Centre for Internet and Society

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

Point By Point Rebuttal Of Indian Government’s Statement On Internet Control Rules

praskrishna — 2011-05-25T12:46:48Z

The Centre for Internet and Society has published a point-by-point rebuttal of the statement issued by India’s Department of Information Technology on India’s Internet Control Rules. The text below is reproduced from CIS India’s website, under a CC-BY license (which means anyone can re-publish it, with attribution. You can, too). We’ve highlighted (in bold) certain statements in the rebuttal. This article by Nikhil Pahwa was published in Medianama on May 13, 2011.

The press statement issued on May 11 by the Department of Information Technology (DIT) on the furore over the newly-issued rules on ‘intermediary due diligence’ is misleading and is, in places, plainly false. We are presenting a point-by-point rebuttal of the DIT’s claims.

In its press release on Wednesday, May 11, 2011 , the DIT stated:

The attention of Government has been drawn to news items in a section of media on certain aspects of the Rules notified under Section 79 pertaining to liability of intermediaries under the Information Technology Act, 2000. These items have raised two broad issues. One is that words used in Rules for objectionable content are broad and could be interpreted subjectively. Secondly, there is an apprehension that the Rules enable the Government to regulate content in a highly subjective and possibly arbitrary manner.

There are actually more issues than merely "subjective interpretation" and "arbitrary governmental regulation".

The Indian Constitution limits how much the government can regulate citizens’ fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. Any measure afoul of the constitution is invalid.
Several portions of the rules are beyond the limited powers that Parliament had granted the Department of IT to create interpretive rules under the Information Technology Act. Parliament directed the Government to merely define what “due diligence” requirements an intermediary would have to follow in order to claim the qualified protection against liability that Section 79 of the Information Technology Act provides; these current rules have gone dangerously far beyond that, by framing rules that insist that intermediaries, without investigation, has to remove content within 36-hours of receipt of a complaint, keep records of a users’ details and provide them to law enforcement officials.

The Department of Information Technology (DIT), Ministry of Communications & IT has clarified that the Intermediaries Guidelines Rules, 2011 prescribe that due diligence need to be observed by the Intermediaries to enjoy exemption from liability for hosting any third party information under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. These due diligence practices are the best practices followed internationally by well-known mega corporations operating on the Internet. The terms specified in the Rules are in accordance with the terms used by most of the Intermediaries as part of their existing practices, policies and terms of service which they have published on their website.

We are not aware of any country that actually goes to the extent of deciding what Internet-wide ‘best practices’ are and actually converting those ‘best practices’ into law by prescribing a universal terms of service that all Internet services, websites, and products should enforce.

The Rules require all intermediaries to include the government-prescribed terms in an agreement, no matter what services they provide. It is one thing for a company to choose the terms of its terms of service agreement, and completely another for the government to dictate those terms of service. As long as the terms of service of an intermediary are not unlawful or bring up issues of users’ rights (such as the right to privacy), there is no reason for the government to jump in and dictate what the terms of service should or should not be.

The DIT has not offered any proof to back up its assertion that ‘most’ intermediaries already have such terms. Google, a ‘mega corporation’ which is an intermediary, does not have such an overarching policy. Indiatimes, another ‘mega corporation’ intermediary, does not either. Just because a company like Rediff and Blizzard’s World of Warcraft have some of those terms does not mean a) that they should have all of those terms, nor that b) everyone else should as well.

In attempting to take different terms of service from different Internet services and products—the very fact of which indicate the differing needs felt across varying online communities—the Department has put in place a one-size-fits-all approach. How can this be possible on the Internet, when we wouldn’t regulate the post-office and a book publisher under the same rules of liability for, say, defamatory speech.

There is also a significant difference between the effect of those terms of service and that of these Rules. An intermediary-framed terms of service suggest that the intermediary may investigate and boot someone off a service for violation, while the Rules insist that the intermediary simply has to mandatorily remove content, keep records of users’ details and provide them to law enforcement officials, else be subject to crippling legal liability.

So to equate the effect of these Rules to merely following ‘existing practices’ is plainly wrong. An intermediary—like the CIS website—should have the freedom to choose not to have terms of service agreements. We now don’t.

"In case any issue arises concerning the interpretation of the terms used by the Intermediary, which is not agreed to by the user or affected person, the same can only be adjudicated by a Court of Law. The Government or any of its agencies have no power to intervene or even interpret. DIT has reiterated that there is no intention of the Government to acquire regulatory jurisdiction over content under these Rules. It has categorically said that these rules do not provide for any regulation or control of content by the Government."

The Rules are based on the presumption that all complaints (and resultant mandatory taking down of the content) are correct, and that the incorrectness of the take-downs can be disputed in court. Why not just invert that, and presume that all complaints need to be proven first?

Indeed, the courts have insisted that presumption of validity is the only constitutional way of dealing with speech. (See, for instance, Karthikeyan R. v. Union of India, a 2010 Madras High Court judgment.)

Further, only constitutional courts (namely High Courts and the Supreme Court) can go into the question of the validity of a law. Other courts have to apply the law, even if it the judge believes it is constitutionally invalid. So, most courts will be forced to apply this law of highly questionable constitutionality until a High Court or the Supreme Court strikes it down.

What the Department has in fact done is to explicitly open up the floodgates for increased liability claims and litigation – which runs exactly counter to the purpose behind the amendment of Section 79 by Parliament in 2008.

"The Government adopted a very 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 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."

This is a blatant lie.

Civil society voices, including CIS, Software Freedom Law Centre, and individual experts (such as the lawyer and published author Apar Gupta) sent in comments. Companies such as Google and others had apparently raised concerns as well. We at CIS even received a ‘read notification’ from the email account of the Group Coordinator of the DIT’s Cyber Laws Division—Dr. Gulshan Rai—on Thursday, March 3, 2011 at 12:04 PM (we had sent the mail to Dr. Rai on Monday, February 28, 2011). We never received any acknowledgement, though, not even after we made an express request for acknowledgement (and an offer to meet them in person to explain our concerns) on Tuesday, April 5, 2011 in an e-mail sent to Mr. Prafulla Kumar and Dr. Gulshan Rai of DIT.

The process can hardly be called ‘transparent’ when the replies received from ‘industry associations and other stakeholders’ have not been made public by the DIT. Those comments which are public all indicate that serious concerns were raised as to the constitutionality of the Rules.

The Government has been forward looking to create a conducive environment for the Internet medium to catapult itself onto a different plane with the evolution of the Internet. The Government remains fully committed to freedom of speech and expression and the citizen’s rights in this regard.

The DIT has limited this statement to the rules on intermediary due diligence, and has not spoken about the controversial new rules that stifle cybercafes, and restrict users’ privacy and freedom to receive information.

If the government is serious about creating a conducive environment for innovation, privacy and free expression on the Internet, then it wouldn’t be passing Rules that curb down on them, and it definitely will not be doing so in such a non-transparent fashion.

Read the original published in Medianama here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/point-by-point-rebuttal

Sunil Abraham, CIS : "Avec l’e-G8, Nicolas Sarkozy veut promouvoir de nouvelles restrictions à la liberté d’expression"

praskrishna — 2011-05-25T11:54:51Z

Le débat continue de faire rage en Inde au sujet d’une nouvelle législation posant des limites floues et, selon certains, potentiellement dangereuses, à la liberté d’expression sur Internet. Et alors que s’ouvre à Paris l’e-G8, sur fond de polémiques autour des intentions de son principal supporteur, le président de la République Française, Nicolas Sarkozy, Sunil Abraham, directeur exécutif de l’ONG Center for Internet & Societies, a accepté de partager son regard sur l’événement, depuis Bangalore. This news was published in LE MAG IT on May 24, 2011.

LeMagIT: L’Inde vient de se doter d’une nouvelle législation relative aux technologies de l’information et de la communication. Que dénoncez-vous dans cette législation ?

Sunil Abraham: Il y a trois principales préoccupations, pour la société civile. Tout d’abord, cette nouvelle législation va au-delà de son périmètre légitime et définit des limites vagues et inconstitutionnelles à la liberté d’expression sur Internet. Par exemple, un discours dénigrant, relevant du harcèlement, blasphématoire ou haineux n’a jamais été criminel ou considéré comme tel par la justice indienne. Mais du fait de cette nouvelle législation, cela peut être puni de 3 ans de prison. Ensuite, ces règles introduisent un biais contre la participation citoyenne à toute forme de publication en ligne, en particulier dans les médias sociaux ou la production de contenus collective. Ainsi, une fois qu’un ordre de retrait a été notifié, le contenu contestable visé doit être supprimé dans un délai de 36 heures. Ou c’est l’intermédiaire concerné qui est susceptible de voir engagée sa responsabilité. De grandes entreprises telles que Google seront en mesure de gérer de telles injections et d’engager des procédures en justice mais de simples individus seront écrasés par la censure privée sans application équitable de la loi. En outre, les individus ne seront pas notifiés de l’application d’une telle censure et aucune pénalité n’est prévue pour ceux qui abuseraient du système en émettant des ordres de retrait de contenu en masse de manière automatisée. Enfin, l’État a créé un système de surveillance à plusieurs niveaux impliquant cyber-cafés, FAI et fournisseurs de services en ligne. Les garde-fous sur les réquisitions judiciaires émises par les agences de renseignement ont été dilués. La rétention de logs redondante à plusieurs niveaux fournit en outre des cibles multiples avec des vulnérabilités multiples aux criminels à la fois au sein et en dehors de ces institutions. Les violations de la vie privée vont se multiplier et ne feront que distraire les agents du renseignement de leurs missions de fond pour lutter contre la criminalité et le terrorisme.

En clair, nous pensons que ces nouvelles règles vont réfréner la liberté d’expression sur Internet en Inde en stimulant l’auto-censure, la censure privée et la surveillance. Cela va nuire à l’exercice démocratique, à la liberté des médias, et à la transparence des institutions publiques, à la culture et à la créativité, à la recherche et au développement, et enfin - mais ce n’est pas rien - à l’entrepreneuriat.

LeMagIT: Dans un contexte de suspicion sur les objectifs du forum e-G8, et avec la perspective de la nouvelle législation indienne, quel regard portez-vous sur le sommet international qui s’ouvre ce mardi 24 mai en France ?

Sunil Abraham: Nicolas Sarkozy et les nations développées de l’Ouest ont complètement perdu leur légitimité morale dans le débat sur la liberté sur Internet. Leur duplicité et leur double-langage ont été mis en lumière - d’un côté, ils critiquent la Birmanie, l’Arabie Saoudite et la Chine mais, dans le même temps, à l’intérieur de leurs frontières, ces nations ont courbé l’échine pour satisfaire aux demandes des ayants-droits. Rétention de données, exigence de justification d’identité dans les cyber-cafés, riposte graduée, investigations transnationales, etc... sont en train de devenir la norme. Nicolas Sarkozy semble avoir oublié que l’accès au savoir est le prérequis de la liberté d’expression. Le partage de l’information est une composante essentielle des activités quotidiennes des citoyens du Net. Criminaliser ces actes afin de soutenir les modèles économiques moribonds des éditeurs de logiciels et des sociétés de production de médias ne fera que réduire Internet à une télévision interactive.

En tant que personne mariée à un ayant-droit en quête de rente, Nicolas Sarkozy n’a naturellement que peu de sympathie pour l’accès [libre] à la connaissance et peut ainsi se faire le champion vocal des régimes de riposte graduée. Il serait bien capable d’interdire à quelqu’un de lire sous un livre prétexte que cette personne aurait partagé les photocopies de ce livre avec trois de ses amis. Il n’y a aucune proportionnalité entre le préjudice et la punition.

Avec l’e-G8, Nicolas Sarkozy essaie de pousser d’autres restrictions à la liberté d’expression avec son concept “d’Internet civilisé” - les régimes répressifs du monde entier ont de quoi se réjouir. Leur régulation draconienne a été importée par le pays de “liberté, égalité, fraternité.” J’espère que le peuple français se joindra aux sociétés civiles du monde entier pour rejeter les propositions de Nicolas Sarkozy.

Sunil's original response in English

What is wrong with the latest IT Rules 2011 [Intermediary Due Diligence, Cyber Cafe and Reasonable Security Measures) under the IT Act [Amendment 2008]

There are 3 broad concerns that civil society has with the latest IT rules. One, they go beyond the the scope of the IT Act and place unconstitutional and vague limits on freedom of expression online. For example speech that is harmful, harassing, disparaging, blasphemous or hateful has never been criminal or defined by Indian courts. But thanks to the latest rules, they are punishable with 3 years of imprisonment. Two, the rules are biased against citizen participation in online publication especially in the form of social media and commons based peer production. Once a take down notice is received the objectionable content has to be deleted within 36 hour otherwise the intermediary looses immunity. Large corporations like Google will be able to manage due diligence and also fight court battles but individual users will becrushed by private censorship sans due process of law. This individuals will not be notified when such censorship occurs and there is no penalty for those who abuse the system by sending bulk machine generated take-downs. Three, the state has mandated a multi-tier blanket surveillance regime - by cyber-cafes, ISPs and application service providers. Safeguards for information requests by intelligence agencies have been diluted. Redundant multi-level retention of logs provides multiple targets with multiple vulnerabilities to criminals both inside and outside these institutions. Privacy violations will multiply only serving a big distraction from the real intelligence work required to stop criminals and terrorists.

In brief - we believe the latest rules have a chilling effect on online freedom of expression in India via self-censorship, private censorship and blanket surveillance. This will undermine - democratic governance, free media, transparency and accountability in public institutions, culture and creativity, research and development and last but not least entrepreneurship.

What is wrong with Sarkozy's agenda at the e-G8

Sarkozy and developed western nations have completely lost their higher moral ground on net freedom. Their duplicity and double-speak has been exposed - on the one hand they criticise Burma, Saudi Arabia and China. But simultaneously at home these nations have bent backwards to please rights-holders. Blanket data retention, real ID requirements at cyber-cafes, three strikes regime, cross-border searches, etc are becoming the norm. Sarkozy appears to have forgotten that access to knowledge is the precondition for freedom of expression. Sharing of information is an essential component of the everyday Internet use of ordinary netizens. Criminalising these acts in order to prop up extinct business models of media houses and software companies will only reduce the Internet to interactive television.

Read the original published by LeMagIT here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/avec-i-e-g-8

Panel Discussion on UID – Its Feasibility, Utility and Legality

praskrishna — 2011-05-25T04:11:48Z

A panel discussion on "UID, its feasibility, utility and legality" is being organised by Citizen’s Action Forum, Grahak Shakti and the Centre for Internet and Society. It would be held at The Energy and Resources Institute (at TERI auditorium) in Domlur, Bangalore (near Domlur Club) on Thursday, May 26, 2011. The program commences with lunch at 1 p.m. and ends at 5.30 p.m. You are cordially invited to attend this program.

The panel members would include Mr. Rama Jois (former Chief Justice of Chattisgarh High Court and present Member of Parliament), Mr. Moinul Hassan (Member of Parliament), Mr. Narendra Babu (Member, Legislative Assembly, Karnataka), Mr. V P Sudarshan (former Chairman, Legislative Council of Karnataka and present speaker of Congress party) and Mr. Venkatesh Baberjung, Advocate, High Court of Karnataka.

The National Identity Authority of India Bill, 2010 has been placed before the Parliament by the Government. This Bill has been referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance. Mr. Moinul Hassan is a member of this committee. The committee has held one sitting where the Chairman, UIDAI, Mr. Nandan Nilenkani was asked for certain clarifications on the Bill.

The UID project is now under implementation at Mysore. It is scheduled to be launched in Bangalore in June 2011. The Central Government has decided to include caste and religious data in the census. The linkages between UID and the census could come up for discussion among panel members.

UIDAI officials and government officials from the Department of E-Governance, Government of Karnataka have been invited as panel members.

The subject of the discussion is thus topical and of high public interest and importance. We cordially invite you to the lunch and to cover the event so that the public could become aware of issues concerning the same.

The programme schedule is as follows:

1.00 p.m. to 2.00 p.m. - Lunch
2.00 p.m. to 2. 15 p.m. - Welcome and introduction by sponsoring organisations and moderator
2.15 p.m. to 3.00 p.m. - Opening statements by panel members
3.00 p.m. to 4 p.m. - Panel discussions
4.00 p.m. to 4.15 p.m. - Tea
4.15 p.m. to 4.45 p.m. - Panel discussions and questions to panel from audience
4.45 p.m. to 5.15 p.m. - Open House for Audience views
5.15 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. - Concluding remarks by panel members

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/events/uid-panel-discussion

As Simple as a Tweet

praskrishna — 2011-05-24T07:17:50Z

Got caught in traffic, need to let your folks know you’ll be late, Twitter to your rescue. This article by Nidhi R Daiya appeared in the Deccan Chronicle on May 24, 2011.

When you can you use the micro-blogging site, do you think celebrities would be left far behind?

With stars clearing the air on the site, be it the beautiful Shilpa Shetty denying the rumours about her pregnancy or the Kidnap actress Minisha Lamba claiming to be innocent, Twitter is many celebrities’ rescue route or way to stay in ‘direct’ touch with their fans.

The Nadunisi Naaygal actress Sameera Reddy might not be tech-savvy but sure connects to her fans when she finds the time. "I am not tech-savvy but whenever I have the time I make sure I tweet about my happening so my fans know about me."

Ask Sameera if she thinks this micro-blogging site is the ultimate platform to get in touch with her fans. "It’s the best way to be in touch with your fans directly," she says.

While some might use the site to stay in touch with their fans others use this powerful medium to clear the air. Soundtrack composer and singer Yuvan Shankar Raja denied the rumours about his and Gautham Menon’s tiff through his tweets.

"Not only can one get in touch with your fans directly but also get the opportunity to clear doubts about any rumours surrounding you. Earlier, media used to play the catalyst now it’s all direct and a lot easier," says Yuvan.

Well, if Dhanush can confirm on Twitter that the superstar is fine and Bipasha Basu can confirm her status, do you think other stars will be left behind?

Srinivasan, an active blogger, explains why some celebrities who have a blog prefer tweeting to writing pages full of stuff. "Having only 140 characters to convey your message — it’s short, sweet and personal. So obviously Twitter is a hit."

But he goes on to explain why blogs still have that personal touch to them.

"Twitter might be quick but elements like pictures cannot be shared in it, so those who are ardent followers will still follow celebrity blogs."

Sandeep Verma, a social media analyst, seconds the thought. "Those active bloggers have now turned to Twitter because it’s easy and direct. The reaction speed is fast and it’s a good medium. Stars like Shah Rukh Khan and Amitabh Bachchan too have stayed in touch with their fans and responded to tweets that have been misinterpreted. The fans may be left confused because reports may tell a different story but celebs tell a different story too," adds Sandeep.

However, Nishant Shah, director of Research, Centre for Internet and Society, says Twitter is another extension of the media itself, "Even though Twitter is on a public space and gives one 140 characters to emote, the information is grabbing attention. A tweet can be called as a body of many tweets as you can add links, tag or re-tweet."

What They Tweeted

Tweets about stars that have cleared the rumours or apologised publicly.

Dhanush tweeted "Guys superstar is absolutely fine! He is taking complete rest. After 35 years of hard work he deserves it too. Ve a good day. God bless!"
Amitabh tweeted: "When Graham Bell discovered the telephone, he found two missed calls from Rajinikanth."

Later Amitabh responded to the accusations that he was making fun of Rajini by tweeting "I was not criticizing Rajinikanth…actually it’s praising him...praising his status and greatness...and not making fun of him...he is a noble successful humble person."
Ranvir shorey to apologise on twitter for a comment posted by (@swathipradeep2) on-simple! since @ranvirshorey career is doomed, he is bootlicking barkha didi to use her influence & get him movies" (sic)."
Shilpa Shetty: 'I Am sick and tired of all the congratulatory messages and calls. For the last time I am saying, I am not pregnant, all this is so annoying.'
Bipasha Basu tweeted: "Hi all! Speculation is a part of r business! I knw d warmth n love tht I get frm u all!
Anurag Kashyup on the Dabangg controversy apologised saying 'Dost fati toh meri dawood se nahi jab black friday banai thi, na halaat se jab film release nahi hoti thi…maafi maangi kyonki galat news pe react kiya tha.. galti maanne main bhi nahi phati…tum log bas thodey badey ho jaao.'

Read the original published in the Deccan Chronicle here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/simple-as-a-tweet%20

India Cracks Down on Internet Free Speech

praskrishna — 2011-05-23T09:57:32Z

Government officials quietly released new rules restricting content on the Internet. The country is now getting backlash from free speech advocates protesting the new regulations, according to media reports. This article by Erin Harrison was published by TechZone360.com on April 28, 2011.

"Critics of the new rules say the restrictions could severely curtail debate and discussion on the Internet, whose use has been growing fast in India," according to an April 27 New York Times report.

"The list of objectionable content is sweeping and includes anything that "threatens the unity, integrity, defense, security or sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign states or public order," the Times said.

The new rules, released by the Department of Information Technology on April 11, allow officials and private citizens to demand that Internet sites and service providers remove content they consider objectionable.

As the Times reported, Sunil Abraham, the executive director for the Center for Internet and Society, said India’s rules require Internet "intermediaries" — "an all-encompassing group that includes sites like YouTube and Facebook and companies that host Web sites or provide Internet connections — to respond to any demand to take down offensive content within 36 hours. The rules do not provide a way for content producers to defend their work or appeal a decision to take content down."

In addition to new content regulations, the government also issued regulations pertaining to data security, Internet cafes and the electronic provision of government services. As an example, part of the regulations stipulate that cyber cafes be registered with a unique registration number with an agency called as registration agency "as notified by the appropriate government in this regard."

Although fewer than 10 percent of Indians have access to the Internet, that number has been growing fast, the Times reported, especially on mobile devices, adding that there are more than 700 million cell phone accounts in India.

Read the original here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/india-cracks-down

Free expression

praskrishna — 2011-05-23T08:48:44Z

Free speech and spirited public debate will be the casualties of new rules issued by India restricting Internet content. This news was published in Watertown Daily Times on May 2, 2011.

The regulations from the country's Department of Information Technology go beyond government censorship to individual censorship of material that might be offensive. According to the New York Times, even private citizens can demand that a service provider remove content that is "disparaging," "harassing" or "blasphemous."

The terms, though, are not defined. They are vague and subject to personal interpretation. Enforcement by the government or individuals will be arbitrary.

A rule against content that "threatens the unity, integrity, defense, security or sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign states or public order" could be used by the government to block Internet debate over foreign policy or disagreement with the government's diplomatic relations with another country.

They are also subject to abuse by those who want to silence those they dislike or oppose.

India has a history of banning books and other materials considered objectionable, but the new rules go much further than a specific ban. They also require "intermediaries" such as Facebook and YouTube to remove offensive content within 36 hours of a complaint from anyone. No provisions are made for challenging the complaint.

"These rules favor those who want to clamp down on freedom of expression," said Sunil Abraham, executive director for the Center for Internet and Society.

Such rules are not surprising in countries with repressive regimes, but they are intolerable in a nation like India that considers itself democratic.

Read the original here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/free-expression

Bangalore-based NGO files RTI query asking list of websites blocked by Indian govt

praskrishna — 2011-05-23T08:39:58Z

The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS), a Bangalore-based NGO, recently filed an RTI query with the Department of Information Technology (DIT), asking for a list of websites blocked by the Indian government under the IT Act. This article by R Krishna was published in the Daily News & Analysis on May 18, 2011.

The department handed them a list of 11 websites. It was just one department’s list, but this was the first time such a list was being made public. "The information given was not comprehensive. For instance, we still don’t know who ordered these blocks," says Sunil Abraham, executive director, CIS, "We will file another RTI application to get those details out."

As of now, Indians enjoy considerably free access to information online, and the right to freedom of expression is protected by the Constitution. But you run into a veil of secrecy when trying to find out what sort of information is being blocked online, who is doing it, and for what reason. The list of 11 revealed by the DIT is only representative — no one can even guess the real number because, well, there is no way of knowing when a website gets blocked.

What is more disturbing is that the government has formulated a set of rules that can block content considered "disparaging", "harassing", or "blasphemous", besides a whole range of other labels that are vague and hence open to interpretation. The rules put the onus of removing such material on intermediaries such as ISPs (Internet service providers) and websites that host the content — within 36 hours of a complaint being filed. And just about anyone can request that the content be taken down — all they have to do is write a letter or an email with an electronic signature. There is no provision for the intermediary to challenge the complainant’s assessment of the content in question.

Users will be afraid

In other words, censorship will now be a free-for-all exercise. Protests, such as the one we saw during the Jan Lokpal agitation, can be nipped in the bud since anyone, including politicians, can claim that they are being "harassed". Information revealed by websites like WikiLeaks can be blocked because they may "threaten friendly relations with foreign states".

There is a sense of shock among the handful of netizens who are aware of these rules and the potential for their misuse. "What are we, Saudi Arabia? We don’t expect this from India. This is something very serious," Pushkar Raj, general secretary of the People’s Union for Civil Liberties, has been quoted as saying. MediaNama, a website reporting on the media industry, points out, "Who defines 'blasphemous'?... India doesn’t even have a blasphemy law, so who interprets what is blasphemous or not?" Media watchdog The Hoot’s Geeta Seshu says, "This is chilling. Websites will be wary of putting up content. How can one appeal? How can one have a free discussion on anything at all online?"

Vishal Anand, product manager at Burrp, an online startup that hosts user-generated reviews of restaurants, is worried about the impact it will have on the discussions happening on the website. "I hope the ecosystem is not impacted. Users may be more afraid to respond, and businesses will be afraid about the content they host."

Guilty until proven innocent

The fundamental issue is that the onus is on the carrier or host to prove that the content is inoffensive, if any objection is raised. "The regulation is placing the burden on the intermediary so that there is no need to go to court (to get content blocked). This is going to lead to a lot of private intervention. You will have to go to court to get the content back up online, rather than the other way around," says Delhi-based lawyer Apar Gupta.

In fact, intermediary liability is a contentious topic globally, and this is not the first time it has caused a controversy in India. Back in 2004, eBay India’s CEO Avinash Bajaj was arrested because a user tried to sell a pornographic CD on its website. This set off a furious debate on the issue, with the government finally agreeing to amend the IT Act. Gupta notes on his blog, "Even after the IT Act was amended, the government failed to make any rules… In the absence of rules, intermediaries continued to be dragged to court and to the police station. This includes a recent incident where an FIR was registered against Facebook."

Checks and balances exist

These developments lend credence to a recent report on Internet freedom released by US-based NGO Freedom House, which ranks India 14th out of the 37 countries surveyed. Stating that the Internet in India is only "partly free", the report notes, “Pressure on private intermediaries to remove certain information in compliance with administrative censorship orders has increased since late 2009, with the implementation of the amended IT Act.

The revised law grants (the government) the authority to block Internet material that is perceived to endanger public order or national security… and assigns up to seven years’ imprisonment for representatives of a wide range of private service providers… if they fail to comply with government blocking requests." What is even more troubling is that the current rules weren’t even in place when this report was being prepared.

The new rules could worsen India’s Internet freedom rankings. Responding to DNA, Sarah Cook, Asia research analyst and assistant editor, Freedom House, said, "We would have concerns over some of the rules and how they came about. This includes broad and vaguely worded censorship criteria, apparent initiation of the regulations "quietly" without significant consultation with key stakeholders, and absence of an appeals process for those who might disagree with censorship decisions."

Legal experts in India too are puzzled by the new restrictions when there are already reasonable restrictions on freedom of expression that the Constitution defines. "There are anti-defamation provisions in the law. Then why include 'disparaging' in the new rules? Why is impersonating being made illegal? For example, on online dating websites for gays, users may not feel comfortable revealing their identities straightaway. And if somebody is impersonating to commit fraud, there are laws that already exist that deal with it. Instead of incorporating existing offences, the scope of what may be considered illegal is being broadened," says CIS’s Abraham.

The new rules are so broad-based that anyone can claim they are offended and demand that content be taken down, even out of business rivalry.

For example, Zone-H.org, run by Italy-based Roberto Preatoni, was one of the 11 websites blocked by the Department of Information Technology. This was done after the Delhi High Court passed an ex-parte interim order (where the other party is not present) in the E2 Labs versus Zone-H case to block the website. "This seems unnecessary since it is some kind of private business battle between E2 Labs and Zone H. Where was the need for the Indian government to get involved?" asks Abraham.

Bangalore-based cyber law expert N Vijayashankar agrees. "Websites are being blocked using interim orders. There is no national interest involved in some of these cases. Plus, there is no need to block the entire website, just a particular page could be blocked."

In fact, one of the webpages blocked was an opinion piece Vijayashankar had written about the Zone-H case on BloggerNews.net. "I had no intimation that the webpage was being blocked," says Vijayashankar, who got to know about the blockage only after CIS published the DIT’s response.

Learn from the world

Globally, excessive regulation of online discussions, particularly those related to political and social issues, can kill the open exchange of information. "In many countries, we saw that new laws, prosecutions, or proactive government censorship contributed to greater self-censorship among users. This is particularly pernicious when it affects discussions that relate to public interest or that affect people’s well-being — such as an Indonesian housewife facing high fines for circulating critical comments about a local hospital, the Chinese authorities censoring content on torture in police custody, or the Korean government prosecuting a blogger who posted pessimistic predictions about the country’s economy," says Cook. Cook acknowledges that balancing the right to freedom of expression against security threats, hate speech or child pornography is quite difficult — even for nations that rank high in their study. But there are a few best practices that India could learn from.

"Examples of good practices would include no criminal defamation provisions (though criminal penalties for inciting violence would be appropriate), immunity for online content providers from being held liable for the information posted by their users (there is such a law in the United States), and multi-stakeholder consultations prior to the passing of regulations related to the Internet/digital media."

The new rules India has come up with fly in the face of such best practices. Authorities and netizens alike should be on the guard, lest we go the China way.

Read the original published by DNA here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/rti-query-filed

Thousands queue for iPad 2 across Asia

praskrishna — 2011-05-23T07:10:28Z

The iPad 2 went on sale in countries across Asia and beyond Friday as Apple's updated gadget entered an ever more crowded market. This article written by Joyce Woo was published by AFP on April 28, 2011.

Apple's original iPad defined the tablet computer market and was swiftly followed by offerings from the tech industry's main players, from Samsung and Dell to BlackBerry maker RIM and Toshiba.

A late arrival to the tablet party was Sony, which only this week announced its own tablets a full year after the original iPad went on sale.

Now Apple is moving into round two of the battle of the tablets with a lighter, thinner, camera-equipped version of their original machine.

First in line in a queue of around 400 rain-soaked people outside an Apple store in Hong Kong was 16-year-old mainland Chinese student Dandy Weng, who travelled to the city from neighbouring Guangdong province for a device.

"I have waited for over 12 hours and haven't slept in 48 hours -- I'm very tired but excited," he told AFP. "I will be the first in China to have the iPad 2! I'm speechless, it's so exciting."

A queue snaked around the Apple shop in a major shopping centre, with some shoppers loading trolleys with as many as a dozen iPads, priced from HK$3,888 ($500) for the 16GB Wi-Fi only model to HK$6,488 for the 64 GB Wi-Fi and 3G model.

Those trying to buy an iPad 2 online via Apple's Hong Kong site, however, will have to wait a little longer -- all versions of the gadget were already out of stock before midday.

At an Apple authorised retail shop in Singapore, only 100 devices were available for sale and most official Apple retailers in Malaysia quickly sold out of the iPad 2.

"Each of our flagship stores had 600 devices each on sale and they ran out just like that," an official with a major Apple retail chain in Kuala Lumpur said.

Trade in "grey market" second generation iPads remained brisk in computer malls in the city such as Low Yat Plaza.

"We can charge more because there is a lot of demand and there is still not so much supply in Malaysia," seller Ang Chee Wei, 34, told AFP, adding that he had sold more than 20 of the devices so far.

"I bring in my iPad 2 from the US so I can still make some money until there are more iPads on the market."

Queues also formed outside retailers in the Philippine capital Manila.

John Quindo, 39, was first in line after standing patiently outside an Apple reseller for three hours.

"I'm excited because the Philippines is usually late (with Apple product releases)," he told AFP.

In India, over 150 outlets across the country opened their doors to Apple lovers seeking a new gadget, with the firm reporting a "phenomenal" initial response from customers.

Nishant Shah, director of research at the Centre for Internet and Society in the southern city of Bangalore, said he expected demand for the iPad 2 to be "huge", with Indian consumers increasingly brand-conscious.

Shilpa Malhotra was on the hunt for an iPad in Mumbai, but at an Apple outlet in the upmarket area of Breach Candy she was told that she could not buy one off the shelf immediately.

"I'm going to check to see if any other stores have got it in stock," she said, getting into a taxi.

The shop had taken orders and pre-payment for nearly 50 of the new iPads since Thursday, meaning dozens more customers wanting to buy the gadget on Friday were placed on a waiting list.

Anyone booking on Friday would get their device in 15 days' time, a store worker said.

In South Korea, 100 invited customers lined up from midnight at the central Seoul branch of KT, a local partner for iPhones and iPads.

The iPad 2 was also launched in Japan on Thursday after a month's delay caused by the devastating quake and tsunami.

A Wi-Fi only version of the gadget will be available in China on May 6.

It also hit stores Friday in Israel, Macau, South Africa, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates, after being first released in the United States on March 11.

The California tech firm sold 15 million iPads last year following the original device's launch in April, generating $10 billion in revenue.

Read the original here [Hosted by Google]

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/ipad-2-across-asia

A Network of Chains

praskrishna — 2011-05-23T06:50:28Z

New infotech rules infringe on freedom of expression, make net use near-impossible, writes Arindam Mukherjee. The article was published in the latest issue (May 30, 2011) of Outlook Magazine.

If all goes according to plan, internet users may not be able to put up a strong message or comment about, say, the Congress on the BJP’s website. A simple complaint from a Congress worker or, for that matter, any Indian citizen, can get the comment removed—it could even lead to the website being blocked by the host. Similarly, forceful comments on networking sites like Twitter and Facebook about individuals and on issues of national interest could soon also be history. If anyone wants, a simple complaint can get the comments—or even a user—removed from that network without informing him or her about it.

The new set of rules gives any citizen the right to complain against any content on any website that they consider objectionable. The new guidelines redefine the rules of the game for online intermediaries—Internet Service Providers, a website, a blog or a blog host, or the online edition of a media company with space for letters to the editor. These intermediaries, who are protected by the government against harmful content generated by third parties, stand to lose their protection if they do not comply and take off the objectionable comments within 36 hours.

As expected, there is a huge outcry in the online community and in civil society on the implications. Pranesh Prakash, programme manager, Centre for Internet and Society, says, "We are concerned about the overreach of the IT Act. These rules are unconstitutional and violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It is harmful to freedom of speech and does not go by the basic principles of natural justice because only the complainant is heard and not the user."

"These rules violate the Constitution, harm freedom of speech, go against the principles of natural justice."
Pranesh Prakash
Manager, CIS

The new rules provide that anyone can complain against any online content if he thinks it is objectionable and breaches any of the keywords provided under the rules (see graphic). Chakshu Roy of prs Legislative Research, an independent group, says, "The keywords provided under the rules are rather too open to interpretation. This might lead to potential legal complications for internet companies who derive value by allowing people to interact online."

The tricky part is that the government has said that all disputes over interpretation of the keywords can only be adjudicated by a court of law and that the government or its agencies cannot interpret it. So if your website or content is blocked, the only recourse before you is to knock at the court’s doors. In sum, under the new rules, it would be absolutely impossible for any online entity to carry any comment without getting into some infringement under the new rules. "If internet platforms are held liable for third-party content, it would lead to self-censorship and reduce the free flow of information," says a spokesperson for Google.

Despite the government arguing otherwise, this is being construed as an indirect way to control the internet and online activity. The new laws will suppress public opinion at a time when the internet is developing into a primary medium to mould as well as express public opinion. Nikhil Pahwa, an avid blogger and editor of Medianama, says, "National security is one thing, but what about civil liberty? Isn’t that being violated here? This is a veiled move to block all public opinion."

In recent times, 11 websites and search results have been blocked on the government’s order, apart from over 1,400 requests to Google for removal or blocking of content. Soon, many more websites and portals could be in the firing line and face a block, censure or even closure under the new set of rules.

Online protagonists also feel that enough thinking has not gone into the framing of the rules. Subho Ray, president, Internet and Mobile Association of India (iamai), says, "The new rules are arbitrary as it is protecting the interest of one set of citizens while compromising upon that of others." Also, there is ambiguity in the rules on bulk sms carriers and telecom-based content, which should technically fall under user-generated content reaching the masses.

Perhaps the most bizarre are the rules regarding cyber cafes, which seek to define not just how the cafes conduct their business but also how a cyber cafe should look and even arrange its furniture. The new guidelines mandate that cyber cafes keep a photo ID record of all users apart from maintaining usage data of individuals—including logs of all websites surfed by them—for one year. The rules even go on to define the physical layout of the cyber cafes.

"Today a third of India’s internet usage comes from cyber cafes. If you are putting requirements of photo ID and maintenance of logs of usage of every user, the crowd going to these cafes will move away," says Ray. He also feels that cyber cafes, which are already subject to harassment by local authorities, may find it even more difficult to survive under the new rules. Also, there are serious online security concerns over the functioning of cyber cafes under the new rules. "If you require all cyber cafes to maintain history of all websites visited by a user, including bank accounts and credit card transactions, it will be naive to think that such information will not be misused," says Prakash.

Significantly, the new rules also allow the government to access personal data and intercept any conversation or communication without judicial intervention. This, at a time when telephone intercepts by government agencies are being questioned, could lead to further complications. The government asserts that the new rules have been put in place looking at the “best practices" from across the world. But looking at the discontent—and the real danger of misuse—it needs to rethink these strategies.

Read the original published in the Outlook here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/network-of-chains

New rules to ensure due diligence: IT dept

praskrishna — 2011-05-23T06:12:39Z

Facing widespread criticism over new IT rules that put certain amount of liability on intermediaries like Google and Facebook for user-generated content, the government clarified that the rules are simply seeking "due diligence" on the part of websites and web hosts. This news was published in the Times of India on May 11, 2011.

The new rules were notified on April 11. Activists and Internet companies say that the rules are archaic and loosely worded and may lead to harassment of web users and website owners. The Times of India was first to report on the issue on April 27.

The ministry of information and technology said, "The terms specified in the rules are in accordance with the terms used by most of the intermediaries as part of their existing practices, policies and terms of service which they have published on their website."

It also clarified the "department of telecommunication has reiterated that there is no intention of the government to acquire regulatory jurisdiction over content under these rules".

The government has claimed that before it made the rules final, it had sought public comments over the draft. "None of the industry associations and other stakeholders objected to the formulation which is now being cited in some section of media," it claimed.

However, sources told TOI that companies like Google had objected to loose wordings of the documents and asked government not to put any liability on intermediary for user-generated content on the web. "We too approached the government with our concerns. For our communication, we never received any acknowledgment," said Sunil Abraham, executive director at the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS).

"Given the fact that final rules are more or less similar to the draft rules, I can say that nobody in the government took into account the objections raised by CIS and many other organizations," he added.

Google had earlier told TOI that new rules would adversely affect businesses that depend upon online collaboration to prosper. "We believe that a free and open Internet is essential for the growth of digital economy and safeguarding freedom of expression.

If Internet platforms are held liable for third party content, it would lead to self-censorship and reduce the free flow of information," a Google spokesperson said.

Read the original published by the Times of India here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/new-rules-for-due-diligence

India Can Restrict 'Objectionable' Web Content under New Rules

praskrishna — 2011-05-23T09:48:17Z

Internet sites and service providers in India now have the authority to order the quick deletion of offensive online content – in a move that is causing great concern among free speech proponents. This article by Ed Silverstein was featured in TMCnet Legal on April 27, 2011.

The new rules are called "the Information Technology (Intermediaries guidelines) Rules, 2011" and allow for rejecting content that is found to be objectionable.

"The list of objectionable content is sweeping and includes anything that ‘threatens the unity, integrity, defense, security or sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign states or public order," reports The New York Times.

The new rules are also more restrictive than prior laws, Sunil Abraham, the executive director for the Centre for Internet and Society, told The New York Times.

The rules require that intermediaries, who include websites like YouTube and Facebook (News - Alert) and companies that host Web sites, remove offensive content within 36 hours, The Times said. There apparently is no appeal process, The Times adds.

"These rules overly favor those who want to clamp down on freedom of expression," Abraham told The Times. "Whenever there are limits of freedom of expression, in order for those limits to be considered constitutionally valid, those limits have to be clear and not be very vague. Many of these rules that seek to place limits are very, very vague."

The Times of India also complained that, "While most of the restrictions in the rules are based on the criminal law (stuff that is blasphemous, obscene, defamatory, paedophilic, etc.), some are so loosely worded that they could easily be misused against netizens accustomed to speaking their mind freely, whether on politics or otherwise."

For example, one prohibition is saying something that would be "insulting" to "any other nation," The Times of India said.

"Since this expression has been mentioned without any qualifications, it could be invoked against anybody who talks disparagingly about other countries," The Times of India explains.

In addition, India’s MediaNama, adds, "These rules give the Indian government the ability to gag free speech, and block any website it deems fit, without publicly disclosing why sites have been blocked, who took the decision to block it, and just as importantly, providing adequate recourse to blogs, sites and online and mobile businesses, for getting the block removed."

Free speech advocates may try to challenge in the new rules in Indian courts.

In addition, the Indian government has issued new regulations on data security and Internet cafes, The New York Times reports.

The New York Times also reported that an India-based spokeswoman for Google (News - Alert) declined to immediately comment on the new rules.

But a Google spokesperson told The Times of India the guidelines may be "particularly damaging to the abilities of Indians who are increasingly using the internet in order to communicate, and the many businesses that depend upon online collaboration to prosper."

The Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society has also published a list of 11 Web sites banned by the India’s Department of Information Technology.

In a related matter, TMCnet reports that Freedom House has ranked India 14th among 37 countries on "free and unrestricted access to the web."

The number of Indians with Internet access is increasing, with many users in the nation favoring mobile devices. Over 700 million cellphone accounts now exist in India, The New York Times said.

Read the original here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/india-can-restrict-objectionable-web-content

IT Act if enforced will leave internet use in India no freer than in China

praskrishna — 2011-05-18T02:28:38Z

The Centre for Internet & Societies (CIS), a Bangalore-based NGO, recently filed an RTI query with the Department of Information Technology (DIT), asking for a list of websites blocked by the Indian government under the IT Act. The department handed them a list of 11 websites. It was just one department’s list, but this was the first time such a list was being made public. This news written by R Krishna was published by the Daily News & Analysis on May 15, 2011.

"The information given was not comprehensive. For instance, we still don’t know who ordered these blocks," says Sunil Abraham, executive director, CIS, "We will file another RTI application to get those details out."

What is more disturbing is that the government has formulated a set of rules that can block content considered "disparaging", "harassing", or "blasphemous", besides a whole range of other labels that are vague and hence open to interpretation. The rules put the onus of removing such material on intermediaries such as ISPs (internet service providers) and websites that host the content — within 36 hours of a complaint being filed. And just about anyone can request that the content be taken down — all they have to do is write a letter or an email with an electronic signature. There is no provision for the intermediary to challenge the complainant’s assessment of the content in question.

Users will be afraid

Guilty until proven innocent

In fact, intermediary liability is a contentious topic globally, and this is not the first time it has caused a controversy in India. Back in 2004, Ebay India’s CEO Avinash Bajaj was arrested because a user tried to sell a pornographic CD on its website. This set off a furious debate on the issue, with the government finally agreeing to amend the IT Act. Gupta notes on his blog, "Even after the IT Act was amended, the government failed to make any rules… In the absence of rules, intermediaries continued to be dragged to court and to the police station. This includes a recent incident where an FIR was registered against Facebook."

Checks and balances exist

These developments lend credence to a recent report on internet freedom released by US-based NGO Freedom House, which ranks India 14th out of the 37 countries surveyed. Stating that the internet in India is only "partly free", the report notes, “Pressure on private intermediaries to remove certain information in compliance with administrative censorship orders has increased since late 2009, with the implementation of the amended IT Act. The revised law grants (the government) the authority to block internet material that is perceived to endanger public order or national security… and assigns up to seven years' imprisonment for representatives of a wide range of private service providers… if they fail to comply with government blocking requests." What is even more troubling is that the current rules weren’t even in place when this report was being prepared.

The new rules could worsen India’s internet freedom rankings. Responding to DNA, Sarah Cook, Asia research analyst and assistant editor, Freedom House, said, “We would have concerns over some of the rules and how they came about. This includes broad and vaguely worded censorship criteria, apparent initiation of the regulations "quietly" without significant consultation with key stakeholders, and absence of an appeals process for those who might disagree with censorship decisions."

Legal experts in India too are puzzled by the new restrictions when there are already reasonable restrictions on freedom of expression that the Constitution defines.

"There are anti-defamation provisions in the law. Then why include 'disparaging' in the new rules? Why is impersonating being made illegal? For example, on online dating websites for gays, users may not feel comfortable revealing their identities straightaway. And if somebody is impersonating to commit fraud, there are laws that already exist that deal with it. Instead of incorporating existing offences, the scope of what may be considered illegal is being broadened," says CIS’s Abraham.

The new rules are so broad-based that anyone can claim they are offended and demand that content be taken down, even out of business rivalry.

"This seems unnecessary since it is some kind of private business battle between E2 Labs and Zone H. Where was the need for the Indian government to get involved?" asks Abraham.

Learn from the world

Globally, excessive regulation of online discussions, particularly those related to political and social issues, can kill the open exchange of information. "In many countries, we saw that new laws, prosecutions, or proactive government censorship contributed to greater self-censorship among users. This is particularly pernicious when it affects discussions that relate to public interest or that affect people's well-being — such as an Indonesian housewife facing high fines for circulating critical comments about a local hospital, the Chinese authorities censoring content on torture in police custody, or the Korean government prosecuting a blogger who posted pessimistic predictions about the country’s economy," says Cook.

Cook acknowledges that balancing the right to freedom of expression against security threats, hate speech or child pornography is quite difficult — even for nations that rank high in their study. But there are a few best practices that India could learn from. "Examples of good practices would include no criminal defamation provisions (though criminal penalties for inciting violence would be appropriate), immunity for online content providers from being held liable for the information posted by their users (there is such a law in the United States), and multi-stakeholder consultations prior to the passing of regulations related to the internet/digital media."

The new rules India has come up with fly in the face of such best practices. Authorities and netizens alike should be on the guard, lest we go the China way.

Read the original story published by DNA here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/it-act-internet-use

Your Privacy is Public Property

praskrishna — 2011-05-18T02:28:11Z

Rules issued by a control-obsessed government have armed officials with widespread powers to pry into your private life. This article was published in Mail Today on Sunday, May 15, 2011.

The government has gifted itself the power to pry into your electronic personal details without a search warrant. With new IT Rules, it can lay claim to an array of your most sensitive and zealously guarded personal details — ranging from your ATM pin, your net banking password, your credit card details, to the status of your mental health, your DNA profile, and even your sexual orientation. “These rules are a complete invasion of privacy
with immense potentiality of misuse,” says Supreme Court advocate and cyber law expert Pawan Duggal. Drawing attention to the fact that such executive orders are often drafted by government officials who aren’t legally qualified, Duggal asks: "Our medical records and sexual orientation have no bearing on the verification of our identity or our cyber crime record. So why should the state want access to this data?" That is not all. Every key stroke you make at a cyber cafe will now be under the scanner — with cafe owners being asked to maintain logs of your online activities for a minimum of one year. The rules have also turned the heat on internet service providers and social-networking sites to remove objectionable content posted on them, leading to strong objections from Google.

Under provisions of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and the Information Technology Act, 2000, the state already has the power to snoop through the letters you post, the emails you send and the calls you make. But while such surveillance came with several checks and balances, cyber law experts and internet activists say that the government can now access private data with far more ease.

"Whenever any government agency needs to access information on individuals, detailed processes need to be followed so that the rights of the citizen are protected. You need a magistrate — who is not part of the government — to sign a search warrant. A home secretary with the centre or state has to sanction a phone tapping request," points out M.R. Madhavan, head of research, PRS Legislative Research.

These safeguards have not been included for access to electronic databases. "An investigating officer simply needs to give a request in writing, in contravention of all other norms," says Madhavan.

Your privacy is being violated at several levels with the new rules, says Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bangalore’s Centre for Internet and Society. "Cyber cafe owners across the country can now take photos of women coming to their cafes. They also have to show their identity proof. Many women fear they can be harassed on the basis of this information." Cyber cafe owners also have to maintain records on who you are mailing, the subject, how often you access a web page, the packets of data sent and received, etc. Be prepared for rampant leakage of personal information with this provision, warns Abraham.

"A boy who fancies you could easily bribe the cafe owner to get the list of websites you access. The owner will have all the information on you stored for a minimum of one year. No process of destroying the logs has been specified by the IT rules and regulations," says Abraham.

The trouble, says Venkatesh Nayak, the Programme Coordinator for Access to Information, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, is that everyone is suspect in the eyes of the government because of the perception that terrorists don’t function like organised crime syndicates.

Privacy concerns are taken far more seriously in the West. "In countries which have a data protection law, there are data protection tribunals and data protection commissioners. It is not that easy for governments to collect sensitive information on individuals and keep it away from them," says Nayak.

The government, meanwhile, denies any invasion of privacy with the rules. "The intent of the rules is to protect sensitive personal information. The rules do not give any undue powers to government agencies for free access of sensitive personal information," the department of Information Technology has said in a statement.

Cyber experts aren’t convinced, and believe that the days of greater surveillance lie ahead. "After 9/11, the US Homeland Security had started accessing databases of public libraries to find out what people were reading. The day may not be far for us," is Nayak’s dark projection.

Read the original published by Mail Today here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/privacy-public-property

India curbs on Bloggers and Internet

praskrishna — 2011-05-13T11:59:20Z

The Information Technology Rules 2011 (due diligence observed by intermediaries guidelines) by the Indian government could lead to online censorship, feel human rights activists. This article by Ayyappa Prasad was published in TruthDrive on April 29, 2011.

"This will curtail the freedom of expression of individual bloggers, because as an intermediary they will become responsible for the readers’ comments. It technically means that any comment or a reader-posted link on a blog which according to the government is threatening, abusive, objectionable, defamatory, vulgar, racial, among other omnibus categories, will now be considered as the legal responsibility of the blogger," said a blogger.

Blogs, which are typically maintained and updated by individuals, have showcased their political importance in recent times and the internet community views these rules as a lopsided attempt to curtail an individual’s right to expression.

"If individual blogs are an intermediary, then why can’t Facebook and Twitter also be classified as such, as they too receive, store and transmit electronic records and facilitate online discussions," retorts the spokesperson of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), a Bangalore-based organization, which works on digital pluralism. " These rules will not only bring bloggers and the ISP provider on the same platform, but the due diligence clause will also result in higher power of censorship to the larger player. Imagine your ISP provider blocking your blog because it finds that certain user-comments fit these omnibus terms," the CIS spokesperson added.

Intermediaries include web-hosting providers, which would include companies like Amazon, cyber cafes, payment sites like Paypal, online auction sites, ISPs like BSNL, Airtel, etc. Blogs also fall in this category as networked service providers. The due diligence specifies intermediaries should not display, upload, modify or publish any information that is 'harmful' , 'threatening' , 'abusive' , 'harassing' , 'blasphemous' , 'objectionable' , 'defamatory' , 'vulgar' , 'obscene' , 'pornographic' , 'paedophilic' , 'libellous' , 'invasive of another’s privacy' , 'hateful' , 'disparaging' , 'racially , ethnically or otherwise objectionable' , 'relating to money laundering or gambling'.

Read the original here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/india-curbs-bloggers-internet