Centre for Internet and Society

Indian SMEs still fail to harness the power of Net

praskrishna — 2011-06-29T06:04:12Z

In India, only about 81 million people have access to the net, as it needs a level of education and IT skills to operate a computer. This article by Satarupa Paul was published in the Sunday Guardian on 19 June 2011.

Last month, a study conducted by the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI), the economics research arm of consultant McKinsey and Co, evaluated the impact of the Internet on growth, jobs and prosperity in the G8 nations as well as in India, China, Brazil, South Korea and Sweden. The study mentioned that the Internet contributed 3.2 per cent of India's gross domestic product (GDP) in 2009.

Based on a survey of 4,800 small and medium businesses in the 13 countries, it concludes that the use of the Internet has led to a 10 per cent increase in their productivity as well as accelerated their growth and export by two times.

India, however, featured low on the indices that support the report. Anja Kovacs, Fellow at Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore, tells Guardian20, "Firstly, the figures for private investment and public expenditure on the Internet are very low in India. This shows that the web is still the domain of the elite here. Secondly, almost half of the contribution of the Internet to India's GDP comes from trade balance (net export). This definitely cannot be the play of small and medium businesses as they still fare poorly in the trade market. So to say that the Internet has led to an increase in their productivity in India, which in turn has led to a significant growth in GDP, is not entirely true."

She explains by saying, in India only about 81 million people have access to the net, as it needs a level of education and IT skills to operate a computer. As most of the small and medium businesses in India are run by economically backward people with minimum or no education, accessing the Internet and running their own websites for their businesses remains a distant dream.

Such cynicism dies down when we consider the case of Tilonia.com. A website dedicated to the craftsmen from Tilonia in Rajasthan who produce clothes and accessories, decorative home furnishings, handmade paper products, metalwork, leather goods, etc, it is run by a US based NGO called Friends of Tilonia, Inc, which besides being a platform for showcasing the products by artisans, also acts as an e-commerce portal. It does business worth Rs 30 lakh on an average every year. For an organisation that falls under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) category, such income is pretty impressive. Extrapolate this number to the estimated 26.1 million registered MSMEs in India and their contribution to the country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) could become enormous, but in reality, it is not quite so.

Osama Manzar, Founder and Director of Digital Empowerment Foundation (DEF) in New Delhi, says, "Almost 70 per cent of the registered MSMEs in India are not online and not more than 20 per cent are using any kind of IT or IT-enabled services. We conducted a workshop with 200 MSMEs recently and 99 per cent of these didn't have a website."

DEF works towards bridging this digital divide and organises workshops within the various artisan pockets of India. Manzar says, "The Internet has still not reached the grassroots level in India. We have such internationally famous handicrafts and artwork created by artisans working in various small and medium businesses, but they don't garner the business which the Net can help them fetch."

To address this problem, DEF has launched an e-commerce website for Chanderi silk saris and products made by weavers in Madhya Pradesh. Also, their eMSME facility provides MSMEs with a cost effective web platform with unlimited web pages to help entrepreneurs create a virtual identity for wider reach.

On a larger scale, the Indian government has set up Internet kiosks, one for every panchayat, in the rural areas. About 95,000 of such Common Service Centres (CSCs) have been installed all over the country and are meant to ease billing, enquiry, tax payment and other services. "But for a majority of Indians, especially those in small and medium businesses in small towns, the easiest Internet access points are cyber cafes. Such kiosks, if operated punctually, could provide them with a whole range of possibilities for communication and business that their counterparts enjoy in other countries," concludes Kovacs.

Cross-posted from the Sunday Guardian. The original can be read here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/failure-to-harness-power-of-net

Socio-financial Online Networks: Globalizing Micro-Credit through Micro-transactional Networked Platforms – A Public Lecture by Radhika Gajalla

praskrishna — 2011-06-24T11:37:52Z

The Centre for Internet and Society invites you to a public lecture by Prof. Radhika Gajalla of Bowling Green State University. She will give a lecture on how microfinance online functions through the social networked online space and the micro-transactional abilities of the interface together work to enhance financialization of the globe.

In her lecture, she will focus on how this is made possible by the increased digitalization of financial practices and the role micro practices play in producing globalization. She will also lay emphasis on the fact that the increased digitalization of finance also means that "financial literacy" is also removed into the virtual space so that it is further away from subaltern daily praxis while simultaneously staging subaltern presence in cosmopolitan space through mobilizing structures of 'feeling' that Dr. Shameem Black refers to as "sentimental sympathy".

Prof. Gajalla’s lecture will also touch upon issues like what online socially networked micro-credit websites do visually and through the use of multiple tools that are embedded in the discourse of interactivity is to make it seem as if the subaltern is indeed participating in these networks. Thus, the appearance of a subaltern presence is produced. In this production of appearance of the subaltern presence in online contexts, just as in other visual and static contexts, the complexity of socio-cultural and economic intersections are not clearly revealed or accounted for. This reproduces exotic notions of the authentic, mummified ‘other’ and offers the subaltern image up for consumption. In turn, as Web 2.0 tools are set up to actually reach the offline subaltern via non-profit or for profit representatives that connect to these online networks, the subaltern in turn is tapped as a consumer for capital.

Radhika Gajjala

Radhika Gajjala is a Professor of Media and Communication at Bowling Green State University and Director of the American Culture Studies program. Her book, "Cyber Selves: Feminist Ethnographies of South Asian Women" was published in 2004. She has co-edited collections on "South Asian Technospaces", "Global Media Culture and Identity" and "Webbing Cyberfeminist Practice: Communities, Pedagogies, and Social Action". She is presently working on a forthcoming book, "Weavings of the Real and Virtual: Cyberculture and the Subaltern" to be published in 2012 and is also working on two interrelated projects — one on "Microfinance Online and Money in Virtual Worlds and Social Media" in relation to the ITization and NGOization of global socio-economic work and play environments and the other on "Coding and Placement of Affect and Labour in Digital Diasporas".

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/events/socio-financial-online-networks

Internet Surveillance Policy: “…the second time as farce?” – A Public Lecture by Caspar Bowden

praskrishna — 2011-09-08T03:19:35Z

The Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, invites you to a public lecture by Caspar Bowden*, the Chief Privacy Adviser of Microsoft’s Worldwide Technology Office, on Internet Surveillance Policy: “…the second time as farce?

Abstract

In 2000, as Director of the independent think-tank, "Foundation for Information Policy Research", Caspar led a campaign to revise several aspects of a new comprehensive UK law governing electronic surveillance ("the RIP Act"). UK legislated in this area many years before most other countries, and the approach was widely criticized although some amendments were achieved. After a hiatus of a decade, many Commonwealth countries are now copying the RIP law (evidently unaware of the original controversies over its defects). Caspar will discuss the legal-technical intricacies of such legislation, the underlying policy dilemmas, the background context of the failed 1990s policy of “key escrow”, and the subsequent privacy catastrophe of blanket retention of the “traffic data” of all of the 500m citizens of the EU.

Caspar Bowden

Caspar Bowden is Microsoft's Worldwide Technology Officer for Privacy, providing advice on technology policy matters concerning privacy in over 40 countries, with particular focus on Europe and regions with horizontal privacy law. His goal is to ensure that users of Microsoft products and services are in control of their personal data and that fair information practices are respected. He is a specialist in data protection policy, privacy enhancing technology research, identity management and authentication.

Earlier he was the director of the Foundation for Information Policy Research and was also an expert adviser to the UK Parliament for the passage of three bills concerning privacy issues, and was co-organizer of the influential Scrambling for Safety public conferences on UK encryption and surveillance policy. His previous career over two decades ranged from investment banking (proprietary trading risk-management for option arbitrage), to software engineering (graphics engines and cryptography), including work for Goldman Sachs, Microsoft Consulting Services, Acorn, Research Machines, and IBM.

Who should attend?

This public talk aims to engage in a dialogue with anybody interested in questions of technology, surveillance, policy and the politics of Internet based governance. Students, research scholars, academics, practitioners, those in the business of technology development, design and study, are invited to attend the lecture that approaches the issue from different angles of technology, society and politics.

Entry: Free; Limited Seating

Registration recommended: prasad@cis-india.org

For additional info click here [PDF, 521 kb]

* Caspar is speaking in his private capacity and his remarks do not necessarily reflect any official Microsoft position

Videos

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/events/internet-surveillance-policy-lecture

Mumbai Takes Note of Sexting, the Seamier Side of Texting

praskrishna — 2011-06-23T09:55:25Z

When Chitra started getting SMSs and emails laced with sexual innuendoes from an unknown individual, she didn't tell her mother or rush to the police. The 21-year-old grew so despondent that she dialed a psychologist for help. This article was published in the Times of India on June 19, 2011.

But last week, a 17-year-old student of L S Patkar College in Goregaon didn't react like Chitra (name changed) did when she got lewd SMSs from her teacher. The teenager approached the police and got her computer hardware teacher, Rahul Sarangle, arrested. Sarangle was subsequently released on bail, but not before Mumbai had sat up and taken note of the seamier side of texting or sexting as it is known.

Sexting is, in simple terms, text messages with a sexual overtone. It's not new; in fact, every state in the US has worked out guidelines and laws to keep a check on unsolicited sexting, especially when children are the recipients. The American Academy of Pediatrics has coined a definition: "Sending, receiving, or forwarding sexually explicit messages, photographs, or images via cell phone, computer, or other digital devices."

Sexting has been at the forefront of news and online search engines due to the 20-day drama of US Congressman Anthony Weiner, who resigned on Friday after it emerged that he had sent explicit pictures of himself to six women using various online tools.

The moot question is why do men such as lecturer Rahul Sarangle or politicians like Anthony Weiner sext when it can be easily traced back to them?

Experts said unsolicited sexting is about sex and perversion. Psychiatrist Dr Harish Shetty said, "Such sexting occurs when the mind is obsessed; sexual thoughts are supreme and reasoning fails." He believes that a person who sexts also feels a sense of power. "The person's fingers work faster than the vocal cords. In such individuals, rational thought that should stop such urges seems paralysed," said Dr Shetty.

Said psychologst Hingoranney, "Some people are obsessed with sex or have supressed sexuality problem. They would derive sadistic thrills by sexting."

India is not without its share of sexting tales; the most infamous being the widely circulated MMS of two Delhi high school students in 2004. Said Nishant Shah, director (research) of the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet & Society, "Sexting is essentially about mobile phones. While there is no study in India on sexting, it's obvious from our sessions with youngsters that sexting is a part of the new communication patterns emerging among young people."

At times, sexting can have disastrous outcomes. While Chitra is a nervous wreck who feels she may have invited the sexts with her behaviour, American teen Jessica Logan committed suicide in 2008 after her ex-boyfriend circulated nude pictures that she had earlier in their relationship MMSed him. Shah said, "During our research in Bihar, we came across youngsters in Bihar who have suffered a great deal when an older family member read SMSs that they had sent." Any SMS to a male friend could be misconstrued as sexting in non-metro parts of India, he added.

All experts said that measures should be taken by families, schoolscolleges and society at large to protect youngsters from the ills of sexting. "Victims could feel shocked, violated and frightened,'' said Dr Shetty. "The words jump from the screen bringing a deep sense of disgust and a feeling of pain. The experience may be converted to bad memories if counseling is not done.''

Read the original published in the Times of India here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/seamier-side-of-texting

Discussion on 'Press Freedom in the Era of Social Media'

praskrishna — 2011-06-23T06:25:08Z

Anja Kovacs will participate as a panelist in the conference jointly organised by UNESCO and UN Information Centre (UNIC) to commemorate World Press Freedom Day 2011 on May 3 at the UN Conference Hall, Lodhi Estate, New Delhi.

The discussions will focus on the impact of social media on press freedom: its benefits, challenges and limitations.

Download the agenda here [PDF, 166KB]

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/notices/press-freedom

Statement of CIS, India, on the WIPO Broadcast Treaty at the 22nd SCCR

praskrishna — 2011-08-04T04:41:12Z

The twenty-second session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights is being held in Geneva from June 15 to June 24, 2011. Nirmita Narasimhan and Pranesh Prakash are attending the conference. CIS delivered its statement, on the Broadcast Treaty, and made it available in print form as well.

The Centre for Internet and Society would like to associate itself with the comprehensive statement made by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). We are one of the signatories of the joint statement, which EFF referred to, of the many civil society non-governmental organizations, cable casters and technology companies opposing an intellectual property rights based Broadcasting Treaty.

We believe that the protection that may be afforded to broadcasters under existing international treaties, including Article 14 of the TRIPS Agreement, are sufficient to safeguard the interests of broadcasters, and that the Broadcast Treaty, which has been under discussion for more than a decade without any progress is, as the WIPO Chair observed in the conclusion to the informal summary prepared after the 16th SCCR (SCCR/17/1/inf), an expenditure of "time, energy and resources to no avail". Without prejudice to that position, we would like to make a few points on the content of the treaty as well.

There has been talk of ensuring a technology-neutral approach. While a technology-neutral approach is useful since technology keeps changing, we believe that that necessarily means the differences between different technologies should be recognized. The capital costs and investments of traditional broadcasters, which are—as has been highlighted in the many statements here today—the basis on which broadcasters' rights are demanded, are not in the least comparable with the capital costs and investments of webcasting.

These differences have not come out adequately in the various regional seminars that WIPO helped organize, since those were mostly with traditional broadcasters and did not cover webcasters.

"Communication to the public", while that is a technologically neutral formulation, is an element of copyright, and is not the same of broadcast rights, which is a related right.

Any departure from a signal-based approach would require the assent of the WIPO General Assembly, which has in 2007 specifically requested for signal-based approach for the treaty.

Specifically, we believe that Paragraph 16 of the WIPO Development Agenda, which relates to preservation of a vibrant public domain, will be endangered by a right being given to webcasters which is separate from the underlying content of the transmission.

In this regard, we strongly support the delegations of South Africa and India, in their strong pronunciation of public interests while looking at such a treaty. We further support the delegation of Canada, for strongly emphasizing the need to allow countries the flexibility to opt-out of the provisions of the treaty for certain forms of broadcasting.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sccr-22-broadcast-cis-statement

Standing Committee on Copyrights and Related Rights — 22nd Session

praskrishna — 2011-06-22T05:37:55Z

World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) is holding its 22nd Session from June 15, 2011 to June 24, 2011 at Geneva, Switzerland. Nirmita Narasimhan and Pranesh Prakash are attending this conference.

The present conference will discuss issues relating to copyrights and related rights including issues like protection of audio-visual performances, protection of broadcasting organisations, copyright limitations and exceptions for the visually impaired persons and other persons with print disabilities, exceptions and limitations for the persons with disabilities, etc.

Draft Agenda

(Prepared by the Secretariat)

Opening of the session
Election of a Chair and two Vice-Chairs
Adoption of the agenda of the twenty second session
Accreditation of new non governmental organizations
Adoption of the Report of the twenty-first session of the Standing Committee on
Copyright and Related Rights
Limitations and exceptions: persons with print and other reading disabilities
Limitations and exceptions
Protection of broadcasting organizations
Protection of audiovisual performances
Other matters
Closing of the session

See the event details on WIPO

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/notices/wipo-22nd-session

Policy Spotlight: 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act

praskrishna — 2011-11-08T10:18:29Z

The means and modes of communication have changed drastically in today’s age and the earlier bright lines, if they ever did exist have become increasingly blurred. The mainstreaming of social media has brought forth some new questions to the forefront, the issue of accessibility being one of them. Jenifer Simpson, Senior Director for Government Affairs and head of the Telecommunications & Technology Policy Initiative at the American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), elaborates more on the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act in this interview.

The 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (21st CVAA) passed in October 2010 by the United States is a response to the regulatory challenges that the new generation of telecommunication, internet and digital communication devices present for persons with disabilities.

What does the Act do?

21st CVAA is an update to the Communications Act of the United States and brings in new rules for ensuring accessibility to persons with disabilities as technologies change and advance.

The Act extends federal law provisions for hearing aid compatibility for manufactured and imported telephones to all equipment and devices that offer IP-enabled communication services such as smart phones, PDAs, tablet devices, etc.

It also requires all internet based communication technologies to be accessible to persons with disabilities except in cases where it would result in an 'undue burden'[1] on the manufacturer or service provider. In such cases, the latter must then ensure that the equipment and services are compatible with third party assistive technologies to enable use by persons with disabilities.

In addition, 21st CVAA puts in place accountability measures to ensure better enforcements of the accessibility measures outlined under section 255 of the Rehabilitation Act and identifies persons with disabilities as a specific user group that can receive the benefits of universal service programs including broadband connectivity and USD 10 million annual support for assistive technologies. A section of the Act also deals with emergency access and Real-Time Text[2] support.

Video accessibility is a major component of the Act, with provisions having been created for closed captioning and video descriptions of television and web video content (with the exception of online only video programming), accessible programming guide and user interfaces. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is still in the process of rolling out regulations for these provisions.

Jenifer Simpson

Could you briefly trace the kind of advocacy and work that has gone into getting this law enacted?

Advocacy for the 21st CVAA was, and continues to be based in coalition work by disability organizations. First formed in March 2007, the Coalition of Organizations for Accessible Technology (COAT) grew very rapidly due to the strength of its communications advocacy agenda. The groups lobbied the U.S. Congress for three years, conducting both grass roots efforts utilizing the member groups’ leaders and membership, and worked at the national level, providing witnesses and testimony at three Congressional hearings and working hard to bring knowledge of the effort to the larger disability community. The COAT leadership met intensively with industry representatives from the television, communications, and information technology sectors, and then in 2010 saw the legislation passed in both houses (U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate) with signature by the President in October 2010. Note that the final Bill differed somewhat from the Bill that was first introduced in December 2009 as a result of the consultative process with industry and legislators. Critical to advocacy was the role of electronic social media such as a blog-website, an E-list, a Twitter or a Facebook account. This kept everyone informed as to what was going on and is a key way to ensure that everyone knew what was being done.

Where does the 21st CCVA stand as of now, what processes must be completed before it becomes fully effective?

Attached is a copy of the schedule for the rulemakings. Right now this law is enacted. We are in the implementation stage with the implementing federal agency, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), an independent federal government agency, issuing proposed rules or regulations. During that process everyone has a chance to be heard all over again and to influence what will be the final rules. We do have one final rule issued, that is, for the National Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution program that the new law required. To ensure full implementation, advocacy groups have to be directly involved in the rulemaking processes at the FCC. This includes commenting into the proposed rules, participating in any standards development bodies and otherwise being at the table.

What in your view are its greatest strengths and its failings?

The greatest strength of the new law is that it is based on feasibility. That is, most of the requirements are not new, they are extensions of what was already required, except now, with communications and other technologies connecting largely with the Internet, these older requirements must now be extended to internet-enablement. Furthermore, most of the solutions for accessibility that the new law requires do not require rocket science or major research and development; technological solutions are known in many cases or can be developed easily and widely disseminated. Many will be software solutions that can be developed as part of the usual product design and development cycle, if the entity is willing to do this.

The only failing is that we didn’t really get to go far enough due to industry pushback. For instance, we started out wanting a requirement for captioning and video/audio description of all video material that would be displayed and distributed via the Internet. We did not get this. But we got major steps forward in these areas. That is, a requirement for captioning of any TV shown on the Internet and reinstatement of video description of TV. We also succeeded in ensuring that browsers in cell phones would be designed for accessibility so that blind users who might reach internet content that is accessible would have an accessible ‘ramp’ to that content.

What are the shortcomings of the earlier Communications Act that you would say 21st CCVA addresses?

With technology and communications converging, the 21st CVAA directly addresses newer forms of technology. We previously had section 255 of the Communications Act, enacted in 1996, but regulations were not issued until 2000, four years later. Also, at that time we had a requirement for video description of TV but it was overturned by the federal district court. Disability advocates learned their lessons from these experiences and in the 21st CVAA we redressed these shortcomings.

The 21st CVAA does not address internet content or website accessibility measures that must be taken. These topics are, in the U.S., covered under different statutes. Part of the advocacy process was, early on, to recognize that we needed to craft a law that was feasible despite our need for a comprehensive law. We knew the legislative and regulatory process — this meant some things were not going to be included. COAT works on these other laws to improve and update the regulations for things such as website accessibility.

The law was enacted in October? What if anything, has changed since then? What are you hoping will change?

We are still in the rulemaking phase and won’t see implementation of many of the requirements until next year. A big negative continues to be the bad attitude of some in the various industries to the need for accessibility. Some commenters into the proposed rules are attempting to influence the rules to delay implementation, to create exemptions or carve out waiver situations, and to otherwise stymie what must occur if we are to see people with sensory disabilities able to use most communications technologies like everyone else. Since the 21st CVAA is comprehensive in scope, there is little doubt that disability advocates have to maintain vigilance as the regulations are developed. Passing the law was just the first step, the next steps are implementation.

Are there any loopholes, grey areas in it that you feel could render it less effective?

Since we do not have final rules for most of the law, there are no known loopholes yet. While the law does not go as far as some would like, there is little doubt that this law has major impact and is stimulating change at the companies and within the industries affected.

Do you feel that ICT accessibility can be achieved through policy intervention alone?

First of all, there is nothing to stop any product or service from being designed and developed at the outset to be disability accessible and usable. In fact, there are several companies that do this already as a matter of corporate policy and a commitment to be leaders in this way. It is the rest for whom public policy has to be developed. Such policy must be developed that includes all stakeholders. However, there must be public policy leadership or nothing will change. Leadership involves Congressional members willing to say the law needs to be changed, willing to stand up for the right of people with disabilities to be included. This is the civil or human rights viewpoint and which must extend to disability to be fully inclusive. Leadership can involve a particular company or group of companies saying they will support the new law once they understand the need for the policy change. This happened with the 21st CVAA. Early on the largest wireline/wireless carriers supported the legislation. Most importantly, there must be strong leadership by consumer disability advocates who must make the key decisions and decide the directions and choices at critical junctures in the policymaking process. Also, critical to disability advocacy is the ability to work together in a consensual fashion, to put aside differences and to understand that “we’re all in this together” and to not give up or become discouraged.

Notes

[1].The term "undue burden" has the same meaning as given to it in the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act – “Undue burden means significant difficulty or expense. In determining whether an action would result in an undue burden, an agency shall consider all agency resources available to the program or component for which the product is being developed, procured, maintained, or used."

[2].Real-Time Text is a conversational text feature which can be sent in real time and can provide captioning of a voice conversation.

* The post has been updated to include an interview with Jenifer Simpson

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/communications-and-video-accessibility

Communication Policy Advocacy, Technology, and Online Freedom of Expression: A Toolkit for Media Development

praskrishna — 2011-06-23T04:45:30Z

Organized by the Center for Media and Communication Studies (CMCS) at the Central European University (CEU), and Internews Network, and the Center for Global Communication Studies (CGCS) at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania from June 20 to July 1, 2011.

Recent events in Egypt and Tunisia remind us that the development of the internet as a global, free and open resource stands at a perpetual crossroads. The dynamic and decentralized nature of the internet, and other new technologies, continually offers new avenues for open communication and free expression as well as new challenges and threats. The strategic use of digital technologies and information tools with the goal of empowering civil society and building capacity for an open society is critical. And at the same time, so-called 'old media' continues to play a vital role in communication, especially during times of crisis and conflict.

The issue of free and open communications is not only relevant in the case of repressive regimes and transitional democracies, but is remains crucial across all layers of socio-politics. The complexities of the relationship between technology, free expression, privacy and policy lie at the heart of the relationship between global security and human rights.

This intensive summer course is designed to help both researchers and activists gain new insights into the role which civil society can play in advocating for free expression online and communication policy change, and will highlight the opportunities and challenges of technologies and online tools for mobilizing and organizing constituencies and for enhancing the security and privacy of advocates. During the course, we will explore a wide range of practical and theoretical views related to communication policy advocacy and online tools and tactics, and how to integrate research into these fields. The course will include hands-on work in developing advocacy campaigns and seek to cover some of latest developments in online tools for advocacy, security, privacy and crowd-sourcing. We will also look at Internet governance issues and online free expression policies.

As part of the course, participants will also work in teams on a group assignment for the duration of the course. Each group will be presented with a case study for which they should develop an advocacy campaign for communication policy change. Each team will be required to prepare a written report (approximately 10-15 pages in total), and give a multi-media presentation to the group at the end of the course.

In order maximize the output and opportunities for participants the course will have a maximum of 20-25 students.

Course Participants: This course is intended for practitioners, policy makers, media policy advocates, PhD students, advanced MA students, and media development professionals (drawing from government, civil society/NGOs, foundations), journalists and other media practitioners with a demonstrated interest in new media and technology and communication policy advocacy.

Course Director:

Kate Coyer, Center for Media and Communication Studies, Department of Public Policy, CEU, Budapest, Hungary
Kristina Irion, Center for Media and Communication Studies, Department of Public Policy, CEU, Budapest, Hungary
Susan Abbott, Internews Network
Leslie Harris, Center for Democracy and Technology
Monroe Price, Annenberg School for Communication, U Pennsylvania, US and Chair Center for Media and Communication Studies, CEU, Budapest, Hungary

Faculty:

Sunil Abraham, Centre for Internet and Society, India
Gary Garriott, Internews Network
Eszter Hargittai, Northwestern University
Kathleen Reen, Internews Network
Jacky Sutton, IREX Iraq
Sam Gregory, Witness, UK
Ivan Sigal, Global Voices online

Download the agenda here

Also see the event flier

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/notices/communication-policy-advocacy-technology-and-online-freedom-of-expression-a-toolkit-for-media-development

Centaur website reveals guests' personal info

praskrishna — 2011-06-20T07:35:57Z

The Centaur Hotels' website, centaurhotels.com, appears to have compromised personal information of its hotel guests, in what seems to be a case of poor internet security protocols implemented by the site. This allowed website visitors on Saturday to obtain and view details of passports, driving licences, pan numbers, credit cards, and other forms of personal identification provided by its guests.

Centaur Hotels, a unit of the Hotel Corporation of India (HCI), is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the National Aviation Company of India that runs national carrier Air India. It runs a hotel near the Delhi international airport and another in Srinagar.

Around 52 scanned copies of passports of people of different nationalities, pan card details of Indian guests and driving licences were visible on the site. The page was taken down when the issue was brought to their notice. Various online facilities such as reservation are not available now. But TOI has screen shots of some of the documents. When contacted, Centaur marketing head Pradeep Garg said, "We will look into the matter. Please lodge a formal complaint. We don't have an online payment system, hence we don't collect any identification proof."

Centaurhotels.com shows the site manager as Capt Samarth Singh, who is the chief executive of a consultancy firm called Hybrid Content. But Singh said that for the past one year, the site was under the jurisdiction of a website developer in Mumbai, S Naidu. "We will, however, clarify to both the parties - Naidu and Centaur Hotels," Singh said.

He said he had sent requests to Centaur Hotels to remove his name from the hotel portal as his contract had ended. Hybrid held the contract from December 2008-April 2010. It has won the mandate to manage the site from June 1. "But the domain is not within my reach. It is still with the old registrar," Singh said.

Sunil Abraham, executive director of Centre for Internet and Society, said personal information leaked online is a breach of privacy. "Anybody collecting passport and credit card details has to follow security policies. According to Sec 43 of the IT Act 2000, the hotel shall be liable to pay damages not exceeding Rs 1 crore to every individual so affected."

This article by Shilpa Phadnis was published in the Times of India on June 20, 2011. Read the original here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/centaur-reveals-personal-info

CEPT to Set up Centre to Research Role of Internet in Social Development

praskrishna — 2011-08-02T06:06:55Z

Nishant Shah, Director (Research) at the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) in Bangalore who will assist the centre, said: "No one predicted the outcome of the Arab Spring, because everyone was looking at the way Internet was being used globally, not at the local level. We had the pink chaddi campaign, the anti-corruption calls of the Hazare camp, and those against sexual violence in New Delhi, but they were largely ad-hoc and temporary, and disappeared."

Cross-posted from the Indian Express

Pratyush Shankar, an associate professor of architecture at CEPT University in Ahmedabad had begun teaching a new course, “Cyber Culture” at the institute when news of the Jasmine Revolution began to filter out from Tunisia.

By the time the 35-day course was over, a new government was in place in Tunis and Sharkar is now thrilled that a full-fledged centre to research the role of Internet in social and academic developments will be established at CEPT this session.

"I thought to myself, 'This is going to be big! Just watch how the internet is going to make this different! and I was right," said Shankar.

The establishment of the "Centre for Internet and Digital Technologies" will be supplemented by a weeklong workshop in August - "Locating Internets: Histories of the Internets in India" for academics from various disciplines, an effort the organisers hope will propel thinking on how Internet is now part and parcel of academia.

"When we give students assignments, the first thing they do is go to Google-uncle," said Shankar, pointing out the Internet’s "knowledge-producing" role, a phenomenon academia is not entirely willing to accept as a formal part of the teaching process although teachers use it extensively as a tool.

Shankar calls himself a 'non-techie', though he uses Internet as part of his work profile: his students post their assignments on a server called "Sa-nity", where he also uploads and archives work from previous batches. The latest plan is to form a blog where students will comment on the classroom teaching or discuss topics - 'an after-class space'.

Shah said the reasons could be factors like caste, religion, language and region.

He added: "During the Independence movement, two things were going on at the same time; there were mass movements where foreign clothes were burnt, khadi promoted and the like, which was buoyed by a very active print media that spread the information and ideas."

Internet technology now is equivalent to the print technology of that time, he added.

This news was published in the Indian Express on June 18, 2011.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/blogs/internet-society-and-space-in-indian-cities/cept-centre-for-role-of-internet

Look what the state just did to you

praskrishna — 2011-06-16T10:51:58Z

The government's recent introduction of new rules in the IT Act allows 'offensive' material on any website to be removed within 36 hours. Did the state just arm everyone to shoot the messenger, online?Th

Let's say a newspaper published a contentious piece that begs to be questioned in the court of law. What would happen if instead of the journalist who wrote the article or the editor who published it, we decide to sue the newspaper boy who delivered the paper? Irrational? According to bloggers and digital media experts, new rules notified under the Information Technology Act 2008, has armed everyone to shoot the messenger, online. Will this challenge our fundamental freedom of speech and expression, and the fabric of the Internet as we know it?

In April this year, the Department of Information Technology (DIT) introduced a new set of rules called Intermediary Due Diligence. According to it, every citizen has the right to complain against any digital content to the website host or any ISP that serves the content or any cybercafe from which the content is available, etc (legally referred to as intermediary). In other words, any website that carries content Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, blogs and even newspaper websites can be sued for the content they carry, even if it is a third party that has written it.

So, even though over 190 million users worldwide publish over a billion comments a week on social broadcast medium Twitter, if someone were to find a particular 'Tweet' offensive even if it hasn't been written by an Indian they can ask Twitter to remove the tweet, failing which, they can sue the site.

According to the rules, every intermediary (read website) is now required to hire a grievance officer, to whom the offended party can send their complaint. The website is given 36 hours, to remove the comment, post or content, failing which the website is liable to judicial action.

The website owner no longer possesses the discretion to ignore complaints and uphold the freedom of speech of his site's users without risking liability himself.

Is the rule unconstitutional?

According to Pranesh Prakash, programme manager for Centre for Internet and Society, Bengaluru, the new rules are unconstitutional.

The pre-existing section 79 of the IT Act states that intermediaries (that is to say, websites) are not liable for third party information (such as comments, posts, tweets or posts) as long as they are mere conduits, observe 'due diligence' and don't encourage criminal activity. The new rules were meant to clarify what 'due diligence' meant. A draft of the rules was released in February, and the final rules were added to the IT Act in April.

"The rules have gone far beyond mere clarification. The Department has imposed rules that insist that intermediaries play the role of a judge and executioner on mere complaint, without any opportunity for the other side to be heard," says Prakash.

In a press release issued on May 11 this year, the DIT stated, "The Government adopted a transparent process for formulation of the Rules under the Information Technology Act. The draft rules were published on the Department of Information Technology website for comments [in February] and were widely covered by the media. None of the Industry Associations and other stakeholders objected to the formulation, which is now being cited in some section of media."

However, media analysts disagree. "The DIT was expected to create a public listing of comments submitted. From what we've seen on their website, they haven't," says Nikhil Pahwa, editor of Medianama, a website that offers analyses of news on various forms of media, including the Internet.

Interestingly, some Members of Parliament registered their protest against the draft rules.

Rajya Sabha member Rajeev Chandrashekar registered his protest against the draft rules during Zero Hour on March 22, and received the support of three other MPs Kumar Deepak Das, P Rajeev, Mahendra Mohan.

His argument was also published on his website: "The execution of these rules could result in a shutting down of the Internet, which is the main form of expression for growing Indians, if the information posted is found inconvenient to Government, institutions or individuals. This would also take away the right to freedom of expression of bloggers and other Internet users in the country. The Government must call for transparent public consultation/public opinion."

Restricting freedom of speech

What's more, say lawyers, the ground on which a person can find a comment offensive is vague and open to interpretation.

Apar Gupta, a lawyer associated with the Software Freedom Law Centre in New Delhi, says, "The grounds to block content are arbitrary. In a situation like this, any intelligent critique, discourse etc can be deemed offensive and no one can do anything about it."

Nor is it mandatory for the website to inform the person, who has posted a comment that someone else found offensive, before removing it.

"In a case like this, the so-called violator does not even have the opportunity to be heard or defend himself, which is a violation of the principles of natural justice," adds Prakash.

Websites no longer have a final say in regulating content, as they are legally bound to remove matter that has been found offensive. The removed content can be re-instated if the website wins a lawsuit against the complainant if it chooses to go through with one in the first place.

"Suppose you do not like what I have posted on Twitter, and file a complaint with the grievance officer.

Twitter has two options remove the content and be safe or keep it and be liable. What do you think is easier for Twitter? Obviously, it wouldn't want to be party to hundreds of lawsuits," explains Gupta.

Before the rules were notified, a police complaint could be registered, a civil suit filed, or a 'nodal officer' required to be designated in all government departments could be approached, which would be followed by a judicial probe. If the content was eventually found offensive, the website would be asked to remove it.

"Now, websites will lose protection from law if they don't take down 'offensive' content. They have no incentive to uphold the freedom of speech of their users. Instead, they have been provided incentives to take down all content about which they receive complaints without applying their minds," Prakash points out.

Then again, in our country where anything from a paragraph in a history textbook to a 15-second jig by a politician can be deemed offensive, analysts fear that the rules can be rampantly misused.

"The rule will be used by conservatives and not liberals. Lots of organised people (political parties, bureaucrats etc) will take down all content against them. People could end up using the rule to challenge a website and making money by agreeing for an out of court settlement," fears Gupta.

"It can become a tool for harassment," Shivam Vij, a member of radical critique blog Kafila, adds tersely.

The new clause has the potential to immediately address truly offensive material, such as child pornography, online grooming of young girls and boys by paedophiles (such as the recent case of Paul Wilson who was convicted in Birmingham for grooming 20 minors online) and videos taken on the sly (one such case led Rutgers university student Tyler Clementi to commit suicide, when a video of him having sex with a fellow male student was posted online). However, it is a double-edged sword that calls for further debate on what can be posted and what can be removed.

One way to do this is to make information public. If a site is blocked or content removed, there should be a public notice issued and a list should be maintained of all requests for removals or blocks. Also, the reason for removing or blocking a piece of content, and the authority responsible for taking that decision should be made public. When a user visits a blocked site, there should be a notice about the block, and a specific recourse mentioned for getting the block removed.

This article by Yoshita Sengupta was published in Mid Day on June 12, 2011. Read the original here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/state-just-did-to-you

April 2011 Newsletter

praskrishna — 2011-06-15T10:55:26Z

newsletter issue of April 2011

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/publications-automated/april-2011.pdf

Tough neighbourhood tests India's e-tolerance

praskrishna — 2011-06-15T10:51:48Z

The combination of having restrictive neighbours as well as security threats could make freedom on the web in India a casualty, writes Anahita Mukherji in this article published by the Times of India on June 12, 2011.

While Indians have enjoyed relatively free cyberspace, growing security threats have resulted in new laws that may tighten the screws on India's freedom on the web. This is one of the findings of a global report titled Freedom on the Net 2011.

There is a widespread fear that the lack of internet freedom in neighbouring countries, like China and Pakistan, may adversely impact India. "If restrictions are placed in certain countries, information links get weakened. Also, governments tend to copy moves of other countries when it comes to a restriction of freedom on the net," said Ketan Tanna, the India researcher for the report.

However, Sarah Cook, Asian research analyst and assistant editor for Freedom on the Net, said that while India may be in a tough neighborhood, it is also possible to seek out the "best practices from countries further afield, or even design its own, and not follow the 'worst practices' from the countries next door".

"It is ultimately up to the Indian government and people to decide how adversely they let being in a tough neighborhood impact internet freedom. It is true that there are objective threats that India faces. All of these can be used as justifications for why the government should be given wide authority to block certain content or monitor internet traffic. But in a democratic society, such needs must be balanced against citizens' rights to free expression and privacy. Ensuring transparency, accountability and legal specificity in any measures taken to restrict the free flow of information is an important way of balancing those factors," said Cook in an email interview with TOI.

Recent regulations have given the government more freedom to censor content. In 2008, Parliament passed amendments to the IT Act, which came into effect in 2009 and have expanded the government's monitoring capabilities. Two months ago, the government enforced another set of guidelines on internet usage. They make it mandatory for intermediaries (ISPs, websites, blogs etc) to notify users not to publish or use information that could be harmful, defamatory or cause annoyance in any way. If an intermediary is informed of such information by the government, it has to block it within 36 hours.

According to the new rules, content that "threatens the unity, integrity, defence, security or sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign states or public order" is entitled to a ban.

An RTI activist from The Centre for Internet and Society managed to get a list of 11 officially banned websites in India in April 2011.

Nikhil Pahwa, the founder editor of Medianama, a digital media portal, feels the new guidelines could result in a further slide in India's rank.

Read the original published in the Times of India here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/india-e-tolerance

ICT Accessibility in Sri Lanka

praskrishna — 2011-11-08T10:32:25Z

During a recent visit to Lirne Asia in Colombo, thanks to the efforts of the Lirne Asia team, I had an opportunity to meet the Sri Lankan regulator-TRC, the ICT Agency-ICTA and the Jinnasena Trust to discuss their initiatives for providing ICT and Telecommunications access for persons with disabilities in Sri Lanka.

This was quite a unique opportunity for me since I have never before interacted on a one-to-one basis with the regulator of any other country, other than my own. So I did a preliminary background check of Sri Lanka’s ICT and general legislative framework which revealed that it already had sufficient legislative mandate to ensure that persons with disabilities had equal access to information and ICTs, an obligation under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which Sri Lanka signed way back in 2007. In fact Sri Lanka has mentioned persons with disabilities in its Constitution. Access to ICTs is also covered in the Protection of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 1996, National Policy on Disability for Sri Lanka, 2003, the Telecommunications Ten Year Development Plan, 2006-2016 and the Universal Service Obligation. Para 18 of the telecommunications Service Providers License also obliges service providers to ensure that their services are accessible for persons with disabilities. So in fact, as far as I could see, Sri Lanka had more commitment in terms of legislation/ policy to facilitate ICT access to the disabled than India had.

However, discussions with the officials and organization revealed that implementation remains a challenge in Sri Lanka as with several other developing countries including India. In Sri Lanka, there are primarily three languages for which accessible content and assistive technology needs to be available. At present, there is a text to speech synthesizer for Singhala, but not for Tamil. There doesn’t appear to be a robust screen reader with which this has been integrated. There is as yet no OCR software to recognize scanned books and convert them into a machine readable format and no fair use exception in their Intellectual Property legislation to facilitate conversion into accessible formats.

In Sri Lanka, most of the accessibility projects funded by the TRC revolve primarily around setting up infrastructure in schools and some amount of capacity building. The TRC hopes to extend it in the next phase of its funding to include development of assistive technologies (ATs).

While this definitely seemed to be on the way towards progress, there still remained one point which I found very troubling. Why is there such a communication gap between persons with disabilities and the policy makers? Even in India, we come across projects where the Government of India is spending precious funds developing technology which they feel is required for the blind, while the blind in fact are already using more advanced technology. For instance, there is a project with the government which is to develop a special browser for the blind, when the blind and visually impaired are already navigating the Internet using screen readers like Jaws and NVDA. My meetings with the regulator and other agencies confirmed for me that persons with disabilities in Sri Lanka and India are facing similar problems. A severe challenge for persons with disabilities is to make policy makers and developers aware of their needs and new developments in technology so that appropriate initiatives are taken which are low cost, available in local languages, and scalable. Increasingly it seems important to involve the private sector as well in accessibility initiatives to increase variety, competition and solutions.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/ict-sri-lanka