The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 1 to 15.
Women Arrested in Mumbai for Complaining on Facebook
https://cis-india.org/news/india-blogs-nytimes-nov-19-2012-neha-thirani-hari-kumar-women-arrested-in-mumbai-for-complaining-on-facebook
<b>For over 30 hours following the death of the Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray on Saturday, stores throughout Mumbai closed their shutters and taxis and autorickshaws stayed off the streets.</b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This article by Neha Thirani and Hari Kumar was <a class="external-link" href="http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/19/women-arrested-in-mumbai-for-complaining-on-facebook/">published in New York Times</a> on November 19, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While analysts throughout Mumbai debated whether the citywide shutdown following the death of Mr. Thackeray was inspired by fear or respect, one 21-year-old woman and her friend were arrested for raising a similar question.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On Sunday, the police in Palghar, in Thane district, on the outskirts of Mumbai, arrested Shaheen Dhadha after she posted a status update on Facebook that questioned the shutdown, also known as a bandh. A local daily, the Mumbai Mirror, <a href="http://www.mumbaimirror.com/article/2/2012111920121119043152921e12f57e1/In-Palghar-cops-book-21yearold-for-FB-post.html" target="_blank">reported</a> that Ms. Dhadha, 21, had written, "People like Thackeray are born and die daily and one should not observe a bandh for that." The police also arrested her friend who "liked" the post, whom NDTV <a href="http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/two-women-arrested-for-facebook-post-on-mumbai-shutdown-294239" target="_blank">identified </a>by her first name, Renu.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The women were arrested under Section 505 of the Indian Penal Code for “statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill will between classes.” Srikant Pingle, station house in charge of the Palghar police, told India Ink that the local Shiv Sena chief, whom he identified as “Mr. Bhushan,” filed the complaint against Ms. Dhadha because her comment on Facebook hurt Shiv Sena’s sentiments. Mr. Pingle declined to comment further on the details of the arrests.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sudhir Gupta, the defense counsel for the two women, told NDTV, “Their posts don’t incite violence. It can’t be said they have made any derogatory remarks. They don’t belong to any political ideology.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In a phone conversation with India Ink, a police officer of the Palghar station, who identified himself only as Gavali, said that the arrest took place on Sunday night and that the pair had been taken to court on Monday.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The two women, who were sentenced to 14 days in jail by the court, received bail after a bond of 15,000 rupees ($270) was paid, <a href="http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/two-women-arrested-for-facebook-post-on-mumbai-shutdown-294239" target="_blank">reported NDTV</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Times of India <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/21-year-old-girl-arrested-for-Facebook-post-slamming-Bal-Thackeray/articleshow/17276979.cms" target="_blank">reported</a> that a mob of 2,000 Shiv Sena workers vandalized her uncle’s orthopedic clinic in Palghar. Repeated calls made to the Dhada orthopedic hospital in Thane went unanswered, while Harshal Pradhan, a Shiv Sena spokesman, said that he was unaware of the incident.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A police officer at the Palghar Police Station, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that no one has been arrested in the attack on the clinic.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Pranesh Prakash, program manager with the Center for Internet and Society, said the arrests of the two women were a violation of free speech and the misapplication of the law. “There were thousands of people on Facebook, Twitter and in person who were saying the exact same kinds of things that this girl is alleged to have said,” said Mr. Prakash. “And the fact that only she and one other person who liked that comment have been arrested shows a clear arbitrariness in the application of the law.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In <a href="http://justicekatju.blogspot.in/2012/11/a-letter-to-maharashtra-cm.html?m=1" target="_blank">an open letter</a> addressed to the chief minister of Maharashtra, the former Supreme Court Judge Markandey Katju defended the two women, saying, “To my mind it is absurd to say that protesting against a bandh hurts religious sentiments.” He further said that the arrest appears to be a criminal act as it is a crime to wrongfully arrest or wrongfully confine someone who has committed no crime.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On social networking sites, people came out in support of Ms. Dhadha and her friend. The Facebook group “<a href="http://www.facebook.com/pages/BAN-Shiv-Sena/296699900777?fref=ts" target="_blank">Ban Shiv Sena</a>” had about 36,400 "likes" as of Monday afternoon, while <a href="http://www.facebook.com/shivsena.official?fref=ts" target="_blank">the party’s official Facebook page</a> had just under 2,700. On Twitter, several commenters expressed solidarity with the two women, including <a href="https://twitter.com/milinddeora" target="_blank">Milind Deora</a>, the government minister of state, communications and information technology, who <a href="https://twitter.com/milinddeora/status/270431926022701057" target="_blank">said</a>, "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize ~ Voltaire."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In Maharashtra, Shiv Sena has a history of banning books, movies and other popular culture that are critical of the political party. In 2010, Rohinton Mistry’s book, "Such a Long Journey," was <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/19/mumbai-university-removes-mistry-book" target="_blank">withdrawn from the syllabus</a> of Mumbai University after Shiv Sena officials complained that the book insulted Bal Thackeray. Ironically, in <a href="http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/walk-the-talk/walk-the-talk-with-bal-thackeray-aired-on-january-28-2007/253252" target="_blank">a January 2007 interview</a> with Shekhar Gupta, the editor in chief of The Indian Express, Mr. Thackeray said that what differentiated him from the mafia is that journalists and others were free to disagree with him and criticize him.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/india-blogs-nytimes-nov-19-2012-neha-thirani-hari-kumar-women-arrested-in-mumbai-for-complaining-on-facebook'>https://cis-india.org/news/india-blogs-nytimes-nov-19-2012-neha-thirani-hari-kumar-women-arrested-in-mumbai-for-complaining-on-facebook</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial mediaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-11-21T11:32:04ZNews ItemWatch out for fettered speech
https://cis-india.org/news/www-business-standard-rohit-pradhan-sep-1-2012-watch-out-for-fettered-speech
<b>The constant attempts at censorship in the name of national security should give all right-thinking Indians pause.</b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This article by Rohit Pradhan was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/rohit-pradhan-watch-out-for-fettered-speech/485035/">published</a> in the Business Standard on September 1, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It was always predictable. That the Indian government’s war against social media “hate mongers” would turn farcical and begin targeting all and sundry: from random parodies of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s Twitter account to prominent journalists like Kanchan Gupta and Shiv Aroor. And then Communication Minister Milind Deora discovered that his own Twitter account had been blocked.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The government blames social media for hosting objectionable content and rumour-mongering that allegedly contributed to the exodus of people of northeastern origin from cities like Bangalore and Hyderabad. Despite its best attempts, the government argues, it was unable to control the mass hysteria and was left with little alternative but to block 300 websites as well as ask Twitter and Facebook to delete “objectionable” content.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It is hardly the first time that social media has been blamed for facilitating riots. The role of BlackBerry’s instant messenger during the London riots of 2011 was constantly highlighted and there was even talk of banning the popular service before saner heads prevailed. Clearly, while rumours and doctored images have always been part of riots, the instantaneous nature of social media and the relative anonymity it affords offer additional challenges.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nevertheless, the government’s constant attempts at censorship in the name of social harmony and national security should give all right-thinking Indians pause. Four simple reasons.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">First, it is astounding how quickly the attention has shifted away from the governance failures that were largely responsible for the Assam riots and the mass departure of people of northeastern origin from India’s major metropolitan centres. The local government’s laggardly response to the initial bursts of violence allowed the riots to rage for days while the government dithered over calling the army. Social media had little, if any, role to play. And while panic is admittedly difficult to control, it is the poor record of the Indian state in responding to politically motivated violence that contributed to the panic-stricken reaction of people of northeastern origin. What should worry the Indian state are not the ravings of some anonymous Twitter account but the utter lack of faith in its ability to secure the safety of some of its most vulnerable citizens.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Second, while all governments wish to control the flow of information, the track record of the Indian state in the matter of free speech has been spectacularly poor. At the slightest allegation of “hurting religious sentiments”, books are banned, movies censored, and violence is threatened. Lacking an explicit First Amendment protection, Indian citizens are virtually powerless when the government wishes to quell free speech. The draconian Information Technology Act, 2008, orders internet providers to immediately remove content that may be “grossly harmful”, “blasphemous”, “obscene”, or even disparaging with little oversight and virtually no due process of law. As the Centre for Internet and Society’s Pranesh Prakash has demonstrated, internet providers are ready to remove “objectionable” content even in the case of frivolous complaints originating from ordinary citizens. What is particularly disconcerting is that the disregard for free speech extends even to some of India’s most prominent media personalities who can often be heard exhorting the government to regulate the internet or scrub off “hate mongers”. Given this history and the government’s demonstrated contempt for free speech, its attempts at censorship should be strongly scrutinised and vigorously resisted except in the most extenuating of circumstances.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Third, the Luddites in the Indian government may not yet comprehend it, but the internet is virtually impossible to police. The government may be able to threaten giant companies like Facebook and Twitter into cooperating, but that simply means the “objectionable” content would move to darker corners of the Net. Indeed, it is surprising that the government has not considered using technology to counter malicious rumours or to reach a mass audience with a message of reassurance. Technology can be a powerful tool for doing good and it is high time the government properly harnessed its potential. As a first step, the government has to recognise that the days when it had a monopoly on information are long gone and it has to compete for people’s attention.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Finally, even the most ardent supporter of free speech should have no qualms about admitting that it can offer a platform to the bigoted or can indirectly lead to social unrest. That may be especially true for a country like India where passions run high and an ambivalent attitude towards political violence prevails. That, however, is simply the price of liberty. Yes, a society that lacks free speech may be more stable, but it would lack the spirit of rambunctious discussion, criticism and argument — the hallmarks of a liberal democracy.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India can adopt a China-lite model, which emphasises social stability over freedom. Or India can go down the path of other liberal democracies and understand that freedom – of speech, thought and behaviour – is an ideal worth cherishing and protecting. As a constitutional republic with genuine claims of being a liberal democracy, it is clear which path India should embrace.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The writer is a fellow at the Takshashila Institution. These views are personal.</p>
<hr />
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/www-business-standard-rohit-pradhan-sep-1-2012-watch-out-for-fettered-speech'>https://cis-india.org/news/www-business-standard-rohit-pradhan-sep-1-2012-watch-out-for-fettered-speech</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionSocial mediaInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-09-02T09:30:50ZNews ItemUsing Social Media for Mobilisation: Discussion with Dina Mehta and Peter Griffin
https://cis-india.org/events/event-blogs/using-social-media-for-mobilisation-discussion-with-dina-mehta-and-peter-griffin
<b>Zainab Bawa reports on the discussion with Peter Griffin and Dina Mehta, hosted at CIS on 19 June 2009, on 'Using Social Media for Mobilisation'. </b>
<p></p>
<p>Iran
Elections and the Twitter Revolution …</p>
<p>Memes
– how and why do some memes become popular on Twitter?</p>
<p>FaceBook
– privacy, community, locality, socializing?</p>
<p>Blogs
– once, we thought they would revolutionize the world, but how are blogs now placed
vis-à-vis twitter and facebook?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Many
questions abound concerning the phenomenon called 'social media', particularly
in the wake of the protests taking place in Iran and the ways in which information has
reached out to the world about what is going on in the country. The panel
discussion on social media, organised by the Centre for Internet and Society
(CIS) on 19 June 2009, aimed to understand how mobilisations take
place through social media and how memes are engineered and spread across
communities. We invited Dina Mehta and Peter Griffin to join us as panellists at the event and share
their experiences.</p>
<p>Dina
and Peter set up the tsunami help blog in December 2004 (<a href="http://tsunamihelp.blogspot.com/">http://tsunamihelp.blogspot.com</a>)
which for the first time demonstrated the importance of social media tools in
coordinating local efforts and disseminating information in the region. What
caused them to become involved through this medium? Both Dina and Peter used
discussion forums and email during the formative years of the internet in
India. 'The sheer miracle of chat', as Peter puts it, also allowed them to
connect with people. When the tsunami struck, they became nodes through which
action was mobilised and information was spread. It still remains to be
explored how nodes develop in different circumstances, how spaces of
conversations develop and what causes some individuals to enter the space of
social media and inhabit them in significant ways, to the extent of becoming
nodes for coordination and mobilisation.</p>
<p>So,
what is social media? Dina says she does not like the term. But, since it is
used so commonly, she follows the tide. For Dina and Peter, social media is a
set of tools which can be mobilised for various purposes – for a call to action,
response to a crisis, and persuading people to support a cause, among many other
things. What is curious however is that the use of social media becomes more marked
and prominent during moments of crisis. This observation led one audience member to ask
whether social media is mirroring some of the behaviours of mainstream media.
Dina pointed out that social media does not exist in opposition to mainstream
media – both complement each other. Social media becomes more powerful
during moments of crisis due to some of the following factors:</p>
<ol><li>Powerful search functions;</li><li>Tools for aggregating content which helps in picking
up the noise;</li><li>Hash (#) tags which make it easy to search and to
connect and contribute to ongoing conversations and mobilizations.
</li></ol>
<p>These
help to amplify what is going on. Dina also referred to the simplicity of
social media tools which enables diverse individuals to participate in their
own ways. She cited the recent example of showing solidarity with the Iranian
revolutionaries by adding the colour green to one’s Twitter image. 'I only had
to click to indicate whether I wanted to show support in this way and a program
automatically applied the green colour to my twitter image without my having to
do anything. I don’t have to write code to participate in this medium. I can be
anyone,' she added.</p>
<p>What
is also unique is that unlike newspapers and early television, interactions via
social media tend to be two-way. For instance, blogs have made it possible for
individuals to become publishers of their own materials whether it is diary-like entries or filter blogging. Moreover, in the case of the protests
following the Iran elections, people used their mobile phones to capture
images, make videos and post these on the internet for others to see.</p>
<p>Individuals
from the audience raised questions about how they and their organisations could
use social media tools effectively to raise funds and to communicate their
causes/issues to other people. To this, both Dina and Peter suggested that it
is important to find the spaces where conversations about issues are already
taking place and to participate in them. They also stated that credibility is
built over time through acts of giving to different communities that develop
around various issues. Dina also emphasised the need to recognise target
audiences, identify the mediums they use regularly and accordingly develop
strategies concerning the use of social media. If the outreach group is more
tuned into radio, it is more effective to reach out to them in this way. Dina
mentioned that the mobile phone is a powerful medium that is
often neglected because of the publicity that the internet tends to receive.
She said that in South East Asian countries, people have better mobile phone
connectivity, and often, political activism has taken place by spreading
messages through mobile phones. One of the participants questioned the feasibility of moving from an existing yahoogroup to start a new discussion group; to
which another audience member responded that it is preferable to stay with
existing mediums used rather than to switch. Discussion forums require
more participation and if the goal is only to send out announcements, a
yahoogroup serves the purpose.</p>
<p>The
issue of arm-chair activism was also raised – whether social media is in fact
leading people to participate in issues only through clicking ‘yes’ or ‘no’.
Peter stated that this is true, but the ease of transmitting information to
others enhances the possibility of moving beyond arm-chair activism. 'For
instance, I am concerned about eve teasing and harassment of women in public
spaces, but I may not have the time to participate in an intervention or gathering
on a particular day. However, I forward the email/invitation to my friends who are
concerned similarly and they may choose to participate on-site,' he explained.</p>
<p>The
lack of connectivity to the internet and therefore to social media was referred
to in the discussions. An audience member pointed out that according to a
recent study, only 10% of the people in India are connected to the internet.
Peter immediately remarked that the figure of 10% translated into 10 million
people which is still a large number that can be reached out to. Similarly, it
was pointed out that English is still the predominant language of the web and
therefore social media can be exclusive. In this respect, the issues are
developing technologies for facilitating the use of scripts, the extent to
which the masses use languages other than English on the internet and also
whether people in fact use the internet and other communication technologies as
a means to learn English. In this context, a participant drew our attention to a
twitter community of approximately 800 people who tweet regularly in Malayalam.</p>
<p>The
discussion brought up some interesting nuanced perspectives on social media that users and
novices may not have thought about. Questions still remain about the efficacy
of social media, the nature and characteristics of communities that are formed
around use of social media, distinctions between networks and communities, etc. Over time, these questions will be answered as usage increases
and trends are studied in all their complex aspects.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/events/event-blogs/using-social-media-for-mobilisation-discussion-with-dina-mehta-and-peter-griffin'>https://cis-india.org/events/event-blogs/using-social-media-for-mobilisation-discussion-with-dina-mehta-and-peter-griffin</a>
</p>
No publishersachiaSocial mediaDigital ActivismDiscussion2011-08-20T22:28:42ZBlog EntryThe state. And the rage of the cyber demon
https://cis-india.org/news/www-tehelka-com-vol-9-issue-36-sep-8-2012-shougat-dasgupta-the-state-and-the-rage-of-the-cyber-demon
<b>The Internet might be a Pandora’s box. But should the government be wasting time regulating the cacophony?</b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Shougat Dasgupta's article was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.tehelka.com/story_main53.asp?filename=Op080912State.asp">published</a> in Tehelka, Vol 9, Issue 36, Dated September 8, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">SOME YEARS ago a cartoon was doing the rounds that caught in a few sharp strokes the selfimportance and self-righteousness of the Internet warrior. A man sits hunched at his computer, the keyboard lit with his fervour. Not looking away from the screen, he has a terse, impatient exchange with his partner off-panel: ‘Are you coming to bed?’ ‘I can’t. This is important.’ ‘What?’ ‘Someone is wrong on the Internet.’ It is the anonymous exchange that gives cyber debates their peculiar animus; that anonymity coupled with the low stakes, as is famously said of academic politics, is what makes the sniping so bitter and vicious. The complaints about social media like Twitter or the comment sections on blogs have mostly centred on the incivility of the discourse, on ‘trolls’ too eager to throw rotting vegetables at journalists, politicians, celebrities unused to such irreverence. But action taken by the government in the last fortnight to block content from over 300 websites and a dozen Twitter accounts imputes a far more vitiating effect on society than the mere puncturing of already overinflated egos.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Kapil Sibal, Minister for Communications & Information Technology, has said in interviews that the government’s intent was to “protect the victims” from these “mischievous acts happening through these sites and blogs”. There is, by now, little doubt that the threats and fake pictures of slain Muslims spread through mobile phones and social media, “disseminating misinformation” in the minister’s phrase, helped exacerbate tensions and fears. There is equally little doubt that what action the government took was both late and clumsy: blocking blogs that debunked the rumours and morphed images that the government held responsible for causing panic; blocking web pages of international news organisations such as The Telegraph and Al-Jazeera; blocking Twitter accounts of journalists, the government’s political opponents, accounts parodying the prime minister, even people who tweeted mostly about information technology and cricket. Like a giant in clown shoes chasing a sprite, the government has looked lumbering and foolish, led a merry dance by light-footed ‘netizens’, while the rest of us pointed and laughed.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Can the government’s actions be at all justified? Appearing on NDTV’s ‘We the People’, R Chandrashekhar, Secretary, Department of Information Technology, argued that “once a law enforcement agency has made an assessment you act first and then make corrections as you go along”. In essence, extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures, which along with concern for ‘national security’ is trotted out by every democratic government accused of ignoring civil liberties. Congress spokesperson Manish Tewari, on the same programme, claimed that the “mandate of section 69a of the Information Technology Act and the rules with regard to safeguards and blocking is fairly clear and rule 9 allows the government, if it thinks that there’s an expedient situation in order to protect the sovereignty of the State or public order, to go ahead with this blocking on an interim basis”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">We will discuss the section being referred to and the 2011 guidelines for intermediaries later but for now let’s accept the government’s argument that it acted in the face of a clear and present danger, to borrow from Oliver Wendell Holmes, the famous 19th-century US Supreme Court Justice. Kharan Thapar, citing another of Holmes’s shopworn phrases, wrote that “[ j]ust as it’s not acceptable to shout fire in a crowded cinema hall for the fun of it, it cannot be permitted to deliberately frighten helpless innocent people who, for whatever reason, believe you and panic”. Thapar is making the point that free speech is not without its responsibilities. He does so, however, using a long discredited cliché and compounds this error with condescension, refusing to grant people (“helpless”, “innocent”, like babies) their full agency. Besides, the government only acted from 18 August to limit text messaging, already months after initial images of supposed Burmese atrocities against Muslims had been widely circulated to stir anger. It also chose to block webpages and Twitter handles, some for spurious, even mystifying reasons. The result has been embarrassment. Acting arbitrarily in the name of communal harmony to prevent damage after terrible damage has already been done, does little to convince the people you are supposedly protecting that you have the situation in hand.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The government has left itself open to being serially lectured about free speech by the US government, by journalists (particularly Kanchan Gupta, whose apparently blocked Twitter account has made him a patron saint of free speech), by hysterical twitterers (ok, ‘tweeple’) drawing an entirely ridiculous parallel to the Emergency, and most egregiously by Narendra Modi. Presumably, Modi, by blackening his display picture was not commenting on the black irony of a man who bans books mourning constraints on freedom of speech. Pranesh Prakash of the Bengaluru-based Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), a trenchant critic of the government’s recent blocks (social media not coal) and the “horrendously drafted” legislation that permits the leeway for such indiscriminate action, says that “people [were] losing a sense of reality”.</p>
<table class="invisible">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th><img align="middle" height="268" src="http://www.tehelka.com/channels/Op-ed/2012/September/08/images/Illustration.jpg" width="185" /></th>
<td style="text-align: justify; ">He points to the criticism of the government’s blocking of parodies of the prime minister’s Twitter account. “An underreported part of this whole controversy,” he says,“is Twitter’s own terms of service and one parody account in particular violates those terms.” He confesses to “having to look quite closely” to tell the PMO account from PMO, which substitutes a zero for the letter ‘o’. Also, according to sources, a letter sent last year by the government to the likes of Google and Facebook asking them to screen for offensive content specifically excepted parody and satire. If accurate, this underscores that the Prime Minister’s Office did not have a problem with parody but a genuine, if peculiar, fear of misinformation stemming from the six accounts it asked Twitter to remove.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">NONE OF this is to say that the government, in its haste, acted with reason. Certainly, it has since last year been working assiduously to exert at least some control over online content. The rules from April last year updating sections of the Information Technology Act, 2000, requires “due diligence” from companies like Twitter, or Facebook, to not “host, display, upload, modify, publish, transmit, update or share any information that… is grossly harmful, harassing, blasphemous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, paedophilic, libellous, invasive of another’s privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically objectionable, disparaging, relating or encouraging money laundering or gambling, or otherwise unlawful in any manner whatever…” Disparaging? Encouraging gambling? Well, gambling, at least in casinos, is lawful in Goa and Sikkim. No wonder Kapil Sibal felt he was on firm legal ground when he complained in December about “derogatory pictures” of Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh that the government had culled from Facebook accounts.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Prakash, of the CIS, describes the Information Technology Act, particularly sections 69a and 66 as “having issues and being badly worded”. The powers it gives the government are too intrusive and that the prison sentences for offenders “are greater than those for death by negligence”. What he finds most troubling is how little transparency exists around issues of censorship; how, for instance, there is no easily accessible central list of banned books. “How,” he asks, “are people even supposed to know if their website or Twitter account is blocked if the government won’t issue proper notices and lists?” Our democratically elected government appears fond of the aristocratic maxim to never contradict, never explain, never apologise, as if hauteur and bluster are adequate substitutes for communication and we are subjects rather than citizens.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Seen in isolation, the blocking of websites and rationing of text messages is just a comical bungle by an unwieldy, Luddite administration. In the context of the last 12 months though, the government’s recent actions are a logical extension of its drive to bring the Internet to heel. The unregulated nature of the Internet is a particular bugbear of this government. It had already made a proposal to the United Nations in October last year, at the 66th session of the General Assembly, for the institution of a Committee for Internet- Related Policies. This 50-nation body would be tasked not to control the Internet, “or allow Governments to have the last word in regulating the Internet, but to make sure that the Internet is governed not unilaterally, but in an open, democratic, inclusive and participatory manner, with the participation of all stakeholders”. For all the incompetence the government has displayed, both most recently and in previous attempts to censor Internet content, it asks an important question about the future of Internet regulation, about the need for multilateral debate and international consensus.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">TEHELKA, as cyber chatter about the blocked sites grew increasingly frenzied, asked its online readers to define the forum provided by social media. Most agreed that Twitter, for instance, was a public space, a place to give vent to private thoughts publicly with, if wanted or needed, the comfort of anonymity. The metaphor used is often that of a public square or town hall. I’ve always thought of Twitter as a carnival — a space, as defined by the Russian literary theorist Mikhail Bakhtin, where the existing social order is overturned, where social pieties are profaned. Twitter, like carnival, appeared to me an exhilarating space. This is utterly naïve. The fact is that Twitter is not a public space, it is privately owned and its investors are in the business of revenue generation and profit. This means Twitter’s terms of service are subject to change, as is its cooperation with governments over the private information it controls and owns.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Rahul Bose, the actor, told me in a conversation about social media that he thinks individual freedom is increasingly an “illusion”, that the very idea has become “laughable”. We live our lives, particularly our online lives, under the unblinking gaze of government: “You don’t need a close circuit camera at Flora Fountain to know you’re being watched, that every piece of information is on a file somewhere.” (This is probably not quite true of our dozy government.) It is indisputable that private entities such as Facebook and Twitter hold enormous amounts of information about individuals. In that light, surely, the Indian government is correct about the need for multilateral oversight of a system currently beholden in significant ways to the United States. ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, for instance, still makes only a token gesture at global participation and any question of greater United Nations involvement is generally met with US suspicion.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Arguably, the Indian government doesn’t go far enough in its call for greater inclusivity in the governance of the Internet. The academic Jeremy Malcolm, an influential figure in discussions about Internet governance, has written that the World Summit on the Information Society has “established at the level of principle that governance of the Internet should be a transparent, democratic and multilateral process, with the participation of governments, private sector, civil society and international organisations, in their respective roles”. More immediate, perhaps, is the question of how a democratic country, committed to free speech, should regard social media.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This is not a discussion confined to India. During the August 2012 London riots, David Cameron threatened to ban people suspected of planning criminal activity from using Facebook, Twitter, and Blackberry Messenger. In words similar to those used by Sibal, Cameron spoke about reminding these companies of their responsibilities. In an interview with TEHELKA, Congress General Secretary Digvijaya Singh held close to the party line, insisting that “anything that incites violence is problematic, as is anything that is factually incorrect, and must be removed”. He envisages a future where online exchanges are governed by the same rules as public life, governed by similar cultural codes and basic civility. This is, it has to be said, an optimistic view of public life.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There are, as discussed earlier, as many different ways to see online exchanges as there are Internet users. The Internet’s shapelessness, its Moby Dick-like vast blankness, makes it impossible to apply the same standards to conversation on Twitter or Facebook, even if it is in print and in public, as you might apply to a magazine article. Pranesh Prakash points out that “while some people may see Twitter as akin to friends talking in the pub, others use the service as a bulletin board”. When I propose to Prakash the idea of an ombudsman to monitor online dialogue in the same way an independent press commission might monitor newspaper reports, he makes a cogent rebuttal: “There is no ombudsman for regular speech, or to outline what you can or cannot say from a podium. Besides, there are laws that deal with defamation, slander and unless there is a requirement for an extra-legal authority I cannot see the need for an ombudsman.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Much of the debate over the last couple of weeks has devolved, as so much debate in all our media, mainstream or online, does, into grandstanding — in this instance about ‘freedom of speech’ versus the national security imperative. This is to miss the woods for the trees. For all its heavy-handedness, the Indian government is correct to be concerned about oversight of the Internet and correct that not enough stakeholders are currently involved in its governance. Cant about freedom of speech cannot change the fact that the government is also correct that in a precariously held together democracy comprising various, widely different cultures and religions, certain standards of respectful speech are necessary. Of course, we can and should argue those standards and there needs to be a national conversation about the strictures of Internet legislation in India. Still, let us not pretend that the mob mentality of political discourse on the Internet is not a cause for worry and is not, as are all mobs, subject to manipulation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>With inputs from Ajachi Chakrabarti</i>. <br />Shougat Dasgupta is an Assistant Editor with Tehelka.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/www-tehelka-com-vol-9-issue-36-sep-8-2012-shougat-dasgupta-the-state-and-the-rage-of-the-cyber-demon'>https://cis-india.org/news/www-tehelka-com-vol-9-issue-36-sep-8-2012-shougat-dasgupta-the-state-and-the-rage-of-the-cyber-demon</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionSocial mediaInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-09-03T11:03:53ZNews ItemTata Photon unblocks Wordpress.com
https://cis-india.org/news/tech-2-in-com-aug-30-2012-tata-photon-unblocks-wordpress
<b>As of yesterday, the Tata Photon service of the Internet service provider (ISP) Tata Teleservices seems to have lifted the block it had put on the Wordpress.com domain for over a week.</b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The post was <a class="external-link" href="http://tech2.in.com/news/services/tata-photon-unblocks-wordpresscom/403112">published</a> in tech2 on August 30, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted in it.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Tech2 had reported on Saturday that the free platform of <b><a href="http://tech2.in.com/news/services/some-isps-block-wordpress-domain-across-india/392092" target="_blank" title="Some ISPs block Wordpress domain across India">Wordpress was put under a blanket ban across India by the ISP</a></b> following government orders to block around 309 URLs carrying disruptive or inflammatory content. Directives issued by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) to ISPs between August 18 and 21 state that only the URLs mentioned be blocked, not entire domains. Users could neither view Wordpress blogs nor edit or post new content on them, the first instance of which was noticed by us on August 20.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Our repeated efforts to contact Tata Teleservices' officials drew a blank. Numerous users who contacted customer service did not receive any replies or resolution. Through the course of the blockade, the ISP did not even display any message to Wordpress visitors that the domain was blocked, nor did it notify the owners of Wordpress blogs about it. Puzzled users tried resetting their Internet connections, clearing DNS caches, and calling the customer service helpline only to realise that they were experiencing an ISP-level block.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The reactions of Wordpress users ranged from annoyance to distress. Human rights activist and lawyer Kamayani Bali Mahabal commented on Tech2, <i>"Yes, my wordpress blog is blocked and I have 4 blogs...have also written to TATA. I can access through [an] anonymous browser but I cannot log in, edit and do admin functions, I can do about 50 percent work on my blog. Dashboard not accessible[,] barely manage to post, will be suing TATA soon"</i>. In a <b><a href="http://kractivist.wordpress.com/2012/08/29/tatadocomo-censorship-on-wordpress-step-by-step-guide-foe/" target="_blank" title="TATADOCOMO #censorship on wordpress- step by step guide #FOE">blog post</a></b>, she has described her experience of the block.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Blogger Shantanu Adhicary who goes by the <i>nom de blog</i> Tantanoo says, <i>"My blogs are self-hosted [on Wordpress] so I was not affected. But it was annoying that I was unable to access, read or comment on other Wordpress blogs, especially in the absence of any message whatsoever that this site has been blocked".</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The move by Tata Teleservices is being seen as ham handed; around 25 million Wordpress blogs were made inaccessible to deal with a few rotten eggs. Blogger and social media consultant Prateek Shah opines, <i>"Blanket bans on domains because content on some of their pages is objectionable are akin to jailing a certain section of society just because some people from the community broke the law. Wordpress plays an extremely important role on the Internet and if such a site were to go down even for a few hours, it would mean mayhem for bloggers as well as readers who count on the platform to get the latest updates and information. ISPs need to mature and grow up to the fact that one can't put millions of people in jeopardy when apparently trying to protect the interests of some".</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In June, the Madras High Court had granted relief to netizens in India by urging that there be no more John Doe orders. <i>“The order of interim injunction dated 25/04/2012 is hereby clarified that the interim injunction is granted only in respect of a particular URL where the infringing movie is kept and not in respect of the entire website. Further, the applicant is directed to inform about the particulars of URL where the interim movie is kept within 48 hours.”<i> </i></i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director at Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), agrees the move was wrong but shares insights about the position of the ISPs. He says, <i>"It was obviously wrong. It contravenes the government's orders to not block the base URL but individual pages. Action should be taken against them for causing inconvenience to users. This is not the first time an ISP has gone overboard in implementing censorship, be it copyright issues, piracy or inflammatory content. In 2006, the government had </i><b><i><a href="http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=18954" target="_blank" title="DoT orders Internet Service Providers to block only the specified webpages/websites">chastised ISPs</a></i></b><i> for over-censoring content and blocking unintended websites and pages. Having said that, ISPs have numerous grouses against the government. They do not possess the technical capabilities to implement the government's orders, at times, whether about surveillance or censorship". </i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">ISPs that are also telecom services providers, find themselves <b><a href="http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-08-25/news/33385182_1_isps-text-messages-smses" target="_blank" title="Blocking Twitter: How Internet Service Providers & telcos were caught between tweets and tall egos">unable to decipher government notifications</a></b> about shutting off content on the Internet or introducing curbs on mobile communication. <b><a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/analysing-blocked-sites-riots-communalism" target="_blank" title="Analysing Latest List of Blocked Sites (Communalism & Rioting Edition)">Prakash's analysis</a></b> of the 300-odd URLs blocked by the Indian government reveals glaring mistakes in the government directives <i>"that made blocking pointless and effectual"</i>. When asked to opine about what ISPs and telcos should do when the orders from the government were not crystal clear, Prakash said, <i>"They should ask for clarifications from the government. The operators sought clarifications from the Ministry of Telecommunications about the recent orders to ban bulk text messages and MMSes. The ministry was unable to resolve them, and in turn, sought further clarifications from the Home Ministry. The government should coordinate better"</i>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Tata Teleservices was not the only ISP guilty of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Sify too reportedly imposed a blanket block on the Wordpress domain. Airtel went overboard by temporarily blocking Youtu.be URLs last week citing orders by the court or the DoT.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/tech-2-in-com-aug-30-2012-tata-photon-unblocks-wordpress'>https://cis-india.org/news/tech-2-in-com-aug-30-2012-tata-photon-unblocks-wordpress</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial mediaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-09-03T01:53:47ZNews ItemSurvey : Digital Natives with a cause?
https://cis-india.org/digital-natives/blog/survey-digital-natives-with-a-cause
<b>This survey seeks to consolidate information about how young people who have grown up with networked technologies use and experience online platforms and tools. It is also one of the first steps we have taken to interact with Digital Natives from around the world — especially in emerging information societies — to learn, understand and explore the possibilities of change via technology that lie before the Digital Natives. The findings from the survey will be presented at a multi-stakeholder conference later this year in The Netherlands.
</b>
<p>The Centre for Internet and Society, in collaboration with Hivos' Knowledge Programme, launched the "Digital Natives with a Cause?" Programme in 2008. After the initial study (<a href="https://cis-india.org/publications/cis/nishant/dnrep.pdf/view" class="external-link">click here for a free download</a>), we are now gathering responses from young users of technology to help us understand, document and support different practices aimed at social transformation and political participation more efficiently.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>We believe that the world is changing very fast and that the rise of Internet technologies has a lot to do with it. As young users of technology (as opposed to young users who use technology) adopt, adapt and use these new technologised tools to interact with their environment, new ways of effecting change emerge. This survey is an attempt to capture some of the information which gives us an insight into who the people are, using these technologies, the ways in which they use them and what their perceptions and experiences are.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The survey will not take more than 7 minutes of your time but it will help us get a better sense of the way things are.</p>
<p> </p>
<strong>Please click here so start the
<a href="http://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dG9reUVvQ0w4d1ZER3lKOUtFanZMUnc6MA" target="_blank"> survey</a>.</strong>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/digital-natives/blog/survey-digital-natives-with-a-cause'>https://cis-india.org/digital-natives/blog/survey-digital-natives-with-a-cause</a>
</p>
No publisherpushpaSocial mediaDigital NativesYouthFeaturedDigital subjectivitiesSocial Networking2011-08-04T10:35:43ZBlog EntrySome ISPs block Wordpress domain across India
https://cis-india.org/news/tech2-in-com-som-isps-block-wordpress-domain-across-india
<b>Latest reports confirm that Tata Photon has blocked access to the Wordpress.com domain across India, following a government order to block web pages containing offensive content.</b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Published in<a class="external-link" href="http://tech2.in.com/news/services/some-isps-block-wordpress-domain-across-india/392092"> tech 2 </a>on August 25, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Apparently, the ISP has resorted to a blanket ban, blocking access to the entire site instead of clamping down on specific web pages carrying unacceptable content. Wordpress is accessible through other ISPs such as Airtel and Reliance. However, there is no clarity yet about any other ISP blocking out Wordpress entirely, and we are in the process of verifying this.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">We find that the domain can be accessed through means such as free proxy websites when using a Tata Photon connection, which could indicate that the problem does not lie with the Wordpress server. Despite the inability to view Wordpress websites and blogs, those with registered accounts on Wordpress are able to log in to the website. Certain portions of the Dashboard or website backend are known to have been blocked, and what remains accessible is functioning very slowly for Tata Photon users. Users cannot edit or post new content at the moment, but can view sections such as the website's stats. However, this all-encompassing block seems to be affecting only the Wordpress.com platform and not Wordpress.org.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img alt="Error message" height="348" src="http://im.tech2.in.com/gallery/2012/aug/error_message_251726069579_640x360.jpg" width="620" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The error message that most users are coming to</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A blogger by the name 'Anon and on' has written, <i>“I can’t access any WordPress.com blog from home. Neither can I open up the window for a new post or access any support forums. I’ve cleared the cache and tried different browsers, but no luck. All I can do is log in. If I try to see any WordPress.com blog or access my Dashboard or hit “New Post”, the notification I get is that the server couldn’t be contacted and that I should check my connection. Which I would do if it wasn’t for the fact that I can open any and every other website”.</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">We tried to contact Tata Photon to get a clear idea, but it was unavailable for comment. We also contacted Tata Photon users, who run their websites and blogs on the Wordpress platform. They said they have been unable to access the service since Monday. Many users tweeted out their puzzlement and frustration after discovering that they were suddenly unable to view their own blogs and sites.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>"Tata simply blocked 25 MILLION wordpress blogs @cis_india highlight this"</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i> "Not able to open http://Wordpress.com blogs on Tata Photon Plus."</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>"all wordpress blogs blocked in Tata photon plus"</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>"It's some Tata Photon bug. Wordpress working fine with Reliance."</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>"There is a known issue with Tata Photon and Wordpress. Found 5 people who have the same."</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In protest, some bloggers from across the country have formed a group called the Indian Bloggers' Forum. The forum plans to approach the Supreme Court with a PIL seeking immediate unblocking of their blogs and websites.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Earlier this week, a list containing 309 URLs sought to be banned by the government in light of the Assam violence and the subsequent exodus in northeast India was <b><a href="http://tech2.in.com/news/general/ne-exodus-list-containing-309-blocked-urls-leaks-online/387722" target="_blank" title="NE exodus: List containing 309 blocked URLs leaks online">leaked online</a>.</b> The URLs comprising Twitter accounts, HTML img tags, blog posts, entire blogs, and a handful of websites, were blocked between August 18 and 21. In an analysis of the leaked information, Pranesh Prakash, Programme Manager at the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) wrote, <i>"It is clear that the list was not compiled with sufficient care". </i>The list included Wordpress.com and Wordpress.org among other domains. However, only select entries - 3 from Wordpress.org and 8 from Wordpress.com- were meant to be blocked out.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The clampdown on websites with content deemed to be offensive and disruptive led to the Indian government ordering the <b><a href="http://tech2.in.com/news/web-services/65-more-web-pages-with-offensive-content-blocked/385252" target="_blank" title="Government blocking web pages with offensive content">blocking of around 310 web pages</a></b>. The Centre began to come down heavily on the channels it believed were playing a role in triggering fear, and leading to violence and the mass displacement of Indians from the northeast. It has been reported that morphed images and videos were uploaded to these websites with the intention of inciting the Muslim community in the country.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">If your access to Wordpress has been blocked, let us know in your comments.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/tech2-in-com-som-isps-block-wordpress-domain-across-india'>https://cis-india.org/news/tech2-in-com-som-isps-block-wordpress-domain-across-india</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionSocial mediaInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-08-26T15:16:30ZNews ItemRound Table on Assessing the Efficacy of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) for Public Initiatives: A Report
https://cis-india.org/events/event-blogs/round-table-assessing-efficacy
<b>Zainab Bawa reports on the Round Table on Assessing the Efficacy of Information and Communication Technologies for Public Initiatives, hosted by the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, on 17 June 2009, in collaboration with the Liberty Institute, New Delhi. </b>
<p></p>
<p>
In
recent times, there has been an upsurge in the use of ICTs to provide
information to people and to elicit participation. Individuals, corporate
organisations, NGOs, civil society organisations, collectives, municipalities,
political parties and politicians have been using the internet and other
mediums to communicate with people. The round table was organised primarily to
discuss two issues:</p>
<ol><li>What is the
effectiveness of the initiatives introduced in recent times?</li><li>How do we
move forward in terms of partnerships/collaborations in the areas of data
gathering, sharing, dissemination and architecture of information? </li></ol>
<p>Given
the constraints of time, however, we were only able to discuss a few issues with
respect to efficacy of initiatives, rather than come up with a concrete action
plan on how to measure effectiveness of many of the existing initiatives. This
remains an agenda for subsequent meetings.</p>
<p>This round table was the first meeting of its kind. It
brought together participants from diverse backgrounds to discuss key issues
involved in leveraging ICTs towards various ends, and to collaborate with each
other on ongoing initiatives. Participants included researchers,
persons who have developed information platforms and databases, individuals
working in the area of leveraging technology for streamlining processes in
society and people who have been studying usage patterns of social media tools.
Most of the participants were using ICTs to improve information access
related to health issues, education, budgets, development of rural areas and
recently, elections and governance. In the subsequent sections, I will briefly
elaborate on some of the key themes around which discussions took place
during the round table.</p>
<p><strong>Building on Ideas:</strong> In the morning
and pre-lunch sessions, one issue that featured prominently was the importance of developing ideas rather than trying to work out a perfect model that
we believe will solve what we perceive to be people’s problems. Two of the
participants explained that they started implementing ideas as they came to
them, rather than trying to come up with a framework that they thought would
work for the masses. They worked towards evolving their ideas, exploring what
works and what does not. One of them further pointed out that such evolution
cannot be observed as it happens; it only becomes apparent in hindsight. Hence,
discussions such as the current round table are useful.</p>
<p>It is
also important to note that we are still in a nascent stage of understanding
how ICTs can impact people’s lives and deploying them accordingly. As a result, many efforts are likely to be in the stage of trial and error.</p>
<p><strong>Key areas of interest and concern:</strong> Based
on the input from participants in the morning session, we
arrived at a list of areas that require more understanding and discussion.</p>
<ol><li><u>Information gathering, dissemination, access –
including information architecture, technology design</u>:
Here, three issues were discussed:</li>
<ul><li>Who are we talking about when we refer to information
access? It was pointed out that information is crucial particularly for people
who do not have computers and for whom internet is not a priority. The intensity
with which they seek information is remarkable. One of the participants argued
that we undervalue the potential of information to make a difference to
people’s lives.</li><li>How do we deliver information? Providing information
is not enough.</li><li>Representativeness of the information for those who it
is provided for.
</li></ul>
</ol>
<p>Another issue that was referred to
was whether language is a problem, i.e., most information is available only in
English. One of the participants suggested that this is not the case because Google has found that a very small percentage of the population actually refers
to material on the web in languages other than English.</p>
<ol type="1" start="2"><li><u>Community mobilization</u>:
During the deliberations, we referred to the problem of replication of initiatives. Two observers of social media pointed
out that replication happens because people are trying to create their own
unique communities around their initiatives. This is an important insight
for future efforts and also indicates the need to share databases and
information that individuals and organisations have compiled. They also
suggested that it is important to discover existing communities and spaces
where conversations around issues of governance, education, health and
development are taking place. This helps to plug into existing resource
pools and to extend outreach. <br /></li></ol>
<ol type="1" start="3"><li><u>Citizens’ participation</u>:
Initiatives that work and why they
succeed - We briefly discussed the Jaagore campaign and India Vote Report,
which were launched before the 2009 national elections in India to enable
people to register on the electoral rolls and to report irregularities during
elections respectively. Some people found it difficult to register
themselves on the Jaagore website and some had difficulties in finding the
local offices where they needed to follow-up with the process. It was also
pointed out that Vote Report did not connect with the end user because it
would have been easier to report irregularities and anomalies via SMS
rather than trying to report them by logging on to the site. If one looks
at the case of the Online Complaint Management System (OCMS) developed by
Praja, the availability of the telephone hotline service through which
citizens could register their complaints helped in widening usage. Thus,
it appears that two issues are pertinent:</li>
<ul><li>Whether the initiative connects with the people who
are likely to use it;</li><li>Simplicity of design/system that enables more users. <br />
</li></ul>
</ol>
<p><strong>Target
Audience:</strong> One of
the participants pointed out that some initiatives do not work because they are
targeted towards the wrong audiences. For example, when it comes to voting and
elections, poor groups are the ones who go out and vote in large numbers.
Hence, information systems need to be tailored to provide them with the data
that they need most. Access also has to be configured accordingly. In some
instances, the target is too broad to reach out effectively.</p>
<p>It appears that there is a need to
develop strategies on how platforms and databases that have been created to
enhance access to information can be made known among the masses and how people
can be made aware to use them. It is equally important to understand what
constitutes ‘information’ and for whom. Here,
the other issue to explore is how information links back to the people for who
it is provided.</p>
<ol type="1" start="4"><li><u>Technology</u>: In this
area, a key concern was the high costs involved in developing technologies
and whether we could learn from each other’s experience of developing
technologies instead of reinventing the wheel. We also discussed whether
open source software helps to reduce costs of development. The other issue
with respect to open source is whether there is enough assistance and
support available to resolve problems that may crop up during use of
technology from time to time. </li></ol>
<p><strong>Sharing
of Data:</strong> Discussions also veered around the issue of whether
appropriate technology and applications could be created to help with sharing
existing databases and information pools. We did not discuss this issue
in depth, but it remains relevant for subsequent meetings.</p>
<ol type="1" start="5"><li><u>Back end integration</u>: According
to some of the participants, one of major problems is the interface
between government and citizens, which remains weak. Technology
can be used to enhance the interactions. Participants also pointed out
the difficulty in obtaining data from government bodies that is important
to create the interface between government and citizens. A participant
involved with the Jaagore campaign referred to the problem of back-end
integration during their efforts to help citizens register themselves with
the election commission (EC) offices. A participant from Google similarly
reported that they faced problems in obtaining election results from the EC’s
offices as a result of which, they had to rely on their partners for this
information. Here too, we could not deliberate on how to resolve this
problem, but this could be a major theme for a subsequent meeting. <br /></li></ol>
<ol type="1" start="6"><li><u>Performance (monitoring, evaluation)</u>:
One of the themes that participants zeroed in on was the evaluation of
the performance of elected representatives and making this evaluation available for
people to see. Here, the debate was around the problem of evaluation being carried out according to the criteria we set which may not seem relevant
to other sections of society. One of the suggestions that came up was to
develop a matrix for evaluation and put out information accordingly.
People can then use it to make their own judgments. <img src="https://cis-india.org/events/event-blogs/uploads/00016.jpg/image_preview" alt="rt2" class="image-right" title="rt2" /><br /></li></ol>
<p>In
the post-lunch session, some of the participants shared their experiences with
implementation and also the work they and their organisations are currently
engaged with. Towards the end of the round table, each one of the participants
explained their respective projects and how they may wish to collaborate with
other participants (who were present) in their initiatives. An e-group called “CIS-Info-Access” has
been created to take these conversations and collaborations further. </p>
<h3><strong>Evaluation of the Round Table and Way Forward:</strong> <br /></h3>
<p>When
invitations were sent out to people to participate in the round table, many of
the invitees expressed a genuine and enthusiastic interest in being part of
this effort. As mentioned above, one of the reasons for this enthusiasm was
because this was the first meeting of its kind, bringing together
individuals from the fields of technology, research and implementation. We
invited a total of 35 people out of which 27 finally attended the meeting.
The diversity of the participants was an asset in that a variety of issues were
brought to the table. The drawback was that there was not enough time to
discuss some of the pertinent issues in depth. Future meetings can be tailored
to discuss one or two specific themes such as back-end integration and sharing
of information, technology issues, ideas for mobilising citizens and
communities, etc.</p>
<p>The
possibilities of collaboration between participants in this meeting are immense
and we hope that some of the synergies will materialise into concrete outcomes.
Further, a few participants have expressed an interest in organising similar
meetings in their cities/towns, perhaps focusing on a few issues instead of
bringing people together under a broad theme. Of some of the issues discussed,
participants have indicated that back-end integration with government and
ideating on different ways of disseminating data can be further deliberated on
in future. One of the participants also suggested that there is a need to make
‘data’ more relevant to people’s lives.</p>
<p>While
the meeting was fruitful in many respects, one issue needs to be underlined.
This concerns the imagination of internet and ICTs as mediums that can resolve all existing problems with respect to citizen-government
interface, streamlining of processes and provision of information. Such an
overarching imagination of technology overlooks the cultural, economic, social and
political specificities of communities and contexts. Technology
can also have negative implications in some circumstances. It also needs to be
reinforced that technology is embedded in society and culture. Therefore we
need to view technology as one of the avenues among others available which will
facilitate interactions between people and their governments and the state.
Democratisation is more likely to be realised through such a perspective.</p>
<p></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/events/event-blogs/round-table-assessing-efficacy'>https://cis-india.org/events/event-blogs/round-table-assessing-efficacy</a>
</p>
No publishersachiaSocial mediaDigital ActivismDigital AccessPublic AccountabilityDiscussionFeaturedTransparency, Politics2011-08-20T22:28:55ZBlog EntryPolitical war on the web
https://cis-india.org/news/www-tehelka-com-kunal-majumder-tehelka-magazine-vol-9-issue-36-sep-8-2012-political-war-on-the-web
<b>Twitter is not only the ‘people’s voice’. It is also a forum for orchestrated propaganda.Kunal Majumder tracks the BJP-Congress online duel.</b>
<hr />
<p>Kunal Majumder's article was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.tehelka.com/story_main53.asp?filename=Ne080912Political.asp">published</a> in Tehelka Magazine, Vol 9, Issue 36, Dated 08 Sept 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<table class="invisible">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th><img align="middle" src="http://www.tehelka.com/channels/News/2012/September/08/images/digvijay.jpg" /></th><th><img align="middle" src="http://www.tehelka.com/channels/News/2012/September/08/images/sushma.jpg" /></th>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>New battlelines Digvijaya Singh (left) and Sushma Swaraj are active tweeples<br />Photos: Shailendra Pandey</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">ON 27 August, as the Congress and the BJP battled it out in Parliament and later through news conferences, the story on Twitter was a bit different. Congress supporters, who had been at the receiving end of the ‘Coalgate’ issue so far, finally started hitting back. Adopting a strategy they had so far been accusing right-wingers of, they launched into an all-out attack on anyone who supported the BJP. Every tweet was hashtagged with #RIPBJP. At the end of the day, #RIPBJP was trending, making it the most successful Congress campaign against the BJP — a first on Twitter.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“The social media battle against the BJP has just begun,” says a Congress supporter associated with the new project. “In the days to come, you will see our volunteers in a more combative mode.” However, he says it will not “replicate the negative campaign of the right-wing”.<br /><br />The Congress’ social media strategy is spearheaded by its tech-savvy General Secretary Digvijaya Singh. On Twitter for nearly nine months, Singh has been readying to take on the BJP on its own turf and influence the ‘voice of people’. Though serious doubt remains about how much of this voice is real and how much is a result of political propaganda.<br /><br />The push for the Congress to take the battle online comes from the recent ‘banning’ of Twitter handles of BJP sympathiser and senior journalist Kanchan Gupta. While the government insists that the handles were blocked due to security issues, Gupta claimed political martyrdom and launched a tirade against the Congress for imposing a second Emergency. Hashtags like #Emergency2012 and #GOIBlocks started trending, with BJP supporters turning their display pictures to black. "The fact remains none of the blockings were politically motivated,” says Pranesh Prakash, programme manager with Centre for Internet and Society. Prakash instead points to the UPA’s earlier request to IT companies like Google and Facebook to pull down certain pages, which displayed morphed photos and cartoons of Congress “functionaries” as clear example of politically motivated intervention.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Though no explanation was forthcoming from the government as to why specific handles were blocked temporarily through ISPs (Twitter has still not blocked them), the PMO issued a statement saying it has requested Twitter to take “appropriate action against six persons impersonating the PMO”. Certain handles like @PM0India (with a ‘zero’) were often accused of impersonating the actual @PMOIndia. But that’s another story.</p>
<table class="invisible">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th>
<hr />
#Emergency2012 and #GOIBlocks started trending, <br />with various BJP supporters turning their display pictures to black
<hr />
</th>
<td style="text-align: justify; ">The day Gupta’s handle was ‘blocked’, former bureaucrat B Raman wrote a blog that gave an interesting insight into why the government might have targeted Gupta. Raman describes a meeting that took place in Ahmedabad in 2008 — just before the 2009 General Elections — attended by senior BJP leaders and sympathisers, including Gupta. Raman says the general feeling among BJP participants was that mainstream media was not giving enough opportunities to the BJP and other right-wing activists to air their views. Therefore, “it was suggested by some participants that the BJP could get over this handicap by making good use of the online media”. Raman goes on to point that supporters of Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi and other right-wingers have since then used online media superbly with help of IT-savvy Hindutva supporters.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">What Raman wrote in his blog is confirmed by the BJP’s IT Cell Convener, Arvind Gupta. The BJP was not only the first political party in India to have a website in 1999, its social media network has been way ahead of any other political group in the country. From posting updates to engaging users, it has a well-oiled social media machinery in place. Arvind calls this the “listen, engage and inform” model. This includes Internet TV, YouTube and messenger chats. In fact, the next big thing on the party’s social media agenda is the interaction with Narendra Modi on Google+ Hangout.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Poli-Tweeting</b></p>
<table class="invisible">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th><img align="middle" src="http://www.tehelka.com/channels/News/2012/September/08/images/twi1.jpg" /></th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img align="middle" src="http://www.tehelka.com/channels/News/2012/September/08/images/sushma2.jpg" /></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Poli-Faking</b></p>
<table class="invisible">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th><img align="middle" src="http://www.tehelka.com/channels/News/2012/September/08/images/tweet1.jpg" /></th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img align="middle" src="http://www.tehelka.com/channels/News/2012/September/08/images/advani.jpg" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img align="middle" src="http://www.tehelka.com/channels/News/2012/September/08/images/neta.jpg" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img align="middle" src="http://www.tehelka.com/channels/News/2012/September/08/images/bjp.jpg" /></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">BUT IT is not political agenda that has left Digvijaya Singh singed. Speaking to TEHELKA, Singh points to abusive — and at times, factually incorrect — tweets posted by right-wing supporters. In many cases, the mere mention of anything against Modi or Baba Ramdev would have scores of right-wing supporters bombarding Twitter timelines with counter-criticism, and often, abuses. “Anything that incites hate is a problem,” he says.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Though what can be called ‘hate’ is a very subjective matter, Arvind Gupta feels social media reflects the mood of the young population. “People call themselves Internet Hindus. We, as a party, have nothing to do with this. People are so passionate about Modi that they take up his case (against anyone who posts anti-Modi tweets),” says Gupta. He also points towards a similar trend when it comes to people tweeting against Team Anna.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Many right-wing Twitter users are accused of posting sponsored tweets against specific people who they believe are anti-BJP. This accusation has not been proven so far, though many users claim to have tracked interaction between rightwing Twitter users on coordinated attacks on users with liberal or pro-Congress ideologies. “There is a belief — and let me tell you that it is wrong — that we hire people,” says Gupta. So can the high number of right-wing users be put down to an ideological stance alone? Gupta says it’s got to do with understanding politics better. “Our volunteers are generally more educated and understand the the Congress’ wrong policies. That category also forms a major part of the ecosystem in this new media,” he says.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Within minutes of talking to this correspondent, Gupta posts a new hashtag on Twitter — #MotaMaal — taking a cue from Sushma Swaraj’s accusation of corruption against the Congress in the coal scam. The next day, Twitter became all about #MotaMaal versus #RIPBJP. Handles like @BJP0fficials and @PMAdvani have been created to counter the right wing. Clearly, Congress supporters are hitting back even at the risk of adding to the cacophony of an already-chaotic medium.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Kunal Majumder is a Principal Correspondent with Tehelka</i>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/www-tehelka-com-kunal-majumder-tehelka-magazine-vol-9-issue-36-sep-8-2012-political-war-on-the-web'>https://cis-india.org/news/www-tehelka-com-kunal-majumder-tehelka-magazine-vol-9-issue-36-sep-8-2012-political-war-on-the-web</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial mediaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-09-05T05:27:24ZNews ItemPitroda seeks to put govt information in public domain
https://cis-india.org/news/www-livemint-september-25-2012-surabhi-agarwal-pitroda-seeks-to-put-govt-information-in-public-domain
<b>In the first-ever Indian government press conference on Twitter, Sam Pitroda, adviser to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on public information infrastructure and innovations, championed the cause of putting government information in the public domain to usher in openness and empowerment. </b>
<hr />
<p>Surabhi Agarwal's article was <a class="external-link" href="http://origin-www.livemint.com/Politics/5xXKN9JH15noiYuQtVQtrL/Governments-first-ever-conference-on-Twitter-to-begin-short.html">published in LiveMint</a> on September 25, 2012. Sunil Abraham is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p> </p>
<p><img alt=" " src="http://origin-www.livemint.com/rw/LiveMint/Period1/2012/09/26/Photos/sam%20pitroda1--621x414.jpg" title=" " /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“In India, we have the Right to Information (Act) but the information is locked up in files,” he said in a video that was uploaded on YouTube before the conference started. Pitroda said the government has various plans to build robust information infrastructure on a scale that has never been done before.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“I firmly believe that information is the fourth pillar of democracy along with (the) legislature, executive and judiciary,” he tweeted as opening remarks during the press conference titled “Democratization of information”.</p>
<table class="invisible">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th><img alt="photo" height="220" src="http://origin-www.livemint.com/rf/Image-330x220/LiveMint/Period1/2012/09/26/Photos/web_socialmedia.jpg" width="330" /></th>
<td style="text-align: justify; ">
<p>Even though Pitroda largely reiterated the government’s already announced plans in the space of digitization, the move to hold a press conference over Twitter has been largely construed as as a sign that the administration, criticised for attempting to rein in social media, is trying to come to terms with it.</p>
<p>Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bangalore-based research organization Centre for Internet and Society, said too much shouldn’t be read into Pitroda holding a press conference on Twitter. One government bureaucrat available on Twitter for a fixed period doesn’t make up for the non-existence of the government on social media, he said. “They (government) should be available all the time.”</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The department of electronics and information technology recently issued guidelines for government agencies on improved engagement with citizens through social media. Tuesday’s press conference may spark a trend of more such engagements on social media platforms by government agencies.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Pitroda said that the public information infrastructure (PII) will include a national knowledge network that will connect 1,500 nodes for universities, colleges, research labs and libraries along with connecting 250,000 panchayats in the country through fibre optics. The information network will be operational in the next two year, Pitroda said in the YouTube video.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The government’s open data platform (<i>http://www.data.gov.in</i>), the beta site for which was launched some time ago, will provide access to government data and documents, he said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Even though the government’s battles with the Internet continue over issues of regulation, which have often been construed as censorship, an increasing number of political leaders and agencies have been using the route to get their message across.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Gujarat chief minister <a href="http://origin-www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Narendra%20Modi">Narendra Modi</a> has sought to engage with people through video chat on <a href="http://origin-www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Google+">Google+</a> Hangout. West Bengal chief minister and Trinamool Congress (TMC) chief <a href="http://origin-www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Mamata%20Banerjee">Mamata Banerjee</a> has been using <a href="http://origin-www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Facebook">Facebook</a> to make public her views on recent economic and political developments.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) has also been communicating over Twitter in the recent past. The authorities have sought to block accounts that style themselves as belonging to the Prime Minister. Account holders have said that some of these are satirical in nature.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/www-livemint-september-25-2012-surabhi-agarwal-pitroda-seeks-to-put-govt-information-in-public-domain'>https://cis-india.org/news/www-livemint-september-25-2012-surabhi-agarwal-pitroda-seeks-to-put-govt-information-in-public-domain</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceSocial media2012-09-27T05:13:05ZNews Itemopen video summit
https://cis-india.org/home-images/Open%20Video%20Summit..jpg
<b></b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/home-images/Open%20Video%20Summit..jpg'>https://cis-india.org/home-images/Open%20Video%20Summit..jpg</a>
</p>
No publisherradhaSocial media2009-11-19T07:04:40ZImageOnline Pre-Censorship is Harmful and Impractical
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/online-pre-censorship-harmful-impractical
<b>The Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology, Mr. Kapil Sibal wants Internet intermediaries to pre-censor content uploaded by their users. Pranesh Prakash takes issue with this and explains why this is a problem, even if the government's heart is in the right place. Further, he points out that now is the time to take action on the draconian IT Rules which are before the Parliament.</b>
<p>Mr. Sibal is a knowledgeable lawyer, and according to a senior lawyer friend of his with whom I spoke yesterday, greatly committed to ideals of freedom of speech. He would not lightly propose regulations that contravene Article 19(1)(a) [freedom of speech and expression] of our Constitution. Yet his recent proposals regarding controlling online speech seem unreasonable. My conclusion is that the minister has not properly grasped the way the Web works, is frustrated because of the arrogance of companies like Facebook, Google, Yahoo and Microsoft. And while he has his heart in the right place, his lack of knowledge of the Internet is leading him astray. The more important concern is the<a class="external-link" href="http://www.mit.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/RNUS_CyberLaw_15411.pdf"> IT Rules</a> that have been in force since April 2011.</p>
<h3>Background <br /></h3>
<p>The New York Times scooped a story on Monday revealing that Mr. Sibal and the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.mit.gov.in/">MCIT</a> had been <a class="external-link" href="http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/india-asks-google-facebook-others-to-screen-user-content/?scp=2&sq=kapil%20sibal&st=cse">in touch with Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft</a>, asking them to set up a system whereby they would manually filter user-generated content before it is published, to ensure that objectionable speech does not get published. Specifically, he mentioned content that hurt people's religious sentiments and content that Member of Parliament Shashi Tharoor described as <a class="external-link" href="http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/i-am-against-web-censorship-shashi-tharoor_745587.html">'vile' and capable of inciting riots as being problems</a>. Lastly, Mr. Sibal defended this as not being "censorship" by the government, but "supervision" of user-generated content by the companies themselves.</p>
<h3>Concerns <br /></h3>
<p>One need not give lectures on the benefits of free speech, and Mr. Sibal is clear that he does not wish to impinge upon it. So one need not point out that freedom of speech means nothing if not the freedom to offend (as long as no harm is caused). There can, of course, be reasonable limitations on freedom of speech as provided in Article 19 of the <a class="external-link" href="http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm">ICCPR</a> and in Article 19(2) of our Constitution. My problem lies elsewhere.</p>
<h3>Secrecy <br /></h3>
<p>It is unfortunate that the New York Times has to be given credit for Mr. Sibal addressing a press conference on this issue (and he admitted as much). What he is proposing is not enforcement of existing rules and regulations, but of a new restriction on online speech. This should have, in a democracy, been put out for wide-ranging public consultations first.</p>
<h3>Making intermediaries responsible <br /></h3>
<p>The more fundamental disagreement is that over how the question of what should not be published should be decided, and how that decision should be and how that should be carried out, and who can be held liable for unlawful speech. I believe that "to make the intermediary liable for the user violating that code would, I think, not serve the larger interests of the market." Mr. Sibal said that in May this year <a class="external-link" href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304563104576355223687825048.html">in an interview with the Wall Street Journal</a>. The intermediaries (that is, all persons and companies who transmit or host content on behalf of a third party), are but messengers just like a post office and do not exercise editorial control, unlike a newspaper. (By all means prosecute Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft whenever they have created unlawful content, have exercised editorial control over unlawful content, have incited and encouraged unlawful activities, or know after a court order or the like that they are hosting illegal content and still do not remove it.)
Newspapers have editors who can take responsibility for content published in the newspaper. They can afford to, because the number of articles in a newspaper is limited. YouTube, which has 48 hours of videos uploaded every minutes, cannot. One wag suggested that Mr. Sibal was not suggesting a means of censorship, but of employment generation and social welfare for censors and editors. To try and extend editorial duties to these 'intermediaries' by executive order or through 'forceful suggestions' to these companies cannot happen without amending s.79 of the Information Technology Act which ensures they are not to be held liable for their user's content: the users are.
Internet speech has, to my knowledge, and to date, has never caused a riot in India. It is when it is translated into inflammatory speeches on the ground with megaphones that offensive speech, whether in books or on the Internet, actually become harmful, and those should be targeted instead. And the same laws that apply to offline speech already apply online. If such speech is inciting violence then the police can be contacted and a magistrate can take action. Indeed, Internet companies like Facebook, Google, etc., exercise self-regulation already (excessively and wrongly, I feel sometimes). Any person can flag any content on YouTube or Facebook as violating the site's terms of use. Indeed, even images of breast-feeding mothers have been removed from Facebook on the basis of such complaints. So it is mistaken to think that there is no self-regulation. In two recent cases, the High Courts of Bombay (<a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/janhit-manch-v-union-of-india" class="internal-link" title="Janhit Manch & Ors. v. The Union of India"><em>Janhit Manch v. Union of India</em></a>) and Madras (<em>R. Karthikeyan v. Union of India</em>) refused to direct the government and intermediaries to police online content, saying that places an excessive burden on freedom of speech.</p>
<h3>IT Rules, 2011 <br /></h3>
<p>In this regard, the IT Rules published in April 2011 are great offenders. While speech that is 'disparaging' (while not being defamatory) is not prohibited by any statute, yet intermediaries are required not to carry 'disparaging' speech, or speech to which the user has no right (how is this to be judged? do you have rights to the last joke that you forwarded?), or speech that promotes gambling (as the government of Sikkim does through the PlayWin lottery), and a myriad other kinds of speech that are not prohibited in print or on TV. Who is to judge whether something is 'disparaging'? The intermediary itself, on pain of being liable for prosecution if it is found have made the wrong decision. And any person may send a notice to an intermediary to 'disable' content, which has to be done within 36 hours if the intermediary doesn't want to be held liable. Worst of all, there is no requirement to inform the user whose content it is, nor to inform the public that the content is being removed. It just disappears, into a memory hole. It does not require a paranoid conspiracy theorist to see this as a grave threat to freedom of speech.
Many human rights activists and lawyers have made a very strong case that the IT Rules on Intermediary Due Diligence are unconstitutional. Parliament still has an opportunity to reject these rules until the end of the 2012 budget session. Parliamentarians must act now to uphold their oaths to the Constitution.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/online-pre-censorship-harmful-impractical'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/online-pre-censorship-harmful-impractical</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIT ActObscenityFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityYouTubeSocial mediaInternet GovernanceFeaturedIntermediary LiabilityCensorshipSocial Networking2011-12-12T17:00:50ZBlog EntryOn social media, Modi goes soft
https://cis-india.org/news/hindustan-times-specials-coverage-gujarat-assembly-elections-2012-zia-haq-oct-26-2012-on-social-media-modi-goes-soft
<b>“Truth stands on its own; it doesn’t need a prop.” Is this Mahatma Gandhi? No, it’s Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi on Twitter. Gujarat’s elections are near, but in the arena of social media, Modi has already won. From over a million subscribers on Twitter to a Facebook page flooded with “likes”, Modi’s net is cast wide. </b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Zia Haq's article was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/Specials/Coverage/Gujarat-Assembly-Elections-2012/Chunk-HT-UI-GujaratAssemblyElections2012-DontMiss/On-social-media-Modi-goes-soft/SP-Article10-950251.aspx">published in the Hindustan Times</a> on October 26, 2012. Sunil Abraham is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In political rallies, Modi roars with demagogic speeches. On Twitter, he displays a softer, brooding side: “Powers of the mind are like rays of light.” Only occasionally is a political challenge thrown in: “Delhi Sultanate treats Gujarat like enemy nation but Gujarat will never bow.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A polarising figure still, Modi is often accused of avoiding action to stop a carnage that killed nearly 2,000 people in 2002, mostly Muslims. Yet, he has pulled off a stunning PR strategy on social media to showcase Gujarat as India’s Guandong, a Chinese province with top GDP rankings. Gujarat has posted robust growth rates, although its human-development indicators remain skewed.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Modi became the third politician globally, after Obama and the Australian PM, to host a political conference on Google+ hangout, a video chat platform. In the past quarter, he added nearly 24,000 Twitter subscribers every 12 days, according to twittercounter.com.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Modi has leveraged social media in a way the Congress hasn’t been able to. Unlike him, none among the Congress’s leadership, including Rahul Gandhi, has a personal Twitter account. “Our leaders believe more in transparent dialogues with the public, rather than spreading Internet canards,” said Congress spokesperson Manish Tewari.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Shashi Tharoor, a Congress MP with the highest Twitter subscriber base among Indian politicians, attracts mostly the elite, not the masses.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">He jibes at his own government with irreverent tweets often making his party frown.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Yet, research shows that social media is more persuasive than television ads. Nearly 100 million Indians, more than Germany’s population, use the Internet.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Of this, the 40 million who have broadband are the ones active on the social media. “Unlike Obama, who used it directly for votes, Indian politicians tend to use social media more to mould public discourse,” says Sunil Abraham, the CEO of The Centre for Internet and Society.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/hindustan-times-specials-coverage-gujarat-assembly-elections-2012-zia-haq-oct-26-2012-on-social-media-modi-goes-soft'>https://cis-india.org/news/hindustan-times-specials-coverage-gujarat-assembly-elections-2012-zia-haq-oct-26-2012-on-social-media-modi-goes-soft</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionSocial mediaInternet Governance2012-11-02T06:20:13ZNews ItemNortheast exodus: Is there a mechanism to pre-screen social media content?
https://cis-india.org/news/www-merinews-com-wahid-bukhari-august-23-2012-northeast-exodus
<b>The government has passed the blame buck on social media and blocked hundreds of websites, which it claims, hosted hate speech and inflammatory content, enough to incite violence. But is it feasible to pre-screen objectionable or provocative content, and reject it before posting so that there is no chance of such rumours?
</b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Wahid Bukhari was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.merinews.com/article/northeast-exodus-is-there-a-mechanism-to-pre-screen-social-media-content/15874014.shtml">published in merinews</a> on August 23, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The government took the action after Home Minister RK Singh alleged that the exodus of northeastern people from southern states such as Bangalore, Mumbai and Pune was a result of the panic and rumours created because of the content uploaded on these websites, many according to him were created by elements across the border in Pakistan. Though many suspected that Mr Singh's claim was an excuse to save the government from its inefficiency in controlling the riots, and the exodus of the northeastern people who were seen boarding the trains to their home states with their belongings amid fears of reprisal attacks.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Was the action meant to pass on the inefficiency buck or not - the government has, at least, managed to shift the focus of the media from exodus to the debate - as to whether social networking sites or websites promoting hatred should be blocked or not - given the democratic rights of every citizen to freedom of speech and expression.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Around a hundred more websites have been reported promoting hate speech and <a href="http://www.merinews.com/topics/business/Google">Google</a>, <a href="http://www.merinews.com/topics/business/facebook">Facebook</a> and other social networking sites like <a href="http://www.merinews.com/topics/business/Twitter">Twitter</a> have been asked to remove such content as soon as possible but in this whole debate one question remains unanswered: How does removing a post from Twitter or Facebook make a difference, several hours after it was published? One might argue even an hour is enough for an inflammatory picture or comment to incite violence or hatred. As a consequence, one might demand that a comment is screened before it is posted on a website, otherwise it doesn't serve any purpose.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Whether pre-screening is technically possible, Pranesh Prakash maintains: "Given the amount of content uploaded on the larger social networks, pre-screening content is just not possible, while removal upon complaint is. They don't have editors like newspapers do; importantly, they shouldn't."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Perhaps, a mid way is to intervene prior to registration on social media websites. All those who register should be made aware of the content that's not permissible, and make them aware of relevant laws and repercussions of breaking them if their complicity is proved. Similarly, these sites can be asked by the Indian government to continuously remind registered users as well as general public, through mass media advertizing, about what kind of content is not permissible. The government, from its side, can strengthen cyber laws to empower sites such as Facebook and Twitter to curb posting of provocative content due to presence of these stringent laws.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Terming the government action unfortunate, Mr Prakash who is a programme manager with the Bangalore-based research and advocacy group, The Centre for Internet and Society believes that government botched up at so many levels. “I don't think the government should be going after Facebook, YouTube, or Twitter. It should be going to them, to work with them on removing content,” Mr Prakash suggests. "The larger social networks have dedicated complaints mechanisms, which the government could have asked them to run 24x7 for a few days, and to expedite that process, and both complained itself and asked the public to use the complaints process,” he adds.<br /> <br /> Though Pakistan has rubbished the claims that it has any role in fomenting trouble, but it has also asked the Indian government to provide it with evidence so that it could nab the accused. Whether or not there is any evidence is a secondary question, the primary blame will always rest with both the state and central governments who failed to stop the exodus of fear-stricken people from the northeast.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Experts like Mr Prakash are wondering why the government didn't pay back in the same coin by using the social media to dispel the rumours. “It is a pity that they notified a new policy to encourage governmental use of social media only today; they sorely needed it this last week,” Mr Prakash rues.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The government has blocked content related to thirty Twitter accounts but another surprising thing is that only accounts using the web interface have been blocked, and such accounts can still be accessed on BlackBerrys or other smartphones.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The only visible thing government did on ground when the exodus started taking place in Bangalore was the setting up of helplines but did they help in preventing the exodus - there are enough reasons to believe against it. "There were some complaints that the people attending some of these helplines could only speak in Kannada, and not the English or Hindi that people calling for help were expecting. Even such positive steps were executed badly." Mr Prakash informs.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/www-merinews-com-wahid-bukhari-august-23-2012-northeast-exodus'>https://cis-india.org/news/www-merinews-com-wahid-bukhari-august-23-2012-northeast-exodus</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIT ActSocial mediaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-09-04T04:06:46ZNews ItemNeed a standard strategy to deal with Web issues: Chandrasekhar
https://cis-india.org/news/www-livemint-com-surabhi-agarwal-sep-4-2012-need-a-strategy-to-deal-with-web-issues
<b>The government has been facing allegations of Internet censorship for over a year now.</b>
<hr />
<p>This article by Surabhi Agarwal was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/2012/09/04231942/Need-a-standard-strategy-to-de.html">published</a> in LiveMint on September 4, 2012. Pranesh Prakash's analysis is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The government said it needed to improve the way in which it dealt with issues such as Internet hate messages besides blog posts and SMSes that seek to create panic so that it’s not accused of trying to gag free speech.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"We all have agreed that we need some combination of self-regulation and government interventions. But we need to do it in a proper way,” said department of telecom secretary R. Chandrasekhar, while addressing a Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (Ficci) conference on the issue of “legitimate restrictions on freedom of online speech".</p>
<table class="invisible">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th><img align="left" alt="Photo: HT" height="200" src="http://www.livemint.com/images/0D9BBF0A-7642-4213-B7BC-312D0C0138A6ArtVPF.gif" title="Photo: HT" width="300" /></th>
<td style="text-align: justify; ">
<p>The Union government has been facing allegations of censorship after it sought to contain messages that led to communal violence and a panicexodus by people from the north-eastern states in some cities.</p>
<p>Last month, the government ordered the blocking of almost 310 web pages for content deemed to be attacking particular communities. According to a post by Pranesh Prakash of the Centre for Internet and Society, 33% of them were on Facebook, 28% on Google Inc.’s YouTube and around 10% on Twitter.</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Defending the government move, Gulshan Rai, chief of the Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-in), said it was the first time that the emergency provision of the Information Technology Act 2008 had been exercised. Even though the list was not drawn up by his agency, due scrutiny was carried out before issuing orders to block the sites.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This came after allegations that government may have also blocked bona fide posts as it sought to block content related to the North-East.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Twitter accounts of some journalists and other individuals associated with and sympathetic to right-wing causes were blocked, according to a list published earlier by The Economic Times.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"This is certainly not the last time we are seeing such a situation, so meaningful ways to respond to such complex situations will have to be devised," said Chandrasekhar.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">He added that there was also a need to collaborate better with all stakeholders to devise not just defensive strategies during a crisis but also ways to contain its impact using the social media.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Ankhi Das, head of public policy at Facebook India, said that during the London riots of 2011, the UK government enlisted the support of social networking sites to dispel rumours.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"Social media can also be allies of the government at times like this," she said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Raman Jit Singh Cheema, a senior policy analyst at Google India, cited a similar example of authorities in Japan using such methods to send out correct information following the tsunami that hit the country in 2011.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"We need to collaborate on a continuing basis, so that when you are faced with such a crisis, you are able to deal with it," said Chandrasekhar.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The government has been facing allegations of Internet censorship for over a year after minister for communication and information technology Kapil Sibal raised the issue of regulating social networking sites. They had allegedly not complied with the government’s demand that offensive content be removed.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Chandrasekhar said that processes should be clearer, more transparent and well-defined.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"These need to be brought out in the form of some kind of a standard operating procedure, so that they (stakeholders) are expected to know how to conduct themselves and how they can expect the government to deal if a contingency arises," he said.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/www-livemint-com-surabhi-agarwal-sep-4-2012-need-a-strategy-to-deal-with-web-issues'>https://cis-india.org/news/www-livemint-com-surabhi-agarwal-sep-4-2012-need-a-strategy-to-deal-with-web-issues</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial mediaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-09-05T08:37:09ZNews Item