The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 71 to 85.
Tata 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 ItemTangled Web
https://cis-india.org/news/tangled-web
<b>Government and social networking sites at loggerheads as debate rages over freedom of expression, writes Kumar Anshuman and Nikita Doval in this story published in the Week on Saturday, 21 January 2012.</b>
<p>Journalist-turned-activist Vinay Rai has succeeded where Information Technology Minister Kapil Sibal failed—putting the fear of law in the minds of India's bloating community of bloggers, surfers, plain e-wayfarers and inter(net)lopers.</p>
<p>Blogs haven't yet been blocked, but a Delhi High Court bench asked 21 internet firms, including Google, Facebook and YouTube, to look at China and have stringent checks on their content on January 19. It was enough to set the net on fire. Compulsive tweeter Shashi Tharoor, who lost his ministerial berth for over-tweeting, wondered whether phone companies could "be sued if someone sends a defamatory, obscene SMS". Said IT expert Niyam Bhushan: "If you fall on the ground and hurt your nose, you can't sue gravity. At a time when people in autocratic countries are using social media to bring in democracy, a democratic country like India is trying to restrict it!"</p>
<p>When the summons for the case was first sent to the companies in December, a number of respondents who were based outside India failed to answer. Said cyber crime expert Pavan Duggal: "Companies are observing the IT Act more in breach than in observance."</p>
<p>The debate was originally kick-started by Sibal last December when he summoned the chiefs of social networking sites and showed them offensive material from their sites. However, they pleaded helplessness. Sibal's subsequent press conference drew more flak, and he retreated saying, "The government does not believe in interfering in the freedom of the press, but we have to take care of the sensibilities of our people."</p>
<p>It was then that Rai petitioned a Delhi criminal court, accusing 21 social networking sites of hosting objectionable and inflammatory content which would create enmity and violence among religious communities. In a sealed envelope, he presented 62 items downloaded from different web sites and got three witnesses.</p>
<p>Though the companies were ordered to appear before court on January 13, they challenged the order in the Delhi High Court, saying that curbing the content is technically impossible. "Human interference is not possible, and it is not feasible to check such incidents given that billions of people across the globe are posting articles and other material on their web sites," argued Mukul Rohatgi, former additional solicitor general, representing Google India. "Certain keywords can be blocked or not allowed," said Yogesh Bansal, founder and CEO of ApnaCircle.com. "However, filtering or having 100 per cent control over the content posted is technically not possible."</p>
<p>According to the Information Technology (Intermediaries guidelines) Rules, 2011, if the companies receive complaints about unlawful or objectionable online material, they have 36 hours to remove it, failing which the aggrieved party can approach court or the Cyber Law Appellate Tribunal. "The rules purportedly try to regulate and control the intermediaries like interactive web sites and social media sites, but, in effect, regulate content generated or posted by users," said Prasanth Sugathan, legal counsel, Software Freedom Law Center.</p>
<p>The 'intermediaries', as defined in the Information Technology Act, 2000, include a broad list of players ranging from internet service providers like Airtel and MTNL to blogging platforms like Blogspot and WordPress to auction sites like eBay and search engines like Google to cyber cafes. The new rules mandate the intermediaries to impose a set of rules and regulations on users. </p>
<p>The rules specify the terms of regulations, which include a broad list of unlawful content—information that is grossly harmful, harassing, blasphemous, defamatory, obscene, related to paedophilia, libellous, invasive of privacy, hateful, racially objectionable, disparaging, encourages money laundering or otherwise unlawful in any manner whatever. </p>
<p>"These are very broad terms which have not been defined very well," said Duggal. "The service provider is not even required to come to a judgment. Only after they receive a complaint or are notified by the government can they act." According to Delhi-based cyber law consultant Karnika Seth, it will be helpful if illustrations are given to explain the nature of the crime, as in the Indian Penal Code. "This is missing in the IT Act which leaves terms like 'blasphemy' and 'obscenity' open to wide interpretations."</p>
<p>The companies claim they stick to the rules. "We have a review committee, which decides on complaints in case of any content posted on our sites," said a representative of one of the accused companies. In the current case, the official claimed that they were not shown the content presented before court. "The current accusation is baseless," he said. </p>
<p>There have been several instances in the past when social networking companies acted on complaints. In 2009, a young Keralite was booked for posting offensive remarks against Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray and his party on a social networking site and the material was removed. In May 2010, the controversial 'Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!' in Facebook was blocked in India, following protests from Muslims. </p>
<p>In August last year, the cyber wing of the Punjab Crime Branch charge-sheeted a Sunny Dhiman for allegedly uploading a pornographic video of a female student from Chandigarh on YouTube. Following complaints, the video was removed.</p>
<p>According to Sunil Abraham of the Centre for Internet and Society, the companies are over-compliant. "We did a policy sting operation wherein we sent fraudulent notices to big web sites," he said. "They never bothered to check the veracity of the complaints, but complied with everything we asked for. In one case where we asked for the removal of three comments, they removed all 13. So there is already a private censorship underway. The existing IT Act is draconian and has led to great dilution of privacy."</p>
<p>According to Google Transparency Report, Google received government requests for removing 358 items from its services between January and June last year. Fifty-one per cent of the requests were partially or fully complied with. "In addition, we received a request from a local law enforcement agency to remove 236 communities and profiles from Orkut that were critical of a local politician. We did not comply with it as the content did not violate our community standards or local law," said the report.</p>
<p>Both Duggal and Seth said the government's demand for pre-screening and monitoring content was not feasible. "In the IT Act there is not a single phrase which requires pre-screening or moderation under the law," said Duggal. The government has a right to stop a company from displaying content which it deems perverse to Indian standards. But, as Seth said, "How do you define Indian standards? They are ever changing."</p>
<p>Web sites can put certain filters in place, but even they have limitations. As the counsel for the companies argued in court, the word 'sex' even comes up in documents like ration cards and passports. So blocking them is not feasible.</p>
<p>Though freedom of expression is a fundamental right, it is not absolute. Article 19(2) states that the state may make a law imposing "reasonable restrictions” on the right to freedom of speech on eight grounds mentioned in Clause (2)—security of state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation, incitement to an offence and sovereignty and integrity of India.</p>
<p>The evidence presented before court clearly points to violation of some of these rules. "Freedom of expression doesn't mean mutilating or morphing pictures of leaders of different religious beliefs,” said Zafaryab Jilani, a lawyer. “This is a crime and the persons responsible should be accused under Section 153(A)."</p>
<p>Said BJP leader Shahnawaz Hussain: "Anything hurting religious sentiments should not be allowed. But the government is trying to stop certain political viewpoints, which is wrong." Senior Congress leader Shakeel Ahmed said freedom of expression should be "in a proper, democratic way without demeaning anyone."</p>
<p>Team Anna member Kumar Vishwas blamed social networking sites for hosting his videos without consent. "The main part of my speech has been deliberately removed and hence it doesn't present the fact which I said." Though he has complained, the videos have not been removed. However, he said that social networking was the voice of young India and it shouldn't be curbed in any way.</p>
<p>According to columnist and social analyst Syed Mubin Zehra, "There should be a check or verification process to have an internet identity." However, she is against a total ban. "We are not China, and think about the good things which the internet has contributed to society."</p>
<p>The corporate sector is increasingly using social networking sites to build stronger ties with consumers. For brands like Airtel, having a Facebook page meant reaching out to Generation Y, who spend a large amount of time with computers. "With Facebook there is dialogue, it becomes a barometer of customer satisfaction level," said Marzin Shroff, CEO (direct sales) and senior vice-president (marketing), Eureka Forbes, which started using Facebook in 2010 and has more than 1.6 lakh 'likes' on its page.</p>
<p>Cleartrip.com, a major online travel company, heavily uses the social networking platform. "We have always been early adopters of social media tools with a blog, customer forum, Twitter presence and a Facebook page," said Hrush Bhatt, co-founder and director (product & strategy), Cleartrip. "There are multiple cases where extremely irate customers have been vocal on their blogs or Twitter and our team has successfully reached out to them, taken care of their problems and turned them from complainers to evangelists."</p>
<p>Corporate honchos are worried over the ongoing controversy. "Banning social networking sites will hurt business as social media is now becoming a source of business for many," said Mohandas Pai, former director (HR) at Infosys Ltd. The worry is equally troubling a real estate company like Prestige Group. "As we have a very strong NRI customer base, such sites also make it possible for us to address their every need and give them an opportunity to clarify their queries with us,” said Uzma Irfan, executive director, corporate communications, Prestige Group. “Hence, ban of any free media such as Facebook shall only create a void in the marketing efforts of companies."</p>
<p>Some experts, however, are of the opinion that a ban or restriction on social networking sites will only have a short-term impact on some companies as many of them will change their online advertising strategy to deal with the situation. "Companies are smart enough to design new innovative advertising strategies," said Sridhar Ramanujam, CEO of brand-comm, a Bangalore-based brand communications consultancy. "Take, for instance, the liquor companies. Though liquor advertisements are banned in different places, such companies are doing more and more of surrogate advertising in the form of mineral water."</p>
<p>The only kind of censorship that can work on the net is self-imposed and, perhaps, a few guidelines in netiquette might not be out of line, said Seth. "Netiquette culture needs to be developed. The common man has to be explained what is legal and illegal. Otherwise there will be rampant cyber crime without people even realising that they are indulging in it." <br />with Abhinav Singh and Sharmista Chaudhury</p>
<p>Sunil Abraham was quoted in this story.</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://week.manoramaonline.com/cgi-bin/MMOnline.dll/portal/ep/theWeekContent.do?contentId=10870337&programId=1073755753&tabId=13&categoryId=-171361">Read the original published in the Week</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/tangled-web'>https://cis-india.org/news/tangled-web</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet Governance2012-01-23T08:42:01ZNews ItemSupreme Court Strikes Down Section 66A Of IT Act
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/huffington-post-indrani-basu-betwa-sharma-march-24-2015-supreme-court-strikes-down-section-66a-of-it-act
<b>In a major boost to freedom of speech online in India, the Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, reading down a draconian law that was poorly conceived, tragically worded and caused ordinary citizens to be jailed for so much as a comment on Facebook that annoyed just about anyone. </b>
<p>The article by Indrani Basu and Betwa Sharma <a class="external-link" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2015/03/24/section-66-a_n_6928864.html">published in the Huffington Post </a>on March 24, 2015 quotes Sunil Abraham.</p>
<hr />
<p>In its <a href="http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/FileServer/2015-03-24_1427183283.pdf" target="_hplink">122-page judgment</a>, the court struck down the entire section, refusing to heed the government's plea that it will not be misused.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"The apex courts in India have consistently protected the rights of its citizens. And the Supreme Court has once again upheld that great tradition with this decision. There are constitutional exceptions to free speech that exist.</p>
<blockquote class="pullquote">But this judgment will protect against the abuse of this vague and badly drafted law," said Sunil Abraham, executive director at the Centre for Internet and Society.</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The section was passed without discussion in Parliament by the UPA government in 2008, adding an amendment to the original 2002 Act. While Narendra Modi supported the repealing of the Act during his prime ministerial campaign, after the BJP came to power, the government defended the provision, <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Sec-66A-draconian-but-is-needed-Govt/articleshow/46125733.cms" target="_hplink">even while admitting it was draconian</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The government argued that the provision was necessary to prevent people from posting inflammatory content offending religious or political sentiments, leading to violence.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"I''m so happy with the decision. They have completely struck down the whole section. This is a victory for the country," said Shreya Singhal, the 24-year-old law student on whose petition the Supreme Court was hearing the case. "I don't have a political agenda — both the Congress government and the BJP have misused the section earlier. Section 66A was a blanket provision which was very vague. There are many IPC sections that could be used in its place."</p>
<p>"No one should fear putting anything up on the internet. It is very important for us to protect this right today," she said.</p>
<p>But there are sections in the Indian Penal Code that can deal with such situations.</p>
<p>And the broad and vague wording of 66A meant that it effectively became a tool that muzzled all speech online.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In 2012, Shaheen Dada, a 21-year old Mumbai girl, posted on Facebook comments about Shivsena leader Bal Thackerey. Annoyed <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-20490823" target="_hplink">party members went to the cops and Dada was arrested</a>. Her friend Rinu Srinivasan, who had 'liked' the comment on Facebook, was also arrested.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The same year, <a href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/professor-arrested-for-poking-fun-at-mamata/article1-839847.aspx" target="_hplink">Jadavpur University professor Ambikesh Mahapatra</a> was arrested for sharing a cartoon poking fun at West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mumbai cartoonist <a href="http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/outrage-over-cartoonist-aseem-trivedis-arrest-on-sedition-charges-for-mocking-the-constitution-498901" target="_hplink">Aseem Trivedi was also arrested</a> under the provision for his cartoons during the Anna Hazare anti-corruption agitation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Here is what the section said:</p>
<blockquote class="quoted">66A. Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc.<br />Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device,—<br />(a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or<br />(b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device,<br />(c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages,<br />shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.</blockquote>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/huffington-post-indrani-basu-betwa-sharma-march-24-2015-supreme-court-strikes-down-section-66a-of-it-act'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/huffington-post-indrani-basu-betwa-sharma-march-24-2015-supreme-court-strikes-down-section-66a-of-it-act</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceChilling EffectCensorship2015-03-25T16:43:53ZNews ItemSummary Report Internet Governance Forum 2015
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/summary-report-internet-governance-forum-2015
<b>Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), India participated in the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) held at Poeta Ronaldo Cunha Lima Conference Center, Joao Pessoa in Brazil from 10 November 2015 to 13 November 2015. The theme of IGF 2015 was ‘Evolution of Internet Governance: Empowering Sustainable Development’. Sunil Abraham, Pranesh Prakash & Jyoti Panday from CIS actively engaged and made substantive contributions to several key issues affecting internet governance at the IGF 2015. The issue-wise detail of their engagement is set out below. </b>
<p align="center" style="text-align: left;"><strong>INTERNET
GOVERNANCE</strong></p>
<p align="justify">
I. The
Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group to the IGF organised a discussion on
<em><strong>Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) and Internet Economy</strong></em><em>
</em>at
the Main Meeting Hall from 9:00 am to 12:30 pm on 11 November, 2015.
The
discussions at this session focused on the importance of Internet
Economy enabling policies and eco-system for the fulfilment of
different SDGs. Several concerns relating to internet
entrepreneurship, effective ICT capacity building, protection of
intellectual property within and across borders were availability of
local applications and content were addressed. The panel also
discussed the need to identify SDGs where internet based technologies
could make the most effective contribution. Sunil
Abraham contributed to the panel discussions by addressing the issue
of development and promotion of local content and applications. List
of speakers included:</p>
<ol>
<li>
<p align="justify">
Lenni
Montiel, Assistant-Secretary-General for Development, United Nations</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Helani
Galpaya, CEO LIRNEasia</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Sergio
Quiroga da Cunha, Head of Latin America, Ericsson</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Raúl
L. Katz, Adjunct Professor, Division of Finance and Economics,
Columbia Institute of Tele-information</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Jimson
Olufuye, Chairman, Africa ICT Alliance (AfICTA)</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Lydia
Brito, Director of the Office in Montevideo, UNESCO</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
H.E.
Rudiantara, Minister of Communication & Information Technology,
Indonesia</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Daniel
Sepulveda, Deputy Assistant Secretary, U.S. Coordinator for
International and Communications Policy at the U.S. Department of
State </p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Deputy
Minister Department of Telecommunications and Postal Services for
the republic of South Africa</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Sunil
Abraham, Executive Director, Centre for Internet and Society, India</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
H.E.
Junaid Ahmed Palak, Information and Communication Technology
Minister of Bangladesh</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Jari
Arkko, Chairman, IETF</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Silvia
Rabello, President, Rio Film Trade Association</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Gary
Fowlie, Head of Member State Relations & Intergovernmental
Organizations, ITU</p>
</li></ol>
<p align="justify">
Detailed
description of the workshop is available here
<a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-main-sessions" target="_top">http</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-main-sessions" target="_top">://</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-main-sessions" target="_top">www</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-main-sessions" target="_top">.</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-main-sessions" target="_top">intgovforum</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-main-sessions" target="_top">.</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-main-sessions" target="_top">org</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-main-sessions" target="_top">/</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-main-sessions" target="_top">cms</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-main-sessions" target="_top">/</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-main-sessions" target="_top">igf</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-main-sessions" target="_top">2015-</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-main-sessions" target="_top">main</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-main-sessions" target="_top">-</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-main-sessions" target="_top">sessions</a><u>
</u></p>
<p align="justify">
Transcript
of the workshop is available here
<u><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2327-2015-11-11-internet-economy-and-sustainable-development-main-meeting-room">http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2327-2015-11-11-internet-economy-and-sustainable-development-main-meeting-room</a></u></p>
<p align="justify">
Video
link Internet
economy and Sustainable Development here
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6obkLehVE8">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6obkLehVE8</a></p>
<p align="justify"> II.
Public
Knowledge organised a workshop on <em><strong>The
Benefits and Challenges of the Free Flow of Data </strong></em>at
Workshop Room
5 from 11:00 am to 12:00 pm on 12 November, 2015. The discussions in
the workshop focused on the benefits and challenges of the free flow
of data and also the concerns relating to data flow restrictions
including ways to address
them. Sunil
Abraham contributed to the panel discussions by addressing the issue
of jurisdiction of data on the internet. The
panel for the workshop included the following.</p>
<ol>
<li>
<p align="justify">
Vint
Cerf, Google</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Lawrence
Strickling, U.S. Department of Commerce, NTIA</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Richard
Leaning, European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3), Europol</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Marietje
Schaake, European Parliament</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Nasser
Kettani, Microsoft</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Sunil
Abraham, CIS
India</p>
</li></ol>
<p align="justify">
Detailed
description of the workshop is available here
<a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">http</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">://</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">www</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">.</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">intgovforum</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">.</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">org</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">/</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">cms</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">/</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">workshops</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">/</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">list</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">-</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">of</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">-</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">published</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">-</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">workshop</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">-</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">proposals</a><u>
</u></p>
<p align="justify">
Transcript
of the workshop is available here
<a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2467-2015-11-12-ws65-the-benefits-and-challenges-of-the-free-flow-of-data-workshop-room-5">http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2467-2015-11-12-ws65-the-benefits-and-challenges-of-the-free-flow-of-data-workshop-room-5</a></p>
<p align="justify">
Video link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtjnHkOn7EQ</p>
<p align="justify"> III.
Article
19 and
Privacy International organised a workshop on <em><strong>Encryption
and Anonymity: Rights and Risks</strong></em>
at Workshop Room 1 from 11:00 am to 12:30 pm on 12 November, 2015.
The
workshop fostered a discussion about the latest challenges to
protection of anonymity and encryption and ways in which law
enforcement demands could be met while ensuring that individuals
still enjoyed strong encryption and unfettered access to anonymity
tools. Pranesh
Prakash contributed to the panel discussions by addressing concerns
about existing south Asian regulatory framework on encryption and
anonymity and emphasizing the need for pervasive encryption. The
panel for this workshop included the following.</p>
<ol>
<li>
<p align="justify">
David
Kaye, UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Juan
Diego Castañeda, Fundación Karisma, Colombia</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Edison
Lanza, Organisation of American States Special Rapporteur</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Pranesh
Prakash, CIS India</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Ted
Hardie, Google</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Elvana
Thaci, Council of Europe</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Professor
Chris Marsden, Oxford Internet Institute</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Alexandrine
Pirlot de Corbion, Privacy International</p>
</li></ol>
<p align="justify"><a name="_Hlt435412531"></a>
Detailed
description of the workshop is available here
<a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">http</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">://</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">www</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">.</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">intgovforum</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">.</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">org</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">/</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">cms</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">/</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">worksh</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">o</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">ps</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">/</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">list</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">-</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">of</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">-</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">published</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">-</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">workshop</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">-</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">proposals</a><u>
</u></p>
<p align="justify">
Transcript
of the workshop is available here
<a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2407-2015-11-12-ws-155-encryption-and-anonymity-rights-and-risks-workshop-room-1">http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2407-2015-11-12-ws-155-encryption-and-anonymity-rights-and-risks-workshop-room-1</a></p>
<p align="justify">
Video link available here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUrBP4PsfJo</p>
<p align="justify"> IV.
Chalmers
& Associates organised a session on <em><strong>A
Dialogue on Zero Rating and Network Neutrality</strong></em>
at the Main Meeting Hall from 2:00 pm to 4:00 pm on 12 November,
2015. The Dialogue provided access to expert insight on zero-rating
and a full spectrum of diverse
views on this issue. The Dialogue also explored alternative
approaches to zero rating such as use of community networks. Pranesh
Prakash provided
a
detailed explanation of harms and benefits related to different
approaches to zero-rating. The
panellists for this session were the following.</p>
<ol>
<li>
<p align="justify">
Jochai
Ben-Avie, Senior Global Policy Manager, Mozilla, USA</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Igor
Vilas Boas de Freitas, Commissioner, ANATEL, Brazil</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Dušan
Caf, Chairman, Electronic Communications Council, Republic of
Slovenia</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Silvia
Elaluf-Calderwood, Research Fellow, London School of Economics,
UK/Peru</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Belinda
Exelby, Director, Institutional Relations, GSMA, UK</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Helani
Galpaya, CEO, LIRNEasia, Sri Lanka</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Anka
Kovacs, Director, Internet Democracy Project, India</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Kevin
Martin, VP, Mobile and Global Access Policy, Facebook, USA</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Pranesh
Prakash, Policy Director, CIS India</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Steve
Song, Founder, Village Telco, South Africa/Canada</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Dhanaraj
Thakur, Research Manager, Alliance for Affordable Internet, USA/West
Indies</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Christopher
Yoo, Professor of Law, Communication, and Computer & Information
Science, University of Pennsylvania, USA</p>
</li></ol>
<p align="justify">
Detailed
description of the workshop is available here
<a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-main-sessions" target="_top">http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-main-sessions</a></p>
<p align="justify">
Transcript
of the workshop is available here
<a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2457-2015-11-12-a-dialogue-on-zero-rating-and-network-neutrality-main-meeting-hall-2">http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2457-2015-11-12-a-dialogue-on-zero-rating-and-network-neutrality-main-meeting-hall-2</a></p>
<p align="justify"> V.
The
Internet & Jurisdiction Project organised a workshop on
<em><strong>Transnational
Due Process: A Case Study in MS Cooperation</strong></em>
at Workshop Room
4 from 11:00 am to 12:00 pm on 13 November, 2015. The
workshop discussion focused on the challenges in developing an
enforcement framework for the internet that guarantees transnational
due process and legal interoperability. The discussion also focused
on innovative approaches to multi-stakeholder cooperation such as
issue-based networks, inter-sessional work methods and transnational
policy standards. The panellists for this discussion were the
following.</p>
<ol>
<li>
<p align="justify">
Anne
Carblanc Head of Division, Directorate for Science, Technology and
Industry, OECD</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Eileen
Donahoe Director Global Affairs, Human Rights Watch</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Byron
Holland President and CEO, CIRA (Canadian ccTLD)</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Christopher
Painter Coordinator for Cyber Issues, US Department of State</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Sunil
Abraham Executive Director, CIS India</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Alice
Munyua Lead dotAfrica Initiative and GAC representative, African
Union Commission</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Will
Hudsen Senior Advisor for International Policy, Google</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Dunja
Mijatovic Representative on Freedom of the Media, OSCE</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Thomas
Fitschen Director for the United Nations, for International
Cooperation against Terrorism and for Cyber Foreign Policy, German
Federal Foreign Office</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Hartmut
Glaser Executive Secretary, Brazilian Internet Steering Committee</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Matt
Perault, Head of Policy Development Facebook</p>
</li></ol>
<p align="justify">
Detailed
description of the workshop is available here
<a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals">http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals</a></p>
<p align="justify">
Transcript
of the workshop is available here
<a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2475-2015-11-13-ws-132-transnational-due-process-a-case-study-in-ms-cooperation-workshop-room-4">http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2475-2015-11-13-ws-132-transnational-due-process-a-case-study-in-ms-cooperation-workshop-room-4</a></p>
<p align="justify">
Video
link Transnational
Due Process: A Case Study in MS Cooperation available here <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9jVovhQhd0">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9jVovhQhd0</a></p>
<p align="justify"> VI.
The Internet Governance Project organised a meeting of the
<em><strong>Dynamic
Coalition on Accountability of Internet Governance Venues</strong></em>
at Workshop Room 2 from 14:00
– 15:30 on
12 November, 2015. The coalition
brought together panelists to highlight the
challenges in developing an accountability
framework
for internet governance
venues that include setting up standards and developing a set of
concrete criteria. Jyoti Panday provided the perspective of civil
society on why acountability is necessary in internet governance
processes and organizations. The panelists for this workshop included
the following.</p>
<ol>
<li>
<p>
Robin
Gross, IP Justice</p>
</li><li>
<p>
Jeanette
Hofmann, Director
<a href="http://www.internetundgesellschaft.de/">Alexander
von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society</a></p>
</li><li>
<p>
Farzaneh
Badiei,
Internet Governance Project</p>
</li><li>
<p>
Erika
Mann,
Managing
Director Public PolicyPolicy Facebook and Board of Directors
ICANN</p>
</li><li>
<p>
Paul
Wilson, APNIC</p>
</li><li>
<p>
Izumi
Okutani, Japan
Network Information Center (JPNIC)</p>
</li><li>
<p>
Keith
Drazek , Verisign</p>
</li><li>
<p>
Jyoti
Panday,
CIS</p>
</li><li>
<p>
Jorge
Cancio,
GAC representative</p>
</li></ol>
<p>
Detailed
description of the workshop is available here
<a href="http://igf2015.sched.org/event/4c23/dynamic-coalition-on-accountability-of-internet-governance-venues?iframe=no&w=&sidebar=yes&bg=no">http://igf2015.sched.org/event/4c23/dynamic-coalition-on-accountability-of-internet-governance-venues?iframe=no&w=&sidebar=yes&bg=no</a></p>
<p>
Video
link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIxyGhnch7w</p>
<p> VII.
Digital
Infrastructure
Netherlands Foundation organized an open forum at
Workshop Room 3
from 11:00
– 12:00
on
10
November, 2015. The open
forum discussed the increase
in government engagement with “the internet” to protect their
citizens against crime and abuse and to protect economic interests
and critical infrastructures. It
brought
together panelists topresent
ideas about an agenda for the international protection of ‘the
public core of the internet’ and to collect and discuss ideas for
the formulation of norms and principles and for the identification of
practical steps towards that goal.
Pranesh Prakash participated in the e open forum. Other speakers
included</p>
<ol>
<li>
<p>
Bastiaan
Goslings AMS-IX, NL</p>
</li><li>
<p>
Pranesh
Prakash CIS, India</p>
</li><li>
<p>
Marilia
Maciel (FGV, Brasil</p>
</li><li>
<p>
Dennis
Broeders (NL Scientific Council for Government Policy)</p>
</li></ol>
<p>
Detailed
description of the open
forum is available here
<a href="http://schd.ws/hosted_files/igf2015/3d/DINL_IGF_Open%20Forum_The_public_core_of_the_internet.pdf">http://schd.ws/hosted_files/igf2015/3d/DINL_IGF_Open%20Forum_The_public_core_of_the_internet.pdf</a></p>
<p>
Video
link available here <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joPQaMQasDQ">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joPQaMQasDQ</a></p>
<p>
VIII.
UNESCO, Council of Europe, Oxford University, Office of the High
Commissioner on Human Rights, Google, Internet Society organised a
workshop on hate speech and youth radicalisation at Room 9 on
Thursday, November 12. UNESCO shared the initial outcome from its
commissioned research on online hate speech including practical
recommendations on combating against online hate speech through
understanding the challenges, mobilizing civil society, lobbying
private sectors and intermediaries and educating individuals with
media and information literacy. The workshop also discussed how to
help empower youth to address online radicalization and extremism,
and realize their aspirations to contribute to a more peaceful and
sustainable world. Sunil Abraham provided his inputs. Other speakers
include</p>
<p>
1.
Chaired by Ms Lidia Brito, Director for UNESCO Office in Montevideo</p>
<p>
2.Frank
La Rue, Former Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression</p>
<p>
3.
Lillian Nalwoga, President ISOC Uganda and rep CIPESA, Technical
community</p>
<p>
4.
Bridget O’Loughlin, CoE, IGO</p>
<p>
5.
Gabrielle Guillemin, Article 19</p>
<p>
6.
Iyad Kallas, Radio Souriali</p>
<p>
7.
Sunil Abraham executive director of Center for Internet and Society,
Bangalore, India</p>
<p>
8.
Eve Salomon, global Chairman of the Regulatory Board of RICS</p>
<p>
9.
Javier Lesaca Esquiroz, University of Navarra</p>
<p>
10.
Representative GNI</p>
<p>
11.
Remote Moderator: Xianhong Hu, UNESCO</p>
<p>
12.
Rapporteur: Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi, UNESCO</p>
<p>
Detailed
description of the workshop
is available here
<a href="http://igf2015.sched.org/event/4c1X/ws-128-mitigate-online-hate-speech-and-youth-radicalisation?iframe=no&w=&sidebar=yes&bg=no">http://igf2015.sched.org/event/4c1X/ws-128-mitigate-online-hate-speech-and-youth-radicalisation?iframe=no&w=&sidebar=yes&bg=no</a></p>
<p>
Video
link to the panel is available here
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIO1z4EjRG0">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIO1z4EjRG0</a></p>
<p> <strong>INTERMEDIARY
LIABILITY</strong></p>
<p align="justify">
IX.
Electronic
Frontier Foundation, Centre for Internet Society India, Open Net
Korea and Article 19 collaborated to organize
a workshop on the <em><strong>Manila
Principles on Intermediary Liability</strong></em>
at Workshop Room 9 from 11:00 am to 12:00 pm on 13 November 2015. The
workshop elaborated on the Manila
Principles, a high level principle framework of best practices and
safeguards for content restriction practices and addressing liability
for intermediaries for third party content. The
workshop
saw particpants engaged in over lapping projects considering
restriction practices coming togetehr to give feedback and highlight
recent developments across liability regimes. Jyoti
Panday laid down the key details of the Manila Principles framework
in this session. The panelists for this workshop included the
following.</p>
<ol>
<li>
<p align="justify">
Kelly
Kim Open Net Korea,</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Jyoti
Panday, CIS India,</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Gabrielle
Guillemin, Article 19,</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Rebecca
McKinnon on behalf of UNESCO</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Giancarlo
Frosio, Center for Internet and Society, Stanford Law School</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Nicolo
Zingales, Tilburg University</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Will
Hudson, Google</p>
</li></ol>
<p align="justify">
Detailed
description of the workshop is available here
<a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals</a></p>
<p align="justify">
Transcript
of the workshop is available here
<a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2423-2015-11-13-ws-242-the-manila-principles-on-intermediary-liability-workshop-room-9">http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2423-2015-11-13-ws-242-the-manila-principles-on-intermediary-liability-workshop-room-9</a></p>
<p align="justify">
Video link available here <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFLmzxXodjs">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFLmzxXodjs</a></p>
<p align="justify"> <strong>ACCESSIBILITY</strong></p>
<p align="justify">
X.
Dynamic
Coalition
on Accessibility and Disability and Global Initiative for Inclusive
ICTs organised a workshop on <em><strong>Empowering
the Next Billion by Improving Accessibility</strong></em><em>
</em>at
Workshop Room 6 from 9:00 am to 10:30 am on 13 November, 2015. The
discussion focused on
the need and ways to remove accessibility barriers which prevent over
one billion potential users to benefit from the Internet, including
for essential services. Sunil
Abraham specifically spoke about the lack of compliance of existing
ICT infrastructure with well established accessibility standards
specifically relating to accessibility barriers in the disaster
management process. He discussed the barriers faced by persons with
physical or psychosocial disabilities. The
panelists for this discussion were the following.</p>
<ol>
<li>
<p align="justify">
Francesca
Cesa Bianchi, G3ICT</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Cid
Torquato, Government of Brazil</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Carlos
Lauria, Microsoft Brazil</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Sunil
Abraham, CIS India</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Derrick
L. Cogburn, Institute on Disability and Public Policy (IDPP) for the
ASEAN(Association of Southeast Asian Nations) Region</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Fernando
H. F. Botelho, F123 Consulting</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Gunela
Astbrink, GSA InfoComm</p>
</li></ol>
<p align="justify">
Detailed
description of the workshop is available here
<u><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals</a></u></p>
<p align="justify">
Transcript
of the workshop is available here
<u><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2438-2015-11-13-ws-253-empowering-the-next-billion-by-improving-accessibility-workshop-room-3">http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2438-2015-11-13-ws-253-empowering-the-next-billion-by-improving-accessibility-workshop-room-3</a></u></p>
<p align="justify">
Video
Link Empowering
the next billion by improving accessibility <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RZlWvJAXxs">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RZlWvJAXxs</a></p>
<p align="justify"> <strong>OPENNESS</strong></p>
<p align="justify">
XI.
A
workshop on <em><strong>FOSS
& a Free, Open Internet: Synergies for Development</strong></em>
was organized at Workshop Room 7 from 2:00 pm to 3:30 pm on 13
November, 2015. The discussion was focused on the increasing risk to
openness of the internet and the ability of present & future
generations to use technology to improve their lives. The panel shred
different perspectives about the future co-development
of FOSS and a free, open Internet; the threats that are emerging; and
ways for communities to surmount these. Sunil
Abraham emphasised the importance of free software, open standards,
open access and access to knowledge and the lack of this mandate in
the draft outcome document for upcoming WSIS+10 review and called for
inclusion of the same. Pranesh Prakash further contributed to the
discussion by emphasizing the need for free open source software with
end‑to‑end encryption and traffic level encryption based
on open standards which are decentralized and work through federated
networks. The
panellists for this discussion were the following.</p>
<ol>
<li>
<p align="justify">
Satish
Babu, Technical Community, Chair, ISOC-TRV, Kerala, India</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Judy
Okite, Civil Society, FOSS Foundation for Africa</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Mishi
Choudhary, Private Sector, Software Freedom Law Centre, New York</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Fernando
Botelho, Private Sector, heads F123 Systems, Brazil</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Sunil
Abraham, CIS
India</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Pranesh
Prakash, CIS
India</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Nnenna
Nwakanma- WWW.Foundation</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Yves
MIEZAN EZO, Open Source strategy consultant</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Corinto
Meffe, Advisor to the President and Directors, SERPRO, Brazil</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Frank
Coelho de Alcantara, Professor, Universidade Positivo, Brazil</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Caroline
Burle, Institutional and International Relations, W3C Brazil Office
and Center of Studies on Web Technologies</p>
</li></ol>
<p align="justify">
Detailed
description of the workshop is available here
<u><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals</a></u></p>
<p align="justify">
Transcript
of the workshop is available here
<u><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2468-2015-11-13-ws10-foss-and-a-free-open-internet-synergies-for-development-workshop-room-7" target="_top">http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2468-2015-11-13-ws10-foss-and-a-free-open-internet-synergies-for-development-workshop-room-7</a></u></p>
<p align="justify">
Video
link available here <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwUq0LTLnDs">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwUq0LTLnDs</a></p>
<p align="justify">
<br /><br /></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/summary-report-internet-governance-forum-2015'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/summary-report-internet-governance-forum-2015</a>
</p>
No publisherjyotiAccess to KnowledgeBig DataFreedom of Speech and ExpressionEncryptionInternet Governance ForumIntermediary LiabilityAccountabilityInternet GovernanceCensorshipCyber SecurityDigital GovernanceAnonymityCivil SocietyBlocking2015-11-30T10:47:13ZBlog EntrySubmission to the Facebook Oversight Board: Policy on Cross-checks
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/submission-to-the-facebook-oversight-board-policy-on-cross-checks
<b>The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) submitted public comments to the Facebook Oversight Board on a policy consultation.</b>
<h2>Whether a cross-check system is needed?</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Recommendation for the Board</strong>: The Board should investigate the cross-check system as part of Meta’s larger problems with algorithmically amplified speech, and how such speech gets moderated.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Explanation</strong>: The issues surrounding Meta’s cross-check system are not an isolated phenomena, but rather a reflection of the problems of algorithmically amplified speech, as well the lack of transparency in the company’s content moderation processes at large. At the outset, it must be stated that the majority of information on the cross-check system only became available after the media <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-files-xcheck-zuckerberg-elite-rules-11631541353?mod=article_inline">reports</a> published by the Wall Street Journal. While these reports have been extensive in documenting various aspects of the system, there is no guarantee that the disclosures obtained by them provides the complete picture regarding the system. Further, given that Meta has been found to purposely mislead the Board and the public on how the cross-check system operates, it is worth investigating the incentives that necessitate the cross-check system in the first place.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Meta claims that the cross-check system works as a check for false positives: they “employ additional reviews for high-visibility content that may violate our policies.” Essentially they want to make sure that content that stays up on the platform and reaches a large audience, is following their content guidelines. However, previous disclosures have <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-hate-speech-india-politics-muslim-hindu-modi-zuckerberg-11597423346">proven</a> policy executives have prioritized the company’s ‘business interests’ over removing content that violates their policies; and have <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/apr/12/facebook-fake-engagement-whistleblower-sophie-zhang">waited to act on known problematic content</a> until significant external pressure was built up, including in India. In this context, the cross-check system seems less like a measure designed to protect users who might be exposed to problematic content, and more as a measure for managing public perception of the company.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Thus the Board should investigate both how content gains an audience on the platform, and how it gets moderated. Previous <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/apr/12/facebook-fake-engagement-whistleblower-sophie-zhang">whistleblower disclosures</a> have shown that the mechanics of algorithmically amplified speech, which prioritizes <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/03/11/1020600/facebook-responsible-ai-misinformation/">engagement and growth over safety</a>, are easily taken advantage of by bad actors to promote their viewpoints through artificially induced virality. The cross-check system and other measures of content moderation at scale would not be needed if it was harder to spread problematic content on the platform in the first place. Instead of focusing only on one specific system, the Board needs to urge Meta to re-evaluate the incentives that drive content sharing on the platform and come up with ways that make the platform safer.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">Meta’s Obligations under Human Rights Law</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Recommendation for the Board: </strong>The Board must consider the cross-check system to be violative of Meta’s obligations under the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Additionally, the cross-check ranker must be incorporated with Meta’s commitments towards human rights, as outlined in its Corporate Human Rights Policy.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation: Meta’s content moderation, and by extension, its cross-check system, is bound by both international human rights law as well as the Board’s past decisions. At the outset, The system fails the three-pronged test of legality, legitimacy and necessity and proportionality, as delineated under Article 19(3) of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Firstly, this system has been “<a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-files-xcheck-zuckerberg-elite-rules-11631541353?mod=article_inline">scattered throughout the company, without clear governance or ownership</a>”, which violates the legality principle, since there is no clear guidance on what sort of speech, or which classes of users, would deserve the treatment of this system. Secondly, there is no understanding about the legitimacy of aims with which this system had been set up in the first place, beyond Meta’s own assertions, which have been <a href="https://www.oversightboard.com/news/215139350722703-oversight-board-demands-more-transparency-from-facebook/">countered</a> by evidence to the contrary. Thirdly, the necessity and proportionality of the restriction has to be <a href="https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/FB-691QAMHJ">read along</a> with the <a href="https://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/freedomopinion/articles19-20/pages/index.aspx">Rabat Plan of Action</a>, which requires that for a statement to become a criminal offense, a six-pronged test of threshold is to be applied: a) the social and political context, b) the speaker’s position or status in the society, c) intent to incite the audience against a target group, d) content and form of the speech, e) extent of its dissemination and f) likelihood of harm. As news reports have indicated, Meta has been utilizing the cross-check system to privilege speech from influential users, and in the process, have shielded inflammatory, inciting speech that would have otherwise qualified the Rabat threshold. As such, the third requirement is not fulfilled either.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Additionally, Meta’s own <a href="https://about.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Facebooks-Corporate-Human-Rights-Policy.pdf">Corporate Human Rights Policy</a> commits to respecting human rights in line with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). Therefore, the cross-check ranker must incorporate these existing commitments to human rights, including:</p>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify;">The right to freedom of expression:, UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression report <a href="https://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?si=A/HRC/38/35">A/HRC/38/35</a> (2018); <a href="https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=25729&LangID=E">Joint Statement of international freedom of expression monitors on COVID-19 (March, 2020)</a>.</li></ul>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression addresses the regulation of user-generated online content.</p>
<p>The Joint Statement issued regarding Governmental promotion and protection of access to and free flow of information during the pandemic.</p>
<ul>
<li>The right to non-discrimination: International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (<a href="https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CERD.aspx">ICERD</a>), Articles 1 and 4.</li></ul>
<p>Article 1 of the ICERD defines racial discrimination.</p>
<p>Article 4 of the ICERD condemns propaganda and organisations that attempt to justify discrimination or are based on the idea of racial supremacism.</p>
<ul>
<li>Participation in public affairs and the right to vote: ICCPR Article 25.</li>
<li>The right to remedy: General Comment No. 31, Human Rights Committee (2004) (<a href="https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2fC%2f21%2fRev.1%2fAdd.13&Lang=en">General Comment 31</a>); UNGPs, Principle 22.</li></ul>
<p>The General Comment discusses the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on State Parties to the Covenant.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Guiding Principle 22 states that where business enterprises identify that they have caused or contributed to adverse impacts, they should provide for or cooperate in their remediation through legitimate processes.</p>
<h2>Meta’s obligations to avoid political bias and false positives in its cross-check system</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Recommendation for the Board: </strong>The Board must urge Meta to adopt and implement the Santa Clara Principles on Transparency and Accountability to ensure that it is open about risks to user rights when there is involvement from the State in content moderation. Additionally, the Board must ask Meta to undertake a diversity and human rights audit of its existing policy teams, and commit to regular cultural training for its staff. Finally, the Board must investigate the potential conflicts of interest that arise when Meta’s policy team has any sort of nexus with political parties, and how that might impact content moderation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation: For the cross-check system to be free from biases, it is important for Meta to come clear to the Board regarding the rationale, standards and processes of the cross check review, and report on the relative error rates of determinations made through cross check compared with ordinary enforcement procedures. It also needs to disclose to the Board in which particular situations it uses the system and in which it does not. Principle 4 under the Foundational Principles of the <a href="https://santaclaraprinciples.org/">Santa Clara Principles on Transparency and Accountability in Content Moderation</a> encourage companies to realize the risk to user rights when there is involvement from the State in processes of content moderation and asks companies to makes users aware that: a) a state actor has requested/participated in an action on their content/account, and b) the company believes that the action was needed as per the relevant law. Users should be allowed access to any rules or policies, formal or informal work relationships that the company holds with state actors in terms of content regulation, the process of flagging accounts/content and state requests to action.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The Board must consider that erroneous lack of action (false positives) might not always be a system's flaw, but a larger, structural issue regarding how policy teams at Meta functions. As previous disclosures have <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-hate-speech-india-politics-muslim-hindu-modi-zuckerberg-11597423346">proven</a>, the contours of what sort of violating content gets to stay up on the platform has been ideologically and politically coloured, as policy executives have prioritized the company’s ‘business interests’ over social harmony. In such light, it is not sufficient to simply propose better transparency and accountability measures for Meta to adopt within its content moderation processes to avoid political bias. Rather, the Board’s recommendations must focus on the structural aspect of the human moderator and policy team that is behind these processes. The Board must ask Meta to a) urgently undertake a diversity and human rights audit of its existing team and its hiring processes, b) commit to regular training to ensure that their policy staffs are culturally literate in the socio-political regions they work in. Further, the Board must seriously investigate the potential <a href="https://time.com/5883993/india-facebook-hate-speech-bjp/">conflicts of interest</a> that happen when regional policy teams of Meta, with nexus to political parties, are also tasked with regulating content from representatives of these parties, and how that impacts the moderation processes at large.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Finally, in case decision <a href="https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/FB-691QAMHJ">2021-001-FB-FBR</a>, the Board made a number of recommendations to Meta which must be implemented in the current situation, including: a) considering the political context while looking at potential risks, b) employment of specialized staff in content moderation while evaluating political speech from influential users, c) familiarity with the political and linguistic context d) absence of any interference and undue influence, e) public explanation regarding the rules Meta uses when imposing sanctions against influential users and f) the sanctions being time-bound.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">Transparency of the cross-check system</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Recommendation for the Board: </strong>The Board must urge Meta to adopt and implement the Santa Clara Principles on Transparency and Accountability to increase the transparency of its cross-check system.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Explanation: </strong>There are ways in which Meta can increase the transparency of not only the cross-check system, but the content moderation process in general. The following recommendations draw from <a href="https://santaclaraprinciples.org/">The Santa Clara Principles</a> and the Board’s own previous decisions:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Considering Principle 2 of the Santa Clara Principles: Understandable Rules and Policies, Meta should ensure that the policies and rules governing moderation of content and user behaviors on Facebook are<strong> clear, easily understandable, and available in the languages</strong> in which the user operates.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Drawing from Principle 5 on Integrity and Explainability and from the Board’s recommendations in case decision <a href="https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/FB-691QAMHJ">2021-001-FB-FBR</a> which advises Meta to“<em>Provide users with accessible information on how many violations, strikes and penalties have been assessed against them, and the consequences that will follow future violations</em>”, Meta should be able to <strong>explain the content moderation decisions to users in all cases</strong>: when under review, when the decision has been made to leave the content up, or take it down. We recommend that Meta keeps a publicly accessible running tally of the number of moderation decisions made on a piece of content till date with their explanations. This would allow third parties (like journalists, activists, researchers and the OSB) to keep Facebook accountable when it does not follow its own policies, as has previously been the case.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">In the same case decision, the Board has also previously recommended that Meta “<em>Produce more information to help users understand and evaluate the process and criteria for applying the newsworthiness allowance, including how it applies to influential accounts. The company should also clearly explain the rationale, standards and processes of the cross-check review, and report on the relative error rates of determinations made through cross-checking compared with ordinary enforcement procedures.</em>” Thus, Meta should <strong>publicly explain the cross check system </strong>in detail with examples, and make public the list of attributes that qualify a piece of content for secondary review.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The Operational Principles further provide actionable steps that Meta can take to improve the transparency of their content moderation systems. Drawing from Principle 2: Notice and Principle 3: Appeals, Meta should make a satisfactory <strong>appeals process available </strong>to users - whether they be decisions to leave up or takedown content. The appeals process should be handled by context aware teams. Meta should then <strong>publish the results</strong> of the cross check system and the appeals processes as part of their transparency reports including data like total content actioned, rate of success in appeals and cross check process, decisions overturned and preserved etc, which would also satisfy the first Operational Principle: Numbers.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">Resources needed to improve the system for users and entities who do not post in English</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Recommendations for the Board: </strong>The Board must urge Meta to urgently invest in resources to expand Meta’s content moderation services into the local contexts in which the company operates and invest in training data for local languages.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Explanation: </strong>The cross-check system is not a fundamentally different problem than content moderation. It has been shown time and time again that Meta’s handling of content from non-Western, non-English language contexts is severely lacking. It has been shown how content hosted on the platform has been used to<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/apr/12/facebook-fake-engagement-whistleblower-sophie-zhang"> inflame existing tensions in developing countries</a>, <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-services-are-used-to-spread-religious-hatred-in-india-internal-documents-show-11635016354?mod=article_inline">promote religious hatred in India</a>, <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/burn-the-houses-rohingya-survivors-recount-the-day-soldiers-killed-hundreds-1526048545?mod=article_inline">genocide in Mynmar</a>, and continue to support <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-drug-cartels-human-traffickers-response-is-weak-documents-11631812953?mod=article_inline">human traffickers and drug cartels</a> on the platform even when these issues have been identified.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">There is an urgent need to invest resources to expand Meta’s content moderation services into the local contexts in which the company operates. The company should make all policies and rule documents available in the languages of its users; invest in creating automated tools that are capable of flagging content that is not posted in English; and add people familiar with the local contexts to provide context aware second level reviews. The Facebook Files show that even according to company engineering, <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-ai-enforce-rules-engineers-doubtful-artificial-intelligence-11634338184?mod=article_inline">automated content moderation</a> is still not very effective in identifying hate speech and other harmful content. Meta should focus on hiring, training and retaining human moderators who have knowledge of local contexts. Bias training of all content moderators, but especially those who will participate in the second level reviews in the cross check system is also extremely important to ensure acceptable decisions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Additionally, in keeping with Meta’s human rights commitments, the company should develop and publish a policy for responding to human rights violations when they are pointed out by activists, researchers, journalists and employees as a matter of due process. It should not wait for a negative news cycle to stir them into action <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/apr/12/facebook-fake-engagement-whistleblower-sophie-zhang">as it seems to have done in previous cases</a>.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">Benefits and limitations of automated technologies</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Meta <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/13/21562596/facebook-ai-moderation%5C">recently changed</a> its moderation practice wherein it uses technology to prioritize content for human reviewers based on their severity index. Facebook <a href="https://transparency.fb.com/policies/improving/prioritizing-content-review/">has not specified</a> the technology it uses to prioritize high-severity content but its research record shows that it <a href="https://ai.facebook.com/blog/the-shift-to-generalized-ai-to-better-identify-violating-content">uses</a> a host of automated <a href="https://ai.facebook.com/tools#frameworks-and-tools">frameworks and tools</a> to detect violating content, including image recognition tools, object detection tools, natural language processing models, speech models and reasoning models. One such model is the <a href="https://ai.facebook.com/blog/community-standards-report/">Whole Post Integrity Embeddings</a> (“WPIE”) which can judge various elements in a given post (caption, comments, OCR, image etc.) to work out the context and the content of the post. Facebook also uses image matching models (SimSearchNet++) that are trained to match variations of an image with a high degree of precision and improved recall; multi-lingual masked language models on cross-lingual understanding such as <a href="https://ai.facebook.com/blog/-xlm-r-state-of-the-art-cross-lingual-understanding-through-self-supervision/">XLM-R</a> that can accurately identify hate-speech and other policy-violating content across a wide range of languages. More recently, Facebook introduced its machine translation model called the <a href="https://analyticsindiamag.com/facebooks-new-machine-translation-model-works-without-help-of-english-data/">M2M-100</a> whose goal is to perform bidirectional translation between 7000 languages.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Despite the advances in this field, there are inherent <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0028/157249/cambridge-consultants-ai-content-moderation.pdf">limitations</a> of such automated tools. <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/27/18242724/facebook-moderation-ai-artificial-intelligence-platforms">Experts</a> have repeatedly maintained that AI will get better at understanding context but it will not replace human moderators for the foreseeable future. One such instance where these limitations were <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/facebook-content-moderation-automation/">exposed</a> was during the COVID-19 pandemic, when Facebook sent its human moderators home - the number of removals flagged as hate speech on its platform more than doubled to 22.5 million in the second quarter of 2020 but the number of successful content appeals was dropped to 12,600 from the 2.3 million figure for the first three months of 2020.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-ai-enforce-rules-engineers-doubtful-artificial-intelligence-11634338184?mod=article_inline">The Facebook Files</a> show that Meta’s AI cannot consistently identify first-person shooting videos, racist rants and even the difference between cockfighting and car crashes. Its automated systems are only capable of removing posts that generate just 3% to 5% of the views of hate speech on the platform and 0.6% of all content that violates Meta’s policies against violence and incitement. As such, it is difficult to accept the company’s claim that nearly all of the hate speech it takes down was discovered by AI before it was reported by users.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">However, the benefits of such technology cannot be discounted, especially when one considers automated technology as a way of reducing <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/25/18229714/cognizant-facebook-content-moderator-interviews-trauma-working-conditions-arizona">trauma</a> for human moderators. Using AI for prioritizing content for review can turn out to be effective for human moderators as it can increase their efficiency and reduce harmful effects of content moderation on them. Additionally, it can also limit the exposure of harmful content to internet users. Moreover, AI can also reduce the impact of harmful content on human moderators by allocating content to moderators on the basis of their exposure history. Theoretically, if the company’s claims are to be believed, using automated technology for prioritizing content for review can help to improve the mental health of Facebook’s human moderators.</p>
<hr />
<p>Click to download the file <a class="external-link" href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/policy-on-cross-checks">here</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/submission-to-the-facebook-oversight-board-policy-on-cross-checks'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/submission-to-the-facebook-oversight-board-policy-on-cross-checks</a>
</p>
No publisher[in alphabetical order] Anamika Kundu, Digvijay Singh, Divyansha Sehgal and Torsha SarkarFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet FreedomFacebookInternet Governance2022-02-09T05:31:32ZBlog EntryStockholm Internet Forum 2019
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/stockholm-internet-forum-2019
<b>Swedish International Development Agency (Sida) organized the Stockholm Internet Forum 2019 in Stockholm from 16 - 17 May 2019. Gurshabad Grover was a panelist in the discussion on 'Influencing Internet Governance' co-organised by Article 19. The other panelists were Sylvie Coudray (UNESCO), Grace Githaiga (Kictanet), J. Carlos Lara (Derechos Digitales) and Charles Bradley (GPD). The discussion was moderated by Mallory Knodel (Article 19).</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Gurshabad's <span>primary contributions were around the motivations for civil society </span><span>organisations to participate in technical internet governance fora, and </span><span>how their role has matured at such fora in the last couple of years. Gurshabad extends his thanks to the inputs of Akriti Bopanna and Arindrajit Basu primarily for their contributions </span><span>around the motivations for civil society organisations to participate in technical internet governance fora, and how their role has matured at such fora in the last couple of years.</span></p>
<hr />
<p>Click to <a class="external-link" href="https://www.stockholminternetforum.se/agenda/">view the agenda</a>. See the <a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/sif-concept-note">concept note here</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/stockholm-internet-forum-2019'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/stockholm-internet-forum-2019</a>
</p>
No publisherAdminFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernancePrivacy2019-06-05T04:15:00ZNews ItemStockholm Internet Forum 2017
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/stockholm-internet-forum-2017
<b>Elonnai Hickok participated in the Stockholm Internet Forum 2017 held in Stockholm from May 15 to 18, 2017. She spoke on the panel "Private sector and civil society collaboration to advance freedom online". The event was organized by Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency. </b>
<h2><b>Pre-SIF 15 May at Sida HQ</b></h2>
<p><b>Welcoming and informal lunch at Sida 12.00 – 14.00 </b>(Location: Oasen)</p>
<p><b>Pre-SIF regional sessions: 14.00 – 17.00 (breaks included) </b></p>
<p><a href="http://www.stockholminternetforum.se/?page_id=3951&preview=true"><b>MENA:</b> Access, power and gender</a> (Location: Hörsalen)</p>
<p><a href="http://www.stockholminternetforum.se/?page_id=3955&preview=true"><b>AFRICA:</b> Inequality and the digital revolution in Africa</a> (Location: Oasen)</p>
<p><a href="http://www.stockholminternetforum.se/pre-sif-regional-session-latin-america/"><b>LATIN AMERICA:</b> Human rights and technology in Latin America: Where to from here?</a> (Location: Room 19, Asante)</p>
<p><a href="http://www.stockholminternetforum.se/pre-sif-regional-session-eurasia/"><b>EURASIA:</b> Media freedom and fact checking practices</a> (Location: Room 18, Djenné)</p>
<p><a href="http://www.stockholminternetforum.se/pre-sif-regional-session-south-east-asia/"><b>SOUTH EAST ASIA</b>: Regional internet freedom unconference</a> (Location: Room 23, Quirigua)</p>
<p><a href="http://www.stockholminternetforum.se/study-visit-kista-science-city/"><b>STUDY VISIT: </b>Kista Science City</a></p>
<p><b>Mingle: 17.00 – 18.00</b></p>
<p><b>Dinner: 18.00 – 20.00</b></p>
<h2><b>Pre-SIF 16 May at Sida HQ</b></h2>
<p><b><a href="http://www.stockholminternetforum.se/pre-sif-welcome-and-framing-access-and-power/">Welcome and framing access and power</a> 09.00 – 11.30 </b>(break included, location: Oasen)</p>
<p><b>Pre-SIF Parallel sessions: 11.30 – 13.00</b></p>
<p><a href="http://www.stockholminternetforum.se/pre-sif-parallel-session-1a/"><b>1A</b> From divides to dividends – DDP and SDG17</a> (Location: Oasen)</p>
<p><a href="http://www.stockholminternetforum.se/pre-sif-parallel-session-1b/"><b>1B</b> Online threats: Operational response and kick-ass solutions</a> (Location: Hörsalen)</p>
<p><b>Mingle and lunch: 13.00 – 15.00 </b>(Location: Oasen)</p>
<p><b>Pre-SIF Parallel sessions: 15.00 – 17.00</b></p>
<p><a href="http://www.stockholminternetforum.se/pre-sif-parallel-session-2a/"><b>2A </b>Financial services in a digital era: Development, livelihoods and privacy</a> (Location: Oasen)</p>
<p><a href="http://www.stockholminternetforum.se/pre-sif-parallel-session-2b/"><b>2B</b> Responsible data forum: Open source investigation for human rights</a> (Location: Hörsalen)</p>
<p><b>Mingle: 17.00 – 18.00</b></p>
<p><b>Dinner: 18.00 – 20.00</b></p>
<h2><b>SIF 17 May at Münchenbryggeriet</b></h2>
<p><a href="http://www.stockholminternetforum.se/opening-and-main-session-1/"><b>Opening and main session 1: 9.00 – 11.00 </b></a>(Location: Mässhallen)</p>
<p>Welcoming remarks by Sida Director General <b>Lennart Båge</b></p>
<p>Speech by Swedish Minister of Culture and Democracy <b>Alice Bah Kuhnke</b></p>
<p><b>Main session 1: Equal access – Distributed power</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The theme of SIF 2017 is “Access and Power” – a duality that can be analysed in many different ways. It is not enough to have access to the Internet, ICT’s and digital tools to achieve social justice and development outcomes. The question of what people have access to and what possibilities access gives also needs to be addressed. Access to the Internet is more than technical aspects and solutions – there are also dimensions related to rights, policy and power that need to be addressed.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">At SIF we are keen on framing the current struggles and challenges in order to formulate possible ways ahead. One way to approach this is to discuss the co-relation between access and power. The first main session on the various aspects of access and power, is designed to get the conversation started.</p>
<p><b>Speech by State Secretary Annika Söder 11.00 – 11.15 </b>(Location: Mässhallen)</p>
<p><b>Coffee break 11.15 – 11.45</b></p>
<p><b>Parallel sessions: 11.45 – 13.00</b></p>
<p><a href="http://www.stockholminternetforum.se/parallel-session-1a/"><b>#SIF1A </b>Digital Identity</a> (Location: Mässhallen)</p>
<p><a href="http://www.stockholminternetforum.se/parallel-session-1b/"><b>#SIF1B </b>Community access – Helping the last 4 billion get connected</a> (Location: Fogelström)</p>
<p><a href="http://www.stockholminternetforum.se/parallel-session-1c/"><b>#SIF1C </b>Gender based violence online: levelling the discussion</a> (Location: Riddarsalen)</p>
<p><b>Mingle and lunch: 13.00 – 14.00</b></p>
<p><b>Parallel sessions: 14.00 – 15.30</b></p>
<p><a href="http://www.stockholminternetforum.se/parallel-session-2a-open-sif/"><b>#SIF2A </b>OPEN SIF</a> (Location: Mässhallen)</p>
<p><a href="http://www.stockholminternetforum.se/parallel-session-2b/"><b>#SIF2B</b> The promises and risks of the platform economy</a> (Location: Fogelström)</p>
<p><a href="http://www.stockholminternetforum.se/parallel-session-2c/"><b>#SIF2C</b> The global shut down epidemic – From rights, tech and economic perspective</a> (Location: Riddarsalen)</p>
<p><b>Coffee break 15.30 – 16.00</b></p>
<p><b>Breakout sessions: 16.00 – 17.30</b></p>
<p><a href="http://www.stockholminternetforum.se/breakout-session-1b/"><b>#SIFB1</b> The (alternative) truth is out there</a> (Location: Mässhallen)</p>
<p><a href="http://www.stockholminternetforum.se/breakout-session-2/"><b>#SIFB2</b> Private sector and civil society collaboration to advance freedom online</a> (Location: Galleriet)</p>
<p><a href="http://www.stockholminternetforum.se/breakout-session-3/"><b>#SIFB3</b> Access and human rights in the smart city</a> (Location: Riddarsalen)</p>
<p><a href="http://www.stockholminternetforum.se/breakout-session-4/"><b>#SIFB4</b> Empowering technologies in hostile environments</a> (Location: Milles)</p>
<p><a href="http://www.stockholminternetforum.se/breakout-session-5/"><b>#SIFB5</b> Freedom Online Coalition: Open forum</a> (Location: Fogelström)</p>
<p><b><a href="http://www.stockholminternetforum.se/may-17th-reflections-and-highlights-from-the-day/">Reflections and highlights from the day</a>: 17.45 – 18.45</b></p>
<p>(Location: Mässhallen)</p>
<p><b>Mingle and Dinner: 19.00 – 21.00</b></p>
<h2><b>SIF 18 May at Münchenbryggeriet</b></h2>
<p><b><a href="http://www.stockholminternetforum.se/may-18th-welcome-and-keynote/">Welcome and keynote</a>: 09.00 – 09.30 </b>(Location: Mässhallen)</p>
<p><b>Parallel sessions: 09.30 – 11.00</b></p>
<p><a href="http://www.stockholminternetforum.se/parallel-session-3a-open-sif/"><b>#SIF3A </b>OPEN SIF</a> (Location: Mässhallen)</p>
<p><a href="http://www.stockholminternetforum.se/parallel-session-3b/"><b>#SIF3B </b>Digital rights 2.0: challenges and opportunities to empowerment</a> (Location: Fogelström)</p>
<p><a href="http://www.stockholminternetforum.se/parallel-session-3c/"><b>#SIF3C </b>Safe media in conflict and chaos</a> (Location: Riddarsalen)</p>
<p><b>Coffee break: 11.00 – 11.30</b></p>
<p><a href="http://www.stockholminternetforum.se/main-session-2-2/"><b>Main session 2: 11.30 – 13.00 </b></a>(Location: Mässhallen)</p>
<p>A positive outlook: Leave no one offline</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Half of the world’s population — specifically women, the poor and marginalised populations in developing countries — are still being left offline. What is needed to reach those still offline?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Beyond access, there are still many obstacles to achieving a digital inclusive society. Access to the Internet, ICT’s and digital tools is not only a catalyst for economic growth but increasingly a means for people to participate in today’s society. Too often access is measured by number of subscribers. This session will address access and power from a multidimensional approach – including infrastructure, affordability and contextual factors such as regulation and social and power structures.</p>
<p><b>Mingle and lunch: 13.00 – 14.00</b></p>
<p><a href="http://www.stockholminternetforum.se/sif-may-18th-closing-session/"><b>Closing session: 14.00 – 15.00 </b></a>(Location: Mässhallen)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This session will focus on summarizing knowledge and experiences shared at SIF17 and mapping the road ahead – identifying constraints but also opportunities for equal access and Internet freedom in the strive for global development and a digital inclusive society. The closing session will be interactive with the participants being the centre of the discussion.</p>
<h2><b>Side happenings </b></h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">During breaks you will have the opportunity to develop your digital skills, participate in discussions and expand your knowledge at this year’s side happenings.</p>
<h3><b>16 May at Sida HQ</b></h3>
<p><b>11.00 – 17.30</b></p>
<p><a href="http://www.stockholminternetforum.se/side-happening-new-media-documentation-clinic-with-witness/">New media documentation clinic with Witness</a></p>
<p>(Location: Room 19 Asante)</p>
<p><b>11.00 – 17.00</b></p>
<p><a href="http://www.stockholminternetforum.se/side-happening-developing-internet-universality-indicators-with-unesco-and-the-apc-internet-indicators-consortium/">Developing Internet universality indicators with UNESCO and the APC Internet indicators consortium</a></p>
<p>(Location: Room 21 Tsodilo)</p>
<p><b>14.30 – 17.30</b></p>
<p><a href="http://www.stockholminternetforum.se/side-happening-local-access-and-community-based-networks-with-apc-and-isoc/">Local access and community based networks with APC and ISOC</a></p>
<p>(Location: Djenné)</p>
<h3><b>17 – 18 May at Münchenbryggeriet</b></h3>
<p><b>All day</b></p>
<p><a href="http://www.stockholminternetforum.se/side-happening-digital-security-clinic-with-access-now/">Digital security clinic with Access Now</a></p>
<p>(Location: Mässtorget)</p>
<p><a href="http://www.stockholminternetforum.se/side-happening-healing-justice-pod-with-astraea-foundation/">Healing justice pod with Astraea Foundation</a></p>
<p>(Location: Bergrummet)</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/stockholm-internet-forum-2017'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/stockholm-internet-forum-2017</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernancePrivacy2017-06-06T13:43:25ZNews ItemStatutory Motion Against Intermediary Guidelines Rules
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/statutory-motion-against-intermediary-guidelines-rules
<b>Rajya Sabha MP, Shri P. Rajeev has moved a motion that the much-criticised Intermediary Guidelines Rules be annulled. </b>
<h2>Motion to Annul Intermediary Guidelines Rules</h2>
<p>A <a href="http://164.100.47.5/newsite/bulletin2/Bull_No.aspx?number=49472">motion to annul</a> the <a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/intermediary-guidelines-rules">Intermediary Guidelines Rules</a> was moved on March 23, 2012, by <a href="http://india.gov.in/govt/rajyasabhampbiodata.php?mpcode=2106">Shri P. Rajeeve</a>, CPI(M) MP in the Rajya Sabha from Thrissur, Kerala.</p>
<p>The motion reads:</p>
<p>"That this House resolves that the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 issued under clause (zg) of sub-section (2) of Section 87 read with sub-section (2) of Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 published in the Gazette of India dated the 13th April, 2011 vide Notification No. G.S.R 314(E) and laid on the Table of the House on the 12th August, 2011, be annuled; and</p>
<p>That this House recommends to Lok Sabha that Lok Sabha do concur on this Motion."</p>
<p>This isn't the first time that Mr. Rajeeve is raising his voice against the Intermediary Guidelines Rules. Indeed, even when the Rules were just in draft stage, he along with the MPs Kumar Deepak Das, Rajeev Chandrashekar, and Mahendra Mohan drew Parliamentarians' <a href="http://rajeev.in/pages/..%5CNews%5Ccensorship_Blogs%5CBloggers_Internet.html">attention to the rules</a>. Yet, the government did not heed the MPs' concern, nor the concern of all the civil society organizations that wrote in to them concerned about human rights implications of the new laws. On September 6, 2011, Lok Sabha MP <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/164.100.47.132/debatestext/15/VIII/0609.pdf">Jayant Choudhary gave notice</a> (under Rule 377 of the Lok Sabha Rules) that the Intermediary Guidelines Rules as well as the Reasonable Security Practices Rules need to be reviewed. Yet, the government has not even addressed those concerns, and indeed has cracked down even harder on online freedom of speech since then.</p>
<h2>Fundamental Problems with Intermediary Guidelines Rules</h2>
<p>The fundamental problems with the Rules, which deal with objectionable material online:</p>
<h3>Shifting blame.</h3>
<p>It makes the 'intermediary', including ISPs like BSNL and Airtel responsible for objectionable content that their users have put up.</p>
<h3>No chance to defend.</h3>
<p>There is no need to inform users before this content is removed. So, even material put up by a political party can be removed based on <em>anyone's</em> complaint, without telling that party. This was done against a site called *CartoonsAgainstCorruption.com". This goes against Article 19(1)(a).</p>
<h3>Lack of transparency</h3>
<p>No information is required to be provided that content has been removed. It's a black-box system, with no one, not even the government, knowing that content has been removed following a request. So even the government does not know how many sites have been removed after these Rules have come into effect.</p>
<h3>No differentiation between intermediaries.</h3>
<p>A one-size-fits-all system is followed where an e-mail provider is equated with an online newspaper, which is equated with a video upload site, which is equated with a search engine. This is like equating the post-office and a book publisher as being equivalent for, say, defamatory speech. This is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, which requires that unequals be treated unequally by the law.</p>
<h3>No proportionality.</h3>
<p>A DNS provider (i.e., the person who gives you your web address) is an intermediary who can be asked to 'disable access' to a website on the basis of a single page, even though the rest of the site has nothing objectionable.</p>
<h3>Vague and unconstitutional requirements.</h3>
<p>Disparaging speech, as long as it isn't defamatory, is not criminalised in India, and can't be because the Constitution does not allow for it. Content about gambling in print is not unlawful, but now all Internet intermediaries are required to remove any content that promotes gambling.</p>
<h3>Allows private censorship.</h3>
<p>The Rules do not draw a distinction between arbitrary actions of an intermediary and take-downs subsequent to a request.</p>
<h3>Presumption of illegality.</h3>
<p>The Rules are based on the presumption that all complaints (and resultant mandatory taking down of the content) are correct, and that the incorrectness of the take-downs can be disputed in court (if they ever discover that it has been removed). This is contrary to the presumption of validity of speech used by Indian courts, and is akin to prior restraint on speech. Courts have held that for content such as defamation, prior restraints cannot be put on speech, and that civil and criminal action can only be taken post-speech.</p>
<h3>Government censorship, not 'self-regulation'.</h3>
<p>The government says these are industry best-practices in existing terms of service agreements. But the Rules require all intermediaries to include the government-prescribed terms in an agreement, no matter what services they provide. It is one thing for a company to choose the terms of its terms of service agreement, and completely another for the government to dictate those terms of service.</p>
<h2>Problems Noted Early</h2>
<p>We have noted in the past the problems with the Rules, including when the Rules were still in draft form:</p>
<ul>
<li>
<p><a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/intermediary-due-diligence">CIS Para-wise Comments on Intermediary Due Diligence Rules, 2011</a> </p>
</li>
<li>
<p><a href="http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?279712">E-Books Are Easier To Ban Than Books</a></p>
</li>
<li>
<p><a href="http://kafila.org/2012/01/11/invisible-censorship-how-the-government-censors-without-being-seen-pranesh-prakash/">Invisible Censorship: How the Government Censors Without Being Seen</a></p>
</li>
<li>
<p><a href="http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/07/chilling-impact-of-indias-april-internet-rules/">'Chilling' Impact of India's April Internet Rules</a></p>
</li>
<li>
<p><a href="http://www.tehelka.com/story_main51.asp?filename=Op280112proscons.asp">The Quixotic Fight To Clean Up The Web</a></p>
</li>
<li>
<p><a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/online-pre-censorship-harmful-impractical">Online Pre-censorship is Harmful and Impractical</a></p>
</li>
<li>
<p><a href="http://www.indianexpress.com/story-print/787789/">Killing the Internet Softly With Its Rules</a></p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>Other organizations like the Software Freedom Law Centre also sent in <a href="http://softwarefreedom.in/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=78&Itemid=79">scathing comments on the law</a>, noting that they are unconstitutional.</p>
<p>We are very glad that Shri Rajeeve has moved this motion, and we hope that it gets adopted in the Lok Sabha as well, and that the Rules get defeated.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/statutory-motion-against-intermediary-guidelines-rules'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/statutory-motion-against-intermediary-guidelines-rules</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIT ActParliamentFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceIntermediary LiabilityCensorship2012-04-03T09:35:41ZBlog EntryStatement of Solidarity on Freedom of Expression and Safety of Internet Users in Bangladesh
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/statement-of-solidarity-asif-mohiuddin
<b>This is a statement on the violent attack on blogger Asif Mohiuddin by the participants to the Third South Asian Meeting on the Internet and Freedom of Expression that took place in Dhaka, Bangladesh, on January 14–15, 2013.</b>
<p>Bangladeshi blogger Asif Mohiuddin was brutally attacked in a stabbing last evening. His condition is currently said to be critical. Violent attacks on mediapersons have led to at least four deaths in the past year. This trend is now extending to those writing online.</p>
<p>It is the duty of societies at large to ensure that principles we universally consider sacrosanct, such as the right to life and liberty and of freedom of expression are in fact ideas, and of the government to actively protect the rights guaranteed under the Constitution of Bangladesh and to ensure they are not just words on paper.</p>
<p>Article 39 of the Constitution of Bangladesh—and Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—guarantee both the freedom of thought and conscience, as well as the right of every citizen of freedom of speech and expression, and freedom of the press.</p>
<p>Article 32 of the Constitution of Bangladesh—and Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—guarantee that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except by law.</p>
<p>The attack on Asif Mohiuddin constitutes a violation these fundamental principle by criminals, and we request the government to act decisively to show it will not tolerate such violations.</p>
<p>Reporters Without Borders note that "the ability of those in the media to work freely has deteriorated alarmingly in Bangladesh, which is now ranked 129th of 179 countries in the 2011-2012 World Press Freedom Index".</p>
<p>In general, the situation of those working as non-professional 'citizen journalists' is even worse. In a 2010 report, the UN Special Rapporteur wrote:
<blockquote>"Citizen journalists are by nature more isolated, they are more vulnerable to attack than professional journalists. However, citizen journalists enjoy less protection than their counterparts in traditional media, as they do not have the support of media organizations and networks, in particular the organizational resources, including lawyers and financial resources, which can help shield them from harassment."</blockquote>
This reality of greater vulnerability is equally applicable to those who do not self-identify as 'citizen journalists', but use social media to express unpopular opinions.</p>
<p>Keeping this in mind, we call upon the government on Bangladesh to carry out swift investigations into this particular incident and bring the perpetrators to justice, and to grant greater legal support to citizen journalists and ensure better protections for all those who use the Internet as a means of expression.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/statement-of-solidarity-asif-mohiuddin'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/statement-of-solidarity-asif-mohiuddin</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshFreedom of Speech and ExpressionSafetyStatementInternet Governance2013-01-15T11:51:44ZBlog EntrySpy in the Web
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/spy-in-web
<b>The government’s proposed pre-censorship rules undermine the intelligence of an online user and endanger democracy.</b>
<p>Kapil Sibal’s recent remarks demanding that private social media companies like Google, Microsoft and Facebook remove "objectionable" content from their social networks has created a lot of furore. It should not come as a surprise to us that just like any other platform of publication and content creation, several rules and regulations already regulate online content while still respecting our constitutional right for freedom of speech and expression in India.</p>
<p>From terms of services of the different web 2.0 products that seek to moderate "offensive" or "harmful" material to strictly defined punishable offences as defined in the Information Technologies Act, framed by the Government of India, there are various ways by which material that might incite violence, hatred or pain is systemically removed from the digital space. </p>
<p>Largely, this happens silently. Unless you are particularly keen on certain spurious websites, you wouldn’t even realise that there is a list of blacklisted websites that remain inaccessible to us in India. Once in a while, we realise the regulatory nature of state censorship when certain actions come to light. In 2006, the Indian government blocked Blogspot, the popular blogging platform, because they had detected "anti-national" activities by certain groups using the blog.</p>
<p>More recently, India’s first home-grown erotic comic series Savita Bhabhi was banned and taken off its Indian servers, without realising that in the era of cloud-computing, the comic still remains available through different containers and spaces. In both these cases, while one might be able to provide a critique of the Indian government’s attempts at censoring and regulating information, there is reasonable sympathy to the idea that some control on information is possibly a good thing. </p>
<p>It is in the very nature of information to be filtered. I am sure everybody will agree that censoring, controlling and regulating information of certain kinds — involving child pornography, calls for violence and vandalism aimed at insulting and offending vulnerable sections of the society — is probably in the interest of a healthier information society. And hence, one nods one’s head, rather grudgingly at some of the censorship laws (print, TV, internet, et al) and accepts that we need them, at least in principle, if not in execution.</p>
<p>However, what Sibal is asking for is not in the same vein. Censorship laws have always been very cautious of what constitutes "offensive" content and have relied both on the larger opinions of the community as well as the informed expertise of legal bodies to censor information. More often than not, an act of censorship is implemented when certain sections of the society, in their interaction with certain information, find it offensive or insulting and ask for a block. Pre-emptive censorship, the kinds performed by the Central Board of Film Certification, is in service of existing legal infrastructure around production and distribution of information.</p>
<p>Protective guidelines for censoring information, as was recently seen in the Broadcast Editors’ Association’s mandate around not intruding into the privacy of the Bachchan baby and the mother, during the birth of the child, are demonstrably for the protection of a person’s private life.</p>
<p>Sibal’s new calls for censorship against material “that would offend any human being” is separate from all these instances in three ways. First, while Sibal is an important political figure in this country, he is not the lord of information production. Using the power of his office to call for taking down of content that he found offensive (fortunately it did not incite him to violence and moral decrepitude) is undemocratic and possibly extra-legal (as in not within the boundaries of law, but who will bell the cat?). </p>
<p>To ask private companies and use his influence to bully them into curtailing the constitutionally provided freedom of speech and expression is in bad taste. There is enough regulation that could be invoked to seek arbitration between Sibal’s opinion and somebody else’s about how Sonia Gandhi should be represented online.</p>
<p>Second, Sibal might pretend that he is only asking for censorship of online content the way in which we have for other media, but that is a fallacy. What he is advocating is an ethos of pre-censorship, where, even before the material becomes public, it is screened through human agents who, through some divine right would know the right from wrong — read as what the powers to be want and don’t. To override existing regulation and ask for this extra layer of human scrutiny of all information being produced online is the equivalent of certain unnamed people in Mumbai, who, when Mani Ratnam was about to release his film Bombay, asked for a private screening of the film and then recommended some friendly cuts in it.</p>
<p>Third, is perhaps, and I write this with regret, Sibal has undermined the critical intelligence and engagement of the social media’s ardent users. He has fallen into the trap of suggesting that impressionable minds will be easily corrupted if they are introduced to "undesirable" information online, the same information that will apparently not drive human pre-screeners to prurient activities because they will be protected by the mantle of government sanction. Instead of drawing upon the wisdom of crowds, which invites communities and people to flag information that they find offensive and asks for independent arbitration, he has asked for an undemocratic and unconstitutional call for censorship which threatens the very structures of political protest, resistance and dialogue in the country.</p>
<p>If such draconian measures are going to be carried through, we might soon regress to a dystopia where all information is censored, filtered and reshaped only to suit the interests of those in power.</p>
<p>Nishant Shah, Director-Research wrote this article for the Indian Express. It was published on December 18, 2011. The original can be read <a class="external-link" href="http://www.indianexpress.com/news/spy-in-the-web/888509/1">here</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/spy-in-web'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/spy-in-web</a>
</p>
No publishernishantFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet Governance2012-03-26T06:38:51ZBlog EntrySpeak Easy: Citizenship, Freedom of Expression and Online Governance
https://cis-india.org/news/speak-easy
<b>The event organised by the YP Foundation, Youth Ki Awaaz, Change.Org and RTI Anonymous was held at the American Centre in Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi on July 31, 2012. Chinmayi Arun, a Fellow at the Centre for Internet & Society </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The event focused on exploring the freedom of expression vis-a-vis its impact on accessibility and connectivity across multiple youth movements focused on gender, speciality, education, governance and arts.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There were group discussions with Venkatesh Nayak (Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative), Anja Kovacs (Internet Democracy Project), Chinmayi Arun (Centre for Internet & Society) among others.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Agenda</h3>
<table class="vertical listing">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>2.00 2.30 <br /></td>
<td style="text-align: justify; ">Registrations open for workshops!</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2.30 2.45 <br /></td>
<td style="text-align: justify; ">Getting started – ‘Why Speak Easy?’</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2.45 4.30</td>
<td style="text-align: justify; ">Speak Easy | Learn: Workshops on advocating online, citizenship journalism, filing the Right to Information (RTI) application, and participating in online legislation with Youth Ki Awaaz, Change.Org, Get Up 4 Change, The YP Foundation and PRS Legislative.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4.30 6.00 <br /></td>
<td style="text-align: justify; ">Speak Easy | Converge: Exploring the Freedom of Expression vis-à-vis its impact on accessibility and connectivity across multiple youth movements focused on gender, sexuality, education, governance and arts. Group Discussions with Venkatesh Nayak (Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative), Anja Kovacs (Founder, Internet Democracy Project), Chinmayi Arun (Centre for Internet and Society) and many others.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>6.00 7.00</td>
<td>Speak Easy | Demand: How can young people dialogue with decision makers?</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>Venue Partner: The American Center<br />Read the original published in the YP Foundation <a class="external-link" href="http://www.theypfoundation.org/speakeasy/">here</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/speak-easy'>https://cis-india.org/news/speak-easy</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet Governance2012-08-01T04:56:36ZNews ItemSome 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 ItemSocial media, SMS are not why NE students left Bangalore
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/www-first-post-com-aug-25-2012-nishant-shah-social-media-sms-are-not-why-ne-students-left-bangalore
<b>I woke up one morning to find that I was living in a city of crisis. Bangalore, where the largest public preoccupations to date have been about bad roads, stray dogs, and occasionally, the lack of night-life, the city was suddenly a space that people wanted to flee and occupy simultaneously.</b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nishant Shah's article on North East exodus was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.firstpost.com/tech/social-media-sms-are-not-why-ne-students-left-bangalore-423151.html">published</a> in FirstPost on August 20, 2012.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Through technology mediated gossip mill that produced rumours faster than the speed of a digital click, imagination of terror, of danger and of material harm found currency and we found thousands of people suddenly leaving the city to go back to their imagined homelands.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The media spectacle of this exodus around questions of religion, ethnicity and regionalism only emphasised the fact that there is a new wave of connectedness that we live in – the social web, or what have you – that can no longer be controlled, contained or corrected by official authorities and their voices.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Despite a barrage of messages from the law enforcement and security authorities, on email, on large screens on the roads, and on the comfort of our cell-phones, there was a growing anxiety and a spiralling information mill that was producing an imaginary situation of precariousness and bodily harm.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Much has been said about the eruption of this irrationality that pokes holes in the mantle of cosmopolitanism that Bangalore (and other such ‘global cities’) is enveloped in, in its quest to represent the India that is supposed to shine. It has been heartening to see how communities that were supposed to be in conflict have worked so hard in the last few days, at building human contacts and providing assurances of safety and inclusion, which are far more effective than the official word.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There has been a rich discourse on what this means for India’s modernity, especially when such an event marks the so-called neo-liberal cities, showing the darker undercurrents of discrimination and suspicion that seem to lie just beneath the surface of networked neighbourhoods.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While there is much to be unpacked about the political motivations and the ecologies of fear that our immigrant lives are enshrined in, I want to focus on two aspects of this phenomenon which need more attention.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The first is the fierce localisation of our global technologies. There is an imagination, especially in cities like Bangalore, of digital technologies as necessarily plugging us in larger networks of global information consumption. The idea that technology plugs us into the transnational circuits is so huge that it only tunes us towards an idea of connectedness that is always outward looking, expanding the scope of nation, community and body.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, the ways in which information was circulating during this phenomenon reminds us that digital networks are also embedded in local practices of living and survival. Most of the times, these networks are so naturalised and such an integral part of our crucial mechanics of urban life that they appear as habits, without any presence or visibility, In times of crises – perceived or otherwise – these networks make themselves visible, to show that they are also inward looking.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The visibility of the networks, when they suddenly crop up for public viewing, for those of us who are outside of that network, it signals that something has gone wrong. There is a glitch in the matrix and we need to start unpacking the local, the specific and the particular that signals the separation of these networks from our habits of living.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The second point I want to make is about the need to look at the ellipsis that occurs in this spectacular emergence of the network and the apparatus that is set into place to control and regiment it. The hyper-visibility of the information and technology network destabilises the ways in which we think of our everyday, thus emerging not only as a sign of the crisis but a crisis unto itself.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">These ellipses of the crisis – replacing the crisis with the network – as well as the collusion between the crisis and the network are the easy solution that state authorities pick up on.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This is a problem about the nation-wide building of mega-cities filled with immigrant bodies that are not allowed their differences because they all have to be cosmopolitan and mobile bodies. The solution, however, is offered at the level of technology.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Instead of addressing the larger issues of conservative parochialism, an increasing back-lash by conservative governments and a growing hostility that emerges from these cities which nobody possesses and nobody belongs to, the efforts are being made to blame technology as the site where the problem is located and the object that needs to be controlled.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">So what we have is redundant regulation that controls the number of text messages we are able to send, or policing of internet for those spreading rumours. The entire focus has been on information management, as if the reason for mass exodus of people from the North East Indian states and the sense of fragility that the city has suddenly been immersed in, is all due to the pervasive and ubiquitous information gadgets and their ability to proliferate in peer-2-peer environments outside of the control of the government.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Digital Technologies have become the de facto scapegoats of many problems in our past. It invites more regulation, containment and censorship of the freedom that digital technologies allow you – from the infamous Delhi Public School MMS Scandal in the early 2000s to the recent attempts at filtering the social web – we have seen the repeated futility of such measures of technology control, and yet it appears as a constant trope in the State’s solution to the problems of the contemporary.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This obsession with governance of technology to resolve a much more nuanced problem is akin to fabulous stories of mad monarchs banishing spinning wheels from their kingdoms or sentencing hammers to imprisonment for the potential and possibility of crime.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">And these solutions are always going to fail, because they fail to recognise either the intimate penetration of digital technologies in our everyday life, or the ways in which our local structures are constructed through the presence of ubiquitous technologies and gadgets and screens and networks.</p>
<div id="_mcePaste">
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There has been a rich discourse on what this means for India’s modernity, especially when such an event marks the so-called neo-liberal cities, showing the darker undercurrents of discrimination and suspicion that seem to lie just beneath the surface of networked neighbourhoods.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While there is much to be unpacked about the political motivations and the ecologies of fear that our immigrant lives are enshrined in, I want to focus on two aspects of this phenomenon which need more attention.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The first is the fierce localisation of our global technologies. There is an imagination, especially in cities like Bangalore, of digital technologies as necessarily plugging us in larger networks of global information consumption. The idea that technology plugs us into the transnational circuits is so huge that it only tunes us towards an idea of connectedness that is always outward looking, expanding the scope of nation, community and body.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, the ways in which information was circulating during this phenomenon reminds us that digital networks are also embedded in local practices of living and survival. Most of the times, these networks are so naturalised and such an integral part of our crucial mechanics of urban life that they appear as habits, without any presence or visibility, In times of crises – perceived or otherwise – these networks make themselves visible, to show that they are also inward looking.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The visibility of the networks, when they suddenly crop up for public viewing, for those of us who are outside of that network, it signals that something has gone wrong. There is a glitch in the matrix and we need to start unpacking the local, the specific and the particular that signals the separation of these networks from our habits of living.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The second point I want to make is about the need to look at the ellipsis that occurs in this spectacular emergence of the network and the apparatus that is set into place to control and regiment it. The hyper-visibility of the information and technology network destabilises the ways in which we think of our everyday, thus emerging not only as a sign of the crisis but a crisis unto itself.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">These ellipses of the crisis – replacing the crisis with the network – as well as the collusion between the crisis and the network are the easy solution that state authorities pick up on.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This is a problem about the nation-wide building of mega-cities filled with immigrant bodies that are not allowed their differences because they all have to be cosmopolitan and mobile bodies. The solution, however, is offered at the level of technology.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Instead of addressing the larger issues of conservative parochialism, an increasing back-lash by conservative governments and a growing hostility that emerges from these cities which nobody possesses and nobody belongs to, the efforts are being made to blame technology as the site where the problem is located and the object that needs to be controlled.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">So what we have is redundant regulation that controls the number of text messages we are able to send, or policing of internet for those spreading rumours. The entire focus has been on information management, as if the reason for mass exodus of people from the North East Indian states and the sense of fragility that the city has suddenly been immersed in, is all due to the pervasive and ubiquitous information gadgets and their ability to proliferate in peer-2-peer environments outside of the control of the government.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Digital Technologies have become the de facto scapegoats of many problems in our past. It invites more regulation, containment and censorship of the freedom that digital technologies allow you – from the infamous Delhi Public School MMS Scandal in the early 2000s to the recent attempts at filtering the social web – we have seen the repeated futility of such measures of technology control, and yet it appears as a constant trope n the State’s solution to the problems of the contemporary.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This obsession with governance of technology to resolve a much more nuanced problem is akin to fabulous stories of mad monarchs banishing spinning wheels from their kingdoms or sentencing hammers to imprisonment for the potential and possibility of crime.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">And these solutions are always going to fail, because they fail to recognise either the intimate penetration of digital technologies in our everyday life, or the ways in which our local structures are constructed through the presence of ubiquitous technologies and gadgets and screens and networks.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/www-first-post-com-aug-25-2012-nishant-shah-social-media-sms-are-not-why-ne-students-left-bangalore'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/www-first-post-com-aug-25-2012-nishant-shah-social-media-sms-are-not-why-ne-students-left-bangalore</a>
</p>
No publishernishantFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-08-28T10:48:06ZBlog EntrySocial media sites refuse Indian censorship request
https://cis-india.org/news/social-media-sites-refuse-indian-censorship
<b>The Indian government's proposal to crack down on offensive internet content has sparked anger among the population.</b>
<p>Telecommunications minister Kapil Sibal asked providers of social media sites like Facebook and Twitter to screen out content that might be considered defamatory to religious and political leaders. But the move has been decried as a gag on freedom of speech.</p>
<p><strong>Presenter</strong>: Kanaha Sabapathy<br /><strong>Speakers</strong>: Kapil Sibal, <em>India's Telecommunications Minister</em>; Milind Deora, <em>Minister of State for Communications and IT</em>; Varun Gandhi, <em>Member of Parliament for the Opposition, BJP</em>; Sunil Abraham, <em>Executive Director of the policy research group, the Centre for Internet and Society <br /></em></p>
<p><img alt="" /> Listen to the audio <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/indian-censorship.asx" class="internal-link" title="Social media sites refuse Indian censorship request">here </a>(Microsoft ASF video, 591 bytes)</p>
<p> Sunil Abraham spoke to Radio Australia. Follow the original broadcast by ABC Australia Radio <a class="external-link" href="http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/connectasia/stories/201112/s3386803.htm">here</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/social-media-sites-refuse-indian-censorship'>https://cis-india.org/news/social-media-sites-refuse-indian-censorship</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet Governance2011-12-08T08:26:45ZNews ItemSo Much to Lose
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/indian-express-dec-2-2012-nishant-shah-so-much-to-lose
<b>Unless you have been hiding under a rock, you have been a witness to the maelstrom of events that accompanied the death of the political leader Bal Thackeray.</b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: center; ">Nishant Shah's <a class="external-link" href="http://www.indianexpress.com/news/so-much-to-lose/1038938/0">column was published in the Indian Express</a> on December 2, 2012.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Unless you have been hiding under a rock, you have been a witness to the maelstrom of events that accompanied the death of the political leader Bal Thackeray. For me, the brouhaha was elbowed out by the case of the police arresting two women for critiquing the events on Facebook. The person who wondered about the nature of the enforced mourning and the state of our public life, and her friend who “liked” the comment on Facebook, were booked and arrested under charges that can only be considered preposterous.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">I will not repeat these arguments because it is needless to say that I am on the side of the women and think of this as yet another manifestation of the stringent measures which are being evolved as an older broadcast way of thinking meets the decentralised realities of digital technologies.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In the midst of this the idea of internet freedom needs to be revisited. The global Press Freedom Index 2011-12 report compiled by Reporters Without Borders, ranks India at 131, or as a “partly free” country, marking us as a country where the notion of internet freedom is not to be taken for granted, and possibly also one where the concept is not properly understood.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Citing various instances from the central government’s plans to censor the social web to the authoritarian crackdown on activists and cultural producers involved in online civic protests, from the traditional media industry’s stronghold over intellectual property regimes to the arrest of individuals for voicing their independent critiques online, the report shows that we not only have an infrastructure deficit (with only 10 per cent of the people in the country connected), but also a huge social and political deficit, which is being exposed by our actions and reactions to the Web.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Take the case of professor Ambikesh Mahapatra dean of the chemistry department of Jadavpur University, who was picked up by the police and lodged in the lock up for almost 40 hours for forwarding an e-mail that contained a cartoon of Trinamool Congress leaders Mamata Banerjee, Mukul Roy and Dinesh Trivedi. He and his housing society co-resident Subrata Sengupta were charged with defamation and outraging the modesty of a woman. While the proceedings are underway with the next date of hearing slated in February, 2013, the Jadavpur university professor says, “Section, 66A of the IT Act is being used for suppression of the freedom of speech. In my opinion, it is being misused by the state government, repeatedly. The section does not empower anyone to arrest those who voice their opinion and never meant to harm anybody’s image. Prompt action is needed to check the misuse of law.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Likewise, Ravi Srinivasan, a 46-year-old a businessman from Pondicherry, was arrested for tweeting against Karti Chidambaram, son of Union Finance Minister P Chidambaram. His arrest and consequent release has not blunted his spirit. He says, “At the time (of the arrest) I had not heard of Section 66(A). I still cannot fathom why and how a tweet sent out to just 12 people — half of them family and friends — caught the eye of the police. By evening, when I had come home from the police station, my Twitter following had gone up to 1,700. About 15,000 people re-tweeted the statement that got me arrested.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Given the series of incidents that have marked the last year and the whimsical nature of regulatory injunctions on internet freedom in the country, it might be a good idea for us to reflect on democracy and freedom.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">We need to examine the fundamental nature of freedom, and how these attempts at regulating the internet are only a symptom of the systemic failures of enshrining freedom of speech, information, identity and dignity in India. However, internet freedom is often a difficult concept to engage with, because it is one of those phrases that seem to be self-explanatory but without a straightforward explanation. There are three axes which might be useful to unpack the baggage that comes with internet freedom, both for our everyday practices, and our imagined future:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Freedom of: The freedom of the internet is something that is new and needs more attention. We have to stop thinking of the internet as merely a medium or a conduit of information. As the Web becomes inextricably linked with our everyday lives, the internet is no longer just an appendage or an externality. It becomes a reference point through which our social, political and economic practices are shaped. It becomes a defining point through which we draw our meanings of what it is to be a part of the society, to have rights, to be politically aware, to be culturally engaged — to be a human. The freedom of the Net is important because the crackdowns on the Net are an attack on our rights and freedoms. The silencing of a voice on Facebook, might soon gag the voices of people on the streets, creating conditions of silence in the face of violence perpetuated by the powerful.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Freedom to: Freedom to the internet is often confused with access to the internet. While, of course, access is important in our imagination of a just society where everybody is equally connected, freedom is also about creating open and fair societies. If the power of the internet is in creating alternative spaces of expression, deliberation and opinion-making, then the freedom to the internet is about being safe and responsible in these spaces. A society that controls these spaces of public discussion, under the guise of security and public safety, is a society that has given up its faith in freedom.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Freedom for: It is often not clear that when popular technologies of information and communication are regulated and censored, it is not merely the technology that is being controlled. What is being shaped and contained is the way people use them. The freedom for the internet is about the freedom for people. The possibility that Internet Service Providers are being coerced into revealing personal information of users to police states, that intermediaries are being equipped to remove content that they find offensive from the web, and that views expressed on the social media can lead to legal battles by those who have the power but not the acumen to exercise it, all have alarming consequences. There is a need to fight for freedom, not only for the defence of technology but also for the defence of the rights that we cherish that risk being eroded.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The case of these Facebook arrests is not new. It has happened before and it will continue happening as immature governments are unable to cope with the real voices of representational democracy. These cases sometimes get naturalised because they get repeated, and even without our knowledge, can start creating a life of fear, where we internalise the regulatory system, not voicing our opinions and ideas for fear of persecution. And so, whether you agree with their politics or not, whether you endorse the viewpoints of the people who are under arrest, whether you feel implicated or not in this case, we have to realise that even if we might not agree with somebody’s viewpoint, we must defend their right to have that particular viewpoint. Anything else, and tomorrow, when you want to say something against powers of oppression, you might find yourself alone, as your voice gets heard only by those who will find creative ways of silencing you.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">— With inputs from Gopu Mohan, Madhuparna Das and V Shoba</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/indian-express-dec-2-2012-nishant-shah-so-much-to-lose'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/indian-express-dec-2-2012-nishant-shah-so-much-to-lose</a>
</p>
No publishernishantSocial MediaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-12-07T16:39:09ZBlog Entry