The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 21 to 35.
India bans Facebook’s ‘free’ Internet for the poor
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/washington-post-annie-gowen-february-8-2016-india-bans-facebooks-free-internet-for-the-poor
<b>India’s telecom regulator said Monday that service providers cannot charge discriminatory prices for Internet services, a blow to Facebook’s global effort to provide low-cost Internet to developing countries.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Annie Gowen was published in <a class="external-link" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/indian-telecom-regulator-bans-facebooks-free-internet-for-the-poor/2016/02/08/561fc6a7-e87d-429d-ab62-7cdec43f60ae_story.html">Washington Post</a> on February 8, 2016. Sunil Abraham gave inputs. The article was also mirrored by <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/facebooks-behaviour-may-not-have-helped-its-cause-in-india-foreign-media-1275173">NDTV</a>.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook’s “Free Basics” program provides a pared-down version of Facebook and weather and job listings to some 15 million mobile-phone users in 37 countries around the world.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">When it debuted in India in April, however, Free Basics immediately ran afoul of Internet activists who said it violated the principle of “net neutrality,” which holds that consumers should be able to access the entire Internet unfettered by price or speed.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On Monday, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India agreed, prohibiting data service providers from offering or charging different prices for data — even if it’s free. The Free Basics program has run into trouble elsewhere in the world recently — with Egypt <a href="http://gizmodo.com/a-week-after-india-banned-it-facebooks-free-basics-s-1750299423" target="_blank">banning it</a> and Google <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/Google-bids-adieu-to-Facebooks-Free-Basics-in-Zambia/articleshow/50669257.cms" target="_blank">clarifying</a> that it pulled out of the application during a testing phase in Zambia.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In a statement, Facebook said that while the company was “disappointed with the outcome, we will continue our efforts to eliminate barriers and give the unconnected an easier path to the Internet.”<br /><br />In an interview before the ruling, Chris Daniels, Facebook’s vice president for Internet.org — the umbrella organization of the global effort — said India’s negative reaction has been “unique versus other markets we’ve seen. We’ve been welcomed with open arms in many countries.”<br /><br />Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg launched the program to great fanfare in 2013, partnering with other international tech firms on a mission to connect the 4 billion people in the world without Internet access — which he says is a basic human right.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India has 300 million mobile Internet users but still has close to 1 billion people without proper Internet access. But it is second only to the United States in number of Facebook users, with 130 million, with vast expansion potential as Facebook works to increase its user base beyond the developed world.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Yet the Free Basics program was <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/india-egypt-say-no-thanks-to-free-internet-from-facebook/2016/01/28/cd180bcc-b58c-11e5-8abc-d09392edc612_story.html">controversial from the start in India</a>, where critics accused Facebook of creating a “walled garden” for poor users that allowed them access to only a portion of the web that Facebook controlled.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Dozens of well-known tech entrepreneurs, university professors and tech industry groups spoke out against it, saying that the curated app, with its handpicked weather, job and other listings, put India’s <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/risk-averse-india-embraces-silicon-valley-style-start-ups/2015/11/28/85376e20-8fb6-11e5-934c-a369c80822c2_story.html">scrappy start-ups</a> and software developers at a disadvantage.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On Monday, Vijay Shekhar Sharma, the founder and creator of India’s payment application PayTM, applauded the regulator’s move.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">He had been among the program’s fiercest critics, dubbing Free Basics “poor Internet for poor people” and comparing Facebook’s actions to that of British colonialists and their East India Co.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“India, Do u buy into this baby internet?” Sharma tweeted in December. “The East India company came with similar ‘charity’ to Indians a few years back!”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“In a country like India that’s just taking off, it’s important that there is an equal playground for every app developer,” he said in an interview.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In December, India’s regulator put out a position paper on differential pricing and asked for public comment on whether such programs were fair.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In response, Facebook launched a public relations blitz, with television and newspaper advertisements, billboards and <a href="http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/toi-edit-page/free-basics-protects-net-neutrality/">an opinion piece by Zuckerberg</a> in the Times of India in which he argued against criticism that the social-media giant was providing the service simply to expand its user base.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook also engineered a prompt to users that sent “robo” letters of support for Free Basics to India’s telecommunications regulator. The regulator, flooded with form letters, <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/technology/social/trai-slams-facebook-letter-on-free-basics-campaign-wholly-misplaced/">was not amused.</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook’s behavior may not have helped its cause, some analysts said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“Facebook went overboard with its propaganda [and] convinced ‘the powers that be’ that it cannot be trusted with mature stewardship of our information society,” said Sunil Abraham of the Center for Internet and Society in Bangalore.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Yet David Kirkpatrick, the author of “<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1439102120?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creativeASIN=1439102120&linkCode=xm2&tag=thewaspos09-20" target="_blank" title="www.amazon.com">The Facebook Effect</a>,” says that Zuckerberg is determined to see the program succeed.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“Facebook is relentless,” he said. “Zuckerberg has said from the beginning his goal is to make the world more open and connected. And that’s a phrase he continues to repeat 10 years later.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The regulator had asked Facebook, and its local telecom partner, Reliance Communications, to suspend Free Basics’ operations during the public comment period. But the social-media giant and its partner appeared to flout the suspension order, with the program continuing to be operational on Reliance SIM cards.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A spokesman for Reliance earlier said that the applications was in “testing mode” and that it was not commercially promoting the product.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The regulatory body said Monday that anybody violating the order in the future will be subject to a fine of about $735 a day. It will return to review the policy in two years to see if it is effective.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/washington-post-annie-gowen-february-8-2016-india-bans-facebooks-free-internet-for-the-poor'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/washington-post-annie-gowen-february-8-2016-india-bans-facebooks-free-internet-for-the-poor</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial MediaFree BasicsInternet GovernanceFreedom of Speech and ExpressionFacebook2016-02-10T02:53:49ZNews ItemHow To Win Friends, FB Style
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/outlook-india-october-12-2015-arindam-mukherjee-how-to-win-friends-fb-style
<b>True to form—and Facebook—there was a warm, friendly and familial feel to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s townhall meeting at Melon, California, with Mark Zuckerberg on September 27. Modi got emotional (yet again) while talking about his mother. Zuckerberg, the youngish founder of the world’s largest social networking site, got his parents to meet and pose with Modi. </b>
<p>The article by Arindam Mukherjee was published in <a class="external-link" href="http://www.outlookindia.com/article/how-to-win-friends-fb-style/295492">Outlook</a> on October 12, 2015. Sunil Abraham was quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“The most amazing moment was when I talked about our families,” Zuckerberg wrote in a post, “and he (Modi) shared stories of his childhood....” That’s just the kind of stuff we would see and post on Facebook—the benign visage of a profitable, all-pervasive US-based corporation. (Needless to say, everyone who has worked on this story is a registered user).<br /><br />Of course, we know Modi too is on Facebook. No other Indian politician has so effectively utilised the power of ‘likes’: and he has got 30 million. The problem with this chummy approach is that one could almost forget that the PM is also the supreme leader of a country that is Facebook’s second-largest market in the world with 125 million users. A few days earlier, Zuckerberg flew to Seattle to meet Chinese President Xi Jinping. Facebook is not present in China. “On a personal note, this was the first time I’ve ever spoken with a world leader entirely in a foreign language,” wrote Zuckerberg in another post.<br /><br />In contrast, Modi and Zuckerberg were speaking the same language. In fact, they even jointly updated their profile picture on Facebook—wrapped in the shades of the Indian tricolour—to support the Modi government’s Digital India initiative. Millions of Indians followed suit. And that’s when the shit hit the internet—it was discovered that people supporting the Digital India campaign were also putting in a ‘yes’ vote for Facebook’s contentious initiative internet.org (free but restricted net access; see accompanying faqs for all the details). Immediately, Modi became a party to the raging debate in India over net neutrality. This is unfortunate as the Modi government is yet to put on paper its stand on net neutrality. The nervous reaction to this engagement is also a function of the new truism of our times—“with this government, you never know”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/Modi2.png" alt="Modi" class="image-inline" title="Modi" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">What we do know is that the internet.org class name was built into the code for support for Digital India. Many experts feel this is not a coincidence; rather a clever ploy by Facebook to get the support of Indians and promote its internet.org initiative. This upset a vocal community of activists who see internet.org on the opposite camp. This led to the charge that Facebook was trying to influence the debate. Says Sunil Abraham, executive director with the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), “The moves by Facebook are quite juvenile as it is trying to use the Modi visit to further muddy the net neutrality debate. We should be concerned about Facebook trying to damage the debate in India to spin the PM’s participation in its own favour.” Of course, there are two sides to this debate. There are many people within the government who feel net neutrality is an elitist concern—increasing internet penetration, which Facebook and other such initiatives promise, is the way forward in a poor, unconnected country like India. “Today to talk about net neutrality is to talk about the 20 per cent who have access to the internet,” says telecom expert Mahesh Uppal. “It is unreasonable to dismiss out of hand anybody who offers free service to a subset of websites or services. Eventually, access to internet must come first before we talk about net neutrality.”<br /><br />Facebook promoted internet.org along with Samsung, Nokia, Qualcomm, Ericsson, MediaTek and Opera Software, the aim being to provide free internet service to developing nations. India, obviously, is a hot target for Facebook. Facebook has a partnership with Reliance in the country; the free internet service will be available only to Reliance users and the free access will be limited to Facebook’s partner sites. The debate over internet.org too has picked up steam in India—big media companies like NDTV and Times of India have pulled out of it on these issues. While Facebook has stressed that internet.org will ensure that the internet reaches people who do not have access to it, there have been concerns that it will restrict internet access only to sites that are internet.org’s partners.<br /><br />On its part, Facebook has been quick to refute the charge. A spokesperson in the US said, “There is absolutely no connection between updating your profile picture for Digital India and internet.org. An engineer mistakenly used the words ‘internet.org profile picture’ as a shorthand name he chose for part of the code.” The code was changed soon after. Despite repeated requests, representatives from Facebook India were unavailable for comment.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/Zuckerberg.png" alt="Zuckerberg" class="image-inline" title="Zuckerberg" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">But the damage has been done. Many now openly question Facebook’s motives in India and whether they have been truthful or not. Given all this brouhaha, questions will naturally be raised about Modi’s alignment with Facebook. Digital India is many things—but obviously increasing net penetration is one its goals. “Now whatever he does on net neutrality, it will be seen in terms of whether it will benefit Google or Facebook. That is the risk he took. I would like to know why the diplomatic advisors took the risk of putting the PM in a bargaining position instead of a bonus at the end of a deal,” says Prof Narendar Pani, who teaches at the National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">All this matters because the Modi government positions itself as digital-friendly, even though its moves on this front have been invasive (the push for Aadhar despite a legal sanction and increasing reports of monitoring digital conversations), and contradictory (the abortive porn and WhatsApp bans, among others). “The PM is going way beyond the e-governance plan to a stage where the government will just sit and watch people speaking. It is scary,” says internet activist Usha Ramanathan. She feels it doesn’t make sense to have companies like Google sharing ideas with the government while Indian people are being kept out of the loop. “And now Facebook will be joining that gang, it doesn’t make sense. What has Facebook done to get that privilege?” she asks.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Here again there is a carefully worded counter-argument. Former telecom entrepreneur and Rajya Sabha MP Rajeev Chandrashekhar says, “Net neutrality is a definition that would be made in the public domain. It will not be influenced by the PM’s engagement with Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg. Anyone who tries to mess with the definition of net neutrality will be met with a public outcry and judicial intervention.” The substance of this view is that Modi was within his rights to speak to corporations to further Digital India, or Make in India for that matter, and that there should be an open debate on the future direction of net neutrality.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/copy5_of_Sunil.png" alt="Sunil" class="image-inline" title="Sunil" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Clearly, the political knives are out. “Either the prime minister is not being briefed properly or he does not read his brief properly,” says former UPA minister Manish Tewari. Arguing that governments should be discussing rules of engagement in cyberspace, and not stakeholders, he asks, “Is India comfortable with that construct especially when the bulk of the technology companies, the root servers which form the underlying hardware of the internet, are all based in the US, and one being in Europe?”<br /><br />Although the government is yet to firm up its decision on net neutrality and a policy on it is yet to be announced, the debate has already acquired political colour in India, with the Congress and Aam Aadmi Party putting their weight behind the people’s voice. This is the first time that there has been a nation-wide upsurge of such an unprecedented size and magnitude on an internet policy. Says AAP’s Adarsh Shastri, “Facebook, Google etc are just tools. People can use them at will. To make them the mainstay of your programme for digital empowerment is to step on the civil rights and liberties of citizens. Doing this is a complete no-no. Let people access internet as they want is the way to go.”<br /><br />A consultation paper floated by telecom regulator Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) got almost 15 lakh responses from the Indian public in support of net neutrality. There was also strong opposition to zero rating platforms announced by telecom companies like Airtel which sought to provide free access to some websites on their platform in much the same way that internet.org proposes. And the reactions to the Facebook coding error are a pointer to what people in India think. Says Nikhil Pahwa, editor of Medianama and a leading net neutrality activist, “The reactions of the people to the Facebook event were heartening and showed that people are emotive and there is still mass support for net neutrality. The reaction to the TRAI paper was not a flash in the pan.”<br /><br />Interestingly, a couple of months ago, a department of telecommunications committee had said that internet.org was a violation of net neutrality and should not be allowed. It will be difficult for Modi and the government to overrule that and give it full and free access in India. Internet experts feel that the engagement with India and Modi was a desperate move by Facebook to get numbers from India. Says internet expert Mahesh Murthy, “Facebook is pulling out all stops to get favour for internet.org and is desperate about it. If India says yes, many others will say yes, but if India says no, other countries will follow.”<br /><br />Murthy says Facebook’s real problem is that it is finding it difficult to justify its price to earnings ratio as against its user numbers vis-a-vis Google which is much better in this respect. For this, it is desperately trying to get numbers, and with China banning Facebook, the only country left to get numbers is India. The massive electronic and print campaign at the cost of Rs 40-50 crore is a pointer towards this. He says everything about internet.org is about hooking Indians to it.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">No wonder, Facebook has been cultivating Indian media. The Modi visit has also been tarnished by the news that Facebook paid for the travel and accommodation of journalists from three Indian newspapers and one magazine to go and cover the Facebook-Modi meeting and get favourable coverage. Says writer-activist Arundhati Roy, “Many journalists covering the event for the Indian media were flown in from India by Facebook. So were some who asked pre-assigned questions at the event. I don’t know who sponsored the crocodile tears and the clothes.” It is also quite strange that the entire display picture and source code controversy got almost no play in the national media which chose instead to talk about Modi’s speech and his tears.<br /><br />All said and done, it is obvious that Facebook may be seeing India as an easy and vulnerable target which can be manipulated for its own advantage. Says Parminder Jeet Singh, executive director with IT for Change, an NGO working on information society, “India has low internet penetration and lots of people want to get on to the internet. There is low purchasing power but lots of aspiration. So the moment a free service is offered, a whole lot of people are likely to jump on it.” And that is something Facebook may be looking and aiming at.<br /><br />Currently, three processes are on that will determine how India will look at net neutrality—one at the DoT, one at TRAI and a third one at a parliamentary standing committee. But given the massive people’s response net neutrality has got vis-a-vis TRAI’s paper and also during the present Facebook issue, the outcome is predictable. Or so it seems. There’s a lot of money power at stake. For now, millions of internet Indians have already voted with that dislike button. And then, governments move in mysterious ways.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/outlook-india-october-12-2015-arindam-mukherjee-how-to-win-friends-fb-style'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/outlook-india-october-12-2015-arindam-mukherjee-how-to-win-friends-fb-style</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial MediaFacebookInternet Governance2015-10-18T12:02:10ZNews ItemGovernment gives free publicity worth 40k to Twitter and Facebook
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/government-giving-free-publicity-worth-40-k-to-twitter-and-facebook
<b>We conducted a 2 week survey of newspapers for links between government advertisement to social media giants. As citizens, we should be worried about the close nexus between the Indian government and digital behemoths such as Facebook, Google and Twitter. It has become apparent to us after a 2 week print media analysis that our Government has been providing free publicity worth Rs 40,000 to these entities. There are multiple issues with this as this article attempts at pointing out.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/TotalAdvertisementExpenditure.jpg" alt="null" class="image-inline" title="Total Advertisement Expenditure" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">We analyzed 5 English language newspapers daily for 2 weeks from March 12<sup>th</sup> to 26<sup>th</sup>, one week of the newspapers in Lucknow and the second week in Bangalore. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Alphabet backed services such as Youtube and Google Plus were part of our survey. Of a total of 33 advertisements (14 in Lucknow+19 in Bangalore), Twitter stands out as the most prominent advertising platform used by government agencies with 30 ads but Facebook at 29 was more expensive. In order to ascertain the rates of publicity, current advertisement rates for Times of India as our purpose was to solely give a rough estimation of how much the government is spending.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Advertising of this nature is not merely an inherent problem of favoring some social media companies over others but also symptomatic of a bigger problem, the lack of our native e-governance mechanisms which cause the Government to rely and promote others. Where we do have guidelines they are not being followed. By outsourcing their e-governance platforms to Twitter such as TwitterSeva, a feature created by the Twitter India team to help citizens connect better with government services, there is less of an impetus to construct better <a class="external-link" href="https://factordaily.com/twitter-helping-india-reboot-public-services-publicly/">websites of their own</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">If this is so because we currently do not have the capacity to build them ourselves then it is imperative that this changes. We should either be executing government functions on digital infrastructure owned by them or on open and interoperable systems. If anything, the surveyed social media platforms can be used to enhance pre-existing facilities. However, currently the converse is true with these platforms overshadowing the presence of e-governance websites. Officials have started responding to complaints on Twitter, diluting the significance of such complaint mechanisms on their respective department’s portal. Often enough such features are not available on the relevant government website. This sets a dangerous precedent for a citizen management system as the records of such interactions are then in the hands of these companies who may not exist in the future. As a result, they can control the access to such records or worse tamper with them. Posterity and reliability of such data can be ensured only if they are stored within the Government’s reach or if they are open and public with a first copy stored on Government records which ensures transparency as well. Data portability is an important facet to this issue as well as being a right consumers should possess. It provides for support of many devices, transition to alternative technologies and lastly, makes sure that all the data like other public records will be available upon request through the Right to Information procedure. The last is vital to uphold the spirit of transparency envisioned through the RTI process since interactions of government with citizens are then under its ambit and available for disclosure for whomsoever concerned.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Secondly, such practices by the Government are enhancing the monopoly of the companies in the market effectively discouraging competition and eventually, innovation. While a certain elite strata of the population might opt for Twitter or Facebook as their mode of conveying grievance, this may not hold true for the rest of the online India population.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Picking players in a free market is in violation of technology and vendor neutrality, a practice essential in e-governance to provide a level playing field for all and competing technologies. Projecting only a few platforms as de facto mediums of communication with the government inhibits the freedom of choice of citizens to air their grievances through a vendor or technology they are comfortable with. At the same time it makes the Government a mouthpiece for such companies who are gaining free publicity and consolidating their popularity. Government apps such as the SwachBharat one which is an e-governance platform do not offer much more in terms of functionality but either reflect the website or are a less mature version of the same. This leads to the problem of fracturing with many avenues of complaining such as the website, app, Twitter etc. Consequently, the priority of the people dealing with the complaints in terms of platform of response is unsure. Will I be responded to sooner if I tweet a complaint as opposed to putting it up on the app? Having an interoperable system can solve this where the Government can have a dashboard of their various complaints and responses are then made out evenly. Twitter itself could implement this by having complaints from Facebook for example and then the Twitter Seva would be an equal platform as opposed to the current issue where only they are favored.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Recent events have illustrated how detrimental the storage of data by these giants can be in terms of privacy. Data security concerns are also a consequence of such leaks. Not only is this a long overdue call for a better data protection law but at the same time also for the Government to realize that these platforms cannot be trusted. The hiring of Cambridge Analytica to influence voters in the US elections, based on their Facebook profiles and ancillary data, effectively put the governance of the country on sale by exploiting these privacy and security issues. By basing e-governance on their backbone, India is not far from inviting trouble as well. It is unnecessary and dangerous to have a go-between for matters that pertain between an individual and state.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">As this article was being written, it was confirmed by the Election Commission that they are partnering with Facebook for the Karnataka Assemby Elections to promote activities such as encourage enrollment of Voter ID and voter participation. Initiatives like these tying the government even closer to these companies are of concern and cementing the latter’s stronghold.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>Note: Our survey data and results are attached to this post. All research was collected by Shradha Nigam, a Vth year student at NLSIU, Bangalore.</em></p>
<hr />
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">Survey Data and Results</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify;">This report is based on a survey of government advertisements in English language newspapers in relation to their use of social media platforms and dedicated websites (“<strong>Survey</strong>”). For the purpose of this report, the ambit of the social media platforms has been limited to the use of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Google Plus and Instagram. The report was prepared by Shradha Nigam, a student from National Law School of India University, Bangalore. <a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/cis-report-on-social-media">Read the full report here</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/government-giving-free-publicity-worth-40-k-to-twitter-and-facebook'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/government-giving-free-publicity-worth-40-k-to-twitter-and-facebook</a>
</p>
No publisherAkriti BopannaGoogleInstagramPrivacyTwitterYouTubeInternet GovernanceFeaturedGoogle PlusFacebookHomepage2018-04-27T09:52:26ZBlog EntryFB & Google have already monopolised Indian cyberspace
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/catch-news-asad-ali-july-3-2016-fb-and-google-have-already-monopolised-indian-cyberspace
<b>In an interview with Catch, Sunil Abraham, executive director of Center for Internet & Society, puts the recent US-India cyber relationship framework into perspective. Abraham also talks about how Indian surveillance policies are outdated and why the country has failed to check the hegemonic tendencies of companies like Facebook and Google.</b>
<p>The <a class="external-link" href="http://www.catchnews.com/science-technology/fb-google-have-already-monopolised-indian-cyberspace-1467505123.html/fullview">interview was published by Catch News</a> on July 3, 2016.</p>
<hr />
<h3 style="text-align: center; "><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/copy6_of_Sunil.png/@@images/d7f757de-b4fc-46a2-a9b3-cca0e46e32e7.png" alt="Sunil Abraham" class="image-inline" title="Sunil Abraham" /></h3>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><span class="quick_pill_news_description">US-India signed a cyber relationship framework earlier this month. Could you explain some of the takeouts that may have important implications in the near future?</span></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In the framework, both sides have made a "commitment to the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance" - in immediate practical terms that means India will accept the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) transition proposed for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). Unfortunately, as my colleague Pranesh Prakash points out "U.S. state control over the core of the internet's domain name system is not being removed by the transition that is currently underway."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India along with Brazil and other emerging powers should have insisted that the question of jurisdiction be addressed before the transition. We must remember, that the multi-stakeholder model is just a fancy name for open and participatory self-regulation by the private sector. While the multi-stakeholder model is useful as a complement to traditional state-led regulation, it cannot be used to protect human rights or ensure the security of a nation state.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[That is precisely why - the very next sentence in the announcement for the the framework for the US-India Cyber Relationship says "a recognition of the leading role for governments in cyber security matters relating to national security". This is because ICANN-style multistakeholderism requires all stakeholders to be on "equal footing" without "distinct roles and responsibilities". In other words, the governments are saying that the multistakeholder model is fine for all Internet Governance areas with the exception of Cyber Security. Given the limits of the multistakeholder model this is indeed the wise thing to do. Since American corporations dominate the Internet, US foreign policy has historically pushed for the multistakeholder model as fig leaf for forbearance and reduced foreign regulatory burden American corporations operating in other jurisdictions. Therefore India must not drink the multistakeholder cool-aid whole sale. It cannot afford a laissez-faire approach where it waits for corporations to self-regulate - it must regulate whenever public interest or human rights are harmed. In other words, it must go beyond the multistakeholder model and produce appropriate regulation where necessary. Needless to add - it must also deregulate in areas where harms don't exist. Apart from this many of the details of the announcement are positive steps that will increase security in India and the USA, and indeed the also across the world.]</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><span class="quick_pill_news_description">What are some aspects of Intellectual Property Rights that should be looked at, in the context of the framework?</span></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There is some language around Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) that should be examined carefully too. The US corporations benefit from a maximalist IP regime. But Make in India, Digital India and Startup India all depend on flexibilities to the IP regime and therefore India should refuse signing. Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) obligations like the "Digital 2 Dozen" which the US is actively proselytizing across the Pacific. If we make that mistake, we will make zero progress in indigenous security research and product development and also many other areas of our economy, health sector and education sector will be severely compromised. Therefore it would be best to keep IP rights expansion and enforcement out of the framework for the US-India Cyber Relationship.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><span class="quick_pill_news_description">The PIL seeking a ban on WhatsApp was refused by the SC recently. Encrypted messaging services like Telegram however, have been used in the past by terror groups. What's your take on such end-to-end encryption services?</span></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Privacy and security are two sides of the same coin. You cannot have one without the other. End-to-end encryption is the basis for online privacy. End-to-end encryption is a pre-requisite for many legitimate actions of law abiding citizens online such as commerce, banking, tele-medicine, protection of intellectual property, witness/source protection, client confidentiality etc. Therefore, banning end-to-end encryption would mean the death of individual privacy and national security.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">If the government wants to promote cyber security it should promote the use of end-to-end encryption amongst law abiding citizens.<br /><br />Terrorist have to be stopped through targeted profiling, surveillance and interception. Big data analytics may be useful to watch for patterns in the meta data but there is no replacement for good old fashioned police work.<br /><br />Once suspects have been identified the encrypted channels can be compromised by:</p>
<ol>
<li>Placing trojans on the end-user devices</li>
<li>Performing man-in-the-middle attacks and</li>
<li>Using brute force attacks with super computers.</li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><br />Snowden's revelations have made it very clear that blanket and mass surveillance does not help foil terror attacks or stop organised crime. So far, research and government reports from across the world indicate that only a minority of terrorists use encryption. However, this situation may change.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">We don't have any proper encryption policy under the IT Act yet. What's taking so long and what are the key points that any policy in this matter must include in future?</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">We need many different types of encryption policies. We need a policy that mandates encryption and digital signature for all government personnel and also for all government transactions. We need policies that promote research and development in cryptography and mathematics. We need to update our criminal procedure code so that encrypted communications and data can be targeted by law enforcement and used effectively in the criminal justice process.</p>
<p>However, we should not have any broad encryption policy that tries to regulate encryption as a technology. That would be a highly regressive move and will be impossible to enforce. That would breed contempt for rule of law.</p>
<h3>Surveillance and the tech around it has been contentious for various governments. Where do we stand vis-a-vis regulating surveillance measures by the state?</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Our surveillance and interception laws are outdated. They need to be modernized to deal with advancements in technology and also global developments when it comes to data protection and privacy law.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In fact, our organisation was part of a global effort called Necessary and Proportionate which identified 13 principles to modernise surveillance which are connected to various aspects such as Legality, Legitimate aim, Competent judicial authority, Integrity of communications and systems and more. Some of these principles may have to be customised for the Indian context. [For example, given the load on courts perhaps India should stay with executive authorization of interceptions and data access requests. However, getting the law correct is only half the job. For the law cannot fix what the technology has broken. Some surveillance projects are well designed. For ex. the NATGRID - from what I understand it is a standard and platform that which will allow 12 security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies to temporarily make unions of sub-sets of 21 data sources. These automated temporary databases will be created under existing data access provisions of the law. I also hope the NATGRID is also using cryptography to ensure the maintenance of a non-repudiable log that will identify all officers involved in authorizing the each request and accessing the resultant data. Unfortunately, other surveillance projects are unmitigated disasters. For example, UID or Aadhaar. Many Indians don't realize that Aadhaar is a surveillance project. Biometrics is just a fancy name for remote, covert and non-consensual identification technology. Using the UID database the government can identify every single Indian without their consent. The so called "consent layer" in the India Stack is being developed by volunteers outside the UIDAI to avoid transparency under the Right to Information Act. Nothing in the current layer of the "consent layer" allows citizens to revoke consent. There is no facility in the UID Act to delete yourself from the database. Identity information aka the UID number and authentication information aka your biometrics for about a billion Indians have been collected and stored in a centralized location. It is as if our parliamentarians have written an open letter to criminals and foreign governments says "here is the information you need to wreck whole sale damage - come and get it". Hopefully the Supreme Court will save us from this impending disaster.]</p>
<h3>With a sluggish US market, India has the biggest potential for companies like FB & Google, next only to China. Do you feel that in the quest to take over the Indian market, FB & Google are going to monopolise cyberspace in India?</h3>
<p>I have news for you - they have already monopolised Indian cyberspace. They have completely wiped out competition in certain domains.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">One of the many reasons they have done this is because we don't have laws and regulations to temper their hegemonic tendencies. For example, we could use data portability and interoperability mandates for social media to spark competition in markets where there are entrenched monopolies.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Competition law can be used to protect other firms from abuse of market power. Consumer protection law and privacy law could be used to ensure that user's rights are not compromised in the race for market share. In addition, a modern privacy law compliant with the best practices in the European Data Protection Regulation 2016, would allow emerging Indian companies to compete with giants like Facebook and Google on a level playing field. [Speaking of level playing field - only recently has the government introduced the "equalization levy". This was long overdue. Imagine the amount of tax that could have been collected so far and damage that has been done to competition. Regardless the current NDA government deserves our kudos for ensuring that Facebook and Google contribute their fair share of taxes. The new IPR Policy was also an opportunity to address the monopoly of Google and Facebook. There should have been a concerted attempt to use free/open source software, open standard and open content to bolster Indic language technologies. A billion dollars from every spectrum auction should be used to create incentives for Indian private sector, research and academic organisation who can contribute openly to the Indic cyberspace. This is the market where we can still build a highly competitive market. Today, given government inaction - millions of Indians are training Google's language platforms every time they use machine translation or speech to text technologies. This corpus of information will not be available for public interest research. Ideally we should also have Indians contributing to commons-based peer production projects like Wikipedia for their Indic language needs. Unfortunately the government totally missed this opportunity.]</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/catch-news-asad-ali-july-3-2016-fb-and-google-have-already-monopolised-indian-cyberspace'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/catch-news-asad-ali-july-3-2016-fb-and-google-have-already-monopolised-indian-cyberspace</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial MediaGoogleFacebookInternet Governance2016-07-08T15:59:46ZNews ItemFacebook: A Platform with Little Less Sharing of Personal Information
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/indian-express-nishant-shah-may-8-2016-facebook-a-platform-with-little-less-sharing-of-personal-information
<b>As Facebook becomes less personal, what happens to digital friendship?</b>
<p>The article was <a class="external-link" href="http://indianexpress.com/article/technology/social/eye-2016-facebook-social-personal-information-digital-friendship-2789325/">published in the Indian Express</a> on May 8, 2016.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="http://indianexpress.com/tag/facebook/">Facebook</a> is worried. Even though usage is growing, something strange is happening on the social network. For the first time since it started its journey as a website to rate datable people on college campuses, to becoming the global reference point that defined friendship in the connected age, people are sharing less personal information on Facebook. For a social media network that positions itself largely as a space where our everyday, banal doings become newsworthy articulations, this is surprising news. But it is true. On Facebook, the traffic is high, but most of it is now sharing of external information. People are sharing links to news, to listicles, to videos, to blogs entries, to pictures and to information that they find interesting, but they are writing less and less about what it is that they are doing and feeling.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Ironically, this coincides with the latest change in Facebook’s “response” options, where the ubiquitous “Like” button can now expand to other emojis where you can also be appropriately angry, sad, surprised, or happy about the shared content. Even as Facebook is trying to get its users to qualify how they feel and give emotional value to their likes, people seem to be sharing even less of their private lives on Facebook.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">One of the key ways of understanding this drop in people sharing their personal information is through the concept of “context collapse”. It has been a concern since the first instances of disembodied digital communication. In our everyday life, we make sense of information based on the different contexts that surround us. The person who authors the information, the setting within which that information reaches us, the emotional state that we are in when encountering the information, our sense of where we are when processing it, and the preparedness we have for receiving this information are all crucial parameters by which we make sense of the meaning of the information and also our response to it.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In the case of Facebook, the context within which information and transactions have made sense is “friendship”. The site’s USP was that you could bring in a variety of information, but you were always sharing it with friends. You could have a large audience, but this audience is formed of people you know, people you trust, people you add to your friend groups — there is a sense of intimacy, privacy, and casualness that marks the flow of information. You are able to talk, in an equal breath, about what you had for breakfast, your crush on a celebrity, your random acts of charity, and your strong political rant, one after the other, without requiring to think about what you are posting and how others will receive it.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, Facebook is not really a friendship platform. It is a company interested in selling our interactions and data to advertisers who can target us with content and information based on the patterns of our behaviour. To serve its advertisers better, Facebook started privileging “verified” information trying to ensure news and content producers higher attention and more eyeballs. This was further strengthened by their continued integration with third party vendors, who could push and pull information into the social world of Facebook, and is seen as one of the biggest reasons for this drop. Any newsfeed in the last few months has had equal amounts of professional and amateur content, leading to a context collapse, where you no longer feel like your Facebook feed is a private and intimate conversation with friends.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Similarly, Facebook’s expansive integration of its products —WhatsApp chats, Instagram updates, and Tumblr posts all can collapse into one — produced a confusing space where the personal information that you were once happy to share with your friends, is suddenly being shared along with news and information. Also, digital behaviour works on mirroring, and we often shape our updates to match what we see on our timelines. If we more and more see external content rather than personal statuses, we also start sharing more third party news and links, thus producing a domino effect of everybody shying away from extremely personal or intimate moments.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook, for the millennials, has been the context within which friendship got structured. Its own transitions have now collapsed that context, leading people to think of it as a content aggregator. It is going to be interesting to see what happens to our digital friendships and networks if Facebook is no longer the space where they are housed.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/indian-express-nishant-shah-may-8-2016-facebook-a-platform-with-little-less-sharing-of-personal-information'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/indian-express-nishant-shah-may-8-2016-facebook-a-platform-with-little-less-sharing-of-personal-information</a>
</p>
No publishernishantFacebookInternet Governance2016-06-05T02:38:22ZBlog EntryFacebook Shares 10 Key Facts about Free Basics. Here's What's Wrong with All 10 of Them.
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/facebook-shares-10-key-facts-about-free-basics-heres-whats-wrong-with-all-10-of-them
<b>Shweta Sengar of Catch News spoke to Sunil Abraham about the recent advertisement by Facebook titled "What Net Neutrality Activists won't Tell You or, the Top 10 Facts about Free Basics". Sunil argued against the validity of all the 'top 10 facts'.</b>
<p> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Facebook has rebranded internet.org as Free Basics. After suffering from several harsh blows from the net neutrality activists in India, the social media behemoth is positioning a movement in order to capture user attention.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Apart from a mammoth two page advertisement on Free Basics on 23 December in a leading English daily, we spotted a numerous hoardings across the capital.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Unlike Facebook, Wikipedia has a rather upfront approach for raising funds. You must have noticed a pop-up as you open Wikipedia when they are in need of funds. What Facebook has done is branded Free Basics as 'free' as the basic needs of life.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The newspaper advertisement by Facebook was aimed at clearing all the doubts about Free Basics. The 10 facts highlighted a connected India and urging users to take the "first step towards digital equality."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">In an interview with <em>Catch</em>, Sunil Abraham, Executive Director of Bangalore based research organisation, the Centre for Internet and Society, shared his thoughts on the controversial subject. Abraham countered each of Facebook's ten arguments. Take a look:</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote><strong>01</strong> Free basics is open to any carriers. Any mobile operator can join us in connecting India.</blockquote>
<p>Sunil Abraham: Free Basics was initially exclusive to only one telecom operator in most markets that it was available in.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The non-exclusivity was introduced only after activists in India complained. But now the arrangement is exclusive to Free Basics as a walled garden provider. But discrimination harms remain until other Internet services can also have what Facebook has from telecom operators ie. free access to their destinations.</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote><strong>02</strong> We do not charge anyone anything for Free Basics. Period.</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify;">SA: As Bruce Schneier says "surveillance is the business model of the Internet". Free basics users are subject to an additional layer of surveillance ie. the data retention by the Facebook proxy server. Just as Facebook cannot say that they are ignoring Data Protection law because Facebook is a free product - they cannot say that Free Basics can violate network neutrality law because it is a free service. For ex. Flipkart should get Flipkart Basic on all Indian ISPs and Telcos.</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote><strong>03</strong> We do not pay for the data consumed in Free Basics. Operators participate because the program has proven to bring more people online. Free Basics has brought new people onto mobile networks on average over 50% faster since launching the service.</blockquote>
<p>SA: Facebook has been quoting statistics as evidence to influence the policy formulation process. But we need the absolute numbers and we also need them to be independently verifiable. At the very least we need the means to cross verify these numbers with numbers that telcos and ISPs routinely submit to TRAI.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Theoretical harms must be addressed through net neutrality regulation. For example, you don't have to build a single, centralised database of all Indian citizens to know that it can be compromised - from a security design perspective centralisation is always a bad idea. Gatekeeping powers given to any powerful entity will be compromised. While evidence is useful, regulation can already begin based on well established regulatory principles. After scientific evidence has been made available - the regulation can be tweaked.</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote><strong>04</strong> Any developer or publisher can have their content on Free Basics. There are clear technical specs openly published here ... and we have never rejected an app or publisher who has me these tech specs.</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify;">SA: Again this was only done as a retrospective fix after network neutrality activists in India complained about exclusive arrangements. For example, the music streaming service Hungama is not a low-bandwidth destination but since it was included the technical specifications only mentions large images and video files. Many of the other sites are indistinguishable from their web equivalents clearly indicating that this was just an afterthought. At the moment Free Basics has become controversial so most developers and publishers are not approaching them so there is no way for us to verify Facebook's claim.</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote><strong>05</strong> Nearly 800 developers in India have signed their support for Free Basics.</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify;">SA: I guess these are software developers working in the services industry who don't see themselves as potential competition to Facebook or any of the services within Free Basics. Also since Facebook as been completely disingenuous when it comes to soliciting support for their campaigns it is very hard to believe these claims. It has tried to change the meaning of the phrase "net neutrality" and has framed the debate in an inaccurate manner - therefore I could quite confidently say that these developers must have been fooled into supporting Free Basics.</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote><strong>06</strong> It is not a walled garden: In India, 40% of people who come online through Free Basics are paying for data and accessing the full internet within the first 30 days. In the same time period, 8 times more people are paying versus staying on just</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify;">SA: Again, no absolute numbers and also no granularity in the data that makes it impossible for anyone to verify these numbers. Also there is no way to compare these numbers to access options that are respectful of network neutrality such as equal rating. If the numbers are roughly the same for equal rating and zero-rating then there is no strong case to be made for zero-rating.</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote><strong>07</strong> Free Basics is growing and popular in 36 other countries, which have welcomed the program with open arms and seen the enormous benefits it has brought.</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify;">SA: Free Basics was one of the most controversial topics at the last Internet Governance Forum. A gratis service is definitely going to be popular but that does not mean forbearance is the only option for the regulator. In countries with strong civil society and/or a strong regulator, Free Basics has ran into trouble. Facebook has been able to launch Free Basics only in jurisdictions where regulators are still undecided about net neutrality. India and Brazil are the last battle grounds for net neutrality and that is why Facebook is spending advertising dollar and using it's infrastructure to win the global south.</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote><strong>08</strong> In a recent representative poll, 86% of Indians supported Free Basics by Facebook, and the idea that everyone deserves access to free basic internet services.</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify;">SA: This is the poll which was framed in alarmist language where Indian were asked to choose between perpetuating or bridging the digital divide. This is a false choice that Facebook is perpetuating - with forward-looking positive Network Neutrality rules as advocated by Dr. Chris Marsden it should be possible to bridge digital divide without incurring any free speech, competition, innovation and diversity harms.</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote><strong>09</strong> In the past several days, 3.2 million people have petitioned the TRAI in support of Free Basics.</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify;">SA: Obviously - since Free Basics is better than nothing. But the real choice should have been - are you a) against network neutrality ie. would you like to see Facebook play gatekeeper on the Internet OR b) for network neutrality ie. would you like to see Free Basics forced to comply with network neutrality rules and expand access without harms to consumers and innovators.</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote><strong>10</strong> There are no ads in the version of Facebook on Free Basics. Facebook produces no revenue. We are doing this to connect India, and the benefits to do are clear.</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify;">SA: As someone who has watched the Internet economy since the first dot com boom - it is absolutely clear that consumer acquisition is as important as revenues. They are doing it to connect people to Facebook and as a result some people will also connect to the Internet. But India is the last market on the planet where the walled garden can be bigger than the Internet, and therefore Facebook is manipulating the discourse through it's dominance of the networked public sphere.</p>
<p>Bravo to TRAI and network neutrality activists for taking Facebook on.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><em>Originally published by <a href="http://www.catchnews.com/tech-news/should-facebook-become-internet-s-gatekeeper-or-free-basics-must-comply-with-net-neutrality-sunil-abraham-has-some-thoughts-1450954347.html" target="_blank">Catch News</a>, on December 24, 2015.</em></p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/facebook-shares-10-key-facts-about-free-basics-heres-whats-wrong-with-all-10-of-them'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/facebook-shares-10-key-facts-about-free-basics-heres-whats-wrong-with-all-10-of-them</a>
</p>
No publishersunilNet NeutralityFeaturedFacebookInternet GovernanceHomepage2015-12-25T14:59:10ZBlog EntryFacebook is no charity, and the ‘free’ in Free Basics comes at a price
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-conversation-january-11-2016-facebook-is-no-charity
<b>Who could possibly be against free internet access? This is the question that Mark Zuckerberg asks in a piece for the Times of India in which he claims Facebook’s Free Basics service “protects net neutrality”.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Free Basics is the rebranded Internet.org, a Facebook operation where by partnering with local telecoms firms in the developing world the firm offers free internet access – <a href="https://theconversation.com/facebooks-free-access-internet-is-limited-and-thats-raised-questions-over-fairness-36460">limited only to Facebook</a>, Facebook-owned WhatsApp, and a few other carefully selected sites and services.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Zuckerberg was responding to the strong backlash that Free Basics has faced in India, where the country’s Telecom Regulatory Authority recently <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/technology/tech-news-technology/facebook-free-basics-ban-net-neutrality-all-you-need-to-know/">pulled the plug on the operation</a> while it debates whether telecoms operators should be allowed to offer different services with variable pricing, or whether a principle of <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-uk-doesnt-need-net-neutrality-regulations-yet-38204">network neutrality</a> should be enforced.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Not content to await the regulator’s verdict, Facebook has come out swinging. It has <a href="http://mashable.com/2015/12/23/facebook-free-basics-net-neutrality-india/">paid for billboards</a>, <a href="http://techcrunch.com/2015/12/27/gatekeeper-or-stepping-stone/">full-page newspaper ads</a> and television ad campaigns to try to enforce the point that Free Basics is good for India’s poor. In his Times piece, Zuckerberg goes one step further – implying that those opposing Free Basics are actually hurting the poor.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">He argued that “for every ten people connected to the internet, roughly one is lifted out of poverty”. Without reference to supporting research, he instead offers an anecdote about a farmer called Ganesh from Maharashtra state. Ganesh apparently used Free Basics to double his crop yields and get a better deal for his crops.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Zuckerberg stressed that “critics of free basic internet services should remember that everything we’re doing is about serving people like Ganesh. This isn’t about Facebook’s commercial interests”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Zuckerberg’s indignation illustrates either how little he understands about the internet, or that he’s willing to say anything to anyone listening.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">This is not a charity</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">First, despite his <a href="http://boingboing.net/2015/12/27/facebooks-fuddy-full-page-a.html">claims to the contrary</a> Free Basics clearly runs against the idea of net neutrality by offering access to some sites and not others. While the service is claimed to be open to any app, site or service, in practice the <a href="https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/platform-technical-guidelines">submission guidelines</a> forbid JavaScript, video, large images, and Flash, and effectively rule out secure connections using HTTPS. This means that Free Basics is able to read all data passing through the platform. The same rules don’t apply to Facebook itself, ensuring that it can be the only social network, and (Facebook-owned) WhatsApp the only messaging service, provided.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Yes, Free Basics is free. But how appealing is a taxi company that will only take you to certain destinations, or an electricity provider that will only power certain home electrical devices? There are <a href="https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2015/05/05/mozilla-view-on-zero-rating/">alternative models</a>: in Bangladesh, <a href="http://m.grameenphone.com/">Grameenphone</a> gives users free data after they watch an advert. In some African countries, users get free data after buying a handset.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Second, there is no convincing body of peer-reviewed evidence to suggest internet access lifts the world’s poor out of poverty. Should we really base telecommunications policy on an anecdote and a <a href="https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/ie/Documents/TechnologyMediaCommunications/2014_uk_tmt_value_of_connectivity_deloitte_ireland.pdf">self-serving industry report</a> sponsored by the firm that stands to benefit? India has a <a href="http://indiatribune.com/indias-literacy-level-is-74-2011-census-2/">literacy rate of 74%</a>, of which a much smaller proportion speak English well enough to read it. Literate English speakers and readers tend not to be India’s poorest citizens, yet it’s English that is the predominant language on the web. This suggests Free Basics isn’t suited for India’s poorest, who’d be better served by more voice and video services.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Third, the claim that Free Basics isn’t in Facebook’s commercial interest is the most outrageous. In much the same way that <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/nestle-baby-milk-scandal-food-industry-standards">Nestlé offered free baby formula in the 1970s</a> as development assistance to low-income countries – leaving nursing mothers unable to produce sufficient milk themselves – Free Basics is likely to impede commercial alternatives.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">By offering free access Free Basics disrupts the market, allowing Facebook to gain a monopoly that can benefit from the network effects of a growing user base. Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society, in India, has <a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/facebook-shares-10-key-facts-about-free-basics-heres-whats-wrong-with-all-10-of-them">aptly noted</a> that expanding audience and consumer bases have long been as important as revenues for internet firms. Against Facebook’s immensely deep pockets and established user-base, homegrown competitors are thwarted before they even begin.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">Poverty consists of more than just no internet</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India will not always have low levels of internet access, this is not the issue – in fact Indian internet penetration growth rates <a href="http://geonet.oii.ox.ac.uk/blog/changing-internet-access/">are relatively high</a>. Instead the company sees Free Basics as a means to establish a bridgehead into the country, establishing a monopoly before other firms move in.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There is decades of <a href="http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/">research</a> about how best to help farmers like Ganesh: access to good quality education, healthcare, and water all could go a long way. But even if we see internet access as one of the key needs to be met, why would we then offer a restricted version?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In presenting Free Basics as an act of altruism Zuckerberg tries to silence criticism. “Who could possibly be against this?”, he asks:</p>
<blockquote style="text-align: justify; ">
<p>What reason is there for denying people free access to vital services for communication, education, healthcare, employment, farming and women’s rights?</p>
</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">That is the right question, but Free Basics is the wrong answer. Let’s call a spade a spade and see Free Basics as an important part of the business strategy of one of the world’s largest internet corporations, rather than as a selfless act of charity.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-conversation-january-11-2016-facebook-is-no-charity'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-conversation-january-11-2016-facebook-is-no-charity</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFree BasicsFreedom of Speech and ExpressionFacebookInternet Governance2016-01-30T11:32:47ZNews ItemFacebook is censoring some posts on Indian Kashmir
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/washington-post-july-27-2016-rama-lakshmi-facebook-is-censoring-some-posts-on-indian-kashmir
<b>Film makers, activists and journalists accused Facebook of blocking their accounts this week after they posted messages and images related to the violence in the trouble-torn province of Kashmir. In recent weeks, the India administered, Muslim-majority Kashmir state has been facing violence and curfews after protests erupted against the killing of a popular leader of a terrorist group.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Rama Lakshmi was published by <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/07/27/facebook-is-censoring-posts-on-indian-kashmir-some-say/">Washington Post</a> on July 27. Sunil Abraham was quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As people posted images, videos and stories about police violence and people injured by<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/07/12/in-kashmir-indian-security-forces-use-pellet-guns-that-often-blind-protesters/">pellet<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></a>wounds on Facebook, some discovered their accounts were disabled. On Monday, the account of Arif Ayaz Parrey, an editor with an environmental magazine in New Delhi, was disabled for more than a day. He administers the Facebook account of a discussion group called the Kashmir Solidarity Network, whose page was also removed.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“The Kashmir Solidarity page was started by a Kashmiri anthropology student in New York. This is not a hate forum, we share stories,” Parrey said. More than 47 people have died and hundreds injured in angry clashes between the police and protesters in Kashmir this month, the worst outbreak of bloody violence in six years in the region claimed by both India and neighboring Pakistan.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“Our Community Standards prohibit content that praises or supports terrorists, terrorist organizations or terrorism, and we remove it as soon as we’re made aware of it,” said a Facebook spokesman in India. “We welcome discussion on these subjects but any terrorist content has to be clearly put in a context which condemns these organizations or their violent activities.”India and the United States topped the list of governments that<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2016/04/29/facebook-receives-highest-ever-number-of-requests-for-indian-user-data/">request</a>Facebook for details of accounts in the second half of 2015.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India has more than 340 million mobile Internet users and has the second largest number of Facebook users after the United States. The company is seeking to expand its footprint here by introducing a<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/indian-telecom-regulator-bans-facebooks-free-internet-for-the-poor/2016/02/08/561fc6a7-e87d-429d-ab62-7cdec43f60ae_story.html">pared</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>down version called “Free Basics.” But earlier this year, New Delhi shot it down, saying service providers cannot charge discriminatory prices for Internet users.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A journalist in Kashmir said that many who shared stories about a new band of militants and videos of police brutality have been blocked. “It looks more like Facebook censorship rather than something initiated by the government. Maybe they are trying to please the government proactively,” said Sunil Abraham, executive director of Center for Internet and Society. “Nevertheless it will have a chilling effect. You will think twice before exercising free speech on Facebook now.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Ather Zia, a political commentator from Kashmir who teaches anthropology at the University of Northern Colorado, said after her account was disabled on Tuesday: "It is safe to assume creating awareness for Kashmir using social media or writing about the ground reality is under severe threat." Meanwhile, users struggled to restore their accounts on Wednesday as they uploaded new documents requested by the company.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“I use my Facebook account not as a personal page to tell people about my last haircut or last holiday. I use it for work, I share media stories about whatever bothers me in the universe,” said Sanjay Kak, a documentary film maker whose account was disabled Tuesday. “Nothing I shared can be considered inflammatory or incendiary.”</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/washington-post-july-27-2016-rama-lakshmi-facebook-is-censoring-some-posts-on-indian-kashmir'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/washington-post-july-27-2016-rama-lakshmi-facebook-is-censoring-some-posts-on-indian-kashmir</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFacebookInternet Governance2016-07-28T03:03:53ZNews ItemFacebook and its Aversion to Anonymous and Pseudonymous Speech
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/facebook-and-its-aversion-to-anonymous-and-pseudonymous-speech
<b>Jessamine Mathew explores Facebook's "real name" policy and its implications for the right to free speech. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The power to be unidentifiable on the internet has been a major reason for its sheer number of users. Most of the internet can now be freely used by anybody under a pseudonym without the fear of being recognised by anybody else. These conditions allow for the furtherance of free expression and protection of privacy on the internet, which is particularly important for those who use the internet as a medium to communicate political dissent or engage in any other activity which would be deemed controversial in a society yet not illegal. For example, an internet forum for homosexuals in India, discussing various issues which surround homosexuality may prove far more fruitful if contributors are given the option of being undetectable, considering the stigma that surrounds homosexuality in India, and the recent setting-aside of the Delhi High Court decision reading down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. The possibility of being anonymous or pseudonymous exists on many internet fora but on Facebook, the world’s greatest internet space for building connections and free expression, there is no sanction given to pseudonymous accounts as Facebook follows a real name policy. And as the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/technology/facebook-battles-manhattan-da-over-warrants-for-user-data.html?_r=0">recent decision</a> of a New York judge, disallowing Facebook from contesting warrants on private information of over 300 of its users, shows, there are clear threats to freedom of expression and privacy.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On the subject of using real names, Facebook’s Community Standards states, “Facebook is a community where people use their real identities. We require everyone to provide their real names, so you always know who you're connecting with. This helps keep our community safe.” Facebook’s Marketing Director, Randi Zuckerberg, <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2019544/Facebook-director-Randi-Zuckerberg-calls-end-internet-anonymity.html">bluntly dismissed</a> the idea of online anonymity as one that “has to go away” and that people would “behave much better” if they are made to use their real names. Apart from being a narrow-minded statement, she fails to realise that there are many different kinds of expression on the internet, from stories of sexual abuse victims to the views of political commentators, or indeed, whistleblowers, many of whom may prefer to use the platform without being identified. It has been decided in many cases that humans have a right to anonymity as it provides for the furtherance of free speech without the fear of retaliation or humiliation (<i>see </i>Talley v. California).<i> </i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While Facebook’s rationale behind wanting users to register for accounts with their own names is based on the goal of maintaining the security of other users, it is still a serious infraction on users’ freedom of expression, particularly when anonymous speech has been protected by various countries. Facebook has evolved from a private space for college students to connect with each other to a very public platform where not just social connections but also discussions take place, often with a heavily political theme. Facebook has been described as <a href="http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/facebook-and-twitter-key-to-arab-spring-uprisings-report">instrumental</a> in the facilitation of communication during the Arab Spring, providing a space for citizens to effectively communicate with each other and organise movements. Connections on Facebook are no longer of a purely social nature but have extended to political and legal as well, with it being used to promote movements all through the country. Even in India, Facebook was the <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/news/Facebook-Twitter-Google-change-face-of-Indian-elections/articleshow/34721829.cms">most widely adopted medium</a>, along with Twitter and Facebook, for discourse on the political future of the country during, before and after the 2014 elections. Earlier in 2011, Facebook was <a href="https://cis-india.org/news/web2.0-responds-to-hazare">used intensively</a> during the India Against Corruption movement. There were pages created, pictures and videos uploaded, comments posted by an approximate of 1.5 million people in India. In 2012, Facebook was also used to <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/social-media/Delhi-gang-rape-case-FacebookTwitter-fuels-rally-at-India-Gate/articleshow/17741529.cms">protest against the Delhi gang rape</a> with many coming forward with their own stories of sexual assault, providing support to the victim, organising rallies and marches and protesting about the poor level of safety of women in Delhi.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Much like its content policy, Facebook exhibits a number of discrepancies in the implementation of the anonymity ban. Salman Rushdie found that his Facebook account had been <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/15/technology/hiding-or-using-your-name-online-and-who-decides.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0">suspended</a> and when it was reinstated after he sent them proof of identity, Facebook changed his name to the name on his passport, Ahmed Rushdie instead of the name he popularly goes by. Through a series of tweets, he criticised this move by Facebook, forcing him to display his birth name. Eventually Facebook changed his name back to Salman Rushdie but not before serious questions were raised regarding Facebook’s policies. The Moroccan activist Najat Kessler’s account was also <a href="https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CD8QFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjilliancyork.com%2F2010%2F04%2F08%2Fon-facebook-deactivations%2F&ei=O1KxU-fwH8meugSZ74HgAg&usg=AFQjCNE7oUt2dyrSjpTskK7Oz3Q1OYXudg&sig2=bsOu46nmABTUhArhdjDCVw&bvm=bv.69837884,d.c2E">suspended</a> as it was suspected that she was using a fake name. Facebook has also not just stopped at suspending individual user accounts but has also removed pages and groups because the creators used pseudonyms to create and operate the pages in question. This was seen in the case of Wael Ghonim who created a group which helped in mobilizing citizens in Egypt in 2011. Ghonim was a Google executive who did not want his online activism to affect his professional life and hence operated under a pseudonym. Facebook temporarily <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/how-wael-ghonim-sparked-egypts-uprising-68727">removed</a> the group due to his pseudonymity but later reinstated it.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While Facebook performs its due diligence when it comes to some accounts, it has still done nothing about the overwhelmingly large number of obviously fake accounts, ranging from Santa Claus to Jack the Ripper. On my own Facebook friend list, there are people who have entered names of fictional characters as their own, clearly violating the real name policy. I once reported a pseudonymous account that used the real name of another person. Facebook thanked me for reporting the account but also said that I will “probably not hear back” from them. The account still exists with the same name. The redundancy of the requirement lies in the fact that Facebook does not request users to upload some form identification when they register with the site but only when they suspect them to be using a pseudonym. Since Facebook also implements its policies largely only on the basis of complaints by other users or the government, the real name policy makes many political dissidents and social activists the target of abuse on the internet.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Further, Articles 21 and 22 of the ICCPR grant all humans the right to free and peaceful assembly. As governments increasingly crack down on physical assemblies of people fighting for democracy or against legislation or conditions in a country, the internet has proved to be an extremely useful tool for facilitating this assembly without forcing people to endure the wrath of governmental authorities. A large factor which has promoted the popularity of internet gatherings is the way in which powerful opinions can be voice without the fear of immediate detection. Facebook has become the coveted online space for this kind of assembly but their policies and more particularly, faulty implementation of the policies, lead to reduced flows of communication on the site.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Of course, Facebook’s fears of cyberbullying and harassment are likely to materialise if there is absolutely no check on the identity of users. A possible solution to the conflict between requiring real names to keep the community safe and still allowing individuals to be present on the network without the fear of identification by anybody would be to ask users to register with their own names but still allowing them to create a fictional name which would be the name that other Facebook users can see. Under this model, Facebook can also deal with the issue of safety through their system of reporting against other users. If a pseudonymous user has been reported by a substantial number of people for harassment or any other cause, then Facebook may either suspend the account or remove the content that is offensive. If the victim of harassment chooses to approach a judicial body, then Facebook may reveal the real name of the user so that due process may be followed. At the same time, users who utilise the website to present their views and participate in the online process of protest or contribute to free expression in any other way can do so without the fear of being detected or targeted. Safety on the site can be maintained even without forcing users to reveal their real names to the world. The system that Facebook follows currently does not help curb the presence of fake accounts and neither does it promote completely free expression on the site.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/facebook-and-its-aversion-to-anonymous-and-pseudonymous-speech'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/facebook-and-its-aversion-to-anonymous-and-pseudonymous-speech</a>
</p>
No publisherJessamine MathewSocial MediaPrivacyFreedom of Speech and ExpressionFacebookChilling EffectAnonymityPseudonimityArticle 19(1)(a)2014-07-04T07:53:07ZBlog EntryElection Experiment Proves Facebook Just Doesn't Care About Fake News In India
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/huffington-post-visvak-may-30-2018-election-experiment-proves-facebook-just-doesnt-care-about-fake-news-in-india
<b>Much-hyped fact-checking initiative identified only 30 bits of fake news in month-long Karnataka campaign. Yup — 30!</b>
<p>The article by Visvak was published in <a class="external-link" href="https://www.huffingtonpost.in/2018/05/30/election-experiment-proves-facebook-just-doesnt-care-about-fake-news-in-india_a_23446483/">Huffington Post</a> on May 30, 2018. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On April 16, a little less than a month before Karnataka went to the polls, Facebook <a href="https://newsroom.fb.com/news/h/announcing-third-party-fact-checking-in-india/">announced</a> a partnership with Boom Live, an Indian fact-checking website, to fight fake news during the Karnataka assembly polls.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Five days before the partnership was announced, an embattled Mark Zuckerberg stood before the the US Congress. Under fire for having allowed his platform to be used to manipulate elections, he <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/09/transcript-mark-zuckerberg-testimony-to-congress-on-cambridge-analytica-509978">declared</a> that his company would do everything it could to protect the integrity of elections in India and elsewhere.</p>
<p>Facebook's press-release promised as much:</p>
<p class="callout" style="text-align: justify; ">We have learned that once a story is rated as false, we have been able to reduce its distribution by 80%, and thereby improve accuracy of information on Facebook and reduce misinformation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Yet, the pilot project in Karnataka suggests Facebook has a long way to go to keep Zuckerberg's promise. In an election cycle <a href="https://www.thequint.com/news/webqoof/fake-news-karnataka-assembly-election-2018-jihadi-murder">widely</a> <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/state/fake-news-rains-karnataka-goes-polls-669470.html">acknowledged</a> as rife with misinformation, fake polls and surveys, communally coloured rumours, and blatant lies peddled by campaigners, rating stories as "false" proved to be so difficult and time consuming that the Facebook partnership was only able to debunk 30 pieces of misinformation — 25 in the run-up to the polls, and 5 in the immediate aftermath — in the month long campaign.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The much-ballyhooed partnership added up to a small financial contribution from Facebook that allowed Boom to hire two fact-checkers, one in its offices in Mumbai and one based on the ground in Bengaluru, specifically to track the election. The fact-checkers were also given access to a Facebook dashboard that could be used to discover and counter misinformation on the platform.</p>
<p>Boom did not reveal the sum involved or allow HuffPost India access to the dashboard, citing a non-disclosure agreement. Facebook's representatives declined comment on a detailed questionnaire sent to them.</p>
<h2>A Gushing Sewer of Fake News</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Globally, Facebook's fact-checking initiative is a little over a year old, but the partnership with Boom marks its advent in India, the company's largest market.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"It's a late start, a very late start." says Pratik Sinha, co-founder of AltNews, another prominent fact-checking website. "But they're doing something now, which is good."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Yet Govindraj Ethiraj, Founder-Editor of Boom Live, said the social networking giant's contribution to their fact-checking efforts was of limited utility. "Facebook's involvement didn't really help us," he said. "This was more about us helping them."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Ethiraj identified Facebook-owned WhatsApp as the primary medium for the propagation of fake news during the Karnataka election. Each of the three major parties in the fray <a href="https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/fighting-fake-news-inside-karnatakas-virtual-campaign-trail-81042">reportedly</a> set up tens of thousands of groups on the platform in an effort to spread their message. Facebook is yet to figure out a way to allow fact-checkers into the platform without breaking the end-to-end encryption which makes it impossible for messages to be tracked.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">But even on Facebook, which lends itself far more easily to tracking and monitoring, the tools that the company has built to track fake news are not particularly effective.</p>
<blockquote class="quoted" style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook allows advertisers to micro-target content at users using specific attributes, and users are unlikely to report content that agrees with their ideological biases.</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In his office in the aging Sun Mill Compound in Mumbai's Lower Parel, Jency Jacob, Managing Editor of Boom logged into the dashboard and scrolled through the gushing sewer of user-flagged content pouring in from around the world: stories about dinosaur remains and ancient caves, tales of celebrities battling mysterious diseases, and ordinary people undergoing plastic surgeries to look like celebrities, mixed in with news – both real and fake – that users found objectionable. There's one about the rise in fuel prices and there's even a <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.in/2018/05/21/video-dalit-man-tied-flogged-beaten-to-death-in-gujarat-say-media-reports_a_23439751/">Huffpost India story</a>, about a Dalit being flogged to death in Gujarat. (The HuffPost India story, the editorial board can affirm, is true.)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"I can't claim that it doesn't affect me," admitted Jacob. "This morning, the first thing I saw after waking up was a video of a woman kicking a 3-year-old baby and slamming her on the ground. We are in the rush of it right now, but I don't think we will enjoy doing this all our lives."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"A lot of it is dependent on how users are reporting," Jacob continued, explaining that the dashboard tool relies on users to flag potentially "fake" news. "If the users aren't reporting it, it isn't going to come into the queue."</p>
<p>This is a blind spot as Facebook <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/05/14/technology/facebook-ads-congress.html">allows advertisers to micro-target</a> content at users using specific attributes, and users are unlikely to report content that agrees with their ideological biases.</p>
<h2>Everything But English</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook's dashboard cannot be used to report non-English content. In India, local language users outnumber English language users and more are coming online every day. The dashboard is also unable to filter stories relevant to a specific location, despite Facebook allowing advertisers to geo-target their advertisements with reasonable accuracy.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Jacob reckons the tool will get better at dealing with the Indian context over time. "This was always intended to be a pilot project. It will take them time to figure out how to get us more relevant leads," he said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">With not much help forthcoming from Facebook, Boom relied on its own tried and tested methods of tracking misinformation. Its fact-checkers monitored pages and websites known to be potential sources of fake news, told friends and family to forward anything suspicious they came across, and maintained their own reporting channel - a dedicated WhatsApp helpline for users to direct suspicious looking links.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">These methods threw up about 4-5 actionable leads every day. To fact-check them, Boom deployed a combination of old school journalistic practices, such as getting fact-checkers to call sources, and tech tools like video and image matching software.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Fact-checking is a painstaking process that involves a great deal of manual effort.</p>
<p class="callout" style="text-align: justify; ">"The way we measure virality is a bit of a crude method. We check whether several of us have received it or not, and whether it is being shared on all three platforms."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"Essentially, we are saying what we are saying is true, don't believe others," said Sinha. "That's a very arrogant position to take. To say that in a world full of information, there has to be a process where we take the audience from the claim to the truth. Gathering the information required to do that takes a lot of time."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">According to Jacob, it sometimes takes 2-3 people working all day to fact-check a single video. And Boom only has 6 fact-checkers in all, including the two Facebook-funded hires. Given these constraints, they could act on only a fraction of the tip-offs.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"We were not looking at volume, but at impact," said Jacob, indicating that they focused their attention on misinformation that was going viral. "The way we measure virality is a bit of a crude method. We check whether several of us have received it or not, and whether it is being shared on all three platforms."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Jacob admits that there were many more stories that they could have tackled, but he says that it was impossible to address them all with the limited resources available to them.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sinha reckons that Facebook already has the technology to significantly alleviate the manpower issue. "If you upload a video to Facebook and there's a copyright violation, they pull the video. So they know how to match videos. If they leverage that technology and apply it to fake news, it'll reduce the mundane work we have to do by half," he said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While Facebook's contribution to Boom's sourcing and fact-checking processes was minimal, it does seem to have had a significant impact on how fact-checks were disseminated. The Facebook dashboard allows fact-checkers to <a href="https://www.facebook.com/facebookmedia/get-started/fact-checking">tag content with ratings</a> ranging from 'true' to 'false' with a few options in between and also attach their fact-check articles to the content. The platform then attempts to reduce distribution of the content and display the fact-check article to users whenever they encounter it on the news feed or attempt to share it.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">Major Victory</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This system claimed its first major victory within a week of the partnership being announced when several major media outlets including NDTV India, India Today and Republic published a list of purported star campaigners for the Congress party that turned out to be fabricated.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Boom rated the articles false and linked their <a href="https://www.boomlive.in/news-websites-report-fake-list-of-congress-star-campaigners-for-karnataka-polls/">fact-check</a>. Jacob could not verify if this reduced the articles' distribution by the 80% figure <a href="http://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/05/hard-questions-false-news/">touted</a> by Facebook, but said there was a clear impact.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"NDTV India carried the story and we noticed that their traffic dropped after we linked our fact-check to their article," said Jacob. With traffic plummeting and users being shown fake news warnings when interacting with their content, most of the media houses that published the list either issued clarifications or took their articles down.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">After the initial success, Boom quickly ran into the limitations of the ratings system. Fact-checks could only be done on links and not on image, video, or text posts. Facebook eventually granted Boom access to image and video posts, but text posts are still beyond the purview of fact-checkers.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While that change was likely a simple fix that only required a switch to be flipped, there are other restrictions on the ratings system that are unlikely to be lifted as easily.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">From the beginning of the election cycle, false statements by prominent politicians - including the Prime Minister - were an everyday affair. As is the norm, they were faithfully reported by most media outlets without critique or context. Misinformation masquerading as opinion, wherein a set of legimitate facts are presented out of context to arrive at a blatantly false conclusion, was also a persistent feature during the polls. Such articles add to the whirlwind of campaign misinformation, but are exempted from the rating system.</p>
<p class="callout" style="text-align: justify; ">"Facebook needs to figure out a more aggressive model of showing the explanatory article to the reader."</p>
<p>Sinha believes that misinformation that falls into these grey areas cannot be laid at Facebook's door.</p>
<p>But Pranesh Prakash, Fellow at the Centre for Internet and Society, said such restrictions were "extraordinarily stupid."</p>
<p>"As long as the distinction is made that the publication isn't msiquoting and the politician is saying something that is false - and that's easy enough to do - I can't think of a possible justification," he said, regarding false statements made by public figures.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As for misleading opinion pieces Prakash said, "Most falsehoods are not just statements that present incorrect facts, but that present facts in an incorrect context. It's clearly the context that speaks to how people interpret facts. Fact checkers can't be people who only look at facts as black and white things."</p>
<p>Facebook's suggested method of dealing with such articles is to attach fact-check articles to them while assigning them a 'not eligible' rating. Jacob reckons that this is yet another blind spot.</p>
<p>"Facebook needs to figure out a more aggressive model of showing the explanatory article to the reader. The way it is designed now, with the article showing up below as a related link, not many people will bother to go and click on that."</p>
<h2>The Whatsapp Problem</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">For all its flaws, the fact-checking initiative appears to be making an attempt at solving the problem of misinformation on Facebook's news feed. But the company hasn't even begun to address the 800-pound gorilla that is WhatsApp.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While Facebook has been castigated for playing fast and loose with privacy on its primary platform, the inherently better privacy features of the fully-encrypted Whatsapp platform have made it lethal when it comes to fake news. The lack of third party access, which has prevented Facebook from monetising WhatsApp chats - thus far - and security agencies from spying on them, has also made Whatsapp messages impossible to fact-check.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In Karnataka, WhatsApp was the primary vector for the spread of a series of fake polls, some of which were eventually picked up and published by mainstream media outlets. Unlike fake news that emerges on the Facebook and Twitter, it is impossible to trace the source of misinformation on Whatsapp.</p>
<blockquote class="quoted" style="text-align: justify; ">"Just as spam can be flagged and people can be barred if they're flagged as spammers, similarly, if people have been flagged as serial promoters of fake news, you can use that to nudge people's behaviour."</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"If Whatsapp had a trending list, our jobs would've been a lot easier," lamented Jacob. "By and large, we have figured out what goes viral on Facebook and Twitter. It might take a day to reach us, but eventually we catch anything that's going viral on these platforms. But Whatsapp is a black box."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Prakash asserts that while encryption is a barrier, it does not make it impossible to police fake news on WhatApp. "Just as spam can be flagged and people can be barred if they're flagged as spammers, similarly, if people have been flagged as serial promoters of fake news, you can use that to nudge people's behaviour."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There are indications that WhatsApp is attempting to develop features to tackle fake news. The platform has beta-tested features that would clearly <a href="https://wabetainfo.com/whatsapp-beta-for-android-2-18-67-whats-new/">identify</a>forwarded messages and <a href="https://wabetainfo.com/whatsapp-is-studying-some-methods-to-prevent-spam/">warn</a> users if a message has been forwarded more than 25 times. Jacob said that Facebook was working on a product that would throw up fact-check articles when a user interacts with a fake news URL on WhatsApp. If or when any of these features actually make it to users is a matter of conjecture.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Prakash said the slow pace of progress on WhatsApp is just a reflection of the company's priorities. "It speaks to how American a company a Facebook is. Whatsapp is the real network for fake news in India, but it gets the least amount of attention."</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/huffington-post-visvak-may-30-2018-election-experiment-proves-facebook-just-doesnt-care-about-fake-news-in-india'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/huffington-post-visvak-may-30-2018-election-experiment-proves-facebook-just-doesnt-care-about-fake-news-in-india</a>
</p>
No publisherAdminSocial MediaFacebookInternet Governance2018-05-31T22:56:48ZNews ItemDoes the Safe-Harbor Program Adequately Address Third Parties Online?
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/does-the-safe-harbor-program-adequately-address-third-parties-online
<b>While many citizens outside of the US and EU benefit from the data privacy provisions the Safe Harbor Program, it remains unclear how successfully the program can govern privacy practices when third-parties continue to gain more rights over personal data. Using Facebook as a site of analysis, I will attempt to shed light on the deficiencies of the framework for addressing the complexity of data flows in the online ecosystem. </b>
<p>To date, the EU-US Safe Harbor Program leads in governing
the complex and multi-directional flows of personal information online. As commerce began to thrive in the online
context, the European Union was faced with the challenge of ensuring that personal
information exchanged through online services were granted
levels of protect on par with provisions set out in EU privacy law. This was important, notably as the piecemeal
and sectoral approach to privacy legislation in the United states was deemed incompatible
with the EU approach. While the Safe
Harbor program did not aim to protect the privacy of citizens outside of the
European Union per say, the program has in practice set minimum standards for
online data privacy due to the international success of American online
services.</p>
<p>While many citizens outside of the US and EU benefit from
the Safe Harbor Program, it remains unclear how successful the program will be in an
online ecosystem where third-parties are being granted increasingly more rights
over the data they receive from first parties.
Using Facebook as a site of analysis, I will attempt to shed light on
the deficiencies of the framework for addressing the complexity of data flows
in the online ecosystem. First, I will argue
that the safe harbor program does not do enough to ensure that participants are
held reasonably responsible third party privacy practices. Second, I will argue that the information
asymmetries created between first party sites, citizens, and governance bodies
vis-à-vis third parties obscures the application of the Safe Harbor Model.</p>
<p><strong>The EU-US
Safe-Harbor Agreement</strong></p>
<p>In 1995, and based on earlier <a href="http://www.oecd.org/document/18/0,3343,en_2649_34255_1815186_1_1_1_1,00.html">OECD
guidelines</a>, the EU Data Directive on the “protection of individuals with
regard to the processing of personal data and the free movement of such data”
was passed<a name="_ednref1" href="#_edn1"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a> [1]. The original purpose of the EU Privacy
Directive was not only to increase privacy protection within the European
Union, but to also promote trade liberalization and a single integrated market
in the EU. After the Data Directive was
passed, each member state of the EU incorporated the principles of
the directive into national laws accordingly. </p>
<p>While the Directive was successful in harmonizing data
privacy in the European Union, it also embodied extraterritorial
provisions, giving in reach<a name="_ednref2" href="#_edn2"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a> beyond the EU. Article 25 of the Directive states that the
EU commission may ban data transfers to third countries that do not ensure “an
adequate level of protect’ of data privacy rights<a name="_ednref3" href="#_edn3"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a> [2]. Also, Article 26 of the Directive, expanding
on Article 25, states that personal data cannot be <em>transferred </em>to a country that “does not ensure an adequate level of
protection” if the data controller does not enter into a contract that adduces
adequate privacy safeguards<a name="_ednref4" href="#_edn4"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a> [3].
</p>
<p>In light of the increased occurrence of cross-border
information flows, the Data Directive itself was not effective enough to ensure that
privacy principles were enforced outside of the EU. Articles 25 and 26 of the Directive had essentially deemed all cross-border data-flows to the US in contravention of EU privacy law. Therefor, the EU-US Safe-Harbor was established by the
EU Council and the US Department of Commerce as a way of mending the variant
levels of privacy protection set out in these jurisdictions, while also promoting
online commerce. </p>
<p><strong>Social Networking
Sites and the Safe-Harbor Principles</strong></p>
<p>The case of social networking sites exemplifies the ease
with which data is transferred, processed, and stored between jurisdictionas. While many of the top social networking sites
are registered American entities, they continue to attract users not only from
the EU, but also internationally. In agreement
to the EU law, many social networking sites, including LinkedIn, Facebook,
Myspace, and Bebo, now adhere to the principles of the program. The enforcement of the Safe Harbor takes
place in the United States in accordance with U.S. law and relies, to a great
degree, on enforcement by the private sector.
TRUSTe, an independent certification program and dispute mechanism, has become the most popular governance mechanism for the safe harbor program
among social networking sites. </p>
<p>Drawing broadly on the principles embodied within the EU
Data Directive and the OECD Guidelines, the seven principles of the Safe-Harbor
were developed. These principles include
Notice, Choice, Onward Transfer, Access and Accuracy, Security, Data Integrity
and Enforcement. The principle of “Notice”
sets out that organizations must inform individuals about the purposes for
which it collects and uses information about them, how to contact the
organization with any inquiries or complaints, the types of third parties to
which it disclosures the information, and the choices and means the organization
offers individuals for limiting its use and disclosure. </p>
<p>“Choice” ensures that individuals have the opportunity to
choose to opt out whether their personal information is disclosed to a third
party, and to ensure that information is not used for purposes incompatible with the purposes for
which it was originally collected. The
“Onward Transfer” principle ensures that third parties receiving information
subscribes to the Safe Harbor principles, is subject to the Directive, or
enters into a written agreement which requires that the third party provide at
least the same level of privacy protection as is requires by the relevant
principles.</p>
<p>The principles of “Security” and “Data Integrity” seek to
ensure that reasonable precautions are taken to protect the loss or misuse of
data, and that information is not used in a manner which is incompatible with
the purposes for it is has been collected—minimizing the risk that personal
information would be misused or abused.
Individuals are also granted the right, through the access principle, to
view the personal information about them that an organization holds, and to
ensure that it is up-to-date and accurate.
The “Enforcement” principle works to ensure that an effective mechanism
for assuring compliance with the principles, and that there are consequences
for the organization when the principles are not followed.</p>
<p>The principles of the program are rather quite clear and
enforceable in the first party context, despite some prevailing ambiguities. The privacy policies of most social
networking services have become increasingly clear and straightforward since
their inception. Facebook, for example,
has revamped its <a href="http://www.facebook.com/privacy/explanation.php">privacy
regime</a> several times, and gives explicit notice to users how their
information is being used. The privacy
policy also explains the relationship between third parties and your personal information—including
how it may be used by advertisers, search engines, and fellow members. </p>
<p>With respect to third party advertisers, principles of
“choice” are clearly granted by most social networking services. For example, the <a href="http://www.networkadvertising.org/">Network Advertising Initiative</a>, a
self-regulatory initiative of the online advertising industry, clearly lists
its member websites and allows individuals to opt out of any targeted
advertising conducted by its members. In
Facebook’s description of “cookies” in their privacy policy, a direct link to NAI’s
opt out features is given, allowing individuals to make somewhat informed
choices about their participation in such programs. This point is, of course, in light of the
fact that most users do not read or understand the privacy policies provided by
social networking sites<a name="_ednref5" href="#_edn5"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a> [4].
It is also important to note that Google—a major player in the online
advertising business, does not grant users of Buzz and Orkut the same “opt-out”
options as sites such as Facebook and Bebo.</p>
<p>Under the auspices of the US Federal Trade Commission, the
Safe Harbor Program has also successfully investigated and settled several
privacy-related breaches which have taken place on social networking sites. Of the most famous cases is <a href="http://www.beaconclasssettlement.com/">Lane et al. v. Facebook et al.</a>,
which was a class action suit brought against Facebook’s Beacon Advertising
program. The US Federal Trade Commission
was quick to insight an investigation of the program after many privacy groups
and individuals became critical of its questionable advertising practices. The Beacon program was designed to allow
Facebook users to share information with their friends about actions taken on
affiliated, third party sites. This had included,
for example, the movie rentals a user had made through the Blockbuster website. </p>
<p>The Plaintiffs filed a suit, alleging that Facebook and its
affiliates did not give users adequate notice and choice about Beacon and the
collection and use of users’ personal information. The Beacon program was ultimately found to
be in breach of US law, including the <a href="http://epic.org/privacy/vppa/">Video
Privacy Protection Act</a>, which bans the disclosure of personally identifiable
rental information. Facebook has
announced the settlement of the lawsuit, not bringing individual settlements,
but a marked end to the program and the development of a 9.5 million dollar <a href="http://www.p2pnet.net/story/37119">Facebook Privacy Fund</a> dedicated to
privacy and data-related issues. Other privacy
related investigations of social networking sites launched by the FTC under the
Safe Harbor Program include Facebook’s <a href="http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/facebooks-new-privacy-changes-good-bad-and-ugly">privacy
changes</a> in late 2009, and the Google’s recently released <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/032910-lawmakers-ask-for-ftc-investigation.html">Buzz
application</a>.</p>
<p>Despite the headway the Safe Harbor is making, many privacy
related questions remain ambiguous with respect to the responsibilities social networking
sites through the program. For example,
Bebo <a href="http://www.bebo.com/Privacy2.jsp">reserves the right</a> to
supplement a social profile with addition information collected from publicly
available information and information from other companies. Bebo’s does adhere to the “notice principle”—as
it makes know to users how their information will be used through their privacy
policy. However, it remains unclear if appropriate disclosures are given by Bebo
as required by Safe Harbor Framework, notably as the sources of “publicly
available information” as a concept remains broad and obscured in the privacy policy. It is also unclear whether or not Bebo users
are able to, under the “Choice” principle, refuse to having their profiles from
being supplemented by other information sources. Also, under the “access
principle”, do individuals have the right to review all information held about them as “Bebo
users”? The right to review information
held by a social networking site is an important one that should be upheld. This is most notable as supplementary information
from outside social networking services is employed to profile individual users in ways which may
work to categorize individuals in undesirable ways.</p>
<p><strong>The Third Party Problem</strong></p>
<p>Cooperation between social networking sites and the Safe
Harbor has improved, and most of these sites now have privacy policies which
explicitly address the principles of the Program. It should also be noted that public interest
groups, such as Epic, the Center for Digital Democracy, and The Electronic
Frontier Foundation, have played a key role in ensuring that data privacy
breaches are brought to the attention of the FTC under the program. While the program has somewhat adequately
addressed the privacy practices of first party participants, the number of
third parties on social networking sites calls into question the
comprehensiveness and effectiveness of the Safe Harbor program. Facebook itself as a first party site may adhere
to the Safe Harbor Program. However, its
growing number third party platform members may not always adhere to best practices
in the field, nor can Facebook or the Safe Harbor Program guarantee that they
do so.</p>
<p>The Safe Harbor Program does require that all participants
take certain security measures when transferring data to a third party. Third parties must either subscribe to the
safe harbor principles, or be subject to the EU Data Directive. Alternatively, an organization can may also
enter into a written agreement with a third party requiring that they provide
at least the same level of privacy protection as is required by program
principles. Therefore, third parties of
participating program sites are, de facto, bound by the safe harbor principles by
the way of entering into agreement with a first party participant of the
program. This is the approach taken by
most social networking sites and their third parties.</p>
<p>It is important to note, however, that third parties are not
governed directly by the regulatory bodies, such as the FTC. The safe harbor website also <a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018476.asp">explicitly notes</a>
that the program does not apply to third parties. Therefore, as per these provisions, Facebook must
adhere to the principles of the program, while its third party platform members
(such as social gaming companies), only must do so indirectly as per a separate
contract with Facebook. The
effectiveness of this indirect mode of governing of third party privacy
practices is questionable for numerous reasons.</p>
<p>Firstly, while Facebook does take steps to ensure that
third parties use information from Facebook in a manner which is consistent to
the safe harbor principles, the company explicitly <a href="http://www.facebook.com/policy.php">waives any guarantee</a> that third
parties will “follow their rules”. Prior to allowing third parties to access any
information about users, Facebook requires third parties to <a href="http://www.facebook.com/terms.php">agree to terms</a> that limit their
use of information, and also use technical measures to ensure that they only
obtain authorized information. Facebook
also warns users to “always review the policies of third party applications and
websites to make sure you are comfortable with the ways in which they use
information”. Not only are users
required to read the privacy policies of every third party application, but are
also expected to report applications which may be in violation of privacy
principles. In this sense, Facebook not
only waives responsibility for third party privacy breaches, but also places further
regulatory onus upon the user.</p>
<p>As the program guidelines express, the safe harbor relies to
a great degree on enforcement by the private sector. However, it is likely that a self-regulatory
framework may lead the industry into a state of regulatory malaise. Under the safe harbor program, Facebook must
ensure that the privacy practices of third parties are adequate. However, at the same time, the company may
simultaneously waiver their responsibility for third party compliance with safe
harbor principles. Therefore, it remains
questionable as to where responsibility for third parties exactly lies. When third parties are not directly
answerable to the governing bodies of safe harbor program, and when first parties
can to waive responsibility for their practices, from where does the incentive to
effectively regulate third parties to come from? </p>
<p>While Facbeook may in fact take reasonable legal and technical
measures to ensure third party compliance, the room for potential dissonance
between speech and deed is worrisome. Facebook is required to ensure that third
parties provide “<a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018476.asp">at least the same
level of privacy protection</a>” as they do.
However, in practice, this has yet to become the case. A quick survey of twelve of the most popular
Platform Applications in the gaming category showed<a name="_ednref6" href="#_edn6"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a>
that third parties are not granting their users the “same level of privacy
protection”[5]. For example, section 9.2.3
of Facebooks “<a href="http://www.facebook.com/terms.php">Rights and
Responsibilities</a>” for Developers/Operators of applications/sites states
that they must “have a privacy policy or otherwise make it clear to users what
user data you are going to use and how you will use, display, or share that
data”. </p>
<p>However, out of the 12 gaming applications surveyed, four
companies failed to make privacy policies available to users <em>before</em> they granted the application
access to the personal information, including that of their friends<a name="_ednref7" href="#_edn7"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a> [6]. After searching for the privacy policies on
the websites of each of the four social gaming companies, two completely failed
to post privacy policies on their central websites. This practice is in direct breach of the
contract made between these companies and Facebook, as mentioned above. In addition to many applications failing to clearly
post privacy policies, many of provisions set out in these policies were
questionable vis-à-vis safe harbor principles. </p>
<p>For example Zynga, makes of popular games Mafia Wars and
Farmville, reserve the right to “maintain copies of your content
indefinitely”. This practice remains contrary
to Safe Harbor principles which states that information should not be kept for
longer than required to run a service.
Electronic Arts also maintains similar provisions for data retention in
its privacy policy. Such practices are
rather worrisome also in light of the fact that both companies also reserve the
right to collect information on users from other sources to supplement profiles
held. This includes (but is not limited
to) newspapers and Internet sources such as blogs, instant messaging services, and
other games. It is also notable to
mention that only one of the twelve social gaming companies surveyed directly
participates in the safe harbor program. </p>
<p>In addition to the difficulties of ensuring that safe harbor
principles are adhered to by third parties, the information asymmetries which
exist between first party sites, citizens, and governance bodies vis-à-vis
third parties complicate this model. Foremost,
it is clear that Facebook, despite its resources, cannot keep tabs on the
practices of all of their applications.
This puts into question if industry self-regulation can really guarantee
that privacy is respected by third parties in this context. Furthermore, the lack of knowledge or
understanding held by citizens about how third parties user their information
is particularly problematic when a system relies so heavily on users to report
suspected privacy breaches. The same is
likely to be true for governments, too. As
one legal scholar, promoting a more laisse-fair approach to third party
regulation, notes—multiple and invisible third party relationships presents
challenges to traditional forms of legal regulation<a name="_ednref8" href="#_edn8"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a> [7]. </p>
<p>In an “open “social ecosystem, the sheer volume of data
flows between users of social networking sites and third party players appears
to have become increasingly difficult to effectively regulate. While the safe harbor program has been
successful in establishing best practices and minimum standards for data
privacy, it is also clear that governance bodies, and public interest groups,
have focused most attention on large industry players such as Facebook. This has left smaller third party players on
social networking sites in the shadows of any substantive regulatory concern. If
one this has become clear, it is the fact that governments may no longer be
able to effectively govern the flows of data in the burgeoning context of “open
data”. </p>
<p>As I have demonstrated, it remains questionable whether or
not Facebook can regulate third parties data collection practices
effectively. Imposing more stringent
responsibilities on safe harbor participants could be a positive step. It is reasonable to assume that it would be
undue to impose liability on social networking sites for the data breaches of
third parties. However, it is not
unreasonable to require sites like Facebook go beyond setting “minimum
standards” for data privacy, towards taking a more active enforcement, if even
through TRUSTe or another regulatory body.
If the safe harbor is to be effective, it cannot allow program participants
to simply wave the liability for third party privacy practices. The indemnity granted to third parties on social
networking sites may deem the safe harbor program more effective in sustaining
the non-liability of third parties, rather than protecting the data privacy of
citizens.</p>
<div></div>
<div>
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
</div>
<p class="discreet"><a name="_edn1" href="#_ednref1"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a>[1] Official Directive 95/46/EC</p>
<p class="discreet"><a name="_edn2" href="#_ednref2"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a></p>
<p class="discreet"><a name="_edn3" href="#_ednref3"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a>[2] 95/46/EC</p>
<p class="discreet">[3] Ibid</p>
<p class="discreet"><a name="_edn4" href="#_ednref4"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a><a name="_edn5" href="#_ednref5"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></a>[4] See Acquisit,
A. a. (n.d.). Imagined Communities: Awareness, Information Sharing, and Privacy
on Facebook. <em>PET 2006</em></p>
<p class="discreet"><a name="_edn6" href="#_ednref6"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a>[5] Of the Privacy Policy browsed include, Zynga, Rock
You!, Crowdstar, Mind Jolt, Electronic Arts, Pop Cap Games, Slash Key, Playdom,
Meteor Games, Broken Bulb Studios, Wooga, and American Global Network.</p>
<p class="discreet"><a name="_edn7" href="#_ednref7"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a>[6] By adding an application, users are also sharing with
third parties the information of their friends if they do not specifically opt out of this practice.</p>
<p class="discreet">[7]See<strong>
</strong> Milina, S. (2003).
Let the Market Do its Job: Advocating an Integrated Laissez-Faire Approach to
Online Profiling. <em>Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal</em> .</p>
<pre></pre>
<div>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
</div>
<h2> </h2>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/does-the-safe-harbor-program-adequately-address-third-parties-online'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/does-the-safe-harbor-program-adequately-address-third-parties-online</a>
</p>
No publisherrebeccaPrivacyInternet GovernanceFacebookData ProtectionSocial Networking2011-08-02T07:19:34ZBlog EntryDigital Native: Delete Facebook?
https://cis-india.org/raw/indian-express-nishant-shah-april-8-2018-digital-native-delete-facebook
<b>You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article was <a class="external-link" href="http://indianexpress.com/article/technology/social/digital-native-delete-facebook-5127198/">published in Indian Express</a> on April 8, 2018.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>One fine day, we all woke up and were told that </span><a href="http://indianexpress.com/about/facebook/">Facebook</a><span> sold our data to Cambridge Analytica and then they made dastardly profiles of us to target us with advertisement and political propaganda, so, we made a beeline for #DeleteFacebook. The most surprising part about the expose is how much of a non-event it is. We have been warned, at least since the Edward Snowden revelations, if not earlier, that our data is the new oil, coal and gold. It is being used as a resource, it is being mined from our everyday digital transactions, and it is precious because it can result in a massive social engineering without our consent or knowledge. Ever since Facebook started expanding its domain from being a friends-poke-friends-with-livestock website, we have been warned that the ambition of Facebook was never to connect you with your friends but to be your friend.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span>Time and again, we have been told that the sapient Facebook algorithm remembers everything you say and do, anticipates all your future needs, and listens to the most banal litany of your life. More than your mom, your partner or your shrink, it’s the Facebook algorithm which is interested in all your quotidian uselessness. It is not the stranger who accesses your post that should worry you. The biggest perpetrator of privacy violations on Facebook is Facebook itself. There is good reason why a company that offers its prime products for free is valuated as one of the richest corporations in the world. The product of Facebook – it has always been known – is us.</span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span><span>Why, then, are we suddenly taken aback at the fact that Facebook sold us? And while we are sharing our thoughts (ironically on Facebook) about deleting our profiles, the question that remains is this: How much of your digital life are you willing to erase? Because, and I am sorry if this pricks your filter bubble, Facebook’s problem is not really a Facebook problem. It is almost the entire World Wide Web, where we lost the battle for data ownership and platform openness more than two decades ago. Name one privately owned free service that you use on the internet and I will show you the section in its “terms and services” where you have surrendered your data. In fact, you can’t even find government services, tied up with their private partners, where your data is safe and stored in privacy vaults where it won’t be abused.</span></span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span><span><span>It is time to realise that the popular ’90s meme “All your base are belong to us” is the lived reality of our digital lives. As we forego ownership for convenience, as our governments sold our sovereignty for profits, and as digital corporations became behemoths that now have the capacity to challenge and write our constitutional and fundamental rights, we are waking up to a battle that has already been fought and resolved. A large part of our physical hardware to access the internet is privately owned. This means that almost all our PCs, tablets, phones, servers are owned and open to exploitation by private companies. Every time your phone does an automatic update or your PC goes into house-cleaning mode, you have to realise that you are being stored, somewhere in the cloud in ways that you cannot imagine.</span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span><span><span><span>It is tiring to hear this alarm and panic around Facebook’s data trading. Not only is it legal, it is something that has been happening for a while, most of us have been aware of it, and we have resolutely ignored it because, you know, cute cats. If somebody tells you that they are against privately owned physical property and are going to start a revolution to take away all private property and make it equally shared with the public, you would laugh at them because they are arriving at the battle scene after the war is over. This digital wokeness trend to #DeleteFacebook is the digital equivalent of that moment. If you want to fight, fight the governments and nations who can still protect us. Participate in conversations around Internet governance. Take responsibility to educate yourself about the politics of how the digital world operates. But stop trying to feel virtuous because you pulled out of a social media network, pretending that that is the end of the problem.</span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/raw/indian-express-nishant-shah-april-8-2018-digital-native-delete-facebook'>https://cis-india.org/raw/indian-express-nishant-shah-april-8-2018-digital-native-delete-facebook</a>
</p>
No publishernishantSocial MediaPrivacyInternet GovernanceFacebookResearchers at Work2018-05-06T03:08:25ZBlog EntryDigital India: Did Modi get it wrong in Silicon Valley?
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bbc-october-16-2015-digital-india-did-modi-get-it-wrong-in-silicon-valley
<b>A bear hug, a photo filter and a new debate on net neutrality - Ayeshea Perera examines the domestic fallout of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Facebook townhall in US.</b>
<p>This was published by <a class="external-link" href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-34513257">BBC News</a> on October 16, 2015. Sunil Abraham was quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It was supposed to be a moment that rocked the virtual world. Mr Modi, widely acknowledged as one of the world's most influential politicians on social media, enveloped a slightly stunned Mark Zuckerberg in a bear hug.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">But what was it that really happened in Menlo Park? Why did some people think Mr Modi wasn't acting in India's best digital interests when he hugged Mr Zuckerberg?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India with an internet population of 354 million - which has already <a class="story-body__link-external" href="ttp://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-09-03/news/66178659_1_user-base-iamai-internet-and-mobile-association">grown by 17%</a> in the first six months of 2015 - is an obvious target for not only Facebook, but other Silicon Valley giants. And they have all been more than happy to pledge their support for <a class="story-body__link-external" href="http://www.digitalindia.gov.in/">digital India</a> - a recently launched government initiative aimed at reinvigorating an $18bn (£11.6bn) campaign to strengthen India's digital infrastructure.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a class="story-body__link-external" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/Free-Wi-Fi-at-500-railway-stations-with-Googles-help-PM-says/articleshow/49123998.cms">Google offered</a> to provide 500 railway stations with free WiFi and Microsoft <a class="story-body__link-external" href="http://thenextweb.com/microsoft/2015/09/28/microsoft-wants-to-bring-cheap-broadband-to-500000-indian-villages/">pledged to connect</a> 500,000 Indian villages with cheap broadband access.</p>
<h2 class="story-body__crosshead" style="text-align: justify; ">Digitally colonised?</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">But this huge show of support and the increased interest in India has caused some concern within the country.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"Is Digital India going to only make India a consumer of services offered by global tech companies in lieu of data? Personal data is the currency of the digital world. Are we going to give that away simply to become a giant market for a Facebook or a Google? Look at the way the tech world is skewed. Only China has been able to come up with companies that can take on these MNCs" Prabir Purkayasta, chairman of the Society for Knowledge Commons in India, told the BBC.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"The British ruled the world because they controlled the seas," he said. "Is India going to be content to just be a digital consumer? To being colonised once again?"</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/Modi.jpg" alt="Narendra Modi" class="image-inline" title="Narendra Modi" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">And in the aftermath of the Facebook townhall in particular, some talk has begun to surface about what Mr Zuckerberg's real India ambitions are.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Soon after the townhall ended, both Mr Modi and Mr Zuckerberg declared their support for digital India by using a special Facebook filter to tint their profile pictures in the tri-colour of the Indian flag.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Multitudes of Indians followed suit and timelines were awash with snazzy tinted profile pictures, all in support of "Digital India".</p>
<h2 class="story-body__crosshead" style="text-align: justify; ">'Innocent mistake'</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">But then <a class="story-body__link-external" href="http://www.nextbigwhat.com/facebook-tricolor-profile-297">a tech website</a> released what it claimed to be a portion of Facebook's source code, which allegedly "proved" that the "Support Digital India" filter was actually a "Support Internet.Org" filter.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook <a class="story-body__link-external" href="http://indianexpress.com/article/technology/tech-news-technology/digital-india-profile-pic-tool-not-linked-to-support-for-internet-org-says-facebook/">quickly issued a denial</a>, blaming the text in the code on an "engineer mistake" in choosing a shorthand name he used for part of the code.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">But the "mistake" which has been coupled with a huge advertising blitz for Internet.Org <a class="story-body__link-external" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1&v=JdUovve48No">across television channels</a> and newspapers has raised suspicion about Facebook's motives. A Facebook poll on Internet.Org that frequently appears on Indian user timelines has also been ridiculed for not giving users an option to say no.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Instead the answer options to the poll question "Do you want India to have free basic services?" are "Yes" and "Not now".</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/Internet.png" alt="Internet" class="image-inline" title="Internet" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Internet.org (now called free basics), aims to extend internet services to the developing world by offering a selection of apps and websites free to consumers.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook's vice-president of infrastructure engineering, Jay Parikh has described the initiative as an "attempt to connect the two-thirds of the world who do not have access to the Internet" by trying to solve issues pertaining to affordability, infrastructure and access.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">When Facebook launched the initiative in India in February, it was criticised by Indian activists who expressed concerns that the project threatened freedom of expression, privacy and the principle of <a class="story-body__link" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32592204">net neutrality</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On the other end of the debate, Indian columnist Manu Joseph <a class="story-body__link-external" href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/columns/net-neutrality-war-is-not-just-facebook-versus-internet-mullahs/story-s9eZpZnomaaiz4De8fYfaK.html">wrote in the Hindustan Times newspaper</a>, hitting out at the "selfish" stand on net neutrality. He said concerns over the issue should be "subordinate to the fact that the poor have a right to some Internet".</p>
<h2 class="story-body__crosshead" style="text-align: justify; ">Wrong signal</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A massive campaign by India's Save the Internet Coalition exhorting Indians to speak out against initiatives threatening net neutrality caught public imagination and saw <a class="story-body__link-external" href="http://tech.firstpost.com/news-analysis/net-neutrality-deadline-trai-receives-over-million-emails-from-netizens-asking-to-save-the-internet-264548.html">more than a million emails</a> to India's regulator, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), demanding a free and fair internet in the country. Internet.Org was one of the initiatives immediately affected.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">TRAI since released a draft policy <a class="story-body__link" href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-33605253">on net neutrality</a>, but a question that has been asked is whether it was appropriate for Mr Modi to visit Facebook given that the policy was still under consideration.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/Modi1.png" alt="Narendra" class="image-inline" title="Narendra" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mr Purkayasta is of the opinion that it could have been avoided. "It was not the time or the place to go. Even if it was simply a publicity gimmick, it still sends a signal to officials involved in drafting the policy," he said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, Sunil Abraham from the Centre for Internet and Society told the BBC he believed that while Facebook's intentions were suspect, Mr Modi's visit had the potential to safeguard net neutrality in India.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"India is a hugely important market for Facebook, and the prime minister has the power to force positive changes to its policies," he said. "We gain nothing by shutting them out."</p>
<h2 class="share__title--lightweight share__title" style="text-align: justify; "></h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p> </p>
<p><figure class="full-width has-caption media-landscape"> </figure></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bbc-october-16-2015-digital-india-did-modi-get-it-wrong-in-silicon-valley'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bbc-october-16-2015-digital-india-did-modi-get-it-wrong-in-silicon-valley</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial MediaGoogleFacebookInternet Governance2015-10-18T04:44:52ZNews ItemDigital AlterNatives with a Cause?
https://cis-india.org/digital-natives/blog/dnbook
<b>Hivos and the Centre for Internet and Society have consolidated their three year knowledge inquiry into the field of youth, technology and change in a four book collective “Digital AlterNatives with a cause?”. This collaboratively produced collective, edited by Nishant Shah and Fieke Jansen, asks critical and pertinent questions about theory and practice around 'digital revolutions' in a post MENA (Middle East - North Africa) world. It works with multiple vocabularies and frameworks and produces dialogues and conversations between digital natives, academic and research scholars, practitioners, development agencies and corporate structures to examine the nature and practice of digital natives in emerging contexts from the Global South. </b>
<p></p>
<p><strong>I</strong><strong>ntroduction</strong></p>
<p>In the 21<sup>st</sup>
Century, we have witnessed the simultaneous growth of internet and digital
technologies on the one hand, and political protests and mobilisation on the
other. Processes of interpersonal relationships, social communication, economic
expansion, political protocols and governmental mediation are undergoing a
significant transition, across in the world, in developed and emerging
Information and Knowledge societies.</p>
<p>The young
are often seen as forerunners of these changes because of the pervasive and
persistent presence of digital and online technologies in their lives. The “
Digital Natives with a Cause?” is a research inquiry that uncovers the ways in
which young people in emerging ICT contexts make strategic use of technologies
to bring about change in their immediate environments. Ranging from personal
stories of transformation to efforts at collective change, it aims to identify
knowledge gaps that existing scholarship, practice and popular discourse around
an increasing usage, adoption and integration of digital technologies in
processes of social and political change.</p>
<p><strong>Methodology</strong></p>
<p>In 2010-11,
three workshops in Taiwan, South Africa and Chile, brought together around 80
people who identified themselves as Digital Natives from Asia, Africa and Latin
America, to explore certain key questions that could provide new insight into
Digital Natives research, policy and practice. The workshops were accompanied
by a ‘Thinkathon’ – a multi-stakeholder summit that initiated conversations
between Digital Natives, academic researchers, scholars, practitioners,
educators, policy makers and corporate representatives to share learnings on
new questions: Is one born digital or does one become a Digital Native? How do
we understand our relationship with the idea of a Digital Native? How do
Digital Natives redefine ‘change’ and how do they see themselves implementing
it? What is the role that technologies play in defining civic action and social
movements? What are the relationships
that these technology based identities and practices have with existing social
movements and political legacies? How do we build new frameworks of sustainable
citizen action outside of institutionalisation?</p>
<strong>
</strong>
<p><strong>Rationale</strong></p>
<p>One of the
knowledge gaps that this book tries to address is the lack of digital natives’
voices in the discourse around them. In the occasions that they are a part of
the discourse, they are generally represented by other actors who define the
frameworks and decide the issues which are important. Hence, more often than
not, most books around digital natives concentrate on similar sounding areas
and topics, which might not always resonate with the concerns that digital
natives and other stake-holders might be engaged with in their material and
discursive practice. The methodology of the workshops was designed keeping this
in mind. Instead of asking the digital natives to give their opinion or recount
a story about what we felt was important, we began by listening to their
articulations about what was at stake for them as e-agents of change. As a
result, the usual topics like piracy, privacy, cyber-bullying, sexting etc.
which automatically map digital natives discourse, are conspicuously absent
from this book. Their absence is not deliberate, but more symptomatic of how
these themes that we presumed as important were not of immediate concerns to
most of the participants in the workshop who are contributing to the book<strong>.</strong></p>
<strong>
</strong>
<p><strong>Structure</strong></p>
<p>The
conversations, research inquiries, reflections, discussions, interviews, and
art practices are consolidated in this four part book which deviates from the
mainstream imagination of the young people involved in processes of change. The
alternative positions, defined by geo-politics, gender, sexuality, class,
education, language, etc. find articulations from people who have been engaged
in the practice and discourse of technology mediated change. Each part
concentrates on one particular theme that helps bring coherence to a wide
spectrum of style and content.</p>
<p><strong>Book 1: To Be: Digital AlterNatives with a Cause? Download <a href="https://cis-india.org/digital-natives/dnbook1/at_download/file" class="external-link">here</a></strong></p>
<strong>
</strong>
<p>The first
part, <em>To Be</em>, looks at the questions
of digital native identities. Are digital natives the same everywhere? What
does it mean to call a certain population ‘Digital Natives”? Can we also look
at people who are on the fringes – Digital Outcasts, for example? Is it
possible to imagine technology-change relationships not only through questions
of access and usage but also through personal investments and transformations?
The contributions help chart the history, explain the contemporary and give ideas
about what the future of technology mediated identities is going to be.</p>
<strong>Book 2: To Think: Digital AlterNatives with a Cause? Download <a href="https://cis-india.org/digital-natives/dnbook2/at_download/file" class="external-link">here</a></strong><strong>
</strong>
<p>In the
second section, <em>To Think,</em> the
contributors engage with new frameworks of understanding the processes,
logistics, politics and mechanics of digital natives and causes. Giving fresh
perspectives which draw from digital aesthetics, digital natives’ everyday
practices, and their own research into the design and mechanics of technology
mediated change, the contributors help us re-think the concepts, processes and
structures that we have taken for granted. They also nuance the ways in which
new frameworks to think about youth, technology and change can be evolved and
how they provide new ways of sustaining digital natives and their causes.</p>
<p><strong>Book 3: To Act: Digital AlterNatives with a Cause? Download <a href="https://cis-india.org/digital-natives/dnbook3/at_download/file" class="external-link">here</a></strong></p>
<p><em>To Act</em> is the third part that concentrates on stories
from the ground. While it is important to conceptually engage with digital
natives, it is also, necessary to connect it with the real life practices that
are reshaping the world. Case-studies, reflections and experiences of people
engaged in processes of change, provide a rich empirical data set which is
further analysed to look at what it means to be a digital native in emerging
information and technology contexts.</p>
<strong>
</strong>
<p><strong>Book 4: To Connect : Digital AlterNatives with a Cause? Download <a href="https://cis-india.org/digital-natives/dnbook4/at_download/file" class="external-link">here</a></strong></p>
<p>The last
section, <em>To Connect</em>, recognises the
fact that digital natives do not operate in vacuum. It might be valuable to
maintain the distinction between digital natives and immigrants, but this
distinction does not mean that there are no relationships between them as
actors of change. The section focuses on the digital native ecosystem to look
at the complex assemblage of relationships that support and are amplified by
these new processes of technologised change.</p>
<p>We see this
book as entering into a dialogue with the growing discourse and practice in the
field of youth, technology and change. The ambition is to look at the digital
(alter)natives as located in the Global South and the potentials for social
change and political participation that is embedded in their interactions
through and with digital and internet technologies. We hope that the book
furthers the idea of a context-based digital native identity and practice,
which challenges the otherwise universalist understanding that seems to be the
popular operative right now. We see this as the beginning of a knowledge
inquiry, rather than an end, and hope that the contributions in the book will
incite new discussions, invoke cross-sectorial and disciplinary debates, and
consolidate knowledges about digital (alter)natives and how they work in the
present to change our futures<strong>.</strong></p>
<p><strong><a class="external-link" href="https://www.surveymonkey.com/MyAccount_Login.aspx">Click here</a> to order your copy. We invite readers to contribute reviews of an essay they found particularly interesting. Contact us: nishant@cis-india.org and fjansen@hivos.nl if you want more information, resources, or dialogues</strong></p>
<p>Nishant
Shah</p>
<p>Fieke
Jansen</p>
<p><strong>For media coverage and book reviews,</strong> <a href="https://cis-india.org/digital-natives/media-coverage" class="external-link">read here</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/digital-natives/blog/dnbook'>https://cis-india.org/digital-natives/blog/dnbook</a>
</p>
No publishernishantSocial mediaDigital ActivismRAW PublicationsCampaignDigital NativesAgencyBlank Noise ProjectFeaturedCyberculturesFacebookPublicationsBeyond the DigitalDigital subjectivitiesBooksResearchers at Work2015-04-10T09:22:29ZBlog EntryContent Removal on Facebook — A Case of Privatised Censorship?
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/content-removal-on-facebook
<b>Any activity on Facebook, be it creating an account, posting a picture or status update or creating a group or page, is bound by Facebook’s Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. These contain a list of content that is prohibited from being published on Facebook which ranges from hate speech to pornography to violation of privacy. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook removes content largely on the basis of requests either by the government or by other users. The <a href="https://www.facebook.com/help/365194763546571/">Help section</a> of Facebook deals with warnings and blocking of content. It says that Facebook only removes content that violates Community Guidelines and not everything that has been reported.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">I conducted an experiment to primarily look at Facebook’s process of content removal and also to analyse what kind of content they actually remove.</p>
<ol> </ol><ol>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">I put up a status which contained personal information of a person on my Friend List (the information was false). I then asked several people (including the person about whom the status was made) to report the status — that of being harassed or for violation of privacy rights. Seven people reported the status. Within half an hour of the reports being made, I received the following notification:<br />"Someone reported your <a href="https://www.facebook.com/sugarquill/posts/10152265929599232" target="_blank">post</a> for containing harassment and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/settings?tab=support&item_id=10152265934819232&notif_t=content_reported">1 other reason</a>."<br /><br />The notification also contained the option to delete my post and said that Facebook would look into whether it violated their Community Guidelines.<br /><br />A day later, all those who had reported the status received notifications stating the following:<br /><br />"We reviewed the post you reported for harassment and found it doesn't violate our <a href="https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>." <br /><br />I received a similar notification as well.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">I, along with around thirteen others, reported a Facebook page which contained pictures of my friend and a few other women with lewd captions in various regional languages. We reported the group for harassment and bullying and also for humiliating someone we knew. The report was made on 24 March, 2014. On 30 April, 2014, I received a notification stating the following:<br /><br />"We reviewed the page you reported for harassment and found it doesn't violate our <a href="https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.<br /><br />Note: If you have an issue with something on the Page, make sure you report the content (e.g. a photo), not the entire Page. That way, your report will be more accurately reviewed."<br /><br />I then reported each picture on the page for harassment and received a series of notifications on 5 May, 2014 which stated the following:<br /><br />"We reviewed the photo you reported for harassment and found it doesn't violate our <a href="https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>."</li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">These incidents are in stark contrast with repeated attempts by Facebook to remove content which it finds objectionable. In 2013, a homosexual man’s picture protesting against the Supreme Court judgment in December was <a href="http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/heated-debate-after-facebook-allegedly-deletes-photograph-of-gay-sikh-kissing-a-man-460219">taken down</a>. In 2012, Facebook <a href="http://www.blouinartinfo.com/news/story/816583/facebook-censors-pompidous-gerhard-richter-nude-fueling-fight">removed artwork</a> by a French artist which featured a nude woman. In the same year, Facebook <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2146588/Heather-Patrick-Walker-Facebook-ban-pictures-baby-son-died.html">removed photographs</a> of a child who was born with defect and banned the mother from accessing Facebook completely. Facebook also <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/20/facebook-breast-cancer-tattoo-photo-double-mastectomy_n_2726118.html">removed a picture</a> of a breast cancer survivor who posted a picture of a tattoo that she had following her mastectomy. Following this, however, Facebook issued an apology and stated that mastectomy photographs are not in violation of their Content Guidelines. Even in the sphere of political discourse and dissent, Facebook has cowered under government pressure and removed pages and content, as evidenced by the <a href="http://www.firstpost.com/living/facebook-bows-to-pak-pressure-bans-rock-band-laal-anti-taliban-groups-1560009.html">ban</a> on the progressive Pakistani band Laal’s Facebook page and other anti-Taliban pages. Following much social media outrage, Facebook soon <a href="http://www.dawn.com/news/1111174/laals-facebook-page-now-accessible-to-pak-based-internet-users">revoked</a> this ban. These are just a few examples of how harmless content has been taken down by Facebook, in a biased exercise of its powers.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">After incidents of content removal have been made public through news reports and complaints, Facebook often apologises for removing content and issues statements that the removal was an “error.” In some cases, they edit their policies to address specific kinds of content after a takedown (like the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/dec/30/facebook-breastfeeding-ban">reversal of the breastfeeding ban</a>).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On the other hand, however, Facebook is notorious for refusing to take down content that is actually objectionable, partially evidenced by my own experiences listed above. There have been complaints about Facebook’s <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/feb/19/facebook-images-rape-domestic-violence">refusal to remove</a> misogynistic content which glorifies rape and domestic violence through a series of violent images and jokes. One such page was removed finally, not because of the content but because the administrators had used fake profiles. When asked, a spokesperson said that censorship “was not the solution to bad online behaviour or offensive beliefs.” While this may be true, the question that needs answering is why Facebook decides to draw these lines only when it comes to certain kinds of ‘objectionable’ content and not others.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">All of these examples represent a certain kind of arbitrariness on the part of Facebook’s censorship policies. It seems that Facebook is far more concerned with removing content that will cause supposed public or governmental outrage or defy some internal morality code, rather than protecting the rights of those who may be harmed due to such content, as their Statement of Policies so clearly spells out.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There are many aspects of the review and takedown process that are hazy, like who exactly reviews the content that is reported and what standards they are made to employ. In 2012, it was revealed that Facebook <a href="http://gawker.com/5885714/inside-facebooks-outsourced-anti-porn-and-gore-brigade-where-camel-toes-are-more-offensive-than-crushed-heads">outsourced</a> its content reviews to oDesk and provided the reviewers with a 17-page manual which listed what kind of content was appropriate and what was not. A bare reading of the leaked document gives one a sense of Facebook’s aversion to sex and nudity and its neglect of other harm-inducing content like harassment through misuse of content that is posted and what is categorised as hate speech.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In the process of monitoring the acceptability of content, Facebook takes upon itself the role of a private censor with absolutely no accountability or transparency in its working. A <a href="https://fbcdn-dragon-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/t39.2178-6/851563_293317947467769_1320502878_n.png">Reporting Guide</a> was published to increase transparency in its content review procedures. The Guide reveals that Facebook provides for an option where the reportee can appeal the decision to remove content in “some cases.” However, the lack of clarity on what these cases are or what the appeal process is frustrates the existence of this provision as it can be misused. Additionally, Facebook reserves the right to remove content with or without notice depending upon the severity of the violation. There is no mention of how severe is severe enough to warrant uninformed content removal. In most of the above cases, the user was not notified that their content was found offensive and would be liable for takedown. Although Facebook publishes a transparency report, it only contains a record of takedowns following government requests and not those by private users of Facebook. The unbridled nature of the power that Facebook has over our personal content, despite clearly stating that all content posted is the user’s alone, threatens the freedom of expression on the site. A proper implementation of the policies that Facebook claims to employ is required along with a systematic record of the procedure that is used to remove content that is in consonance with natural justice.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/content-removal-on-facebook'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/content-removal-on-facebook</a>
</p>
No publisherjessieFacebookInternet GovernanceCensorshipPrivacy2014-06-16T05:23:09ZBlog Entry