Centre for Internet and Society

Say 'Password' in Hindi

nishant — 2012-03-21T09:18:19Z

English might be the language of the online world, but it’s time other languages had their say, writes Nishant Shah. The article was published in the Indian Express on June 5, 2011.

On skype the other day, a friend narrated an incident that made the otherwise familiar terrains of the internet, uncanny. His grandmother, who had recently acquired a taste for Facebook, had signed off on a message saying “Love, Granny”. For people of the xoxo generation, this sounds commonplace, in fact it might even be archaic. However, for my friend, who had never thought of his emotions for his grandmother as “love”, it produced a moment of sheer strangeness.

In Gujarati, it would have been silly to think of your emotions for family as “love”. There are better nuances. The emotional connect between lovers is different from the affective relationship with parents. The fondness for siblings is different from the bond with friends. And it was unnerving, for him, to have this range of emotions suddenly condensed into “love”. Like many of us polyglots who work in the rapidly digitising world of the World Wide Web, he was experiencing the gap between the mother tongue and the other tongue. It is an experience that is quite common to non-native speakers of English, who have to succumb to de facto English language usage on the global web and often find themselves at sea about how to translate emotions, histories and experiences into a language which does not always accommodate them.

This experience only becomes more intense for people who are fluent neither in the English language nor in international online English. This question of localisation of language remains one of the biggest gating factors of the internet. It also remains, after literacy and skills, the biggest impediment to including people from non-mainstream geopolitics in discussions online. Several global linguistic majorities have dealt with this by producing different language webs. Spanish, Chinese, Japanese and German are among the largest non-English language internets which are in operation now. However, in post-colonial countries like India, where linguistic diversity is the order of the day, the efforts at localisation have been sporadic and not very popular.

There are many facets to the implementation of localisation practices. It requires developing local language fonts so that people don’t have to merely transliterate local words using an English language script. These fonts further need to be made translatable into other languages, identified by machine translations. Keyboards and hardware infrastructure, which grants ease of access to the users need to be built. Tool kits to de-Anglify the computer language, code, browser signs etc. are being developed. There are many attempts being made by public and private bodies in the country to produce this ecology of localisation, both at the level of hardware and software.

And yet, adoption of localisation tools, despite a growing non-urban user base, remains low. Most people engage with the digital and online services through English, even though their fluency with the language might be low. One of the reasons why localisation of Indic language content is facing so much resistance is because of a narrow understanding of localisation as linguistic translation. Most attempts at localisation in the country merely think of translating English terms like “browser”, “code”, or “password” into the regional languages. In many instances, the term is merely rewritten in the local script.

Such an approach to localisation ignores the fact that the language of technology does not only produce new expressions and words, but also new ways of thinking. While localising the English language content, care also has to be given to translating the contexts, which the words and phrases carry. Do a simple exercise. Take the word “Password”. Try and translate this into your local language so that it makes complete sense to a native speaker. You will realise that just saying “Password” doesn’t mean much and that it requires background information to make that word intelligible to a community.

The second is that localisation is not merely about giving rights to generate content online. While the Web 2.0 wave of user-generated content is ruling the internet now, we must realise that most people come online to consume as much, if not more than, what they generate. Policies that promote local language information production, translation projects etc. need to be in place so that the minimum threshold of information is available online in languages other than English. Government documents, state records, public artifacts, etc. need to be digitised and made available in local languages so that people can access data online.

Localisation is not only about language and translations. It is about changing the top-down approach; instead of forcing existing concepts on to material realities which don’t always fit them, it is time to see that the true power of digital technologies is in building bottom-up models where everyday practice can be captured through localised vocabularies that allow for users to say, “I love you,” to anybody, in a language, and meaning that makes sense to them.

Read the original here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/password-in-hindi

Technology, Transparency and Accountability: A Bar-Camp in Delhi

praskrishna — 2011-06-06T06:30:09Z

Accountability Initiative (AI) held a bar-camp on “Technology, Transparency and Accountability” on 5th June at Google office in Gurgaon. Pranesh Prakash participated in this bar-camp.

The camp brought together technology enthusiasts, coders, hackers and policy-thinkers together in a collaborative environment to develop innovative solutions to accountability and transparency challenges in India.

Agenda

10:00 AM - Introduction
10:30 AM - 11:30 AM Combined sessions at the cafe
11:30 AM - 1:30 PM - Breakout sessions in the various rooms and demo sessions in the cafe
1:30 PM - Lunch
2:30 - 5:30 PM - Breakout sessions in the various rooms and demo session in the cafe
5:30 - 6:30 PM - Deciding the future of the camp and creating blueprints for further collaboration
6:30 PM - Ending session

Some of the topics being talked about thus far

Social accountability tools and how can technology be used for this?

Public finance tracking and PAISA
Participatory budgeting
Participatory research for tracking outcomes
Citizen report cards
Social audits

Open Data and why it is important for transparency

Where can you find government data
Scraping government data using Needle Base
Why is visualization important?
Some examples of how open Data is changing the world
Akshara's work at the Karnataka Learning Partnership and the need for open educational data.
Data-mashups
The draft policy on open data in India
One stop govt ports

Technology innovations for improving the Right to Information

A wishlist
Shouldn't the replies to RTI be in the public domain?
Filing an RTI: Problems and Prospects
RTI Question and Answer Portal
How do you file an RTI though an SMS?

Egovernance initiatives that are leading to greater accountability and transparency

Mahima Kaul - Digital Empowerment Foundation

Making the links between politics and businesses transparent

Rohit Chandra

Electoral accountability

‘Improving and Strengthening Democracy in India’ - Lessons from Election Watch Process

Crowd-sourcing actionable data

An example of crowd-sourcing - Powercuts.in

Transparency in diplomacy

Using online tools to engage and be engaged by the public.

How should we look at technology when dealing with grassroots situations?

How can programmers help in making governance more transparent?

Perspectives from the Government

Perspectives from the NIC
Perspectives from the NEGP
Perspectives from the Office of Mr Sam Pitroda, Adviser to the Prime Minister of India on Public Information Infrastructure and Innovations.

Making conversation: citizens and their government

Making visual sense of Data and Policy

Policy to Practice: From the lab and to the people

How can legislators and parliamentarians and MPs be tracked by citizens?

Research Tools to work with large amounts of data

Other interesting ideas that have come up

Panini Keypad - Mr Abhijit Bhattacharjee
How Ashok Leyland dealt with its problems of too many layers between the customer on the ground and the top management - Its implications for the government

The Speakers

Nikhil Dey - Nikhil Dey has done more to fight for the rights of people than he will ever allow the world to find out. Always far from the spotlight, he has worked quietly to shape legislation, lobby governments and politicians and build grassroots campaigns.Born in 1963 in the city of Bangalore, Nikhil was educated in India and the US. Before the formal completion of his graduate course at the George Mason University, he left to ‘follow his bliss' and came to India. His initial work was with the Kheduth Mazdoor Chetna Sangathan in Madhya Pradesh. He then joined Aruna Roy and Shankar Singh in 1987 to go to a village called Devdungri in Rajsamand district, Rajasthan. Devdungri was soon to become the head office of the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS), a peasants-workers-women organisation founded by the trio in 1990. He currently is the Convener of the National Campaign for People's Right to Information.

Shri Sailesh Gandhi - Shailesh Gandhi is one among the handful of people whose dogged perseverance has demonstrated that the Right to Information Act is a valuable tool that can be used by ordinary people to resolve issues and to clean up public life. Currently one of the Information Commissioners of India, Mr Gandhi is a graduate from IIT-Mumbai and first-generation entrepreneur.

Prof Trilochan Sastry - Prof Trilochan Sastry has a Bachelors in Technology from IIT, Delhi, an MBA from the Indian Institute of Management (IIM), Ahmedabad, and a Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) USA. He taught for several years at Indian Institute of Management (IIM), Ahmedabad after which he moved to IIM, Bangalore. He is currently Dean at IIM Bangalore. He has taught in other Universities in India, Japan, Hong Kong and United States and has published several academic papers in Indian and International journals. Has received national award for research and teaching. He was part of the cofounding team of ADR India in 1999.

GVL Narasimha Rao: Rao is a well known Psephologist who has been predicting Indian elections for two decades for various leading media organisations in the country. He is the founder of Development & Research Services Pvt. Ltd., a leading research organisation offering professional research services for various governmental, international and commercial organisations. Formerly, he was a Columnist for MINT newspaper and regularly writes in various newspapers on politics and elections.

Rao is presently Media Adviser to Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh in the rank of a state minister. He is also a member of the BJP’s National Committee on Electoral Reforms under the guidance of BJP’s senior Leader Mr. L.K. Advani.

Rao is President of VeTA (Citizens for Verifiability, Transparency and Accountability) and has organised various efforts in highlighting the lack of transparency and verifiability in Indian EVMs. He has authored a book titled “Democracy at Risk! Can We Trust Our EVMs?” which became the intellectual basis for the campaign for EVM reform. He had highlighted the vulnerabilities of India’s EVMs in a round table international Electronic Voting Workshop in Washington D.C. last year which was also attended by the Election Commission of India. Rao has blogged extensively on the vulnerabilities of EVMs at www.indianEVM.com which exerted huge pressure on the Election Commission of India and even served as an eye opener for laying bare hitherto unknown vulnerabilities (brought out by the research of Hari Prasad et al.) and raising uncomfortable questions regarding the pitfalls in EVM procurement, storage and field administration.

Mahima Kaul - Mahima Kaul is a writer/journalist and has worked with different formats - print, video and online. She has written for The Indian Express, Sunday Guardian, PBS World Focus and also worked on video programming for Al Jazeera and PBS. She was the India producer for PBS's special coverage on the Mumbai Terror Attacks, which was nominated for an Emmy Award. She has a blog that has been picked up by (among others) OpenDemocracy, Global Voices, Huffington Post and Ground Report.

She is deeply involved in ICT4D -- Information and Communication Technologies for Development -- sector. She has worked with Video Volunteers, a community media organization, and helped launch India's first community TV channel, India Unheard. She is a consultant with the Digital Empowerment Foundation where she manages the Digital Knowledge Center, the first information portal in India on best practices in ICT4D. Mahima has also established The Open Communication Foundation as a multidisciplinary platform devoted to ICT4D.

Rohit Chandra - Rohit Chandra is an engineering graduate currently doing research in the areas of power, energy and natural resources at the Centre for Policy Research. He will be discussing a nascent idea at the Accountability Initiative which hopes to map the links between businesses and politicians.

Sukhman Randhawa - Sukhman has completed her Masters in Social and Political Sciences from the University of Cambridge, UK and has obtained a BA in English Literature (Hons.) from St. Stephen's College, Delhi University. She is also an honorary fellow of the Cambridge Commonwealth Trust. She has worked as a Research Associate at the National Knowledge Commission (NKC), a high level advisory body to the Prime Minister of India, on the focus areas of Higher Education, Libraries, National Portal for Teachers, National Environment Portal, National Biodiversity Portal, Quality of Life, and worked on compiling the final report of the Commission. At NKC, she also worked with State Governments for implementation of NKC recommendations and preparing blueprints for action. She has also worked with IL&FS Education and Technology Services Ltd in Delhi. Currently she is working at the Office of Mr Sam Pitroda, Adviser to the Prime Minister of India on Public Information Infrastructure and Innovations.

Gautam John - Gautam used to be a lawyer with a focus on copyright laws and has also been an entrepreneur. He is passionate about education, equality and equity and focuses on 'access' as a way to achieve these. Gautam was a TED India Fellow in 2009 and is a Creative Commons supporter. He works with the Akshara Foundation where he manages the Karnataka Learning Partnership project, Pratham Books and is an advisor to Inclusive Planet. He is a founder member of Wikimedia Chapter (India) and currently serves as Secretary on the Executive Committee.

The Karnataka Learning Partnership is a multi-party, multi-stakeholder platform to bring transparency in the public preschool and primary education space. Karnataka Learning Partnership is also a public space where citizens can contribute to the cause of ensuring better schools and schooling for our children.

Raman Jit Singh Chima - is a senior analyst, Public Policy and Government Affairs at Google, India.

Pranesh Prakash - Pranesh Prakash is a programme manager with the Centre for Internet and Society, a Bangalore-based non-profit research and advocacy organization. He is a lawyer by training who's comfortable at a bash prompt. He works mostly around issues of intellectual property rights reform, promoting IP alternatives and transparency through different kinds of 'opennesses'—open standards, free/open source software, open government data, open access to law—as well as issues of freedom of speech and expression and privacy that relate to the Internet.

Last year, Pranesh along with Glover Wright, Sunil Abraham and Nishant Shah, prepared a report around open government data (OGD) in India as part of a series of studies commissioned by the Transparency and Accountability Initiative . In that report they looked at the existing ecosystem in terms of data practices, the policy environment (RTI, copyright, standards, NeGP, NKC's recommendations, etc.) , and specific OGD case studies of governmental organizations, civil society organizations, public-private partnerships, and civic hackers. The report then charts out challenges any campaign for OGD in India must address, as well as observations on how the very conceptualization of OGD must be different in India, and strategic recommendations on how to grow the OGD movement in India.

Rishabh Verma - A Python enthusiast, FOSS contributor,loves data mining and is always upto finding unusual patterns in large datasets. Organizer of Tech & Entrepreneurial events, he digs data-contextualization books when he should rather be preparing for his board exams.

Thejesh N - Thejesh GN is a Technologist. His area of interests are web, Open Data and Open Source technologies. He moonlights visualizing public data. He loves blogging and hacking open source software. You can find more about him here.

Chakshu Roy - Chakshu is a lawyer who specialised in real estate law and commercial agreements before joining PRS. He has earlier worked in corporate law with the Chamber of Law, New Delhi. He holds bachelors degrees in Commerce and Law from Delhi University. Chakshu Roy heads technology initiatives at PRS Legislative research, developing a comprehensive technology strategy to engage large sections of the Indian population in policy making.

Vinay Kumar - Vinay Kumar is the chief strategist at Digital Greens. He currently manage operations of Digital Green and contribute to its organizational development. He is also a consultant to Translational Health Science & Technology Institute (THSTI) at Department of Biotechnology. Prior to this he was at India Operations Director at PATH and Regional Operations Manager for Asia / Near East with IntraHealth International. Earlier he was with the Reserve Bank of India. I have an MA in Political Science and M. Phil. in International Relations from JNU and MBA from FMS.

Manu Srivastava - Manu Srivastava works as Vice President - Delivery at eGovernment Foundation, a not-for-profit trust that was founded in Feb 2003 by Nandan Nilekani & Srikanth Nadhamuni with a goal of creating an eGovernance system to improve the functioning of City Municipalities leading to better delivery of services to their citizens. He has been in the field of Municipal Governance for the last 7 years and focusses on supply side, with the Municipal Governments, to create sustainable, efficient, transparent and accountable Municipalities. eGovernments Solutions have been deployed in more than 250 municipalities across the country.

Dinesh Shenoy - Dinesh Shenoy is a business developer at Palantir. Palantir is a firm believer in the fact that well-informed citizens lead to better government, and making government data available is certainly an important first step. In practice, however, information is scattered across countless domains, and combining such widely dispersed knowledge in a meaningful way is a technical challenge beyond any private citizen's capabilities. Palantir has eliminated this barrier, democratizing the data and providing the tools to place a new world of analysis at your fingertips.

Palantir has developed AnalyzeThe.US which allows anyone to to explore vast amounts of data, including key datasets from www.data.gov. It brings critical knowledge together on a single stage, while providing rich analytical applications that enable anyone to develop an intuitive picture of the complex flow of resources, money, and influence that affect how our government functions. Ultimately, by allowing citizens to analyze our democracy, AnalyzeThe.US democratizes analysis.

Paul Culmsee - Paul Culmsee is a dialog mapper based in Perth, Australia. He has faciliated a number of meetings and done lot of dialog mapping particularly for the public sector in the areas of urban planning and health. He is the only certified dialog-mapper in the Southern hemisphere. He has also dialog-mapped politicians. His work has culminated in soon to be released book called "Beyond Best Practices", which outlines IBIS based techniques - a radically inclusive approach to knowledge management that allows groups to capture and make sense of unstructured knowledge during project meetings. and case studies. The book goes beyond the tool of mapping and the concept of wicked problems to look at what is needed to create and maintain a "holding environment".

Frederick Noronha - Frederick Noronha is a journalist, writer, publisher and photographer from Goa, India. He is known for online community building, and for promoting the cause of Free Software in India. Among the other campaigns he has been actively associated with are the successful community radio campaign, right to information initiatives, sharable content (including the information commons, Creative Commons, Wikipedia). He has been active in mailing lists within India, and has undertaken blogging assignments in Uganda, Malaysia and Thailand. He is on twitter at @fn and shares his links via Facebook and del.icio.us (fredericknoronha)

Nikhil Pahwa - Nikhil Pahwa is a media junkie, journalist and a blogger. He has covered the digital media business for more than 3 years. He has helped bringing a pan-media perspective to digital media reportage, highlighting industry issues, identifying opportunities and problems, and questioning the efficacy of decisions being made by some large media companies. Nikhil Pahwa undoubtedly is one of the popular names in the business of digital media coverage. Companies referMedianama for the latest breaking news in the digital media industry.

Kohl Singh Gill - Dr. Kohl S. Gill is the President and founder of LaborVoices, Inc. Dr. Gill served as an AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellow for the U.S. Departments of Energy and State, most recently as the South Asia and Middle East Labor Affairs Officer for the Office of International Labor and Corporate Social Responsibility in the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Prior to federal service, Dr. Gill was an Indicorps Fellow in the slum areas of Delhi, India, serving as a volunteer paralegal with local residents, using transparency legislation to fight both petty and grand corruption at the local level. Dr. Gill is a graduate of the California Institute of Technology and received his Ph.D. from the University of California, Santa Barbara, for his work in quantum computing and semiconductor physics.

Aaditya Dar, Dhruv Suri and Ritwik Agrawal - Aaditya, Dhruv and Ritwik are interested in exploring and evolving innovative interventions to improve governance in India. They have varied backgrounds - economics, policy research, law, advocacy [and even math!] and have worked together in the past on education and governance related issues as part of United Students.

Vijay Pratap Singh Aditya is a development professional with hands-on experience in institution development, development research, communication systems and grassroots networking. He has considerable experience in developing systems and platforms for enabling enterprise support. Vijay is an Electrical Engineering Graduate with a Post-Graduation in Management from the Indian Institute of Forest Management, Bhopal, M.P., India. Vijay is co-founder and Chief Executive Officer of Ekgaon.

The other speakers were:

Vivek Joshi
Siddhant
Mudit Tuli
Ankit Rastogi
Nirmesh Singh
Manish Shekhar
Shashank S
Mandira
Tonushree
Shomikho Raha

The rationale behind the camp

Founded in 2008, AI is a research initiative that aims to improve the quality of public services in India by promoting informed and accountable governance. To this end, one of AI's key efforts is to develop innovative models for tracking government led social sector programs in India. The Centre for Policy Research, an independent and non-partisan research institute and think-tank, is the institutional anchor for this initiative.

It is now widely accepted that greater transparency – access to information and data on the day to day functioning of government – is key to creating accountable and effective governance systems. The Right to Information Act (2005) has played a significant role in strengthening transparency by committing the government to both proactively providing citizens with information and also responding to specific information requests. While the Act has met much success – RTI applications are growing by the day - there remain concerns related to quality, and reliability of information and data provided. Moreover, there are still many gaps in the Government’s efforts to proactively disclose information and data of public relevance.

Technology is one of many tools that can help address these gaps. There are some incredible initiatives taking place across the world on opening government data and on getting data to work for ordinary citizens. [See below for a sample of initiatives] Through the bar camp, we hope to create a platform for technologists to share these technologies and contribute to the debate on strengthening accountability and transparency.

Equally, we believe that technology solutions can be significantly enhanced if they are developed in consultation with people working on the ground, people who deal with the challenges of our current governance systems in India. By organizing a bar camp, we at AI want to initiate a conversation between technology specialists and people working on the ground. Through the bar camp, we intend to create a space where people can share their knowledge about how best to use new technologies to make our government really work for the people.

Online conversations

To faciliate conversations between interested people and for people who are interested in being a part of the planning process, we created a Google-Group. To send in your suggestions for the camp, both on what you would like to hear, and on what sessions you would like to take, you can use the google-group or send in your entries through our Facebookpage, our Twitter handle or through comments on this blog post. Our entry on the official bar-camp page is here. To tweet about us please use the hash-tag #TAC1.

Do you need more ideas?

To spark your thought processes, we consolidated a list of websites which deal with "Technology, Accountabilty and Transparency". Have fun!

A compendium of ideas from across the world can be found here.
The Sunlight Foundation does some excellent work on technology and transparency issues.
The technology for transparency network maps technology initiatives across the world.
Code for America brings together techies from across the world to use their skills for the greater common good.
Civics Common is another organization working on using technology for common good, and this involves a lot of transparent data.

For any other information, please contact lemmanuel @ accountabilityindia.org.

See the entire details on the Accountability Initiative website.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/notices/technology-transparency-accountability

A Street View of Private and the Public

Prashant Iyengar — 2012-03-21T09:34:23Z

Prashant Iyengar on how in the eyes of the law, the internet giant is like the homeless in India. This article was published by Tehelka on June 4, 2011.

Since last Thursday, Internet-search giant Google has been busy collecting images of roads in Bengaluru in order to launch its popular StreetView service for the city. It is a feature that allows users of Google Maps to virtually navigate and explore cities through a 360-degree, street-level imagery. To achieve this, Google drives vehicles with cameras mounted on them through each street and neighbourhood in a city, systematically capturing everything in their path, including buildings, roads, traffic, animals and human subjects.

Intrinsically, the idea is exciting for its ability to enable distant users to sample street life in cities and neighbourhoods that they may have never physically visited. Or, even for the exhilaration it permits of viewing familiar spaces virtually.

However, this technology has also raised interesting privacy concerns in countries where it has previously been launched. In April 2008, shortly after the service was first launched in the US, Google was sued by a couple who objected to the pictures of their home being publicly displayed. This suit was settled out-of-court two years later. Google had, meanwhile, made changes to their service, permitting users to "opt out" of the service, rendering similar suits unnecessary. Google has faced similar concerns in other jurisdictions, including Europe and Japan, and has successfully fended them off by adapting its service by voluntarily blurring faces of all individuals captured during the process and vesting more agency in the hands of users to take down information that offends them.

Putting aside the privacy debate over StreetView in other jurisdictions momentarily, I want to raise two questions about India and the Indian law in the context of StreetView: first, does Indian privacy law – that evanescent sub-topic of tort and constitutional law – contain anything useful or even informative which we can bring to bear on this discussion? And, do the specificities of the Indian street life merit a different approach to the privacy question?

On the first question, the legal right to privacy in India has been, for the most part, a child of the higher judiciary. However, despite a fairly substantial volume of case law that has accumulated by now that references "privacy", one cannot suppress a sense that the concept lacks, even today, a definitive articulation. The individual’s privacy in India today is an uneven concept – stronger in some situations and non-existent in others. It is a contingent, rather tame concept of a general right to privacy that we have, from which it is not possible to mount a confident attack against Google.

Given this state of indeterminacy about one’s right to privacy, a case for the extension of this right in public spaces seems even more far-fetched. Indeed, in specific cases, courts have dealt damaging blows to the emergence of such a concept. For instance, in a tort case from colonial times, it was held that a window overlooking a public street would not infringe the privacy of the neighbours across the street. Likewise, in a case involving sex workers, the Supreme Court held that they were not entitled to move freely in a public place due to the very subversive nature of the professions they practiced in private – signalling that the private seeps into the public only as a limiting or negative concept.

Against this context Google’s extension of its opt-out privacy principles to India is commendable, because they are not warranted by the current state of law in the country. Indeed, it may even result in a "wagging the dog" of privacy jurisprudence in India by seeding the notion of a limited "right to public anonymity", which is currently indeterminate in the Indian law. That individuals have no “legitimate expectation of privacy in a public place” is axiomatic in most other common-law jurisdictions and is one of the hidden legal ballasts that supports Google’s StreetView service. However, there has not yet been an occasion for the Supreme Court to pronounce on this question. It is very likely that the court will defer to international precedent on the matter. However, until this eventuality, the legal position on the question must be regarded as unsettled.

Turning briefly to the second question regarding the specificities of the Indian situation, India is home to one of the largest populations of urban homeless persons. To them the street, generally, and pavements and bridges, more specifically, are "home" regardless of their tenuous legal title to these claims. To casually dismiss their claims is to crudely conflate privacy with property, which is insensitive to the tragedies of urban life in India. In his insightful essay on filth and the public sphere, Sudipta Kaviraj makes the fascinating point that "for the poor, homeless and other destitute people" of India, "public means not-private spaces, from which they could not be excluded by somebody’s right to property.

It comprises assets which are owned by some general institution like the government or city municipality which does not exercise fierce vigilance over its properties as individual owners do, and which allows through default, indifference and a strangely lazy generosity, its owned things to be despoiled by those with out other means. Public space is a matter not of collective pride but of desperate uses that can range from free riding to vandalizing.

I would add here that this notion of public space is shared not just by the homeless but Google as well, which has taken advantage of the lazy generosity of the Bengaluru traffic police to appropriate images of the city for its purposes. Like the homeless, Google is willing to cede to competing private interests, if they are asserted strongly enough. (This makes Google StreetView, despite its origins in Mountain View in California, characteristically Indian!) In the past, Google has required users to submit documentary proof of their titles before their claims to opt out are honoured. In the context of the homeless particularly, honouring privacy in India may require a different approach. Fortunately for Google, the homeless are not likely to fiercely assert this right.

To conclude, I will like to clarify that I write to praise Google not to bury him, since Google is an honourable man. Over the past several decades, technology – from wire tapping to DNA tests to paternity tests – has been the site and discursive nucleus that has facilitated an efflorosence of privacy jurisprudence in the country. Two decades ago we did not have Facebook, Google, unsolicited calls and spam, and, correspondingly, neither did we have a sharp notion of our privacy. One awaits with optimism the kinds of changes in privacy jurisprudence that might emerge from StreetView.

Prashant Iyengar is a lawyer and consultant on privacy issues with the Centre for Internet and Society, Bengaluru.

He can be contacted at prashantiyengar@gmail.com.

Read the original published in Tehelka here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/privacy/street-view-of-private-and-public

Bloggers' Rights Subordinated to Rights of Expression: Cyber Law Expert

elonnai — 2012-03-21T09:35:06Z

Vijayashankar, an eminent cyber law expert answers Elonnai Hickok’s questions on bloggers' rights, freedom of expression and privacy in this e-mail interview conducted on May 19, 2011.

A set of rules relating to regulation of the Internet (mentioned in section 79 of the ITAA, 2008) was released in April 2011. In light of the rules framed under the IT Act, and as part of our research on privacy and Internet users, we have been looking into questions surrounding bloggers’ rights, freedom of expression, and privacy.

The new rules require among other things that intermediaries take down any content that could be considered disparaging. In practice, these rules will act to limit the ability of individuals to express their opinions on the Internet — especially for the bloggers. Though these requirements seem to only impact the freedom of expression of bloggers, a blogger’s privacy rights, especially in relation to the protection of their identity, are also pulled into question. Other issues surrounding bloggers’ rights and privacy include: if bloggers are identified as journalists, then whether they should be afforded the same protections and privileges, e.g., should bloggers have the right to free political speech and should intermediaries have freedom from liability for hosting speech or others’ comments? Are bloggers allowed to publish material that is under copyright on their website?

On May 19, 2011, through e-mail, I had the opportunity to interview Vijayashankar, an expert in cyber law, on issues regarding the rights of bloggers freedom of expression, and privacy. Vijayashankar has authored multiple books on cyber law, taught in many universities, and is an active leader of the Netizen movement in India. Below is a summary of the questions I posed to Vijayashankar and his responses.

I began the interview by trying to understand bloggers’ rights and how they are defined. Often the term 'bloggers' rights is used casually, but it is important to understand the different roles that a blogger plays in order to understand what his/her rights are, how they could be violated, and how they could be protected. Vijayashankar explained that a blog is comprised of two parties: a blogger and an intermediary – which is the application host. Bloggers have many different roles: authors, editors, or publishers of content, and thus, a blogger’s rights should be defined within these contexts. As authors, bloggers write their own article/blog or adds comments to others’ blogs. As such, they should have the freedom to express their thoughts and opinions and determine a level of privacy with which to maintain them, without regulation or censorship from a third party. Though the freedom of expression and privacy should be basic rights for blog authors, bloggers must also be held accountable and responsible for the content that they choose to make public by posting on accessible web pages.

The need for a blogger to be held responsible and accountable is similar to the limitation on speech that informs defamation law, and it means that a blogger cannot be entirely anonymous – at least not once a blog is public and is challenged. Thus, accountability must limit the right to be entirely private and anonymous. Though a blogger should be held accountable, the international implications give rise to thorny issues of jurisdiction and accountability under unforeseen laws: all of which raises the question whether, instead of local jurisdictions seeking to enforce their laws against potentially out-of-the-jurisdiction bloggers, an international third party should be entrusted with the responsibility of holding bloggers accountable and responsible – whether that takes the form of an organization like the WTO or WIPO or looks more like specially trained international arbitrators.

This challenge arises because bloggers live in different jurisdictions where different rules apply, but their opinions cross multiple borders and boundaries. This raises questions such as: Which jurisdictional law should the blogger be accountable to? Should a blogger be held responsible for actions that are considered violations in a jurisdiction in which a blog is read, even if those actions are not violations in the jurisdiction in which it is written? And if a blogger is to be held responsible, who should hold him responsible – the country where the action is considered a violation or his own country – and where does a private party have a cause of action? According to Vijayashankar, blogger’s rights’ are always subordinated to the rights of expression guaranteed to the blogger in his country where he is a citizen.

Furthermore, the rights of a blogger have to be seen in the context of who has the "cause of action" against blog writing, i.e., which party involved has the right to complain. If an individual is a victim of a blog, and that individual is a citizen of another country and is guaranteed certain rights, the blogger's rights cannot override the rights of the victim in his own country. Hence, the victim has the right to invoke law enforcement in his country, and the law enforcement agencies do have a right to seek information from the blogger. If, however, a citizen brings a private civil action against a blogger, the discovery limitations are much more severe across boundaries, and the blogger’s national policy on responding to discovery from other countries will determine the extent to which information from the blogger will be made available. To the extent that the impact of a blogger’s expression reaches across boundaries, his actions should be considered similar to a situation where a citizen of one country does certain things which affect the rights enjoyed by a citizen of another country. It does not seem right that a blogger can say something offensive in one jurisdiction and be held liable, but a different blogger can say the same thing from another jurisdiction and be protected. On the one hand, since the Internet as a medium broadcasts across geographical boundaries, it is the responsibility of the individual countries to erect their "cyber boundaries" if they do not want the broadcast to reach their citizens. On the other, individuals should be able to invoke international laws to seek consistent application of standards about what is actionable and what information is discoverable in support of an action. This suggests that an international tribunal might be the best solution.

Other questions to think about when exploring the idea of a trusted third party holding online bloggers accountable include: who would form the third party, what legal authority/power would they have, would this group also be in charge of reviewing a country’s "cyber boundaries" in addition to holding online bloggers accountable? and how would it avoid being influenced by any one government or by other stakeholders?

Next I asked him for examples of common privacy violations that happen to online users. A few he said included identity theft in the form of phishing, which leads to financial frauds, and is one of the most dangerous consequences of privacy breach. Other examples included manipulation of online profiles in social networking sites to cause annoyance, defamation, and coercion; cyber squatting with content which can be misleading; posting of obscene pictures with or without morphing of victim’s photographs to other obscene photographs/pictures; and SPAM – particularly through mobile phones – are all serious forms of privacy violations.

My third question focused on privacy violations and bloggers. How could a blogger’s rights be compromised, especially with a focus on privacy? For bloggers, is privacy important simply to protect their identity and content, or are there other implications for privacy and bloggers? In our research we have looked into ways in which practices such as data retention by ISPs, government/law enforcements’ access to web content including private conversations, and poorly established user control over privacy settings on websites can violate online users’ privacy. According to Vijayashankar, a blogger is mainly concerned about privacy in the context of protecting his identity. It is important for bloggers to protect their identity because the content they create could be considered controversial or illegal in different regions. Thus, it is critical for bloggers to have the right to blog anonymously. An exception to this right is that if the blog is so offensive then the law enforcement agency can take action. In some countries individuals also can sue bloggers. To help protect bloggers from unreasonable and ungrounded searches, Vijayashankar suggested that a mechanism be created by which international and domestic law enforcement agencies can request 'sensitive' information. This mechanism would work to filter and evaluate requests for information without bias, and according to a country’s law own domestic law.

I then asked him what legal protections he felt bloggers needed. He said that he believes that it is important that bloggers and online users’ right to anonymity, protection of identity and freedom of expression (political and non-political) are protected from excessive regulations. An interesting point that he raised was about the protection of bloggers from international requests for information. According to –him — bloggers can be protected only to the extent to which their rights are protected in their own country. If a request for information comes to a law enforcement agency of a country of which the blogger is a citizen, information may need to be released unless an “asylum” has been granted.

An example of the situation Vijayashankar is referring to is that if a blogger in India writes content that is found to be controversial by the U.S Government; the U.S Government then has a right to request and access that information, unless the Indian Government provides protection over the citizen and the information and refuses to release it. Though right to information requests tend to be governmental, this rule changes if it is a citizen requesting information. Very rarely can a citizen of one country request information about a blogger from another country and gain access. The question of international discovery over Internet material is one that has many angles that need to be taken into consideration – a few being: what the content on the blog contained; was the content against an individual or a government; who is requesting the information — a citizen or the government, and whom are they requesting the information from? For example, in the US Supreme Court case, Calder vs. Jones 465 U.S. 783 (1984), information about a woman, Shirley Jones, was published in another state, but the court ruled that the wrongful action was directed to her where she was.

A large part of the debate over bloggers’ rights is centered on governments’ need to monitor online activity. Developments such as the new rules to the IT Act, the Indian Government’s request for blackberry’s encryption keys, and the news about the government wiretapping citizens’ phones show that the Government of India is demanding access to see and regulate content created by online users in India. When asked about bloggers’ rights and government access to content, Vijayashankar stressed that there has to be a mechanism to check the requests from government agencies, and any such mechanism should have popular representation. He went on to explain that presently an order for the blocking of a blog or for private information is made by a government agency or a court. Unfortunately, government agencies may be responsive to certain interests. Likewise, decisions of conventional courts can be inconsistent. Therefore, it is important that a mechanism that reflects the common person’s input is put in place. This could either be a stand-alone private body, such as Netizen Protection Agency, acting as one more layer of protection, or the government body itself could build in adequate public representation. Courts would need to recognize such bodies and seek their opinion as an input to any dispute. This is an innovative option, but one that is a radical departure from the view of a court as an impartial tribunal that is supposed to weigh every matter independently on its merits.

Lastly, I asked if a privacy legislation could address the issue at hand i.e., could a privacy legislation work to protect bloggers’ rights by providing them identity protection and protection of their content and in general what should be included in a comprehensive privacy legislation? Though India already addresses bloggers’ rights through the Information Technology Act, it could be possible that privacy legislation could establish a third party group to work to protect bloggers’ rights and hold both governments and bloggers’ accountable. When asked what should be included in a comprehensive privacy legislation, Vijayashankar suggested that it should recognize that privacy rights of individuals are part of the larger interests of the society, and a comprehensive legislation should work to take all the stakeholders into consideration.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/privacy/bloggers-rights-and-privacy

Big Brother is Watching You

sunil — 2012-03-21T09:32:28Z

The government is massively expanding its surveillance power over law-abiding citizens and businesses, says Sunil Abraham in this article published by the Deccan Herald on June 1, 2011.

Imagine: An HIV positive woman calls a help-line from an ISD/STD booth. The booth operator can get to know who she called, when and for how long. But he would not have any idea on who she is or where she lives.

Now, instead of a phone call, imagine that she uses a cyber café to seek help on a website for HIV positive people. The cyber-cafe operator would have a copy of her ID – remember that many ID documents have phone numbers and addresses. He may then take her photograph using his own camera. One can only hope that he will take only a mug-shot without using the zoom lens inappropriately. He would also use a software – to log her Internet activities and make a reasonable guess on her HIV status.

The average Facebook page may have 50 different URLs to display the various images, animations and videos that are linked to that page. Each of those URLs would be stored, regardless of whether she scrolls down to see any of them.

The cyber-cafe operator is obliged under the Cyber Cafe rules to store this information for a period of one year. But there are no clear guidelines on when and how he should dispose of these logs. An unethical operator could leak the logs to a marketeer, a spammer, a neighbourhood Romeo or the local moral police. A careless operator maybe vulnerable to digital or physical theft and before you know it, such logs could end up on the Internet.

Ever since 26/11, cyber-cafes in metros have been photocopying ID documents – but so far not a single terrorist attack has been foiled or a crime solved thanks to this highly intrusive measure. But despite the lack of evidence to prove the efficacy of the current levels of surveillance, the government has decided to expand them exponentially.

Imagine again: A media organisation such as Deccan Herald is investigating a public interest issue with the help of a whistle-blower or an anonymous informant. Deccan Herald reporters may think that by turning the encryption on when using Gmail or Hotmail they are protecting their source.

But the ISP serving Deccan Herald is obliged by the license terms to log all traffic be it broadband, dial-up or mobile users passing through it. Again, there are no clear guidelines on when to delete these logs and none of the Indian ISPs publicly publish a data retention policy. Besides retaining data, the ISPs have to install real-time surveillance equipment within their network infrastructure and make them available for government officials. If a government official wants to track who is talking to Deccan Herald reporters, he just has to ask.

With ISPs and online service providers – all the police have to do is send an information request under Section 92 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In other words, they don't even have to bother about a court order. Between January 2010 to June 2010 Google received 1,430 information requests from India. Many other companies, for example, Microsoft, are not as transparent as Google about the state surveillance. So we will never know what they are subjected to.

If the whistle-blower was using Blackberry, all traffic would be transferred from the device to the RIM's Network Operation Centre situated outside India in an encrypted tunnel before it travels onto the Internet. This prevents the government from learning which mail server is being used from the logs and surveillance equipment at the ISP premises. And that is why the government has been engaged in a five-year long public fight with RIM over access to Blackberry traffic.

Now, thanks to the IT Act, the government can demand the service providers, including RIM, to hand over the decryption keys by accusing any individual of a variety of vague offenses -- for example engaging in communication that is ‘grossly harmful’ or ‘harms minors in any way’ – under the IT Act. Refusal to hand over the keys is punishable with a jail term of three years.

Finally, imagine that an Indian enterprise is developing trade-secrets or handling trade-secrets on behalf of their international partners. This enterprise is using a VPN or virtual private network for confidential digital communication. As per the ISP license all encryption above 40-bit is only permitted with written permission from DoT along with mandatory deposit of the decryption key.

In the age of wire-tap leaks, only a miniscule minority of international business partners would trust the government of India not to leak or misuse the keys that have been deposited with them. Most individuals, SMEs and large enterprises routinely use encryption higher than 40 bit strength. For example, Gmail uses128 bit and Skype uses 256 bit encryption. Many services use dynamic encryption, that is generate different keys for each session.

So far I have not heard of anyone who has actually secured permission or deposited the keys. In other words, the Indian enterprise has two choices – either break the law to protect business confidentiality or obey it and lose clients.

The IT Act (Amendment 2008) and its associated Rules, notified in April this year are a massive expansion of blanket surveillance on ordinary, law-abiding Indians. They represent a paradigm shift in surveillance and a significant dilution in privacy protections afforded to citizens under the Telegraph Act.

This has terrifying consequences for our plural society, free media and businesses. Department of Information Technology in particular Dr. Gulshan Rai's office has so far only brushed aside these concerns and denied receiving feedback from the industry and civil society. If our media continues to ignore this clamp down on our civil liberties, we will soon have to furnish ID documents before purchasing thumb drives. After all, Bin Laden was found using them in his Abbottabad home.

Read the original here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/big-brother-watching-you

The Present — and Future — Dangers of India's Draconian New Internet Regulations

anja — 2011-08-02T07:22:24Z

The uproar surrounding India's Internet Control Rules makes clear that in the Internet age, as before, the active chilling of freedom of expression by the state is unacceptable in a democracy. Yet if India's old censorship regimes are to be maintained in this new context, the state will have little choice but to do just that. Are we ready to rethink the ways in which we deal with free speech and censorship as a society? Asks Anja Kovacs in this article, published in Caravan, 1 June 2011.

WHAT ACTUALLY DEFINES A DEMOCRACY? It is a trickier question than it first seems, and yet it is worthwhile, at least every now and then, to remind ourselves of what constitutes the political system we hold so dear. Free and fair elections; an independent legislative, executive and judiciary; and freedom of the press—these are all vital ingredients. But what may be democracy’s defining element, or at least its sine qua non, is the right to freedom of opinion and expression: without this equal right to “seek, receive and impart information”, as the universal declaration of Human Rights frames it, a system of governance of the people, for the people and by the people simply remains meaningless. Without a free flow of information, democracy does not exist.

It is with good reason, then, that bloggers, tech enthusiasts and watchdogs from civil society have been up in arms over two new sets of rules, notified in April 2011, that will impact every Indian’s Internet use. Formulated by the Central Government under powers conferred to it by the IT (Amendment) Act 2008, one set governs what is known as the liability of intermediaries. This determines in which cases, and to what extent, companies ranging from Google and Facebook to local Internet service providers (ISPs) are legally responsible for the content that you upload.

The second set of rules pertains to cybercafes. In a manner reminiscent of the licence Raj, there are new registration standards for these establishments, which go beyond the usual requirements for commercial enterprises and include detailed procedures to identify all users. Cybercafes will be required to maintain and submit, on a monthly basis, logs that detail the use of all computers in the cafe and to keep backups of all users’ browser histories, to be maintained for at least one year.

There is much that is wrong with these rules, but what makes them such a particular threat to freedom of expression? Some effects are likely to be indirect: for example, the Internet has the potential to emerge as an important avenue for young people from disadvantaged backgrounds to express and discuss concerns so rarely taken into account by the mainstream media. But by putting into place stringent identification requirements for cybercafe users, who are likely to be less well-off, the access of underprivileged users in particular will be further constrained. Moreover, the combination of the need for identification with the requirement for cybercafes to keep a log of every user’s browser history means that anonymity online is now effectively made impossible in India. For whistleblowers, artists, writers or anyone desiring anonymity, there is no longer a place in Indian cyberspace.

But the most troubling impact on freedom of expression of the new mandates remains direct: in their attempt to delineate the liability of Internet providers and websites, the new rules for “intermediary due diligence” actually add important new curbs on freedom of expression to Indian law. India’s Constitution recognises a fairly extensive list of so-called “reasonable restrictions” and these are more or less replicated in the Rules: “the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence”. But the Rules, which were never vetted by Parliament, do not limit themselves to these Constitutional provisions. Rather surprisingly, they add a whole new slew of qualifications, many of which are so vague, moreover, that they leave the door wide open to abuse. Thus, for example, the Rules impose a blanket ban on impersonation and make it illegal to share any information that is “grossly harmful”, “harassing”, “blasphemous”, “disparaging” or “insulting any other nation”. None of these terms have been explained or defined.

Lacking the precision that would allow citizens to precisely regulate their behaviour in line with the law, overly broad regulations such as these are widely believed to have a chilling effect: in order not to violate the law, people begin to censor themselves—to keep quiet rather than protesting or engaging. But in this particular case, the effects are likely to be particularly pernicious because of a second provision made by the Rules: wherever an intermediary receives a complaint claiming that any information they store, host or publish contravenes the provisions of the Rules, the intermediary is required to take down this information within 36 hours. Censorship, in other words, will effectively be privatised.

The prospect is all the more depressing because the intermediaries have little incentive to resist participating in such censorship. Given the restrictions on free speech that are effectively enforced within Indian society by vigilante groups, especially in the last two decades, the possible impact of these rules is even more frightening. If Facebook has little reason to uphold your right to maintain a page that is critical of say, Gandhiji, what prevents vigilante groups from policing our lives online even more than they do offline? The only recourse available to the owner of the confiscated information will be going to court—meaning that defending one’s own freedom of speech online will require endless litigation.

These are worrying omens, in other words, for those who believe that freedom of expression is the cornerstone of democracy. But to what extent do these new provisions represent a radical break with India’s existing restrictions on free speech? Since its founding, the independent Indian nation-state has wielded censorship as a tool to both contain the conflicts that emanate from India’s tremendous diversity and to ensure its homogeneous social, moral and political development. If the list of reasonable restrictions in the Constitution is fairly long, this is because the country’s lawmakers were clear at the time of Independence that freedom of expression would need to be subordinated to the social reforms necessary to put the country on Nehru’s path to development. India’s far-reaching anti-hate speech laws, too, derive from the desire to combat ill will and disharmony. Since the Internet now makes it so much easier to publish opinions that are hurtful, or indeed “grossly harmful” or “disparaging”, the new Rules can in many ways be seen as an attempt to continue this strategy in the Internet age.

The problem, however, is that irrespective of the merits of such a strategy in the past, within the radically altered communicative context of the Internet, it is simply no longer feasible. As the Internet guru Clay Shirky has argued, earlier systems of media and communication worked on a “filter, then publish” principle. Because publishing a newspaper, for example, is expensive, editors and journalists take upon themselves the role of filtering out the “worthwhile” from the “not-so-worthwhile”. Without them making that vital differentiation between “news” and “information” on the one hand and “drivel” on the other, newspapers would simply not be viable. In the Internet age, however, this principle has been reversed. The arrival of social media especially has made it so easy and cheap for anyone to share their opinions that the mantra now is: first publish, then filter. The gatekeeper role of the traditional media stands much reduced.

For the Indian government’s strategy of using censorship as a tool to mitigate social conflict, this shift has two important consequences. The first one is quantitative: it means that there are now far more speech acts to police. That undoubtedly has made the state’s task much more difficult. But there is also a second, qualitative difference: it also means that whether the government approves of this or not, there will now be a far wider range of people who will make their voices heard, and thus, a far wider range of opinions that will be expressed in the public sphere. And it is precisely to stop such a diversity from emerging that much censorship in India has been justified over the years. As a 1980 report of the Working Group on National Film Policy argued: “if the overall objective of censorship is to safeguard generally accepted standards of morality and decency, in addition to the well recognised interests of the State, the standards of censorship applicable to freedom of expression cannot be very much ahead of the standards of behaviour commonly accepted in society. Censorship can become liberal only to the extent society itself becomes genuinely liberal”.

What such statements conveniently elide, of course, is the enormous diversity within Indian society itself. Whose standards of behaviour are they thinking of? Kashmiri, Manipuri, Chhattisgarhi? Gandhian, feminist, communist? Adivasi, Muslim, Dalit? Who represents this community of the nation? Censorship always benefits the status quo, and the Indian case has been no different. The rise of the Internet has merely revealed, with increasing frequency, cracks in the supposedly uniform moral, social and political development of India that the government envisioned. If the old censorship regime is to nevertheless be maintained in this new context, it will therefore increasingly require the active chilling of freedom of expression on the part of the state. What the uproar surrounding the Internet Control Rules makes clear is that in the Internet age, as before, this is an unacceptable route for a modern democracy. A new model to deal with diversity and dissent is urgently required.

What makes our democracy? With the undeniable challenges that the Internet throws to our established ways of operating, it is time to reopen this debate as a society, rather than leaving it to politicians and bureaucrats. The open forum of the Internet may often offend, or rattle our sensibilities and beliefs, but it also presents new possibilities for engagement and debate. Will we take this opportunity?

Read the original here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-present-and-future-dangers-of-indias-draconian-new-internet-regulations

India Weighing Looser Web Rules

praskrishna — 2011-05-31T12:23:22Z

Indian authorities are considering revisions to new Internet regulations after criticism from free-speech advocates and companies like Google Inc. that fear they could be exposed to liability under the regime. This article by Amol Sharma was published in the Wall Street Journal on May 30, 2011.

The rules, which took effect in April, require Internet companies to remove objectionable content from their sites, including anything "grossly harmful" or "harassing," within 36 hours of being notified by authorities. Executives could thereafter face penalties, including stiff fines or even jail time, say lawyers who have reviewed the regulations.

The rules may soon be revised to add greater liability protections for Internet companies, Minister of Communications and Information Technology Kapil Sibal said in an interview.

Mr. Sibal said it is fair for the government to ask Internet companies to put in place codes of conduct that restrain users from posting certain material online, as the regulations do. But he said it is "relatively unfair" to expect Internet companies—which are referred to in the rules as "intermediaries"—to be responsible for third-party content. "To make the intermediary liable for the user violating that code would, I think, not serve the larger interests of the market," Mr. Sibal said.The backlash after the rules were enacted has been growing. Civil-liberties groups are expressing fears the rules are too open to interpretation and could be used by the government to restrict free speech on the Web. The regulations represent an effort by India to get a grip on the Web without the kind of direct censorship or website-blocking practiced in countries like Iran, China and Saudi Arabia.

He said ministry officials are trying to "apply our minds and see if the regime can be made more rational."

In its defense earlier this month, India's ministry said the restrictions rightly require that Internet companies observe due diligence in order to enjoy exemption from liability for content posted by third parties. "These due diligence practices are the best practices followed internationally by well-known mega corporations operating on the Internet," the statement said.

Google was among the companies and nonprofit organizations that offered feedback on the rules before they went into effect. The Web giant unsuccessfully sought changes to limit its potential liability for third-party content and to scale back a list of banned material that it said was "too prescriptive."

The rules also require removal of content that is "ethnically objectionable," "disparaging," or that "harm[s] minors in any way."

On Monday, a Google India spokeswoman referred to a previously issued statement on the matter. "If Internet platforms are held liable for third party content, it would lead to self-censorship and reduce the free flow of information. The regulatory framework should ideally help protect Internet platforms and people's abilities to access information," the statement said. Google has faced requests in many countries to take down content including social-networking profiles and YouTube videos that foreign governments or users find objectionable.

India is one of the world's largest Internet markets, with a user base estimated at more than 80 million. That represents only a slice of its 1.2 billion-strong population, leaving room for growth.

Mr. Sibal, who wasn't the telecom minister when the act was passed, is trying various efforts to boost Web usage. He plans to bring 500,000 villages online within a few years by laying a massive fiber-optic backbone and using wireless devices to let Web traffic travel the "last mile" to rural households.

He said the government has to be careful not to get in the way of Internet companies trying to build up the market. "We need to ensure that we don't put conditions which are adverse to the efficient functioning of the intermediaries," he said. Despite his interest in relaxing the new rules, however, Mr. Sibal said Internet companies must "take into account the sensitivities of the countries in which they're operating."

Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore, said his organization and other civil liberties groups are preparing legal challenges to the regulations on constitutional grounds.

He said the groups will broadly argue that the rules have put in place arbitrary and unclear restrictions on speech and have gone beyond the scope of the Information Technology Act of 2008, the law on which they are based.

Mr. Abraham welcomed Mr. Sibal's interest in potentially revising the regulations. "If Kapil Sibal gives this his personal time...there's a good chance the next version would be more robust in terms of constitutionality," he said.

Read the original published by the Wall Street Journal here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/looser-web-rules

May 2011 Bulletin

praskrishna — 2012-07-30T10:23:01Z

Greetings from the Centre for Internet and Society! In this issue we are pleased to present you the latest updates about our research, upcoming events, and news and media coverage.

Digital Natives with a Cause?

Digital Natives with a Cause? is a knowledge programme initiated by CIS and Hivos, Netherlands. It is a research inquiry that seeks to look at the changing landscape of social change and political participation and the role that young people play through digital and Internet technologies, in emerging information societies. Consolidating knowledge from Asia, Africa and Latin America, it builds a global network of knowledge partners who want to critically engage with the dominant discourse on youth, technology and social change, in order to look at the alternative practices and ideas in the Global South. It also aims at building new ecologies that amplify and augment the interventions and actions of the digitally young as they shape our futures.

New Blog Entry by Samuel Tettner

Samuel Tettner is a Digital Natives Coordinator in CIS. He has written the following blog entry:

What Scare a Digital Native Blogathon?

Accessibility

Estimates of the percentage of the world's population that is disabled vary considerably. But what is certain is that if we count functional disability, then a large proportion of the world's population is disabled in one way or another. At CIS we work to ensure that the digital technologies, which empower disabled people and provide them with independence, are allowed to do so in practice and by the law. To this end, we support web accessibility guidelines, and change in copyright laws that currently disempower the persons with disabilities.

New Blog Entry

Universal Service — An Instrument for Accessibility

Openness

CIS believes that innovation and creativity should be fostered through openness and collaboration and is committed towards promotion of open standards, open access, and free/libre/open source software. Its latest endeavour has resulted into these:

Internet Governance

Although there may not be one centralized authority that rules the Internet, the Internet does not just run by its own volition: for it to operate in a stable and reliable manner, there needs to be in place infrastructure, a functional domain name system, ways to curtail cyber crime across borders, etc. The Tunis Agenda of the second World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), paragraph 34 defined Internet governance as “the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet.” Its latest endeavour has resulted into these:

Column in Indian Express

Nishant Shah, Director-Research will be writing a series of columns on Internet and Society issues. His first column on transparency, technology and NGOs in India came out on Sunday:

Power to the People [Indian Express, May 15, 2011]

New Blog Entries

Killing the Internet Softly with Its Rules [By Pranesh Prakash in Indian Express, May 9, 2011]
Rebuttal of DIT's Misleading Statements on New Internet Rules
CDT Provides Answers to Questions on Internet Neutrality

CIS is doing a project, ‘Privacy in Asia’. It is funded by Privacy International (PI), UK and the International Development Research Centre, Canada and is being administered in collaboration with the Society and Action Group, Gurgaon. The two-year project commenced on 24 March 2010 and will be completed as agreed to by the stakeholders. It was set up with the objective of raising awareness, sparking civil action and promoting democratic dialogue around challenges and violations of privacy in India. In furtherance of these goals it aims to draft and promote over-arching privacy legislation in India by drawing upon legal and academic resources and consultations with the public.

Featured Research

Limits to Privacy

Conference Report

Privacy By Design — Conference Report

Workshop

Second IJLT-CIS Lecture Series, National Law School [National Law School of India University, Nagarbhavi, Bangalore, May 21-22, 2011]

Upcoming Conferences

Panel Discussion on UID – Its Feasibility, Utility and Legality [May 26, 2011]
Privacy Matters - A Public Conference in Hyderabad [The English and Foreign Languages University (TBC), Hyderabad, June 18, 2011]

Telecom

The growth in telecommunications in India has been impressive. While the potential for growth and returns exist, a range of issues need to be addressed for this potential to be realized. One aspect is more extensive rural coverage and the second aspect is a countrywide access to broadband which is low at about eight million subscriptions. Both require effective and efficient use of networks and resources, including spectrum. It is imperative to resolve these issues in the common interest of users and service providers. CIS campaigns to facilitate this:

Column

Shyam Ponappa is a Distinguished Fellow at CIS. He writes regularly on Telecom issues in the Business Standard and these articles are mirrored on the CIS website as well.

Spectrum reforms - Good & Bad news [published in the Business Standard on May 5, 2011]

Miscellaneous

Public Lecture

The Task of the Translator after Google [CIS, April 30, 2011]

News & Media Coverage

Sunil Abraham, CIS : "Avec l’e-G8, Nicolas Sarkozy veut promouvoir de nouvelles restrictions à la liberté d’expression" [LE MAG IT, May 24, 2011]
As Simple as a Tweet [Deccan Chronicle, May 24, 2011]
A Network of Chains [Outlook, Issue of May 30, 2011]
Bangalore-based NGO files RTI query asking list of websites blocked by Indian govt [Daily News & Analysis, May 18, 2011]
IT Act if enforced will leave internet use in India no freer than in China [Daily News & Analysis, May 15, 2011]
Your Privacy is Public Property [Mail Today, May 15, 2011]
Point By Point Rebuttal Of Indian Government’s Statement On Internet Control Rules [Medianama, May 13, 2011]
New rules to ensure due diligence: IT dept [Times of India, May 11, 2011]
Indian civil liberties groups are now geared to fight the draconian IT Rules [Weekend Leader.com, Vol 2 Issue 18, 6 - 12 May, 2011]
New Internet rule: 'Objectionable' content can be removed without notifying users [dailybhaskar.com, May 11, 2011]
India Chills Online Speech [digitalcommunities, May 3, 2011]
Consumers International World Congress - Day 3 roundup [Consumer's International Blog, May 5, 2011]
Digerati See Censorship in New Web Rules [Wall Street Journal, May 2, 2011]
Free expression [Watertown Daily Times, May 2, 2011]
India curbs on Bloggers and Internet [TruthDrive, April 29, 2011]
Bright lights, geek city [Hindu, April 28, 2011]
India Cracks Down on Internet Free Speech [April 28, 2011]
India's cyber cafes going porn-free [msnbc.com, April 28, 2011]
Thousands queue for iPad 2 across Asia [AFP, April 28, 2011] [News hosted by Google]
New internet rules open to arbitrary interpretation [Times of India, April 27, 2011]
India Puts Tight Leash on Internet Free Speech [New York Times, April 27, 2011]
India Can Restrict 'Objectionable' Web Content under New Rules [TMCnet Legal, April 27, 2011]
Iraqi Minister meets Secretary, Indian Ministry of Panchayat Raj [Karnataka News Network, April 27, 2011]
The world is your oyster, by invitation only [Livemint, April 26, 2011]
No access to pornography in cyber cafes, declare new rules [Times of India, April 26, 2011]
India Proposes Restrictions on Tapping Telephone Calls [PC World, TechWorld and CIO, April 26, 2011]

Follow us elsewhere

Get short, timely messages from us on Twitter
Follow CIS on identi.ca
Join the CIS group on Facebook
Visit us at www.cis-india.org

CIS is grateful to Kusuma Trust which was founded by Anurag Dikshit and Soma Pujari, philanthropists of Indian origin, for its core funding and support for most of its projects.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/newsletters/may-2011-bulletin

Public data on the Web leaves much to be desired

praskrishna — 2011-05-30T07:38:04Z

Making government data accessible to all is a vital challenge, says Deepa Kurup in her article published in the Hindu on May 28, 2011.

Tim Berners-Lee, chief architect and inventor of the World Wide Web and an ardent advocate of open data, said, earlier this year, that countries should be judged on their willingness to open up public data to their citizens. This, along with 'network neutrality', he considered as important as free speech, he had emphasised, adding that this was particularly critical for developing nations.

In January 2011, the British Government, led by Mr. Berners-Lee, launched www.data.gov.uk, a site aimed at creating a platform for disclosing data to citizens, civil society organisations and even private institutions from a wide range of government departments and processes.

In India, while ‘civic hackers' and non-governmental organisations are coming up with interesting initiatives that attempt to put government data in the form of mash-ups and easily readable content online, government data on the Web leaves much to be desired. Half a decade after the powerful and progressive Right to Information Act was implemented, accessing government data online is still a challenge. Given the huge amount of public information that has been generated this year through Census 2011, and some sections of these even being GIS mapped, it is imperative that government data be ‘set free', researchers say. They believe that this could not only aid governance and public planning but also increase citizen engagement in public processes.

Technology aid

A recent study by a research team at the Centre for Internet and Society, a Bangalore-based research organisation, finds that despite challenges, the Government and bureaucrats in India are receptive to using technology to open up more data to the public. Speaking to policymakers across the country, the report records various impediments and accessibility barriers, and surveys existing open data initiatives in the Government.

Drawing from these, the report presents a set of recommendations to help the Government move towards an open data ecosystem. These include re-examining the end goals and the end users of this data, involving volunteers and citizens in putting out the data in accessible forms, and seeking support from pre-existing ‘open content' communities such as Wikipedia editors or open street mappers, to name a few.

For a start

Nishant Shah, researcher at CIS, says it is heartening to see that governments, and policymakers, are already thinking along the lines of open government data. There are several initiatives, such as the Bhoomi project or Nemmadi of the Karnataka Government, that may not look at themselves as open data initiatives, but are certainly going that way, Mr. Shah points out. There are several critical infrastructure changes that are happening such as the use of computers at different levels of governance, setting up of community Internet centres in villages and various e-governance programmes; so there is a lot of hope that data will be accessible to more people, he adds.

Challenges

However, Mr. Shah points out that while there is talk about taking government data into the public domain, the larger ecosystem for this has not been worked out. The report points out that there is insufficient standardisation, while e-governance, to a large degree, has been far from perfect. System interoperability issues and the larger issues of privacy (in the absence of any existing law) are both challenges.

Speaking to The Hindu, a senior official from the department of e-governance said it was indeed on the Government's agenda to open up more data, and offer it in more accessible formats. He pointed out that interoperability of formats is a huge problem, one that he hopes the recently enforced National Policy on Open Standards will accurately address.

"However, it is a gargantuan process to get departments across the country, at different levels of governance, to comply. This may take time and effort. Another problem is that the input formats are not standardised, which means a lot of vital data is being offered in cumbersome formats that are barely useable," he says. However, a bigger concern is to provide the information ecosystem to take this to the millions that are left out of the Internet loop. That is a greater challenge, he points out.

Read the original story published by the Hindu here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/public-data-on-web

Mobile education comes to villages

praskrishna — 2011-05-30T05:49:27Z

PEOPLE living in remote villages, trekking many miles to schools and colleges before dropping out, can now look forward to a tech option — mobile education. Education over mobile phones is vital in India, where the literacy rate according to 2011 census is 74.04 per cent, observers note. This article by Shayan Ghosh was published in Mail Today on May 27, 2011.

India has 791 million mobile subscribers according to regulatory body TRAI with a significant share in villages. That is the target group several start- ups and educational institutions are looking at.

Indira Gandhi National Open University ( IGNOU) based in New Delhi, is taking a lead in the matter. “ The technology is pretty new in India and we are planning to implement things like SMS alerts to students and coursespecific databases,” K. R. Srivathsan, pro vice- chancellor, IGNOU, said.

"It will definitely change the scenario of education in rural India," noted Srivathsan.

"All possible components required in a learning cycle including auditory, visual, reading, writing, collaboration, interaction, recording and computing," Amit Zaveri, CEO, EnableM, a company that delivers education through mobile devices, said.

"In rural areas the challenges for delivery of learning content & services are many including physical distances ( to institutes etc.), lack of teachers, no or limited access to standardised & branded content, time & cost constraints, limited capability for peer assessments, lack of skills development facilities for employability," Zaveri added.

Mig33, a Singapore- based mobile social network is hopeful that the mobile revolution could actually mean impart education to all.

"Mobile phones have moved from being phone devices to communication devices. With the advent of 3G, this is going to become bigger and better.

Also tablets are expected to play very effective role in this," Mohit Gundecha, India operations head, Mig33, said.

"With 3G the video clips can help educate, smart apps can help people learn, good sms apps can engage audiences about education concepts. We already see a host of companies coming in to take care of the hardware aspects and digital content to match the need," Gundecha explained.

According to Vikram Nagaich, director and founder, InnovateEdu, on one side, with mobile phones the content the reach of the content could be very wide. However, the efficacy would have to be delivered through extremely innovative and sophisticated content.

"Mobiles can penetrate better as they have things in favour like better battery life and people do not need any training to operate it. This gives it an upper hand over computers," Sunil Abraham, ED, Center for Internet and Society, said.

The Tech Option

Education over mobile phones is vital in India, where the literacy rate according to the 2011 census is 74.04 per cent, observers note.

With a significant share in villages, this is the target group several start- ups and educational institutions are looking at Indira Gandhi National Open University ( IGNOU) based in New Delhi, is taking a lead in the matter.

In rural areas, challenges regarding delivery of learning content & services are many and include physical distances, lack of teachers, limited access to standardised content.

Mobile phones have moved from being phone devices to communication devices. With 3G, this is going to become better.

Read the original story here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/mobile-education-villages

Google now stalks your street

praskrishna — 2011-05-31T06:20:18Z

Bangalore is the first city in the country to be mapped for Street View. This news was published by the Hindu on May 27, 2011.

Not too long from now, Google Map will allow you a sneak peak into the smallest cul-de-sac in the city, zoom into the most popular restaurant on the block, or even check out a home you want to rent.

Google on Thursday announced it will begin collecting images in Bangalore for its controversial Street View service, which will be offered on Google Maps. The service will allow you to explore places through its 360-degree, street-level imagery.

This, it intends to do by using cars and "trikes" (three-wheel pedicab) fitted with a camera system on top. The vehicles "will start gathering images from select locations in and around Bangalore, such as the Nrityagram Dance Village over the next few weeks," Google said in a communiqué.

"We decided to start driving in Bangalore because it is the IT capital of India and feel that the IT-savvy users will be able to leverage the benefits of the product to the fullest," said Vinay Goel, Product Head, Google India. Street View, introduced in May 2007 in the U.S., has since expanded to 27 countries. "It is useful for urban development planners, law enforcement agencies, house-hunters, and travellers," Mr. Goel said.

Privacy issues

But is Google venturing too close for comfort? The service has begun to draw criticism over a host of privacy issues here, just as it has done in several countries where it is in use. This despite Google assurance that it will blur people's faces and licence plates so they are not identified.

However, in the absence of a broad privacy law, there is no mechanism by which the Indian Government can hold Google and its service accountable, explains Sunil Abraham, Director of the Centre for Internet and Society.

"For example, the Japanese Government found that Google's footage was recording the insides of people's homes," he pointed out. Subsequently, the Japanese Government decided to reduce the height of the camera by 16 inches.

Individual concepts

"Every country has a different concept of privacy and any project by Google has to adhere to the local sensibility. But India lacks the mechanism to do so." Further, Mr. Abraham said, given the fact that 90 per cent of the population is offline, and a third illiterate, a Google logo on the van may not serve as implicit consent (unlike in the U.S. where it is a widely recognised brand).

Not real time

According to Google, it protects privacy because Street View images are not real time, but are between a few months to a few years old. There are "easily accessible tools that [allow] users to request further blurring of any image that features the user, their family, their car or their home," says the Google Maps website. "Users can also request the removal of images that feature inappropriate content (for example, nudity or violence)."

Read the original news published in the Hindu here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/google-stalks-street

Women in love with Facebook

praskrishna — 2011-05-27T11:35:51Z

There’s one thing these days that determines the passion of the modern Indian woman: their ever-growing love affair with the internet. The article by L Subramani was published in the Deccan Herald on May 27, 2011.

The sight of women updating their Facebook status, tweeting or checking their emails on the move makes it apparently clear that women, more than men, take to internet and in particular to social networking.

Global researches have lent credence to the phenomena that women are either obsessed or even addicted to Facebook and other social networking sites, suggesting that a third of women aged 18 to 34 check their Facebook pages when they wake up in the morning before even going to the toilet, while 21 per cent of those in the same age group check the social networking site before going to bed.

Alarmingly, the same study, by UK-based Oxygen Media and Lightspeed Research-also suggest that 42 per cent from the same age group have no problems posting pictures of them drunk on Facebook.

"I’ve been on Facebook for about a year and a half,” admitted 26-year-old Kate who doesn’t like to tell her real name. “It has sort of become a regular thing. Apart from attending meetings or on important work, I quite naturally check the posts others have made and regularly update my status on FB."

Personal space

She denies that Facebook has gradually crawled into her personal life or could have even contributed to her remaining single. "It’s ridiculous (to say that FB has an impact on my life). I think it’s the best way to catch up with friends and family."

Smartphones with Facebook apps and growing usage of the internet on mobile phones have also opened up the possibility of logging on to social networking sites often and on the move and quite naturally, tech savvy urban women are taken into it, according to cyber researchers.

A cursory glance at many of the dating sites also suggest that women of all ages use the relative anonymity to reach out to new friends or to talk their minds out. Surprisingly, a few of them are also from small towns and places not on the radar for prolific internet usage.

A recent study by Google to understand the profiles of people using various internet browsers suggested that nearly 36 per cent of Indian women are using Chrome — Google’s own browser — for its seemingly faster performance that would make updating Facebook status or accessing videos and photos much easier.

"Women mostly use the internet for accessing entertainment and would like it to be fast,” Nikhil Rungta, country marketing head, Google India said. “It became clear that most of them use Chrome either for social networking or accessing multimedia or entertainment content."

However, Nishant Shah, a researcher on cyber behaviour and director of research at Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Research, is sceptical about the numbers. "There aren’t any specific studies to suggest that Indian women are on social networking more than men," he said.

"This doesn’t look possible when researches have shown that men outnumber women in overall internet usage. It may even be possible that many men are posing as women in social networking sites."

Bangalore-based writer and social commentator Vaasanthi feels that social networking provides the space women always look for. “It may be called ‘Facebook’, but you aren’t talking to a real face. This gives the freedom and the courage for women to freely express themselves,” she said.

"Given that most women today come from nuclear families, they actually don’t have that many people to talk to in real world. The virtual world provides them what they can’t get in real world."

She also said there is no need to feel alarmed about the Facebook phenomenon. "Facebook or social networking phenomenon is a new change and any change would initially cause concerns. But surely this would fade away," she said.

Read the original here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/women-love-facebook

Announcing the Asia Pacific Google Policy Fellows

praskrishna — 2011-05-30T09:26:19Z

Posted by Ross LaJeunesse, Head of Public Policy and Government Affairs, Asia Pacific

There are now more than 2 billion people online, with approximately 850 million of them in Asia Pacific.

Given Asia Pacific’s importance, we're excited to announce the extension of the Google Policy Fellowship program to this part of the world. The goal of the program is to assist public interest organizations at the forefront of debates on important Internet policy issues, and to support talented young advocates and scholars. Since its inception in 2007, the Google Policy Fellowship has provided a platform for students interested in technology policy to contribute to the public dialogue on these issues, and to explore future academic and professional interests.

The Asia Pacific program for 2011 includes one Fellow each in Australia, Hong Kong and India. The University of New South Wales, the City University of Hong Kong, and the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore will be serving as the respective host institutions.

In this region, we see many policy challenges concerning access to information online. The 2011 Asia Pacific Fellows will therefore focus on legal and policy issues related to the open Internet.

Congratulations to our first class of Asia Pacific Google Policy Fellows:

Lauren Loz, University of New South Wales, Faculty of Law Australia
Henry Hu Ling, University of Hong Kong, Faculty of Law, Hong Kong
Rishabh Dara, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, India

We extend our sincere thanks to everyone who applied. If this pilot program proves to be a success, we hope to expand the Policy Fellowship for 2012.

Cross-posted from the Google Public Policy Blog

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/asia-pacific-google-policy-fellows

Google Unveils Controversial Street View Mapping in B’lore

praskrishna — 2011-05-30T09:48:29Z

Mapping service, under criticism in Europe because of security reasons, allows users to view pedestrian-level photos of streets, houses. This news was published in the Economic Times, Mumbai on May 27, 2011.

Amid concerns of privacy in Europe and several western countries, Google launched its popular but controversial mapping service Street View in India’s technology hub Bangalore, which will allow users to view pedestrian-level photos of streets and houses.

Google said on Thursday that it has started capturing images of Indian streets which will later allow users to view panoramic images of streets across the country through its popular yet controversial “street view” feature on Google Maps. For starters, cars and three-wheelers, mounted with high resolution cameras will begin driving and taking street level photographs of public locations around Bangalore, top Google executive said at a press conference here on Thursday.

"We are announcing the street view in India. You will start seeing Google cars on the streets collecting imagery and then over time, it will be launched online on Google maps," said Vinay Goel, product head, Google India. Street View is a popular feature of Google Maps which is now used in more than 27 countries. With Street View, users can virtually explore and navigate a neighbourhood through panoramic street-level images. Besides cars, specially designed three-wheel pedi-cabs, called Google Trike, with a camera system mounted on top — will start gathering images from selected locations in the area such as the Nrityagram Dance Village over the next few weeks. The company’s move comes at a time when the Indian government is becoming more and more conscious of privacy laws. In a recent amendment to the existing Information Technology Act, India has added many clauses that protects sensitive information of the citizen. Privacy advocates criticised the feature in the US where it was first launched in 2007. After Google admitted that it collected wi-fi payload data by mistake using the street view cars, lot of bad press and protests followed. Google has stopped collecting wi-fi data.The feature met with opposition on similar grounds in Europe when it was launched. Opponents said that people did not want to be pictured going to places — like bars and strip clubs — they did not want to reveal publicly. They also did not want a private company to capitalise on public data. Google Street View was temporarily banned in Austria and Czech Republic due to privacy concerns.

Goel said, that the company has addressed privacy concerns and is continuously monitoring reports of privacy violations.

"Google will collect only public data. We have also improved the process so that faces and identifiable details like number plates will be blurred out of the images. We have permissions from local authorities and are open to discussions," he added. Users can also report problems to Google directly using the "report a problem" button on Google Maps.

Says Nishant Shah, director, research, Centre for Internet and Society, "Street View has been contested in many other countries on three counts. Private companies should not be allowed to capitalise on public data. This is a serious problem. Another nuanced argument is, if you formalise and regulate space in a particular space, it reduces the possibility of grey areas and diversity. It is also difficult to ensure total privacy. People invariably figure in many of the images captured. Even if you blur faces, there are certain identifiable characteristics of a person and can be misused."

Vinay Goel, product head Google India, launches Street View in Bangalore

Read the original here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/google-unveils-controversial-street-view

NGOs say eG8 report must stress internet rights

praskrishna — 2011-06-22T04:17:55Z

More than 35 NGOs from around the world signed a joint declaration requesting that issues concerning freedom of speech be included in the report set to be presented to G8 heads of government by the organisers and participants of the eG8 Forum held in Paris. The news was published in TELECOMPAPER on May 26, 2011.

Read the full story in TELECOMPAPER

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/e-g-8-report-internet-rights

Centre for Internet and Society

Say 'Password' in Hindi

Technology, Transparency and Accountability: A Bar-Camp in Delhi

Agenda

The Speakers

The rationale behind the camp

Online conversations

Do you need more ideas?

A Street View of Private and the Public

Bloggers' Rights Subordinated to Rights of Expression: Cyber Law Expert

Big Brother is Watching You

The Present — and Future — Dangers of India's Draconian New Internet Regulations

India Weighing Looser Web Rules

May 2011 Bulletin

Digital Natives with a Cause?

New Blog Entry by Samuel Tettner

Accessibility

New Blog Entry

Openness

Featured Research

Comments

Interview

Internet Governance

Column in Indian Express

New Blog Entries

Featured Research

Conference Report

Workshop

Upcoming Conferences

Telecom

Column

Miscellaneous

News & Media Coverage

Follow us elsewhere

Public data on the Web leaves much to be desired

Technology aid

For a start

Challenges

Mobile education comes to villages

The Tech Option

Google now stalks your street

Privacy issues

Individual concepts

Not real time

Women in love with Facebook

Personal space

Announcing the Asia Pacific Google Policy Fellows

Google Unveils Controversial Street View Mapping in B’lore

NGOs say eG8 report must stress internet rights