br /><br />The latter two collectives were strongly discouraging Free Basics by bringing public opinion wherein Savetheinternet.org was used to send over 10 lakh emails to TRAI to disallow Free Basics.<br /><br />Furthermore 500 start ups including major ones like Cleartrip, Zomato, Practo, Paytm and Cleartax also wrote to prime minister Narendra Modi requesting continued support for Net Neutrality — a concept that advocates equal treating of websites — on the Republic Day.<br /><br />Stand-up comedy groups like AIB and East India Comedy had created humorous but informative videos explaining the regulatory debate and supporting net neutrality which went viral.<br /><br />Technology critic and Quartz writer Alice Truong reacted saying: "Zuckerberg almost portrays net neutrality as a first-world problem that doesn't apply to India because having some service is better than no service."<br /><br />In the light of differential pricing, news portal Medianama's founder Nikhil Pawa, in his opinion piece in Times of India, emphasised the way Aircel in India, Grameenphone in Bangladesh and Orange in Africa were providing free access to Internet with a sole motif of access to Internet, and criticised the walled Internet of Facebook that confines users inside Facebook only.<br /><br />Had the differential pricing been allowed, it would have affected start ups and content-based smaller companies adversely, as they could never have managed to pay the high price to a partner service provider to make their service available for free.<br /><br />On the other hand, tech-giants like Facebook could have easily managed to capture the entire market. Since the inception of the Facebook-run non-profit Internet.org has run into a lot of controversies because of the hidden motive behind the claimed support for social cause.<br /><br />The decision by the government has been welcomed largely in the country and outside.<br /><br />In support of the move, Web We Want programme manager at the World Wide Web Foundation, Renata Avila, has shared saying,<br /><br />"As the country with the second largest number of Internet users worldwide, this decision will resonate around the world.<br /><br />"It follows a precedent set by Chile, the United States, and others which have adopted similar net neutrality safeguards. The message is clear: We can't create a two-tier Internet — one for the haves, and one for the have-nots. We must connect everyone to the full potential of the open Web."</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/bangalore-mirror-subhashish-panigrahi-february-9-2016-there-is-no-such-thing-as-free-basics'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/bangalore-mirror-subhashish-panigrahi-february-9-2016-there-is-no-such-thing-as-free-basics</a>
</p>
No publishersubhaFree BasicsTRAIFacebookInternet Governance2016-02-14T11:37:50ZBlog EntryThe Competition Law Case Against Whatsapp’s 2021 Privacy Policy Alteration
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-competition-law-case-against-whatsapp2019s-2021-privacy-policy-alteration
<b>Having examined the privacy implications of Whatsapp's changes to its privacy policy in 2021, this issue brief is the second output in our series examining the effects of those changes. This brief examines the changes in the context of data sharing between Whatsapp and Facebook as being an anticompetitive action in violation of the Indian Competition Act, 2002. </b>
<span id="docs-internal-guid-2e4a5c52-7fff-f416-6970-948314f0b524">
<p style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr"> </p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">Executive Summary</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr">On January 4, 2021, Whatsapp announced a revised privacy policy through an in-app notification. It highlighted that the new policy would impact user interactions with business accounts, including those which may be using Facebook's hosting services. The updated policy presented users with the option of either accepting greater data sharing between Whatsapp and Facebook or being unable to use the platform post 15th May, 2021. The updated policy resulted in temporarily slowed growth for Whatsapp and increased growth for other messaging apps like Signal and Telegram. While Whatsapp has chosen to delay the implementation of this policy due to consumer outrage, it is important for us to unpack and understand what this (and similar policies) mean for the digital economy, and its associated competition law concerns. Competition law is one of the sharpest tools available to policy-makers to fairly regulate and constrain the unbridled power of large technology companies.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr">While it is evident the Indian competition landscape will benefit from revisiting the existing law and policy framework to reign in Big technology companies, we argue that the change in Whatsapp’s privacy policy in 2021 can be held anti-competitive using legal provisions as they presently stand. Therefore, in this issue brief, we largely limit ourselves to evaluating the legality of Whatsapp’s privacy policy within the confines of the present legal system. </p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr">First, we dive into an articulation of the present abuse of dominance framework in Indian Competition Law. Second, we analyze whether there was abuse of dominance-bearing in mind an economic analysis of Whatsapp’s role in the relevant market by using tests laid out in previous rulings of the CCI</p>
<br />
<p style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr">The framework for determining abuse of dominance as per The Competition Act is based on three factors:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr">1. Determination of relevant market</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr">2. Determination of dominant position</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr">3. Abuse of the dominant position</p>
<br />
<p style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr">In two previous orders in 2016 and 2020, CCI has held that Whatsapp is dominant in its relevant market based on several factors which we explore. These include:</p>
<ol><li style="list-style-type: decimal;" dir="ltr">
<p style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr">Advantage in user base, usage and reach,</p>
</li><li style="list-style-type: decimal;" dir="ltr">
<p style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr">Barriers to entry for other competitors</p>
</li><li style="list-style-type: decimal;" dir="ltr">
<p style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr">Power of acquisition over competitors.</p>
</li></ol>
<br />
<p style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr">However, in both orders, CCI held that Whatsapp did not abuse its dominance by arguing that the practices in question allowed for user choice. We critique these judgments for not reflecting the market structures and exploitative practices of large technology companies. We also argue that even if we use the test of user choice laid down by the CCI in its previous orders concerning Whatsapp and Facebook, the changes made to the privacy policy in 2021 did abuse dominance,and should be held guilty of violating competition law standards.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr">Our analysis revolves around examining the explicit and implicit standards of user choice laid out by the CCI in its 2016 and 2020 judgements as the standard for evaluating fairness in an Abuse of Dominance claim.We demonstrate how the 2021 changes failed to meet these standards. </p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr">Finally, we conclude by noting that the present case offers a crucial opportunity for India to take a giant step forward in its regulation of big tech companies and harmonise its rulings with regulatory developments around the world.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr">The full issue brief can be found <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/whatsapp-privacy-policy-2021-issue-brief-competition-law">here</a></p>
<div> </div>
<p style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr"> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr"> </p>
<div> </div>
</span>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-competition-law-case-against-whatsapp2019s-2021-privacy-policy-alteration'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-competition-law-case-against-whatsapp2019s-2021-privacy-policy-alteration</a>
</p>
No publisherAman Nair and Arindrajit BasuConsumer RightsDigital EconomyData ProtectionFacebookCompetitionWhatsAppCompetition Law2021-03-24T16:12:09ZBlog 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 EntryTamil Nadu likely to hold Facebook accountable for suicide case
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/economic-times-v-prem-shanker-july-13-2016-tamil-nadu-likely-to-hold-facebook-accountable-for-suicide-case
<b>The recent suicide of a 21-year-old woman from Salem district in Tamil Nadu over her morphed pictures being uploaded on Facebook could turn into a flash-point between the state police and the world's most-popular social networking site.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by V. Prem Shanker was <a class="external-link" href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/tamil-nadu-likely-to-hold-facebook-accountable-for-suicide-case/articleshow/53182832.cms">published in the Economic Times</a> on July 13, 2016.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"We are exploring the possibility of holding Facebook accountable for the delay in responding to our requests since that was one of the factors which led to the young lady committing suicide," Salem superintendent of police Amit Kumar Singh told ET in an exclusive interaction. On June 23, the Salem police had received a complaint from the father of the 21-year-old stating that someone had uploaded her morphed nude pictures on Facebook. The father had requested the police to get the photographs removed from the site and also find and warn the perpetrator.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The police recorded the complaint the same evening and later sent what is called a 'Law Enforcement Online Request' to Facebook asking for details of the IP address from which the morphed photographs were uploaded on the website. Officials also requested Facebook to take down the objectionable photographs of the young woman.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Five days after the request was sent, Facebook responded with the IP address on June 28 and within 12 hours after that the police cracked the case and nabbed the suspect.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, all this was a bit too late because the previous day, on June 27, the young woman had ended her life. Her morphed nude photographs were taken down only on the day of her death, according to the police.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"Apart from addressing Facebook, we also investigated the case from other angles but couldn't make headway. Thus, there was nothing we could do about the pictures still being online apart from waiting for Facebook to act," Singh said, adding "enforcement of compliance is a matter of grave concern."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Officials are considering charging Facebook with abetment to suicide and including Facebook in the chargesheet if the site is found culpable after investigations. However, the state police is said to be discussing with legal experts on how this can be done as there is no precedent for a website having been charged in a crime.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook did not reply to an email seeking comment. Earlier in a communique, responding to criticisms of police inaction in this case, Singh had pointed out that "Only Facebook can block a page and it exercises this discretion as per its Facebook Community Standards and not the law of the land it is being viewed in. Facebook does not provide the police with any special powers to take down a page even if the police receive a cognizable complaint of identity theft and uploading of obscene content. There is no tool available, at least as of now, with the police to coerce or goad Facebook to act expeditiously even if the matter is very urgent and there is a flagrant violation of Indian law."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Experts point out that the disparity with which Facebook treats child abuse laws and copyright infringements as opposed to violation of women's rights is stark.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"Look at the war against child pornography. In the United Kingdom there is an independent foundation that has immunity under UK child pornography law. They generate a database and circulate it across all platforms and ensure that it is kept absolutely squeaky clean," points out Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bengaluru based research organisation, Centre for Internet and Society.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"There definitely needs to be a law to ensure that such platforms do not violate the law of the land, especially when it comes to women's rights. But in interim, the government can create an information escrow or a platform where the victims can place on record their problems and it is there for these sites to see and take action," Abraham added.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/economic-times-v-prem-shanker-july-13-2016-tamil-nadu-likely-to-hold-facebook-accountable-for-suicide-case'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/economic-times-v-prem-shanker-july-13-2016-tamil-nadu-likely-to-hold-facebook-accountable-for-suicide-case</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial MediaFacebookInternet Governance2016-07-13T13:44:58ZNews ItemSubmission to the Facebook Oversight Board: Policy on Cross-checks
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/submission-to-the-facebook-oversight-board-policy-on-cross-checks
<b>The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) submitted public comments to the Facebook Oversight Board on a policy consultation.</b>
<h2>Whether a cross-check system is needed?</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Recommendation for the Board</strong>: The Board should investigate the cross-check system as part of Meta’s larger problems with algorithmically amplified speech, and how such speech gets moderated.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Explanation</strong>: The issues surrounding Meta’s cross-check system are not an isolated phenomena, but rather a reflection of the problems of algorithmically amplified speech, as well the lack of transparency in the company’s content moderation processes at large. At the outset, it must be stated that the majority of information on the cross-check system only became available after the media <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-files-xcheck-zuckerberg-elite-rules-11631541353?mod=article_inline">reports</a> published by the Wall Street Journal. While these reports have been extensive in documenting various aspects of the system, there is no guarantee that the disclosures obtained by them provides the complete picture regarding the system. Further, given that Meta has been found to purposely mislead the Board and the public on how the cross-check system operates, it is worth investigating the incentives that necessitate the cross-check system in the first place.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Meta claims that the cross-check system works as a check for false positives: they “employ additional reviews for high-visibility content that may violate our policies.” Essentially they want to make sure that content that stays up on the platform and reaches a large audience, is following their content guidelines. However, previous disclosures have <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-hate-speech-india-politics-muslim-hindu-modi-zuckerberg-11597423346">proven</a> policy executives have prioritized the company’s ‘business interests’ over removing content that violates their policies; and have <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/apr/12/facebook-fake-engagement-whistleblower-sophie-zhang">waited to act on known problematic content</a> until significant external pressure was built up, including in India. In this context, the cross-check system seems less like a measure designed to protect users who might be exposed to problematic content, and more as a measure for managing public perception of the company.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Thus the Board should investigate both how content gains an audience on the platform, and how it gets moderated. Previous <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/apr/12/facebook-fake-engagement-whistleblower-sophie-zhang">whistleblower disclosures</a> have shown that the mechanics of algorithmically amplified speech, which prioritizes <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/03/11/1020600/facebook-responsible-ai-misinformation/">engagement and growth over safety</a>, are easily taken advantage of by bad actors to promote their viewpoints through artificially induced virality. The cross-check system and other measures of content moderation at scale would not be needed if it was harder to spread problematic content on the platform in the first place. Instead of focusing only on one specific system, the Board needs to urge Meta to re-evaluate the incentives that drive content sharing on the platform and come up with ways that make the platform safer.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">Meta’s Obligations under Human Rights Law</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Recommendation for the Board: </strong>The Board must consider the cross-check system to be violative of Meta’s obligations under the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Additionally, the cross-check ranker must be incorporated with Meta’s commitments towards human rights, as outlined in its Corporate Human Rights Policy.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation: Meta’s content moderation, and by extension, its cross-check system, is bound by both international human rights law as well as the Board’s past decisions. At the outset, The system fails the three-pronged test of legality, legitimacy and necessity and proportionality, as delineated under Article 19(3) of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Firstly, this system has been “<a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-files-xcheck-zuckerberg-elite-rules-11631541353?mod=article_inline">scattered throughout the company, without clear governance or ownership</a>”, which violates the legality principle, since there is no clear guidance on what sort of speech, or which classes of users, would deserve the treatment of this system. Secondly, there is no understanding about the legitimacy of aims with which this system had been set up in the first place, beyond Meta’s own assertions, which have been <a href="https://www.oversightboard.com/news/215139350722703-oversight-board-demands-more-transparency-from-facebook/">countered</a> by evidence to the contrary. Thirdly, the necessity and proportionality of the restriction has to be <a href="https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/FB-691QAMHJ">read along</a> with the <a href="https://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/freedomopinion/articles19-20/pages/index.aspx">Rabat Plan of Action</a>, which requires that for a statement to become a criminal offense, a six-pronged test of threshold is to be applied: a) the social and political context, b) the speaker’s position or status in the society, c) intent to incite the audience against a target group, d) content and form of the speech, e) extent of its dissemination and f) likelihood of harm. As news reports have indicated, Meta has been utilizing the cross-check system to privilege speech from influential users, and in the process, have shielded inflammatory, inciting speech that would have otherwise qualified the Rabat threshold. As such, the third requirement is not fulfilled either.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Additionally, Meta’s own <a href="https://about.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Facebooks-Corporate-Human-Rights-Policy.pdf">Corporate Human Rights Policy</a> commits to respecting human rights in line with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). Therefore, the cross-check ranker must incorporate these existing commitments to human rights, including:</p>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify;">The right to freedom of expression:, UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression report <a href="https://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?si=A/HRC/38/35">A/HRC/38/35</a> (2018); <a href="https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=25729&LangID=E">Joint Statement of international freedom of expression monitors on COVID-19 (March, 2020)</a>.</li></ul>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression addresses the regulation of user-generated online content.</p>
<p>The Joint Statement issued regarding Governmental promotion and protection of access to and free flow of information during the pandemic.</p>
<ul>
<li>The right to non-discrimination: International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (<a href="https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CERD.aspx">ICERD</a>), Articles 1 and 4.</li></ul>
<p>Article 1 of the ICERD defines racial discrimination.</p>
<p>Article 4 of the ICERD condemns propaganda and organisations that attempt to justify discrimination or are based on the idea of racial supremacism.</p>
<ul>
<li>Participation in public affairs and the right to vote: ICCPR Article 25.</li>
<li>The right to remedy: General Comment No. 31, Human Rights Committee (2004) (<a href="https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2fC%2f21%2fRev.1%2fAdd.13&Lang=en">General Comment 31</a>); UNGPs, Principle 22.</li></ul>
<p>The General Comment discusses the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on State Parties to the Covenant.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Guiding Principle 22 states that where business enterprises identify that they have caused or contributed to adverse impacts, they should provide for or cooperate in their remediation through legitimate processes.</p>
<h2>Meta’s obligations to avoid political bias and false positives in its cross-check system</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Recommendation for the Board: </strong>The Board must urge Meta to adopt and implement the Santa Clara Principles on Transparency and Accountability to ensure that it is open about risks to user rights when there is involvement from the State in content moderation. Additionally, the Board must ask Meta to undertake a diversity and human rights audit of its existing policy teams, and commit to regular cultural training for its staff. Finally, the Board must investigate the potential conflicts of interest that arise when Meta’s policy team has any sort of nexus with political parties, and how that might impact content moderation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation: For the cross-check system to be free from biases, it is important for Meta to come clear to the Board regarding the rationale, standards and processes of the cross check review, and report on the relative error rates of determinations made through cross check compared with ordinary enforcement procedures. It also needs to disclose to the Board in which particular situations it uses the system and in which it does not. Principle 4 under the Foundational Principles of the <a href="https://santaclaraprinciples.org/">Santa Clara Principles on Transparency and Accountability in Content Moderation</a> encourage companies to realize the risk to user rights when there is involvement from the State in processes of content moderation and asks companies to makes users aware that: a) a state actor has requested/participated in an action on their content/account, and b) the company believes that the action was needed as per the relevant law. Users should be allowed access to any rules or policies, formal or informal work relationships that the company holds with state actors in terms of content regulation, the process of flagging accounts/content and state requests to action.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The Board must consider that erroneous lack of action (false positives) might not always be a system's flaw, but a larger, structural issue regarding how policy teams at Meta functions. As previous disclosures have <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-hate-speech-india-politics-muslim-hindu-modi-zuckerberg-11597423346">proven</a>, the contours of what sort of violating content gets to stay up on the platform has been ideologically and politically coloured, as policy executives have prioritized the company’s ‘business interests’ over social harmony. In such light, it is not sufficient to simply propose better transparency and accountability measures for Meta to adopt within its content moderation processes to avoid political bias. Rather, the Board’s recommendations must focus on the structural aspect of the human moderator and policy team that is behind these processes. The Board must ask Meta to a) urgently undertake a diversity and human rights audit of its existing team and its hiring processes, b) commit to regular training to ensure that their policy staffs are culturally literate in the socio-political regions they work in. Further, the Board must seriously investigate the potential <a href="https://time.com/5883993/india-facebook-hate-speech-bjp/">conflicts of interest</a> that happen when regional policy teams of Meta, with nexus to political parties, are also tasked with regulating content from representatives of these parties, and how that impacts the moderation processes at large.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Finally, in case decision <a href="https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/FB-691QAMHJ">2021-001-FB-FBR</a>, the Board made a number of recommendations to Meta which must be implemented in the current situation, including: a) considering the political context while looking at potential risks, b) employment of specialized staff in content moderation while evaluating political speech from influential users, c) familiarity with the political and linguistic context d) absence of any interference and undue influence, e) public explanation regarding the rules Meta uses when imposing sanctions against influential users and f) the sanctions being time-bound.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">Transparency of the cross-check system</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Recommendation for the Board: </strong>The Board must urge Meta to adopt and implement the Santa Clara Principles on Transparency and Accountability to increase the transparency of its cross-check system.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Explanation: </strong>There are ways in which Meta can increase the transparency of not only the cross-check system, but the content moderation process in general. The following recommendations draw from <a href="https://santaclaraprinciples.org/">The Santa Clara Principles</a> and the Board’s own previous decisions:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Considering Principle 2 of the Santa Clara Principles: Understandable Rules and Policies, Meta should ensure that the policies and rules governing moderation of content and user behaviors on Facebook are<strong> clear, easily understandable, and available in the languages</strong> in which the user operates.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Drawing from Principle 5 on Integrity and Explainability and from the Board’s recommendations in case decision <a href="https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/FB-691QAMHJ">2021-001-FB-FBR</a> which advises Meta to“<em>Provide users with accessible information on how many violations, strikes and penalties have been assessed against them, and the consequences that will follow future violations</em>”, Meta should be able to <strong>explain the content moderation decisions to users in all cases</strong>: when under review, when the decision has been made to leave the content up, or take it down. We recommend that Meta keeps a publicly accessible running tally of the number of moderation decisions made on a piece of content till date with their explanations. This would allow third parties (like journalists, activists, researchers and the OSB) to keep Facebook accountable when it does not follow its own policies, as has previously been the case.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">In the same case decision, the Board has also previously recommended that Meta “<em>Produce more information to help users understand and evaluate the process and criteria for applying the newsworthiness allowance, including how it applies to influential accounts. The company should also clearly explain the rationale, standards and processes of the cross-check review, and report on the relative error rates of determinations made through cross-checking compared with ordinary enforcement procedures.</em>” Thus, Meta should <strong>publicly explain the cross check system </strong>in detail with examples, and make public the list of attributes that qualify a piece of content for secondary review.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The Operational Principles further provide actionable steps that Meta can take to improve the transparency of their content moderation systems. Drawing from Principle 2: Notice and Principle 3: Appeals, Meta should make a satisfactory <strong>appeals process available </strong>to users - whether they be decisions to leave up or takedown content. The appeals process should be handled by context aware teams. Meta should then <strong>publish the results</strong> of the cross check system and the appeals processes as part of their transparency reports including data like total content actioned, rate of success in appeals and cross check process, decisions overturned and preserved etc, which would also satisfy the first Operational Principle: Numbers.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">Resources needed to improve the system for users and entities who do not post in English</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Recommendations for the Board: </strong>The Board must urge Meta to urgently invest in resources to expand Meta’s content moderation services into the local contexts in which the company operates and invest in training data for local languages.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Explanation: </strong>The cross-check system is not a fundamentally different problem than content moderation. It has been shown time and time again that Meta’s handling of content from non-Western, non-English language contexts is severely lacking. It has been shown how content hosted on the platform has been used to<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/apr/12/facebook-fake-engagement-whistleblower-sophie-zhang"> inflame existing tensions in developing countries</a>, <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-services-are-used-to-spread-religious-hatred-in-india-internal-documents-show-11635016354?mod=article_inline">promote religious hatred in India</a>, <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/burn-the-houses-rohingya-survivors-recount-the-day-soldiers-killed-hundreds-1526048545?mod=article_inline">genocide in Mynmar</a>, and continue to support <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-drug-cartels-human-traffickers-response-is-weak-documents-11631812953?mod=article_inline">human traffickers and drug cartels</a> on the platform even when these issues have been identified.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">There is an urgent need to invest resources to expand Meta’s content moderation services into the local contexts in which the company operates. The company should make all policies and rule documents available in the languages of its users; invest in creating automated tools that are capable of flagging content that is not posted in English; and add people familiar with the local contexts to provide context aware second level reviews. The Facebook Files show that even according to company engineering, <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-ai-enforce-rules-engineers-doubtful-artificial-intelligence-11634338184?mod=article_inline">automated content moderation</a> is still not very effective in identifying hate speech and other harmful content. Meta should focus on hiring, training and retaining human moderators who have knowledge of local contexts. Bias training of all content moderators, but especially those who will participate in the second level reviews in the cross check system is also extremely important to ensure acceptable decisions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Additionally, in keeping with Meta’s human rights commitments, the company should develop and publish a policy for responding to human rights violations when they are pointed out by activists, researchers, journalists and employees as a matter of due process. It should not wait for a negative news cycle to stir them into action <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/apr/12/facebook-fake-engagement-whistleblower-sophie-zhang">as it seems to have done in previous cases</a>.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">Benefits and limitations of automated technologies</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Meta <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/13/21562596/facebook-ai-moderation%5C">recently changed</a> its moderation practice wherein it uses technology to prioritize content for human reviewers based on their severity index. Facebook <a href="https://transparency.fb.com/policies/improving/prioritizing-content-review/">has not specified</a> the technology it uses to prioritize high-severity content but its research record shows that it <a href="https://ai.facebook.com/blog/the-shift-to-generalized-ai-to-better-identify-violating-content">uses</a> a host of automated <a href="https://ai.facebook.com/tools#frameworks-and-tools">frameworks and tools</a> to detect violating content, including image recognition tools, object detection tools, natural language processing models, speech models and reasoning models. One such model is the <a href="https://ai.facebook.com/blog/community-standards-report/">Whole Post Integrity Embeddings</a> (“WPIE”) which can judge various elements in a given post (caption, comments, OCR, image etc.) to work out the context and the content of the post. Facebook also uses image matching models (SimSearchNet++) that are trained to match variations of an image with a high degree of precision and improved recall; multi-lingual masked language models on cross-lingual understanding such as <a href="https://ai.facebook.com/blog/-xlm-r-state-of-the-art-cross-lingual-understanding-through-self-supervision/">XLM-R</a> that can accurately identify hate-speech and other policy-violating content across a wide range of languages. More recently, Facebook introduced its machine translation model called the <a href="https://analyticsindiamag.com/facebooks-new-machine-translation-model-works-without-help-of-english-data/">M2M-100</a> whose goal is to perform bidirectional translation between 7000 languages.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Despite the advances in this field, there are inherent <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0028/157249/cambridge-consultants-ai-content-moderation.pdf">limitations</a> of such automated tools. <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/27/18242724/facebook-moderation-ai-artificial-intelligence-platforms">Experts</a> have repeatedly maintained that AI will get better at understanding context but it will not replace human moderators for the foreseeable future. One such instance where these limitations were <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/facebook-content-moderation-automation/">exposed</a> was during the COVID-19 pandemic, when Facebook sent its human moderators home - the number of removals flagged as hate speech on its platform more than doubled to 22.5 million in the second quarter of 2020 but the number of successful content appeals was dropped to 12,600 from the 2.3 million figure for the first three months of 2020.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-ai-enforce-rules-engineers-doubtful-artificial-intelligence-11634338184?mod=article_inline">The Facebook Files</a> show that Meta’s AI cannot consistently identify first-person shooting videos, racist rants and even the difference between cockfighting and car crashes. Its automated systems are only capable of removing posts that generate just 3% to 5% of the views of hate speech on the platform and 0.6% of all content that violates Meta’s policies against violence and incitement. As such, it is difficult to accept the company’s claim that nearly all of the hate speech it takes down was discovered by AI before it was reported by users.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">However, the benefits of such technology cannot be discounted, especially when one considers automated technology as a way of reducing <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/25/18229714/cognizant-facebook-content-moderator-interviews-trauma-working-conditions-arizona">trauma</a> for human moderators. Using AI for prioritizing content for review can turn out to be effective for human moderators as it can increase their efficiency and reduce harmful effects of content moderation on them. Additionally, it can also limit the exposure of harmful content to internet users. Moreover, AI can also reduce the impact of harmful content on human moderators by allocating content to moderators on the basis of their exposure history. Theoretically, if the company’s claims are to be believed, using automated technology for prioritizing content for review can help to improve the mental health of Facebook’s human moderators.</p>
<hr />
<p>Click to download the file <a class="external-link" href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/policy-on-cross-checks">here</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/submission-to-the-facebook-oversight-board-policy-on-cross-checks'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/submission-to-the-facebook-oversight-board-policy-on-cross-checks</a>
</p>
No publisher[in alphabetical order] Anamika Kundu, Digvijay Singh, Divyansha Sehgal and Torsha SarkarFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet FreedomFacebookInternet Governance2022-02-09T05:31:32ZBlog EntryReading the Fine Script: Service Providers, Terms and Conditions and Consumer Rights
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/reading-between-the-lines-service-providers-terms-and-conditions-and-consumer-rights
<b>This year, an increasing number of incidents, related to consumer rights and service providers, have come to light. This blog illustrates the facts of the cases, and discusses the main issues at stake, namely, the role and responsibilities of providers of platforms for user-created content with regard to consumer rights.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>On 1st July, 2014 the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a complaint against T-Mobile USA,</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn1">[1]</a><span> accusing the service provider of 'cramming' customers bills, with millions of dollars of unauthorized charges. Recently, another service provider, received flak from regulators and users worldwide, after it published a paper, 'Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks'.</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn2">[2]</a><span> The paper described Facebook's experiment on more than 600,000 users, to determine whether manipulating user-generated content, would affect the emotions of its users.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In both incidents the terms that should ensure the protection of their user's legal rights, were used to gain consent for actions on behalf of the service providers, that were not anticipated at the time of agreeing to the terms and conditions (T&Cs) by the consumer. More precisely, both cases point to the underlying issue of how users are bound by T&Cs, and in a mediated online landscape—highlight, the need to pay attention to the regulations that govern the online engagement of users.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>I have read and agree to the terms</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In his statement, Chief Executive Officer, John Legere might have referred to T-Mobile as "the most pro-consumer company in the industry",<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn3">[3]</a> however the FTC investigation revelations, that many customers never authorized the charges, suggest otherwise. The FTC investigation also found that, T-Mobile received 35-40 per cent of the amount charged for subscriptions, that were made largely through innocuous services, that customers had been signed up to, without their knowledge or consent. Last month news broke, that just under 700,000 users 'unknowingly' participated in the Facebook study, and while the legality and ethics of the experiment are being debated, what is clear is that Facebook violated consumer rights by not providing the choice to opt in or out, or even the knowledge of such social or psychological experiments to its users.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Both incidents boil down to the sensitive question of consent. While binding agreements around the world work on the condition of consent, how do we define it and what are the implications of agreeing to the terms?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Terms of Service: Conditions are subject to change </b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A legal necessity, the existing terms of service (TOS)—as they are also known—as an acceptance mechanism are deeply broken. The policies of online service providers are often, too long, and with no shorter or multilingual versions, require substantial effort on part of the user to go through in detail. A 2008 Carnegie Mellon study estimated it would take an average user 244 hours every year to go through the policies they agree to online.<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn4">[4]</a> Based on the study, Atlantic's Alexis C. Madrigal derived that reading all of the privacy policies an average Internet user encounters in a year, would take 76 working days.<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn5">[5]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The costs of time are multiplied by the fact that terms of services change with technology, making it very hard for a user to keep track of all of the changes over time. Moreover, many services providers do not even commit to the obligation of notifying the users of any changes in the TOS. Microsoft, Skype, Amazon, YouTube are examples of some of the service providers that have not committed to any obligations of notification of changes and often, there are no mechanisms in place to ensure that service providers are keeping users updated.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook has said that the recent social experiment is perfectly legal under its TOS,<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn6">[6]</a> the question of fairness of the conditions of users consent remain debatable. Facebook has a broad copyright license that goes beyond its operating requirements, such as the right to 'sublicense'. The copyright also does not end when users stop using the service, unless the content has been deleted by everyone else.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">More importantly, since 2007, Facebook has brought major changes to their lengthy TOS about every year.<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn7">[7]</a> And while many point that Facebook is transparent, as it solicits feedback preceding changes to their terms, the accountability remains questionable, as the results are not binding unless 30% of the actual users vote. Facebook can and does, track users and shares their data across websites, and has no obligation or mechanism to inform users of the takedown requests.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Courts in different jurisdictions under different laws may come to different conclusions regarding these practices, especially about whether changing terms without notifying users is acceptable or not. Living in a society more protective of consumer rights is however, no safeguard, as TOS often include a clause of choice of law which allow companies to select jurisdictions whose laws govern the terms.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The recent experiment bypassed the need for informed user consent due to Facebook's Data Use Policy<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn8">[8]</a>, which states that once an account has been created, user data can be used for 'internal operations, including troubleshooting, data analysis, testing, research and service improvement.' While the users worldwide may be outraged, legally, Facebook acted within its rights as the decision fell within the scope of T&Cs that users consented to. The incident's most positive impact might be in taking the questions of Facebook responsibilities towards protecting users, including informing them of the usage of their data and changes in data privacy terms, to a worldwide audience.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>My right is bigger than yours</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Most TOS agreements, written by lawyers to protect the interests of the companies add to the complexities of privacy, in an increasingly user-generated digital world. Often, intentionally complicated agreements, conflict with existing data and user rights across jurisdictions and chip away at rights like ownership, privacy and even the ability to sue. With conditions that that allow for change in terms at anytime, existing users do not have ownership or control over their data.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In April New York Times, reported of updates to the legal policy of General Mills (GM), the multibillion-dollar food company.<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn9">[9]</a> The update broadly asserted that consumers interacting with the company in a variety of ways and venues no longer can sue GM, but must instead, submit any complaint to “informal negotiation” or arbitration. Since then, GM has backtracked and clarified that “online communities” mentioned in the policy referred only to those online communities hosted by the company on its own websites.<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn10">[10]</a> Clarification aside, as Julia Duncan, Director of Federal programs at American Association for Justice points out, the update in the terms were so broad, that they were open to wide interpretation and anything that consumers purchase from the company could have been held to this clause. <a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn11">[11]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Data and whose rights?</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Following Snowden revelations, data privacy has become a contentious issue in the EU, and TOS, that allow the service providers to unilaterally alter terms of the contract, will face many challenges in the future. In March Edward Snowden sent his testimony to the European Parliament calling for greater accountability and highlighted that in "a global, interconnected world where, when national laws fail like this, our international laws provide for another level of accountability."<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn12">[12]</a> Following the testimony came the European Parliament's vote in favor of new safeguards on the personal data of EU citizens, when it’s transferred to non-EU.<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn13">[13]</a> The new regulations seek to give users more control over their personal data including the right to ask for data from companies that control it and seek to place the burden of proof on the service providers.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The regulation places responsibility on companies, including third-parties involved in data collection, transfer and storing and greater transparency on concerned requests for information. The amendment reinforces data subject right to seek erasure of data and obliges concerned parties to communicate data rectification. Also, earlier this year, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled in favor of the 'right to be forgotten'<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn14">[14]</a>. The ECJ ruling recognised data subject's rights override the interest of internet users, however, with exceptions pertaining to nature of information, its sensitivity for the data subject's private life and the role of the data subject in public life.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In May, the Norwegian Consumer Council filed a complaint with the Norwegian Consumer Ombudsman, “… based on the discrepancies between Norwegian Law and the standard terms and conditions applicable to the Apple iCloud service...”, and, “...in breach of the law regarding control of marketing and standard agreements.”<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn15">[15]</a> The council based its complaint on the results of a study, published earlier this year, that found terms were hazy and varied across services including iCloud, Drop Box, Google Drive, Jotta Cloud, and Microsoft OneDrive. The Norwegian Council study found that Google TOS, allow for users content to be used for other purposes than storage, including by partners and that it has rights of usage even after the service is cancelled. None of the providers provide a guarantee that data is safe from loss, while many, have the ability to terminate an account without notice. All of the service providers can change the terms of service but only Google and Microsoft give an advance notice.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The study also found service providers lacking with respect to European privacy standards, with many allowing for browsing of user content. Tellingly, Google had received a fine in January by the French Data Protection Authority, that stated regarding Google's TOS, "permits itself to combine all the data it collects about its users across all of its services without any legal basis."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>To blame or not to blame</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook is facing a probe by the UK Information Commissioner's Office, to assess if the experiment conducted in 2012 was a violation of data privacy laws.<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn16">[16]</a> The FTC asked the court to order T-Mobile USA, to stop mobile cramming, provide refunds and give up any revenues from the practice. The existing mechanisms of online consent, do not simplify the task of agreeing to multiple documents and services at once, a complexity which manifolds, with the involvement of third parties.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Unsurprisingly, T-Mobile's Legere termed the FTC lawsuit misdirected and blamed the companies providing the text services for the cramming.<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn17">[17]</a> He felt those providers should be held accountable, despite allegations that T-Mobile's billing practices made it difficult for consumers to detect that they were being charged for unauthorized services and having shared revenues with third-party providers. Interestingly, this is the first action against a wireless carrier for cramming and the FTC has a precedent of going after smaller companies that provide the services.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The FTC charged T-Mobile USA with deceptive billing practices in putting the crammed charges under a total for 'use charges' and 'premium services' and failure to highlight that portion of the charge was towards third-party charges. Further, the company urged customers to take complaints to vendors and was not forthcoming with refunds. For now, T-Mobile may be able to share the blame, the incident brings to question its accountability, especially as going forward it has entered a pact along with other carriers in USA including Verizon and AT&T, agreeing to stop billing customers for third-party services. Even when practices such as cramming are deemed illegal, it does not necessarily mean that harm has been prevented. Often users bear the burden of claiming refunds and litigation comes at a cost while even after being fined companies could have succeeded in profiting from their actions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Conclusion </b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Unfair terms and conditions may arise when service providers include terms that are difficult to understand or vague in their scope. TOS that prevent users from taking legal action, negate liability for service providers actions despite the companies actions that may have a direct bearing on users, are also considered unfair. More importantly, any term that is hidden till after signing the contract, or a term giving the provider the right to change the contract to their benefit including wider rights for service provider wide in comparison to users such as a term that that makes it very difficult for users to end a contract create an imbalance. These issues get further complicated when the companies control and profiting from data are doing so with user generated data provided free to the platform.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In the knowledge economy, web companies play a decisive role as even though they work for profit, the profit is derived out of the knowledge held by individuals and groups. In their function of aggregating human knowledge, they collect and provide opportunities for feedback of the outcomes of individual choices. The significance of consent becomes a critical part of the equation when harnessing individual information. In France, consent is part of the four conditions necessary to be forming a valid contract (article 1108 of the Code Civil).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The cases highlight the complexities that are inherent in the existing mechanisms of online consent. The question of consent has many underlying layers such as reasonable notice and contractual obligations related to consent such as those explored in the case in Canada, which looked at whether clauses of TOS were communicated reasonably to the user, a topic for another blog. For now, we must remember that by creating and organising social knowledge that further human activity, service providers, serve a powerful function. And as the saying goes, with great power comes great responsibility.</p>
<hr size="1" style="text-align: justify; " width="33%" />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref1">[1]</a> 'FTC Alleges T-Mobile Crammed Bogus Charges onto Customers’ Phone Bills', published 1 July, 2014. See: http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2014/07/ftc-alleges-t-mobile-crammed-bogus-charges-customers-phone-bills</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref2">[2]</a> 'Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks', Adam D. I. Kramera,1, Jamie E. Guilloryb, and Jeffrey T. Hancock, published March 25, 2014. See:http://www.pnas.org/content/111/24/8788.full.pdf+html?sid=2610b655-db67-453d-bcb6-da4efeebf534</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref3">[3]</a> 'U.S. sues T-Mobile USA, alleges bogus charges on phone bills, Reuters published 1st July, 2014 See: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/01/us-tmobile-ftc-idUSKBN0F656E20140701</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref4">[4]</a> 'The Cost of Reading Privacy Policies', Aleecia M. McDonald and Lorrie Faith Cranor, published I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society 2008 Privacy Year in Review issue. See: http://lorrie.cranor.org/pubs/readingPolicyCost-authorDraft.pdf</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref5">[5]</a> 'Reading the Privacy Policies You Encounter in a Year Would Take 76 Work Days', Alexis C. Madrigal, published The Atlantic, March 2012 See: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/reading-the-privacy-policies-you-encounter-in-a-year-would-take-76-work-days/253851/</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref6">[6]</a> Facebook Legal Terms. See: https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref7">[7]</a> 'Facebook's Eroding Privacy Policy: A Timeline', Kurt Opsahl, Published Electronic Frontier Foundation , April 28, 2010 See:https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/facebook-timeline</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref8">[8]</a> Facebook Data Use Policy. See: https://www.facebook.com/about/privacy/</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref9">[9]</a> 'When ‘Liking’ a Brand Online Voids the Right to Sue', Stephanie Strom, published in New York Times on April 16, 2014 See: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/17/business/when-liking-a-brand-online-voids-the-right-to-sue.html?ref=business</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref10">[10]</a> Explaining our website privacy policy and legal terms, published April 17, 2014 See:http://www.blog.generalmills.com/2014/04/explaining-our-website-privacy-policy-and-legal-terms/#sthash.B5URM3et.dpufhttp://www.blog.generalmills.com/2014/04/explaining-our-website-privacy-policy-and-legal-terms/</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref11">[11]</a> General Mills Amends New Legal Policies, Stephanie Strom, published in New York Times on 1http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/18/business/general-mills-amends-new-legal-policies.html?_r=0</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref12">[12]</a> Edward Snowden Statement to European Parliament published March 7, 2014. See: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/201403/20140307ATT80674/20140307ATT80674EN.pdf</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref13">[13]</a> Progress on EU data protection reform now irreversible following European Parliament vote, published 12 March 201 See: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-14-186_en.htm</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref14">[14]</a> European Court of Justice rules Internet Search Engine Operator responsible for Processing Personal Data Published by Third Parties, Jyoti Panday, published on CIS blog on May 14, 2014. See: http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/ecj-rules-internet-search-engine-operator-responsible-for-processing-personal-data-published-by-third-parties</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref15">[15]</a> Complaint regarding Apple iCloud’s terms and conditions , published on 13 May 2014 See:http://www.forbrukerradet.no/_attachment/1175090/binary/29927</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref16">[16]</a> 'Facebook faces UK probe over emotion study' See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28102550</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref17">[17]</a> Our Reaction to the FTC Lawsuit See: http://newsroom.t-mobile.com/news/our-reaction-to-the-ftc-lawsuit.htm</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/reading-between-the-lines-service-providers-terms-and-conditions-and-consumer-rights'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/reading-between-the-lines-service-providers-terms-and-conditions-and-consumer-rights</a>
</p>
No publisherjyotiSocial MediaConsumer RightsGoogleinternet and societyPrivacyTransparency and AccountabilityIntermediary LiabilityAccountabilityFacebookData ProtectionPoliciesSafety2014-07-04T06:31:37ZBlog EntryPress Coverage of Online Censorship Row
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/press-coverage-online-censorship
<b>We are maintaining a rolling blog with press references to the row created by the proposal by the Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology to pre-screen user-generated Internet content.</b>
<h2>Monday, December 5, 2011</h2>
<p><a href="http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/india-asks-google-facebook-others-to-screen-user-content/?pagemode=print">India Asks Google, Facebook to Screen Content</a> | Heather Timmons (New York Times, India Ink)</p>
<h2>Tuesday, December 6, 2011</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2690084.ece">Sibal warns social websites over objectionable content</a> | Sandeep Joshi (The Hindu)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2691781.ece">Hate speech must be blocked, says Sibal</a> | Praveen Swami & Sujay Mehdudia (The Hindu)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2692821.ece">Won't remove material just because it's controversial: Google</a> | (Press Trust of India)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/06/any-normal-human-being-would-be-offended/">Any Normal Human Being Would Be Offended </a>| Heather Timmons (New York Times, India Ink)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2692047.ece">After Sibal, Omar too feels some online content inflammatory </a>| (Press Trust of India)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/06/us-india-internet-idUSTRE7B50CV20111206">Online uproar as India seeks social media screening</a> | Devidutta Tripathy and Anurag Kotoky (Reuters)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-12-06/news/30481824_1_kapil-sibal-objectionable-content-twitter">Kapil Sibal for content screening: Facebook, Twitter full of posts against censorship</a> | (IANS)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/245548/india_may_overstep_its_own_laws_in_demanding_content_filtering.html">India May Overstep Its Own Laws in Demanding Content Filtering</a> | John Ribeiro (IDG)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-12-06/internet/30481147_1_shashi-tharoor-objectionable-content-bjp-mp">Kapil Sibal warns websites: Mixed response from MPs</a> | (Press Trust of India)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJp8HOPzc7k">Websites must clean up content, says Sibal </a>| (NewsX)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/news/internet/Kapil-Sibal-warns-websites-Google-says-wont-remove-material-just-because-its-controversial/articleshow/11008985.cms">Kapil Sibal warns websites; Google says won't remove material just because it's controversial </a>| Press Trust of India</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/2011/12/06155955/Views--Censorship-by-any-othe.html?h=A1">Censorship By Any Other Name...</a> | Yamini Lohia (Mint)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-12-06/internet/30481193_1_facebook-and-google-facebook-users-facebook-page">Kapil Sibal: We have to take care of sensibility of our people</a> | Associated Press</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-12-06/india/30481473_1_digvijaya-singh-websites-content">Kapil Sibal gets backing of Digvijaya Singh over social media screening</a> | Press Trust of India</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/newdelhi/Sibal-gets-what-he-set-out-to-censor/Article1-778388.aspx">Sibal Gets What He Set Out To Censor </a>| (Hindustan Times, Agencies)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://newstonight.net/content/objectionable-matter-will-be-removed-censorship-not-picture-yet-kapil-sibal">Objectionable Matter Will Be Removed, Censorship Not in Picture Yet: Kapil Sibal</a> | Amar Kapadia (News Tonight)</p>
<h2>Wednesday, December 7, 2011</h2>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/kapil-sibal-for-monitoring-offensive-content-on-internet/1/163107.html">Kapil Sibal Doesn't Understand the Internet</a> | Shivam Vij (India Today)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/07/chilling-impact-of-indias-april-internet-rules/">'Chilling' Impact of India's April Internet Rules</a> | Heather Timmons (New York Times, India Ink)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/screening-not-censorship-says-sibal/457797/">Screening, not censorship, says Sibal</a> | (Business Standard)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/2011/12/07202955/Chandni-Chowk-to-China.html">Chandni Chowk to China</a> | Salil Tripathi (Mint)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/2011/12/07131308/Views--Kapil-Sibal-vs-the-int.html">Kapil Sibal vs the internet</a> | Sandipan Deb (Mint)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/news/internet/No-need-for-censorship-of-internet-Cyber-law-experts/articleshow/11014990.cms">No Need for Censorship of the Internet: Cyber Law Experts</a> | (Times News Network)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2695832.ece">Protest with flowers for Sibal</a> | (The Hindu)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_kapil-sibal-cannot-screen-this-report_1622435">Kapil Sibal cannot screen this report</a> | Team DNA, Blessy Chettiar & Renuka Rao (Daily News and Analysis)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Kapil-Sibal-warns-websites-but-experts-say-prescreening-of-user-content-not-practical/articleshow/11019481.cms">Kapil Sibal warns websites, but experts say prescreening of user content not practical </a>| (Reuters)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://newstonight.net/content/sibal-s-remarks-brought-disgust">Sibal's Remarks Brought Disgust</a> | Hitesh Mehta (News Tonight)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2695884.ece">BJP backs mechanism to curb objectionable content on websites</a> | (The Hindu)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/move-to-regulate-networking-sites-should-be-discussed-in-parliament-bjp/articleshow/11023284.cms">Move to regulate networking sites should be discussed in Parliament: BJP</a> | (Press Trust of India)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.dailypioneer.com/pioneer-news/top-story/26016-sibal-under-attack-in-cyberspace.html">Sibal under attack in cyberspace</a> | (Press Trust of India)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/news/internet/Google-Govt-wanted-358-items-removed/articleshow/11021470.cms">Kapil Sibal's web censorship: Indian govt wanted 358 items removed, says Google</a> | (Press Trust of India)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Kapil-Sibal-gets-BJP-support-but-with-rider/articleshow/11020128.cms">Kapil Sibal gets BJP support but with rider</a> | (Indo-Asian News Service)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Sibal-s-way-of-regulating-web-not-okay-says-BJP/Article1-779221.aspx">Sibal's way of regulating web not okay, says BJP</a> | (Indo-Asian News Service)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://blogs.hindustantimes.com/just-faith/?p=1034">Censorship in Blasphemy's Clothings</a> | Gautam Chikermane (Hindustan Times, Just Faith)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9222500/India_wants_Google_Facebook_to_screen_content">India wants Google, Facebook to screen content</a> | Sharon Gaudin (Computer World)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.zdnetasia.com/blogs/should-we-be-taming-social-media-62303153.htm">Should we be taming social media?</a> | Swati Prasad (ZDNet, Inside India)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.dnaindia.com/bangalore/report_kapil-sibal-gets-lampooned-for-views-on-web-control_1622491">Kapil Sibal gets lampooned for views on Web control</a> | (Daily News and Analysis)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/people/We-dont-need-no-limitation/articleshow/11020244.cms">'We don't need no limitation'</a> | Asha Prakash (Times of India)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/news/internet/Five-reasons-why-India-cant-censor-the-internet/articleshow/11018172.cms">Five reasons why India can't censor the internet</a> | Prasanto K. Roy (Indo-Asian News Service)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.indianexpress.com/news/we-are-the-web/884753/">We Are the Web</a> | (Indian Express)</p>
<h2>Thursday, December 8, 2011</h2>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Kapil-Sibal-under-attack-in-cyberspace/articleshow/11029319.cms">Kapil Sibal under attack in cyberspace</a>, (Press Trust of India)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.indianexpress.com/news/speak-up-for-freedom/885132/">Speak Up for Freedom </a>| Pranesh Prakash (Indian Express)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/08/newswallah-censorship/">Newswallah: Censorship</a> | Neha Thirani (New York Times, India Ink)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/no-question-of-censoring-internet-says-sachin-pilot-156281">No Question of Censoring the Internet, Says Sachin Pilot </a>| (NDTV)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/12/web-censorship-india">Mind Your Netiquette, or We'll Mind it for You</a> | A.A.K. (The Economist)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Take-Parliaments-view-to-regulate-social-networking-sites-BJP-tells-govt/articleshow/11025858.cms">Take Parliament's view to regulate social networking sites, BJP tells govt</a> | (Times News Network)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2696027.ece">India wanted 358 items removed</a> | Priscilla Jebaraj (The Hindu)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.barandbench.com/brief/2/1891/indian-government-v-social-networking-sites-expert-views">Indian Government v Social Networking sites: Expert Views</a> | (Bar & Bench News Network)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://business-standard.com/india/news/can-government-muzzle-websites/457909/">Can Government Muzzle Websites?</a> | Priyanka Joshi & Piyali Mandal (Business Standard)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international-business/us-concerned-over-internet-curbs-sidesteps-india-move/articleshow/11029532.cms">US concerned over internet curbs, sidesteps India move</a> | (Indo-Asian News Service)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.rediff.com/business/slide-show/slide-show-1-why-internet-companies-are-upset-with-kapil-sibal/20111208.htm">Why Internet Companies Are Upset with Kapil Sibal</a> | (Rediff)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.siliconindia.com/shownews/Why_Censor_Facebook_When_You_Dont_Censor_Sunny_Leone-nid-99931-cid-1.html">Why Censor Facebook When You Don't Censor Sunny Leone?</a> | (Indo-Asian News Service)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2697432.ece">Online content issue: Talks with India on, says U.S.</a> | (Press Trust of India)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h0BfQkpJMZISTc3fjs3VgH7orciw?docId=CNG.8dc3992299cb598cecde0fffb1db8bcd.1c1">US calls for Internet freedom amid India plan</a> | Agence France-Presse</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/press-coverage-online-censorship'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/press-coverage-online-censorship</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIT ActLinksFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceFacebookIntermediary LiabilityCensorship2011-12-08T11:31:30ZBlog EntryPDP Bill is coming: WhatsApp Privacy Policy analysis
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/pdp-bill-is-coming-whatsapp-privacy-policy-analysis
<b>WhatsApp started off the new year with changes to its privacy policy that has several implications for data protection and the digital governance ecosystem at large. This post is the first in a series by CIS unpacking the various implications of the policy.
</b>
<span id="docs-internal-guid-153739d2-7fff-f133-6a27-53060c29814c">
<p dir="ltr"> </p>
<p dir="ltr">On January 4, 2021, WhatsApp announced a revised privacy policy. The announcement was through an in-app notification. Users were asked to agree to the policy by February 8, else they will lose access to their accounts. The announcement triggered a backlash, globally and in India and it led to <a href="https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/information-tech/messaging-app-signal-faces-global-outage-days-after-adding-millions-of-users/articleshow/80296362.cms">millions of users in India migrating to other messaging platforms. </a>In light of the backlash, WhatsApp had on January 15 announced that it will delay rolling out the new policy to May 15, 2021. </p>
<p dir="ltr"> It is important to note that many users have also commented that the new explicit terms of mandatory data sharing with Facebook and the extent of metadata collection haven’t changed drastically from WhatsApp’s existing operations. In 2016, WhatsApp had revised its privacy policy to enable data sharing with Facebook. Users were provided 30 days to opt out of such data sharing. However, the option to opt out was not provided to users who joined the service after September 25, 2016 or who failed to exercise the opt-out option. The changes in the policy were challenged in the Delhi High Court. The High Court (i) directed WhatsApp to delete the complete information of users who exercised the option to opt out before September 25, 2016; and (ii) with respect to users who did not exercise the opt-out option, WhatsApp was directed to not share the information of users collected until September 25, 2016 with Facebook. The matter is currently pending before the Supreme Court. </p>
<p dir="ltr">The change in people’s reactions to the data processing from 2016 can partly be attributed to the change in the users perception of privacy and personal data protection. Conversations around privacy and data protection and harms arising out of unauthorized data collection are much more prevalent. What has also irked a large number of users is the difference between the privacy policy applicable to the European Region and the policy applicable to the rest of the world; There is a disparity in the two policies regarding the rights of the users in relation to sharing of data with Facebook Companies(Facebook payments inc, Facebook Payments International Limited, Onavo, Facebook technologies LLC, Facebook Technologies Ireland limited, WhatsApp inc. WhatsApp Ireland Limited and Crowdtangle) due to the application of the General Data Protection Regulation. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Currently, Indian users have a fundamental right to privacy and an overarching data protection framework is set to be tabled in the Parliament soon. The Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019, being deliberated by the Joint Parliamentary Committee, is expected to provide comprehensive requirements for authorized collection and management of personal data. The proposed Bill, despite several shortcomings, does offer significantly more protection than the current framework consisting of S. 43A of Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Information Technology (Reasonable Security practices and procedures and sensitive personal data or Information) Rules, 2011. This blogpost will examine the viability of the revised privacy policy of WhatsApp if the proposed bill is enacted in the currently available public version of the Bill. In the subsequent posts we will analyse the effect of the revised privacy policy on the pending litigation. </p>
<h3>
Privacy notice</h3>
<p dir="ltr">Section 7 of the proposed bill puts an obligation on the data fiduciary to provide a privacy notice, i.e. a document containing granular details of the processing of personal data to the data principals. The details must be provided in a manner that is clear, concise and easily comprehensible to a reasonable person. The notice should also be provided in multiple languages where necessary and practicable. The importance of a clear and concise policy has been highlighted in the Justice Srikrishna Report on Data Protection. However, there is no guidance from the Indian authorities on what it constitutes. Guidance from the <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/article29/item-detail.cfm?item_id=622227">Article 29 working party</a> in the EU suggests that the policy must be presented in a manner that avoids information fatigue. In the digital context, it has been recommended that presenting a policy in a layered format enhances readability. The guidance also suggests that policy should avoid reliance on complex sentences and abstract terms to convey the details of the processing operations. The revised privacy policy of WhatsApp cannot be termed a clear and concise policy. The purely text-based policy, containing around 3800 words, is not presented in a layered format resulting in shockingly low readability for the amount and type of personal data collection the policy is attempting to convey. In addition to improper design and structure, the policy contains vague language providing an average user a hazy understanding of the extent of data processing and can leave room for different interpretations. The earlier version of the policy also uses similar language and structure to convey details regarding the processing and <a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/whatsapp-ireland-sets-aside-77-5m-for-possible-data-compliance-fines-1.4412449">doesn’t provide transparent details regarding its data sharing with Facebook</a>. Relying on a similar format as its earlier versions without revising it based on global discussions around the best methods seems to be an opportunity lost to remedy the privacy policy. The structure, form and language of the policy will have to be revised if the Bill is enacted in its current form and the policy will also have to be provided in multiple languages. </p>
<h3>Bundled consent</h3>
<p dir="ltr">According to its policy, WhatsApp relies on the consent of the user for the purpose of providing messaging and communication services, sharing information with third party service providers that help WhatsApp “operate, provide, improve, understand, customize, support, and market” their Services, and sharing information with other Facebook companies for “providing integrations with Facebook Company products” to name a few. It is important to verify if the consent being obtained is valid according to the standard set by the proposed framework.</p>
<p dir="ltr">For consent to be valid under the proposed framework (Section 11(4)) , the provision and quality of services provided should not be linked to consenting to processing of personal data that is not directly necessary for that purpose. In WhatsApp’s case, the primary purpose of processing is to provide messaging and communication services on that particular platform. Neither sharing personal data with third party service providers for better marketing of their services on other platforms nor sharing it with Facebook company of products for better integration of services is incidental to the primary purpose of processing. The bundling of consent results in forcing individuals to either accept processing of personal data for all of the purposes outlined or lose the services altogether resulting in an invalid consent. An explicit opt-in mechanism for all those processing operations that are not compatible with the primary purpose of processing will have to be provided to the Indian users if the Bill is enacted in its current form and consent is being relied on as the lawful ground of processing.</p>
<h3>Data sharing with Facebook</h3>
<p dir="ltr">WhatsApp’s policy on sharing of information with Facebook has garnered a significant amount of attention and has also raised privacy concerns amongst WhatsApp users in non-European countries. This is because the policy applicable to non- European countries now does not provide the user option to opt out from sharing the information if the user wants to continue using and operating WhatsApp. The policy under the heading ‘How we work with other Facebook Companies’ states that “As part of the<a href="https://faq.whatsapp.com/general/security-and-privacy/the-facebook-companies"> Facebook Companies</a>, WhatsApp receives information from, and shares information (see<a href="https://faq.whatsapp.com/general/security-and-privacy/what-information-does-whatsapp-share-with-the-facebook-companies"> here</a>) with, the other<a href="https://faq.whatsapp.com/general/security-and-privacy/the-facebook-companies"> Facebook Companies</a>. We may use the information we receive from them, and they may use the information we share with them, to help operate, provide, improve, understand, customize, support, and market our Services and their offerings, including the<a href="https://faq.whatsapp.com/general/security-and-privacy/the-facebook-company-products"> Facebook Company Products</a>.” The information that may be shared by WhatsApp with Facebook Companies includes; (i) users phone number; (ii) transaction data; (iii) service-related information, (iv) information on how the users interact with others (including businesses); (v) mobile device information; (vi) the user’s IP address; and (vii) and any other data covered by the privacy policy. All this information/data will fall within the ambit of personal data in terms of the current version of the Bill and therefore WhatsApp would have to comply with the obligations put on it under the Bill for it to be able to share personal data with other data fiduciaries including Facebook Companies.</p>
<p dir="ltr">As noted earlier, it is pertinent to note that the privacy policy is not the same globally. As per the privacy policy applicable to Europe, WhatsApp states that any information that it shares with Facebook Companies is to be used on WhatsApp’s behalf and in accordance with its instructions. Any such information cannot be used for the Facebook Companies own purposes. This statement is not reflected in the privacy policy applicable to non European countries. Facebook has in a <a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/whatsapp-says-european-users-do-not-have-to-share-data-with-facebook-1.4452435">statement </a>stated that “For the avoidance of any doubt, it is still the case that WhatsApp does not share European region WhatsApp user data with Facebook for the purpose of Facebook using this data to improve its products or advertisements”</p>
<p dir="ltr"><strong id="docs-internal-guid-dbd02a4a-7fff-ed41-bc54-e5cce9a8b5ca"><br /></strong></p>
<h3>Data sharing with other third party service providers</h3>
<p dir="ltr">It is also important to note that sharing of information is not limited to Facebook Companies, but also extends to other third party service providers. However, apart from a vaguely drafted statement stating that WhatsApp works with third party service providers as well as other Facebook Companies to help it to “operate, provide, improve, understand, customize, support, and market our Services”, the privacy policy is silent and does not provide any insight or clear information on (a) the nature of these third party entities; (b) extent of information shared with such third party entities. Further, even though the policy provides a link to the other Facebook Companies (Facebook Payments Inc, Facebook International Limited, Onavo CrowdTangle) that it works with; there is again no clarity as to what are the specific services provided by these companies.</p>
<p dir="ltr">One of the rights provided to a data principal under Section 17 (3) and Section 7 (1)(g) of the current version of the Bill, is the right to be informed and the consent to be obtained from the data principal about the individuals or entities with whom personal data may be shared. The data principal also has the right to be informed about and given access to the categories of personal data shared with the other data fiduciaries. However, the policy as it stands on date is silent about both the details of the third parties service providers as well as the categories of personal data that could be shared with them.</p>
<p dir="ltr"><strong><br /></strong></p>
<h3>Metadata collection and data minimisation</h3>
<p dir="ltr">The details on usage and log information in the previous version of the policy were rather vague as a result of which the extent of data collection was difficult to ascertain. The revised version indicates that WhatsApp’s metadata collection went further than most of the other popular messaging applications and the data being collected was linked back to the user and device identity. The principle of data minimisation (Section 6 of the proposed framework) limits the collection of personal data to that which is necessary for the purpose of processing. The compelling reasons that justify the metadata collection for the primary purpose of messaging and communication are so far unclear. The metadata collection section is similar in the privacy policy for the EU region and on the face of it doesn’t look GDPR compliant as well. Collection of those categories of personal data that are not necessary for processing of the primary purpose will need to be discontinued if the Bill is enacted in its current form.</p>
<p dir="ltr"><strong><br /></strong></p>
<h3>Data Principal rights</h3>
<p dir="ltr">The difference between the protection afforded to Indian resident users and European resident users is highlighted in the rights accorded to the data principal under the two privacy policies. The European privacy policy has a section dedicated to how users can exercise their rights and specifies that users have the right to access, rectify, port, and erase their information, as well as the right to restrict and object to certain processing of their information. These rights are a reflection of the protection afforded to data principles under the GDPR. As per the current version of the Bill, the data principal will have the right to (i) confirmation and access (Section 17); (ii) correction and erasure (Section 18); and (iii) data portability (Section 19). If the current version of the Bill is enacted, then WhatsApp will be required to amend its privacy policy regarding its applicability to India and incorporate the rights of data accorded to the data principal .</p>
<p dir="ltr"><strong><br /></strong></p>
<h3>Grievance redressal </h3>
<p dir="ltr">The European Region privacy policy specifies the entity within WhatsApp responsible for addressing the complaints of the users and it further also informs the user that they have the right to approach the Irish Data Protection Commission, or any other competent data protection supervisory authority. None of these provisions are specified in the Non-European Region privacy policy. The current version of the PDP Bill places an obligation on the data fiduciary to establish an effective grievance redressal mechanism (Section 32(1)) and to inform the data principal about their right to approach the Data Protection Authority (which is proposed to be established under the PDP Bill) (Section 7(k)). Additional details regarding the same will have to be provided if the Bill is enacted in its current form. </p>
<p dir="ltr"><strong><br /></strong></p>
<h3>Clarifications from WhatsApp </h3>
<p dir="ltr">On January 13, 2021, WhatsApp published a blog stating that the changes to the privacy policy will not affect users who use the platform messaging with friends and family, the changes will only apply to users who use the platform to communicate with business accounts. As per WhatsApp messages to business accounts on WhatsApp can be shared with third-party service providers, which may include Facebook itself. As per the blog, “But whether you communicate with a business by phone, email, or WhatsApp, it can see what you’re saying and may use that information for its own marketing purposes, which may include advertising on Facebook.” It is important to note that we recognise that the content of the messages and the call remains encrypted, however, the concern arises from the collection and use of ‘metadata.’ </p>
<p dir="ltr">WhatsApp’s repeated assurances and clarifications asserting their commitment to data privacy falls short. Their insistence that their chats still use end to end encryption and that only interactions with WhatsApp Business will be shared with Facebook indicates ignorance with regard to the different contours of informational privacy. The expectations of privacy that individuals have over their personal data is linked to the extent of control they have over disclosure of such data. The mandatory metadata collection and lack of opt out clauses for data sharing for marketing purposes results in a mere illusion of control through its façade consent collecting process.</p>
<p dir="ltr"><strong><br /></strong></p>
<p dir="ltr">For the most part, the proposed framework should provide us the same level of protection offered to EU users of WhatsApp regarding some of the key contentions highlighted above. However, additional data principal rights such as the right to object and right to restrict processing will give additional protections to the data principal in case of data processing for marketing purposes. The uproar over the data collection practices of WhatsApp have cemented the immediate need for an effective data protection legislation in the country. The final draft of the Bill with <a href="https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/parliamentary-panel-examining-personal-data-protection-bill-recommends-89-changes/articleshow/80138488.cms">89 new amendments</a> is expected to be released soon. Considering the renewed apprehensions regarding unwarranted processing of personal data, we can only hope that the amendments have taken into consideration the feedback and comments provided by relevant stakeholders. </p>
<p dir="ltr"><br /><br /></p>
<p dir="ltr">(This post was edited and reviewed by Amber Sinha, Arindrajit Basu and Aman Nair)</p>
</span>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/pdp-bill-is-coming-whatsapp-privacy-policy-analysis'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/pdp-bill-is-coming-whatsapp-privacy-policy-analysis</a>
</p>
No publisherPallavi Bedi & Shweta ReddyWhatsAppFacebookPrivacy2021-01-19T08:12:23ZBlog EntryMufti Aijaz Arshad Qasmi v. Facebook and Ors (Order dated December 20, 2011)
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/order-2011-12-20-mufti-aijaz-arshad-qasmi-v-facebook-and-ors
<b>This is the order passed on December 20, 2011 by Addl. Civil Judge Mukesh Kumar of the Rohini Courts, New Delhi. All errors of spelling, syntax, logic, and law are present in the original.</b>
<p>Suit No 505/11</p>
<p>Mufti Aijaz Arshad Qasmi<br />
vs.<br />
Facebook etc.</p>
<p>20.12.11</p>
<p>Fresh suit received by assignment. It be checked and registered.</p>
<p>Present: Plaintiff in person with Ld. Counsel.</p>
<p>Ld. Counsel for plaintiff prayed for ex-parte ad-interim injunction. He has filed the present suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against 22 defendants who are running their social networking websites under the name of Facebook, Google India (P) Ltd., Yahoo India (P) Ltd., Microsoft India (P) Ltd., Orkut, Youtube etc as shown in the memo of parties in the plaint. It is submitted that plaintiff is an active citizen of India and residing at the given address and he believes in Secular, Socialist and Democratic India professing Muslim religion. It is further submitted that the contents which are uploaded by some of the miscreants through these social networking websites mentioned above are highly objectionable and unacceptable by any set of the society as the contents being published through the aforesaid websites are derogatory, per-se inflammatory and defamatory which cannot be acceptable by any of the society professing any religion. Even if the same is allowed to be published through these social networking websites and if anybody will take out the print and circulated amongst any of the community whether it is Muslim or Hindu or Sikh, then definitely there would be rioting at mass level which may result into serious law and order problem in the country. Where the miscreants have not even spare any of the religion, even they have created defamatory articles and pictures against the Prophet Mohammad, the Hindu goddess Durga, Laxmi, Lord Ganesha and many other Hindu gods which are being worshiped by the people of Hindu community. It is prayed by the counsel for plaintiff that the defendants may be directed to remove these defamatory and derogatory articles and pictures from their social websites and they should be restrained from publishing the same anywhere through Internet or in any manner. It is further submitted that the social websites are being utilised by the every person of whatever age of he is whether he is 7 years old or 80 years old. These defamatory articles will certainly corrupt not only young minds below the 18 years of age but also corrupt the minds of all age group persons. It is further submitted that even the miscreants have not spared the leaders of any political party whether it is BJP, Congress, Shiv Sena or any other political party doing their political activities in India, which may further vitiate the minds of every individual and may result into political rivalry by raising allegations against each other.</p>
<p>I have gone through the record carefully wherein the plaintiff has also filed a CD containing all the defamatory articles and photographs, plaintiff also wants to file certain defamatory and obscene photographs of the Prophet Mohammad and Hindu Gods and Goddesses. Photographs are returned to the plaintiff, although, the defamatory written articles are taken on record. Same be kept in sealed cover.</p>
<p>In my considered opinion, the photographs shown by the plaintiff having content of defamation and derogation against the sentiments of every community. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the plaintiff has a prima facie case in his favour. Moreover, balance of convenience also lies against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff. Moreover, if the defendants will not be directed to remove the defamatory articles and contents from their social networking websites, then not only the plaintiff but every individual who is having religious sentiments would suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, taking in consideration the facts and circumstances and nature of the suit filed by the plaintiff where every time these social networking websites are being used by the public at large and there is every apprehension of mischief in the public, the defendants are hereby restrained from publishing the defamatory articles shown by the plaintiff and contained in the CD filed by the plaintiff immediately on service of this order and notice. Defendants are further directed to remove the same from their social networking websites.</p>
<p>Application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC stands allowed and disposed of accordingly.</p>
<p>Summons be issued to the defendants on filing of PF/RO/Speed Post. The defendants having their addresses in different places may be served as per the provisions of Order 5 CPC. Reader of this court is directed to keep the documents and CD in a sealed cover. Plaintiff is directed to get served the defendants along with all the documents. Plaintiff is further directed to ensure the compliance of the provisions under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC and file an affidavit in this regard. Copy of this order be given dasti.</p>
<p>Put up for further proceedings on 24.12.11.</p>
<p>Sd/-<br />
(Mukesh Kumar)<br />
ACJ-cum-ARC, N-W<br />
Rohini Courts, Delhi<br /></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/order-2011-12-20-mufti-aijaz-arshad-qasmi-v-facebook-and-ors'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/order-2011-12-20-mufti-aijaz-arshad-qasmi-v-facebook-and-ors</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIT ActGoogleCourt CaseObscenityFreedom of Speech and ExpressionFacebookCensorshipResources2012-02-20T18:02:44ZPageLinking Facebook use to free top-up data
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/deccan-chronicle-february-14-2016-linking-facebook-use-to-free-top-up-data
<b>Just before the Trai notification, the Ambani brothers signed a spectrum sharing pact and they have been sharing optic fibre since 2013.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article was published in the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.deccanchronicle.com/technology/in-other-news/140216/linking-facebook-use-to-free-top-up-data.html">Deccan Chronicle</a> on February 14, 2016. Pranesh Prakash gave inputs.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Some people argue that Trai should have stayed off the issue since the Competition Commission of India (CCI) is sufficient to tackle Net Neutrality harms. However it is unclear if predatory pricing by Reliance, which has only nine per cent market share, will cross the competition law threshold for market dominance? Interestingly, just before the Trai notification, the Ambani brothers signed a spectrum sharing pact and they have been sharing optic fibre since 2013.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Will a content sharing pact follow these carriage pacts? As media diversity researcher, Alam Srinivas, notes: “If their plans succeed, their media empires will span across genres such as print, broadcasting, radio and digital. They will own the distribution chains such as cable, direct-to-home (DTH), optic fibre (terrestrial and undersea), telecom towers and multiplexes.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">What does this convergence vision of the Ambani brothers mean for media diversity in India? In the absence of net neutrality regulation could they use their dominance in broadcast media to reduce choice on the Internet? Could they use a non-neutral provisioning of the Internet to increase their dominance in broadcast media? When a single wire or the very same radio spectrum delivers radio, TV, games and Internet to your home — what under competition law will be considered a substitutable product? What would be the relevant market?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">At the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), we argue that competition law principles with lower threshold should be applied to networked infrastructure through infrastructure specific non-discrimination regulations like the one that Trai just notified to protect digital media diversity.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Was an absolute prohibition the best response for Trai? With only two possible exemptions — i.e. closed communication network and emergencies — the regulation is very clear and brief. However, as our colleague Pranesh Prakash has said, Trai has over-regulated and used a sledgehammer where a scalpel would have sufficed. In CIS’ official submission, we had recommended a series of tests in order to determine whether a particular type of zero rating should be allowed or forbidden. That test may be legally sophisticated; but as Trai argues it is clear and simple rules that result in regulatory equity. A possible alternative to a complicated multi-part legal test is the leaky walled garden proposal. Remember, it is only in the case of very dangerous technologies where the harms are large scale and irreversible and an absolute prohibition based on the precautionary principle is merited.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, as far as network neutrality harms go, it may be sufficient to insist that for every MB that is consumed within Free Basics, Reliance be mandated to provide a data top up of 3MB.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This would have three advantages. One, it would be easy to articulate in a brief regulation and therefore reduce the possibility of litigation. Two, it is easy for the consumer who is harmed to monitor the mitigation measure and last, based on empirical data, the regulator could increase or decrease the proportion of the mitigation measure.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This is an example of what Prof Christopher T. Marsden calls positive, forward-looking network neutrality regulation. Positive in the sense that instead of prohibitions and punitive measures, the emphasis is on obligations and forward-looking in the sense that no new technology and business model should be prohibited.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/deccan-chronicle-february-14-2016-linking-facebook-use-to-free-top-up-data'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/deccan-chronicle-february-14-2016-linking-facebook-use-to-free-top-up-data</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaDigital MediaFacebookInternet GovernanceSocial Media2016-02-14T12:33:17ZNews ItemIt Took Just 355 Indians to Mine the Data of 5.6 Lakh Facebook Users. Here's How
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/news-18-subhajit-sengupta-how-just-355-indians-put-data-of-5-6-lakh-facebook-users-at-risk
<b>Data privacy in India is still a nascent subject. Experts say cheap data has led to unprecedented Facebook penetration. Often, it is seen that those who open an account are not aware of the privacy concerns.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The blog post by Subhajit Sengupta was published in <a class="external-link" href="https://www.news18.com/news/india/how-just-355-indians-put-data-of-5-6-lakh-facebook-users-at-risk-1710845.html">CNN-News 18</a> on April 7, 2018. Sunil Abraham was quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Over 5.6 lakh Indian Facebook profiles have allegedly been compromised and their data leaked to the controversial data analytics firm Cambridge Analytica. As per the company, only 335 people in India installed the App yet they managed to penetrate over half a million profiles. <br /><br />So, how does this work?<br /><br />Once a user downloaded the quiz app called “thisisyourdigitallife”, Global Science Research Limited got access to the entire treasure trove of data. There are two mechanisms which are used for this.<br /><br />First, the Application Program Interface (API) of Facebook called ‘Social Graph’ allows any app to harvest the entire contact list and everything else that could be seen on a users’ friend’s profile. This would take place even for private profiles, says Sunil Abraham, Executive Director of Bangalore based research organization ‘Centre for Internet and Society’.<br /><br />The second way is when users have a public profile. The algorithm seeks out public profiles from the friend list and would go on multiplying from one public profile to another without any of the users even coming to know what is happening. This is like the ‘True Caller’ application, for it to get your number, you don’t need to download the software. If anyone has the app and your number, then it gets automatically logged there.<br /><br />Facebook says "Cambridge Analytica’s acquisition of Facebook data through the app developed by Dr Aleksandr Kogan and his company Global Science Research Limited (GSR) happened without our authorisation and was an explicit violation of our Platform policies." <br /><br />GSR continued to access this data from all the Facebook profiles throughout the entire lifespan of the app on the Facebook platform, which was roughly two years between 2013 and 2015. This means, even if a user is careful enough to not download the application but his/her profile’s privacy settings are weak, the algorithm would infiltrate the data bank.<br /><br />Amit Dubey, a Cyber Security Expert goes into the details of what the app did, “The app called 'thisisyourdigitallife', which was created for research work by Aleksandr Kogan, was eventually used for psychometric profiling of users and then manipulating their political biases. The app was offered to users on the pretext to take a personality test and it agreed to have their data collected for academic use only. But the app has exploited a security vulnerability of Facebook application.”<br /><br />Facebook “platform policy” allowed only collection of friends’ data to improve user experience in the app and barred it from being sold or used for advertising. <br /><br />But this kind of data scrapping is not just limited to Cambridge Analytica. The Social Media Algorithm is often abused in the world of data scavenging and analytics. Even law enforcement agencies have often used similar means to locate possible miscreants. <br /><br />According to Shesh Sarangdhar, Chief Executive Officer in Seclabs & Systems Pvt Ltd, similar data scrapping helped them unearth the terror module behind one of the attacks at an airbase last year. Shesh said that through Social Media Algorithm they would often narrow down on unknown terror modules. What his team did was to connect to the profile the whereabouts of multiple known nods converging. That is how the mastermind was located.<br /><br />Data privacy in India is still a nascent subject. Experts say cheap data has led to unprecedented Facebook penetration. <br /><br />Often, it is seen that those who open an account are not aware of the privacy concerns. But as Sunil Abraham puts it, Caveat emptor or ‘Let the Buyers Beware’ does not even apply here. It is not possible for anyone to go through the entire privacy policy. <br /><br />“So it is not even right to ask if the consumer can protect his/her own interest. Thus, the state should proactively regulate the industry,” said Abraham.<br /><br />Facebook has brought in a number of changes to its privacy settings. It now allows you to remove third-party apps in bulk. This welcome change has come after sustained pressure on the tech giant from users and a number of regulatory bodies across the world.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/news-18-subhajit-sengupta-how-just-355-indians-put-data-of-5-6-lakh-facebook-users-at-risk'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/news-18-subhajit-sengupta-how-just-355-indians-put-data-of-5-6-lakh-facebook-users-at-risk</a>
</p>
No publisherAdminFacebookInternet GovernancePrivacy2018-04-07T15:33:46ZNews Item