Centre for Internet and Society

UNESCO's Open Forum

praskrishna — 2011-04-05T03:58:47Z

As UNESCO organized Freedom of Expression related workshops, this Open Forum will be dedicated to other key IGF topics, notably multilingualism in cyberspace, open access to scientific information, open educational resources, and accessibility for marginalized groups. In addition, UNESCO will take this opportunity to announce new initiatives and share experiences with participants. The interactive panel format will start with brief presentations from experts, followed by a moderated discussion with participants.

Organizer: UNESCO

Moderator:
Mr Jānis Kārkliņš, Assistant Director-General for Communication and Information, UNESCO

Opening by Mr Jānis Kārkliņš

Introductory remarks

Mr Nitin Desai, Chair of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) will speak about: The future of the IGF and UNESCO’s opportunities
Mr Rod Beckstrom, CEO ICANN, on cooperation with UNESCO, next steps

1. Multilingualism in cyberspace

Proposed speakers:

Mr Baher Esmat, Manager, Regional Relations – Middle East, ICANN
Mr Daniel Pimienta, President of FUNREDES (Fundacion Redes y Desarrollo) Saint Domingue, Dominican Republic

Open discussion

2. Open access to scientific information and open educational resources

Proposed speakers:

Mr Indrajit Banerjee, Director, Information Society Division, Communication and Information Sector, UNESCO
Mr Abel Packer, Director of the SciELO.org Open Access (OA) initiative

Open discussion

3. An initiative on developing inclusive information policies using ICTs in education for persons with disabilities

Proposed speakers:

Mr Axel Leblois, Executive Director, the Global Initiative for Inclusive Information and Communications Technologies 9G3ict), An Advocacy Initiative of the United Nations Global Alliance for ICT and Development
Ms Anja Kovacs, Centre for Internet and Society (India)

Open discussion

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/events/unesco-open-forum

Software Freedom Day Inter-college Contest

praskrishna — 2011-04-04T07:24:09Z

The Centre for Internet and Society in partnership with Mahiti Infotech is co-organising the Software Freedom Day at Gandhi Statue, MG Road, Bangalore on 18 September 2010.

Download the poster for the event
Download the information about the competition

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/events/software-freedom-day

A Talk by Charlotte Lapsansky

praskrishna — 2011-04-22T07:41:20Z

Charlotte Lapsansky will give a lecture on the "Mobile Voices project" at the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore on Thursday, 16 September 2010.

Mobile Voices is an academic-community partnership to research and design a platform for low-wage immigrants in LA to publish stories about their lives and their communities directly from their mobile phones. This low-cost, open source, customizable, and easy to deploy multimedia mobile storytelling platform will be designed in collaboration with its users, and will help recent immigrants who lack computer access gain greater participation in the digital public sphere.

In this talk, Charlotte will describe the Mobile Voices project and discuss key themes that have arisen for the Mobile Voices project team, including participatory technology design, community digital storytelling, and digital inclusion through mobile-phone based platforms. She will then describe the key technological and social issues that have arisen in the process of adapting Mobile Voices for India and the opportunities and challenges this presents.

About Charlotte Lapsansky

Charlotte Lapsansky is a PhD Candidate and American Association of University Women Dissertation Fellow at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Southern California. Charlotte has a background in development communication and mass media campaigns addressing gender and health in India. At Annenberg, her research interests include communication for social change, participatory development communications, community mobilization and strategic campaign planning. For the past two years, she has been a team member for Mobile Voices, a participatory project which has created a Drupal-based digital storytelling platform for first-generation, low-wage migrant workers in Los Angeles, allowing them to create and publish stories about their communities directly from their mobile phones. Currently, Charlotte is collaborating with organizations in India to customize and adapt the mobile voices platform social endeavours in India.

VIDEOS

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/events/charlotte-lapsansky-talk

INDIA Fears of Privacy Loss Pursue Ambitious ID Project

praskrishna — 2011-04-02T10:00:44Z

Fears about loss of privacy are being voiced as India gears up to launch an ambitious scheme to biometrically identify and number each of its 1.2 billion inhabitants.

In September, officials from the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), armed with fingerprinting machines, iris scanners and cameras hooked to laptops, will fan out across the towns and villages of southern Andhra Pradesh state in the first phase of the project whose aim is to give every Indian a lifelong Unique ID (UID) number.

"The UID is soft infrastructure, much like mobile telephony, important to connect individuals to the broader economy," explains Nandan Nilekani, chairman of the UIDAI and listed in 2009 by Time magazine as among the world's 100 most influential people.

Nilekani is a co-founder of the influential National Association of Software and Services Companies and, before this assignment, chief of Infosys Technologies, flagship of India's information technology (IT) sector.

According to Nilekani, the UID will most benefit India's poor who, because they lack identity documentation, are ignored by service providers.

"The UID number, with its 'anytime, anywhere' biometric authentication, addresses the problem of trust," argues Nilekani.

But a group of prominent civil society organisations are running a Campaign For No-UID, explaining that it is a "deeply undemocratic and expensive exercise" that is "fraught with unforeseen consequences."

Participants in the campaign include well-known human rights organisations such as the Alternative Law Forum, Citizen Action Forum, People's Union for Civil Liberties, Indian Social Action Forum, and the Centre for Internet and Society.

A meeting was organised by the campaigners in New Delhi on Aug. 25 where speakers ridiculed the idea of a 12-digit number, and said it is unlikely to rectify, for example, the massive corruption in the public distribution system that is supposed to provide food to poor families.

J.T. D'Souza, an IT expert, asserted at the meeting that the use of biometrics on such a massive scale has never been attempted before and is bound to be riddled with costly glitches.

Other speakers raised issues of security and the possibility of hackers getting at databases and passing on information to commercial outfits, intelligence agencies or even criminal gangs.

In talks and television interviews, Nilekani has maintained that the benefits of the UID project far outweigh its risks. "It's worth taking on the project and trying to mitigate the risks so that we get the outcomes we want," he told the CNN-IBN television channel in an interview.

But the possibility of religious profiling by state governments or misuse by caste lobbies is real. This is because the central government has decided to include caste as a category in the UID questionnaire to be filled out by applicants.

Because identity is already a potent issue and the trigger for frequent identity-related conflict – such as the 2002 anti-Muslim riots in Gujarat that left 2,000 people dead – any exercise that enhances identification is fraught.

Usha Ramanathan, a prominent legal expert who is attached to the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies in the national capital, does not buy the UIDAI's assurances.

At the Aug. 25 meeting, Ramanthan said that while enrolling with the UIDAI may be voluntary, other agencies and service providers might require a UID number in order to transact business. Indeed, the UIDAI has already signed agreements with banks, state governments and hospital chains which will allow them to ask customers for UIDs.

Ramanathan said that, taken to its logical limit, the UID project will make it impossible, in a couple of years, for an ordinary citizen to undertake a simple task such as travelling within the country without a UID number.

The UIDAI will work with the National Population Register (NPR) which draws its powers from the Citizenship Rules of 2003 and provides for penalties if information is withheld.

And as a government website says: "Certain information collected under the NPR will be published in the local areas for public scrutiny and invitation of objections." Seeking to allay privacy fears, the website goes on to explain that this is merely "in the nature of the electoral roll or the telephone directory."

But things begin to look ominous when seen in the context of the National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID), the setting up of which home minister P. Chidambaram announced in February as part of his response to a major terrorist attack.

Chidambaram said NATGRID would tap into 21 sets of databases that will be networked to achieve "quick, seamless and secure access to desired information for intelligence and enforcement agencies."

He added that NATGRID will "identify those who must be watched, investigated, disabled and neutralised."

"Internationally only a few countries have provided national ID cards because of the unsettled debate on privacy and civil liberties," says Prof. R. Ramakumar at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences in Mumbai. He added that several countries have had to withdraw ID card schemes or drop biometric aspects because of public opposition.

Nilekani maintains that the main purpose of the UID project is to empower the vast numbers of excluded Indians. "For the poor this is a huge benefit because they have no identities, no birth certificates, degree certificates, driver's licences, passports or even addresses." (END/2010)

Read the original news in IPS

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/india-fears-of-privacy-loss

On Talking Back: A Report on the Taiwan Workshop

praskrishna — 2012-01-03T10:35:34Z

What does it mean to Talk Back? Who do we Talk Back against? Are we alone in our attempts or a part of a larger community? How do we use digital technologies to find other peers and stake-holders? What is the language and vocabulary we use to successfully articulate our problems? How do we negotiate with structures of power to fight for our rights? These were the kind of questions that the Talking Back workshop held in the Institute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica in Taiwan from 16 to 18 August 2010 posed.

Twenty-two Digital Natives were selected from regions as varied as Kyrgyztan, Pakistan, Vietnam, Jakarta, India, China, Taiwan, Sri Lanka, Moldova and Thailand to come together and share their stories at the 'Talking Back' workshop. While we already began pinging everyone on the phone, and online through emails and chat, the participants themselves were encouraged to fraternise digitally before they even met IRL (in real life).

The Great Fire Wall

Two participants were lost to border authorities as they not only disallowed their entry into Taiwan from China but also permanently blocked their movement out of China. Another one from Burma missed out on being present at the workshop as much as we missed not having her with us.

Though admittedly on the first day of the workshop we did have them in on our secret group chat that we infamously termed as a coup d'état. A facilitator also on her way from Egypt was unable to make it through to us. Our Taipei team learned that a certain Chinese Airlines had omitted clearing the visa on arrival for a number of our invitees to the connecting airlines. While some we did insistently manage to pull across, the aforementioned were lost to the borderlines.

In Academia Sinica

So were we all in Academia Sinica, Taipei and under one roof by the night before the workshop? No, not yet. As mentioned above, three participants and a facilitator were unable to make it. On the Monday morning of 16 August 2010, Ritika Arya, a 20 year old Indian national had not yet arrived. She was to come as a participant and had on the previous day arranged for an event by her NGO, My India Empowered, Mumbai, India (MIE). She had already intimated us about her meticulous plans for Independence Day. However, it was Monday and she wasn’t yet there in the workshop! A call made it known that she was in fact at the Taipei airport with luggage transfer issue to be resolved. Ritika shared with us later how she grappled with the thought of losing her luggage and also spending a lot on the taxi fare instead of getting on a bus from the airport to Academia Sinica. Ritika, founder of MIE came in the nick of time really. Kudos to Ritika for the grand success of her event on India's Independence Day and for her landing smack on Day One; just in time for the Birsds of a Feather (BoF) meetings.

The First Day

On the first day of the workshop many presentations were made in quick succession. At end of presentations by facilitators and participants it was apparent that there was a language issue. We had Som Monorum from Vietnam who'd write down in English what he had to say and then say it out aloud to us. He continued adding all his responses to the group at large this way. Pichate from Thailand not only heard out every single presentation from start to end but also shared instances from his country with relevance to topics mentioned. For instance, when Seema Nair spoke of the Pink Chaddi Campaign, India, Pichate was quick to share links to the union labourers who were members of Triumph Employee's Union

An impromptu wake up call for some who were in jetlag daze was the coup de tat which was but a group chat initiated by most of us on whom no amounts of coffee could shake off jet lag. Hardly were we five minutes into the coup d'état when chat members being refreshed from it, one by one returned to 'workshop mode' and slipping out of the group chat resumed focus on the workshop. The smileys and lols remaining in the group chat RAM.

Same Same - But Different

As per the workshop schedule the first day we worked in BoF format. BoF is a type of un-conference model wherein members are grouped by what they share in common, be it the use of technology or the topics of work, each group of participants being assigned one guide.

Later the participants were assigned partners to discuss

What is my political legacy?
Who are the people I engage with?
Who are the others that I am engaging in this?

and make a presentation of the other's work.

Some initial responses briefly in the beginning:

"What do you mean my political legacy? I am apolitical."

“My work is very much so in the realm of the 'political'. I report on politics so of course I understand that I am engaging citizens reporting via mobile tools and the Internet. This is my legacy.”

“But I tell stories and I teach people to depict their own stories using such and such software and the Internet yes. These are any stories and lie in the creative realm and not political really. So how is my work political?”

“I organise teaching slum children and we enroll them into government schools. I do this to help them and have always wanted to help them. What do you mean by my legacy?”

“I feel strongly especially for women’s rights and I research into the changing face of political feminist activism.”

The intense ice breaking BoF meetings were certainly fruitful.


On the second day an impromptu exercise which took us briefly away from the scheduled Barcamp model of conferencing. We were made into random groups and assigned one Global Crisis to each group. We were to plan a solution via campaigning for the crisis with a plan which we were to present at end. The topics assigned varied from Violence to Global Warming.

The last day had a flurry of activities from participant Prabhas Pokharel's birthday to more Barcamped discussions, presentations of our campaigns to solve Global Warming et al. At the end after the vote of thanks we had an open feedback session. Here most importantly was brought to the table the need for sensitivity to language and vocabulary hindrances.

Chips Ahoy!
	Over the three days of discussions, presentations and reflections also at the end, the Taipei team organised visits to the 101 – the tallest building in the world to date, the night market and the participants themselves explored a lot of it on their own.

Travellers who plan to travel to places with cuisines unacquired by their own palate came prepared with a 'Help! What can I eat!' and 'OMG I need a Burger!' and 'Where's the closest Starbucks?' Well we all did dive into the hot pot outlets, mama-papa set meal restaurants and iced oolong tea shops with broad grins. Taiwan has been spoken well of for its Taiwanese cuisine and being an Indian-Chinese I must say even I can’t label it as Chinese food, for it honestly has a style of its own. Parathas on the streets!

The Taipei Team were as attentive to the dietary preferences as anyone could be. On Prabhas's birthday for instance, Miss Mengshan Lee got us three cakes! She said, “We wouldn't want anyone to be left out and to celebrate altogether. With everyone's needs met; eggless and with the egg we made a pretty picture.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/digital-natives/blog/talking-back

Innovate / Activate

praskrishna — 2011-04-02T10:18:29Z

The event will be held on 24 and 25 September 2010 at New York Law School.

Registration is now open! Click here to register.

Innovation is unquestionably important to society. Intellectual property regimes seek to provide incentives for such innovation. Understanding the inter-working of intellectual property regimes and innovation may lead to conclusions that such regimes are not working well, or at all, in encouraging innovation. When such failures are perceived, active communities form to address the shortcomings. Many communities have formed around issues such as free speech vs copyright; the importance of fair use; alternative licensing regimes such as Creative Commons or free and open source software; patent protection of software and business methods; and patents vs downstream innovation of critical pharmaceuticals.

While these approaches have been exceedingly important in bringing about needed change, many successful groups have devised strategies that balance the extent to which activists work within existing innovation systems in order to achieve their goals, as they continue to explore the necessity of circumventing those systems. At the same time, the increased production of and focus on IP in all industries has catalyzed the emergence of IP obstacles in areas where IP has traditionally not been a consideration, thus creating new areas for activism. It’s time to reexamine our approaches to improving global welfare by identifying new and existing IP-related challenges to activism, developing strategies for overcoming IP obstacles, and delivering practical solutions to spur social, political, environmental, scientific, technological and legal change.

The Institute for Information Law & Policy at New York Law School is proud to present Innovate / Activate, a two-day unconference, cosponsored by the Information Society Project at Yale Law School, where IP practitioners and activists will share their ideas and experiences in order to transform the landscape of activism.

Event organizers

Read the details on the New York Law School website

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/innovate-activate

WEBINAR: Closed for Business

praskrishna — 2011-04-02T10:18:07Z

A Global Panel Discusses International Copyright Laws and Their Impact on the Open Internet

The digital revolution has forged new ways to create knowledge, educate people and disseminate information. It has also restructured the way the world perceives and conducts economic practices, runs governments and engages politically. Recognizing this new dynamic requires global discussion and a common desire & commitment to build a people-centred and development-oriented Information Society. Coming off the heels of the latest Anti-Counterfeit Trade Agreement (ACTA) discussions in Washington, D.C. and on the eve of the upcoming Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Vilinius, we invite you to join in a discussion about the future of Internet.

This online-only event features an array of panelists from regions around the world. We invite you to watch the New America LiveStream channel and to participate in an online chat room during the event. If you plan to participate, please register using the form at right.

In addition, if you have specific questions you'd like the panel to address, we encourage you to post them prior to the event here.

Participants

Featured Speakers

Joe McNamee
Advocacy Coordinator, European Digital Rights

Sherwin Siy
Deputy Legal Director, Kahle/Austin Promise Fellow, Public Knowledge

Renata Avila
Creative Commons Guatemala and Global Voices Guatemala

Sunil Abraham

Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India

Clare Curren

New Zealand Labour Party Spokesperson for Communications and IT

Moderator

Rebecca MacKinnon
Schwartz Fellow, New America Foundation

Event Time and Location
Thursday, September 9, 2010 - 10.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m.

For details of the event on the New America Foundation website, click here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/webinar-closed-for-business

Information is Beautiful hacks in India with David Cameron

praskrishna — 2011-04-02T10:22:51Z

The Prime Minister took some of the UK's top hackers and data experts with him to India this week. David McCandless was with them.

This week, I was lucky enough to accompany UK Prime Minister's delegation to India.

I was part of a small contingent of politically active programmers and civic-minded dataheads out to explore links between tech, transparency and community-based democracy in India. The raw stuff of David Cameron's 'Big Society' initiative.

(To the businessmen, journos and politicos in the delegation, we were known simply as "The Hackers" - an image we played up by sometimes rebelliously removing our ties)

The key event of the trip was a hackday hosted by Google India in the southern central city of Bangalore.

I have to confess a slight colonial attitude going into the meet. Thinking of the UK as a great hacking nation and leading data port, I was expecting to be helping the collected Indian IT professionals and activists improve their skills and give them fresh ideas on how to bootstrap their democracy.

However, our Indian counterparts very quickly astonished us with brilliant and powerful data projects and grass roots hacks using simple tools and technologies to solve everyday civic issues. Some of which I wanted to exhibit here.

Bus Map Hack

Information designer Arun Ganesh was frustrated by the bus maps in his native Chennai.

Chennai's bus map goes from this…

The official map was incomplete and incomprehensible - and had been 'under construction' for six years.

Passionate about maps and geo-mapping, Arun took it upon himself to design a new map to help the enormous number of people (Chennai has a population of over 4 million) who used the buses every day. Unfortunately, he faced a major challenge: over 5,000 separate buses & bus routes.

… to this

So he turned to crowd-sourcing on the web to gather data on all the routes. Local travellers poured timetables and bus details into his app. And in just 3 days he had compiled enough data to create a fresh map with a clean comprehensible design. And an accompanying interactive app BusRoutes.in for painless route planning.

Then he went further. Using the data - and a fair walking distance of 500 metres - he visualised the areas covered by all the bus routes. The resulting heatmap instantly and cleverly reveals which areas of the city are poorly served by the bus network.

Karnataka Learning Partnership

Education is a big issue in India, where close to 35% of the population are illiterate. The Karnataka Learning Partnership works to improve government schools in Karnataka region by running literacy, maths and library-use programs across the southern Indian state.

Karnataka schools monitored

Mashing Googlemaps and their detailed data through a web interface, the Akshara Foundation provides a dynamic monitoring and look up service for the quality of schools in each area. It's not unlike the recently launched SchooloScope here in the UK.

(Please note: the site is in beta and not live yet. You can see their work at blog.klp.org.in.)

National Election Watch

Using information liberated by the 2006 Right to Information Act in India, Nationalelectionwatch.org tracks the backgrounds of every single politician in India. An incredible feat given the enormity and intricacies of Indian democracy.

Over 1200 NGOs work to collect data from affidavits filed by the candidates on their financial, criminal and educational background. The myneta.info website acts as an instant power check on a system unfortunately tainted by widespread corruption and bribery.

The crime-o-meter

Pages on particularly criminal MPs feature a 'crime dial' visualisation to get the message across.

Missed Calls

Despite a thriving tech-sector, India still has relatively low internet uptake. Just 0.05% of the 1.2 billion population are active internet users. Compared to around 40% in the UK and 29% in China.

But nearly half the population own mobile phones. So SMS and missed calls have become a dominant form of free information exchange, especially when ingeniously hacked together.

In a typical hacked service, information providers set up phone numbers. Information seekers phone the number and then immediately hang up, registering a 'missed call'. The information provider then sends them an SMS with the info they might be seeking. Carpenter jobs or internet cafes in the locality, for example.

Ironically, lax privacy protection - by our standards - in the country actually improves this service. While banned here, triangulation of mobile signals to determine the location of a call is freely permitted in India. So services are able to text back localised information. All for free.

Hacktastic!

Thanks to Harry Metcalfe at TellThemWhatYouThink.Org, Tim Green from DemocracyClub.org.uk, Edmund von der Burg at YourNextMp.com, and Pranesh Prakash at the Centre for Internet and Society for their help and input.

Read the original in the Guardian

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/information-beautiful

The madness of software patents

praskrishna — 2011-04-02T10:17:11Z

India’s patent law excludes software per se, yet over a thousand patents have been granted, writes Lata Jishnu in an article published in Down to Earth.

Per se is a straightforward term meaning by or in itself. Those who use it are pretty clear what the Latin-origin term signifies. And that’s what our lawmakers must have also believed when they used it in the 2005 amendment to India’s Patent Act.

But unaccountably this particular term has turned out to be prone to misuse more than anything else in the country’s patent law, leading to a host of software patents that should never have been granted in the first place. So me have been challenged and many more are set to be opposed in the courts but what is clear is that patent examiners in India have learned nothing from the anarchy in the US where the liberal grant of patents to software programmes and business methods has resulted in the biggest logjam in the courts. Patents cripple innovation and creativity by blocking access to data format specifications—and they hurt everyone.

A scan of the current patents disputes reveals how expensive and destructive these suits are.

InNova is suing 36 of the world’s top flight computer, telecom and banking companies for violating its patent, which “covers technology used to differentiate between spam email messages and those that users actually want to receive”. The company claims its spam filter is one of the “building blocks for all email communications” but some experts say that actual spam filtering is far more sophisticated than the methods in the firm’s patent.
Oracle is suing Google because it says Google’s Android operating system infringes seven patents it owns on Java. Analysts allege that Oracle wants to assert its dominant position in the Java ecosystem.
Microsoft and Salesforce, a small competitor, were suing each other, with the Redmond behemoth claiming Salesforce used its software-as-a-service products, while Salesforce accuses Microsoft of violating its patents.
VirnetX Holding Corp, an Internet security software firm, which successfully sued Microsoft for US $200 million, is now charging several other corporations with violating patents for technology used in mobile phones, remote communication and virtual private networking.

This list is merely illustrative of the madness out there. It is precisely to avoid such anarchy that India’s law was so formulated as to exclude software and business method patents. Here is what Section 3 (k) of the Patent Act says cannot be considered inventions: a mathematical or business method or computer programme per se or algorithms. In other words, computer programmes are a kind of algorithm just as algorithms are a kind of mathematical method. One reason for this exclusion is that computer programmes are protected by copyright in India and it was not thought necessary to provide additional protection through patents.

But lawyers being what they are, have set their sharp legal brains to assay what “computer programme per se” could be made to mean—encouraged, of course, by firms keen on pat - ent protection for software applications and business methods. The result is pretty dismaying: hundreds of patents granted in recent years, setting at naught the intention of the law. The Bengaluru-based Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) offers some estimates of the number of software patents granted in India. It says around 200 software patents have been granted till date (applications have been filed since 1999), another 1,000 patents were given for inventions which use the term ‘computer’ in the abstract describing the invention.

Krithika Narayana of CIS explains that actual numbers are hard to come by because there is no category for software patents. Thus, applications may be described as either ‘computer-based’ or ‘computerised’ or ‘computer implemented’ systems. However, most software patents are concentrated in the group of patents with G06F as their classification. The figures have been culled from this category. There is more bad news. Hund reds of software patent applications are in various stages of examination, opposition and grant which have not been included in the CIS tally. How has all this come about?

Most applicants manipulate the term ‘computer programmes per se’ to obtain patents for computer programmes run in combination with hardware (even though the hardware only executes the programme and has no ingenuity of its own) or software embedded in a machine (embedded systems). Clearly, the patent office has been wrong in granting such patents.

To end this, CIS, working in tandem with Knowledge Com - mons and Software Freedom Law Centre, is set to challenge a software patent. Hopefully, it might stop the tide. Otherwise, the consequences are scary. As Richard Stallman, the guru of free software, said, “If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today’s ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today.”

Read the original in Down to Earth

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/madness-software-patents

Why piracy is tough to rein in

praskrishna — 2011-04-02T10:16:50Z

“Video market is being treated as a poor cousin of the film industry”

Armed with a shoulder-strung carry bag, Meeran (name changed) walks into an apartment block that he frequents. By the time he comes out, he has sold nearly 10 pirated DVDs. His brother runs a shop which makes a business of Rs.1,000 to Rs.1,500 a day. But regular customers can avail themselves the privilege of his visit to their homes.

Film buffs like Madhankumar Subbiah, who buys DVDs, say the proliferation of multiplexes means a significant number of people cannot afford to go to the cinema regularly. “On the other hand, a whole family can watch the movie spending just Rs.30 on a pirated DVD. I feel that this trend would continue unless ticket prices are reduced,” he adds.

Depending on which side of the copyright debate you are on, Meeran is either a pirate who is a making a dent on the film industry's profits or a trader who is trying to take advantage of a backlash against monopolistic tendencies in the entertainment industry.

According to sources in the Video Piracy Wing of the Central Crime Branch, Puducherry is the headquarters of the illegal piracy business. Multiple copies are made using the master prints from the overseas rights agreement and distributed to various parts of Tamil Nadu.

CCB's Video Piracy Wing, in the last one year, has booked 234 cases and arrested 279 persons, of which 23 have been booked under the Goondas Act.

To understand piracy, it has to be placed in context. G. Dhananjayan, Chief Operating Officer, Moser Baer Entertainment, says the opportunity is not there for the consumer to buy the original. “Tamil cinema is not encouraging other modes of revenue generation. Unlike anywhere else in the country, producers get into agreements with satellite networks to release it on television before a DVD release.”

The DVD release window is usually six months after the release in theatres. According to him, the video market is being treated as a poor cousin of the industry. Kerala, for example, he says has a thriving video market because the release window is 90 to 100 days after the release in theatres.

Though movies are meant to be viewed in theatres, digital technologies have enabled a segment of movie watchers who prefer to enjoy the experience through on-demand or even streaming content.

Nishant Shah, Director, Centre for Internet and Society, says that attempts at controlling piracy are futile. The digital technologies that we are working with are intuitively designed for copying, dissemination and sharing.

According to him, copyright is not a pre-given frame of reference. It arose, historically and culturally, with the industrialisation of information and came into being so strongly because of the possibilities and limitations of analogue technologies.

He says media conglomerates that “try to imagine the consumer as monolithic and unchanging, and accuse them of piracy and theft, will only alienate the audience.” It is a move that fails to recognise the changing dynamics of cultural economies, he adds.

Read the original in the Hindu

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/piracy-tough-rein

Enabling Access to Education through ICT - A Conference in Delhi

praskrishna — 2013-02-04T09:24:20Z

The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), Bangalore in cooperation with the Global Initiative for Inclusive ICT (G3ICT), a flagship advocacy organization of the UN Global Alliance on ICT and Development (UN-GAID), the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), UNESCO, Digital Empowerment Foundation, Society for Promotion of Alternative Computing and Employment and the Deafway Foundation is organizing an international conference "Enabling Access to Education through ICT" in New Delhi from 27 to 29 October 2010. The event is sponsored by Hans Foundation.

How can accessible information and communication and assistive technologies for persons with disabilities be best deployed in schools and universities?

Background

Education is a fundamental right for all persons. In the information society, access to knowledge and information is of vital importance to ensure that all persons are able to participate as creative and productive members of the society. The UNCRPD recognizes that persons with disabilities also have a right to education and life long learning. Countries around the world have recognized the importance of education and have identified universal primary education as one of the millennium goals to be achieved by them within 2015. While definitive steps are being taken to achieve and promote universal inclusive education, there are still some grey areas remaining with respect to addressing the special needs of some groups like disabled children. The World Health Organisation estimates that 70 per cent of the world’s disabled live in developing countries like India. The advancement of persons with disabilities is impeded by several factors such as an inadequate legal framework for protecting their rights, lack of financial and skilled human resource to carry on their activities, high cost of assistive technologies, lack of training and capacity building activities, the absence of large networks of disability groups to share resources with each other and above all the lack of awareness and a collective intent on the part of educational institutions to enable the right to education for persons with disabilities. India alone is a large country with 18 official languages and many more regional variances and for any technology and content to reach the masses it has to be made available in several Indian languages. All these factors combined together make it difficult for persons with disabilities to exercise their right to education in developing countries.

The specific focus of the conference will be to look at various technologies, tools and practices which are necessary to bring education, especially distance and online education within the reach of all children with disabilities.

Children with disabilities in India are often left out of mainstream schools due to a variety of reasons, primarily the lack of awareness amongst educational organizations and teachers, near absence of infrastructural resources and lack of training in this regard. It is believed that barely two per cent of the 70 million disabled persons have access to education in India. Technological advancement in the form of assistive technologies, ubiquitous Web, multiple platforms, social networks, online libraries and digital resources, etc., have now made it possible for disabled persons to access information in accessible formats. It is therefore, important that students, teachers and educational institutions are adequately equipped to leverage the power of the Internet and ICTs to enable inclusion for persons with disabilities.

The present conference will focus on highlighting existing problems and challenges for students and educational institutions in developing countries, showcase ICT based solutions which are presently being adopted in different countries, point to existing knowledge resources and emerging trends in education. This conference is unique in so far as it is probably the first one of its kind on such a large scale in India and involves participation of various UN organizations such as the WIPO, UNESCO, ITU and the G3ICT. Amongst the various deliverables of the conference is also to document some best practice case studies on the use of ICTs in education for the disabled in neighbouring countries like Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Thailand, evolve a set of recommendations for educators on best practices, as well as to evolve a draft for a White paper on education and ICTs for persons with disabilities for governments and educators in different countries.

A print version of the E-accessibility toolkit for policymakers which was jointly brought out by the G3ICT and ITU earlier this year will be launched for the first time at the conference.

Dates: October 27, 28 and 29
Venue: Magnolia Hall, India Habitat Centre, New Delhi

Download the agenda

For further reading

Videos

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/education-through-ict

Seminar on Software Patent and the Commons

praskrishna — 2011-10-23T14:22:15Z

A pre-grant opposition has been filed against a software patent application filed in the patent office by Certicom, a wholly owned subsidiary of Research in Motion (RIM), manufacturers of Blackberry. The opposition was filed on August 31, 2010 by the Software Freedom Law Centre which has recently expanded its operations to India. This exciting development was announced by Mishi Choudhary from SFLC on the lines of the seminar on “Software Patents and the Commons” organised on 1 September 2010 in Delhi jointly by SFLC, the Centre for Internet and Society, the Society for Knowledge Commons and Red Hat. Filing more such oppositions to software patents in India was in the pipeline and this is just the beginning of a movement to take on monopolisation of knowledge and ideas through patenting software, the organisers said.

Software patent opposition is still in its nascent stage in India while several oppositions have been filed against software patents in the US and the EU. The harmful effects of software patents are little known to the Indian public, especially from the context of its danger to development in small and medium size enterprises, as pointed out by Pranesh Prakash from the Centre for Internet and Society who spoke about why software patents are bad for innovation and development in society and also in the software industry, in particular.

In the same context, Venkatesh Hariharan from Red Hat as also Mr. T.C. James, Director of the National Intellectual Property Organisation spoke about the growing importance of free and open source software in education, governmental agencies and as a key agent in information technology policy making in India. “Out of 500 super computers in the world, 446 are running on Linux”, he said, talking about how open source software makes computing highly accessible and affordable while allowing for improvements to be made to the software by any user and releasing it back to benefit the whole community. Dr. Anshu Bhardwaj involved in the Open Source Drug Discovery project undertaken by CSIR, spoke at length about the project as a live demonstration of the power of open source software in impacting drug access and development and health care reform across communities at highly economical rates.

Prof. Eben Moglen, Executive Director of Software Freedom Law Centre in New York who was the keynote speaker at the conference spoke about the growth of the free software and open source movement based on the principle of equating knowledge with commons – that is, a good to be commonly shared by all members of the public – resulting in access to and sharing of knowledge and distribution of information in society for greater innovation, creation of new ideas, communication and development. Dr. Abhijit Sen, member of the Planning Commission was the other keynote speaker who stressed on the role of the government and the policy making bodies to ensure that knowledge and education is accessible and shared without restrictions in such a way that it is not misused by the members of the society.

Other notable speakers in the event included Prabir Purkayastha from the Society for Knowledge Commons, Pradyut Bora, Chief Convenor of BJP's information and technology cell, Jaijit Bhattacharjee from Hewlett Packard and Sudhir Krishnaswamy, Professor, National University of Juridical Sciences. The event also witnessed the participants discuss the various strategies to be used from the perspective of legal analysis as well as policy reform, for opposing software patents filed or granted in India. Indian patent law clearly declares computer programmes per se or software patents to be unpatentable. Prabir Purkayastha pointed out that the most important and major scientific discoveries in history have not been patented and that this has, in no way prevented new ideas from being created and has in fact fostered such innovation. In spite of such a clear legal restriction on grant of software patents, around 1000 software patents have been filed in the patent offices in India in the last year. This trend is extremely disturbing since it poses a serious threat to access to knowledge and distribution of information in society in addition to stifling innovation and development in the software industry.

The seminar was attended by people from diverse backgrounds including the IT industry, civil society organisations, and groups working in pharma patent advocacy, media persons and government officials.

Videos

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/softtware-patents-and-the-commons

Seminar on Software Patents and the Commons

praskrishna — 2011-04-05T03:59:59Z

A seminar on Software Patents and Commons is being held on 1 September, 2010 in Delhi. It is jointly organised by CIS, Knowledge of Commons and the Software Freedom Law Centre. The event is sponsored by Red Hat. Pranesh Prakesh will speak on Arguments against Software Patents in India.

For the full event details and the agenda, click here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/events/software-patents-commons

Cybercrime and Privacy

praskrishna — 2010-09-14T13:21:20Z

Elonnai Hickok examines privacy in the context of India’s legal provisions on cybercrime. She picks up the relevant provisions of the Information Technology Act as amended in 2008 dealing with cyber crimes and provides a fair analysis of the pros and cons of the amended Act.

What is Cybercrime?

Looking at the recent Facebook ‘break in’ where 100,000 of users’ information was downloaded and made accessible through a simple search engine, , and the new Microsoft virus that attacked 10,000 machines, it is clear that cybercrime is no longer an issue to be taken lightly. Cybercrime is defined as an unlawful act committed using a computer either as a tool or as a target (or both) for facilitating a crime. Although there is an overlap, some are more likely to use the computer as a tool, and others use it as a target. Examples of the former include: fraud, forgery, DOS, consumption of limited resources, cyberterrorism, IPR violations, software piracy, copyright infringement, trademarks violations, patent violations, cyber squatting, credit card frauds, forgery, EFT frauds, pornography, banking/credit card related crimes, sale or purchase of illegal articles, cyberstalking, phishing, theft, and breaches in privacy, and gambling. Crimes where the computer is made a target include: computer theft, physical destruction or alteration of network components, theft of computer source code, hacking, defacing websites, creation of viruses, destruction or alteration of configuration information and email spamming.

What is India's current legislation on cybercrime?

The Information Technology Act 2000 (amended in 2008)

The Information Technology Act was first drawn up in 2000, and has been revised most recently 2008. The Information Technology (Amendment) Bill, 2008 amended sections 43 (data protection), 66 (hacking), 67 (protection against unauthorised access to data), 69 (cyberterrorism), and 72 (privacy and confidentiality) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which relate to computer/cybercrimes.

Section 43 [Penalty and Compensation for damage to computer, computer system, etc.] amended vide Information Technology Amendment Act 2008 reads as under:

If any person without permission of the owner or any other person who is in-charge of a computer, computer system or computer network:

accesses or secures access to such computer, computer system or computer network or computer resource (ITAA2008)
downloads, copies or extracts any data, computer data base or information from such computer, computer system or computer network including information or data held or stored in any removable storage medium;
introduces or causes to be introduced any computer contaminant or computer virus into any computer, computer system or computer network;
damages or causes to be damaged any computer, computer system or computer network, data, computer data base or any other programmes residing in such computer, computer system or computer network;
disrupts or causes disruption of any computer, computer system or computer network;
denies or causes the denial of access to any person authorized to access any computer, computer system or computer network by any means;
provides any assistance to any person to facilitate access to a computer, computer system or computer network in contravention of the provisions of this Act, rules or regulations made there under;
charges the services availed of by a person to the account of another person by tampering with or manipulating any computer, computer system, or computer network;
destroys, deletes or alters any information residing in a computer resource or diminishes its value or utility or affects it injuriously by any means (Inserted vide ITAA-2008); and
Steals, conceals, destroys or alters or causes any person to steal, conceal, destroy or alter any computer source code used for a computer resource with an intention to cause damage, (Inserted vide ITAA 2008) he shall be liable to pay damages by way of compensation to the person so affected. (change vide ITAA 2008)

Critique: In comparison to the laws enacted in other countries, this provision still falls short of a strong data protection law. In most other countries data protection laws specify:

the definition and classification of data types;
the nature and protection of the categories of data;
that equal protection will be given to data stored offline and data stored manually;
that data controllers and data processors have distinct roles;
clear restrictions on the manner of data collection;
clear guidelines on the purposes for which the data can be put and to whom it can be sent;
standards and technical measures governing the collection, storage, access to, protection, retention, and destruction of data;
that providers of goods or services must have a clear opt - in or opt - out option; and
in addition, most countries provide strong safeguards and penalties against breaches of any of the above

Section 66 [Computer Related Offences] amended vide Information Technology Amendment Act 2008 reads as under:

If any person, dishonestly, or fraudulently, does any act referred to in section 43, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two three years or with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees or with both.

Explanation: For the purpose of this section,-

the word "dishonestly" shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 24 of the Indian Penal Code;
the word "fraudulently" shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 25 of the Indian Penal Code.

[Section 66 A] [Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc.]

(Introduced vide ITAA 2008):

Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device,-

any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or
any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, or ill will, persistently makes by making use of such computer resource or a communication device;
any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages (Inserted vide ITAA 2008) shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.

Explanation: For the purposes of this section, terms "Electronic mail" and "Electronic Mail Message" means a message or information created or transmitted or received on a computer, computer system, computer resource or communication device including attachments in text, image, audio, video and any other electronic record, which may be transmitted with the message.

[Section 66 B] [Punishment for dishonestly receiving stolen computer resource or communication device] (Inserted Vide ITA 2008):
Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen computer resource or communication device knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen computer resource or communication device, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine which may extend to rupees one lakh or with both.

[Section 66C] [Punishment for identity theft] (Inserted Vide ITA 2008):

Whoever, fraudulently or dishonestly make use of the electronic signature, password or any other unique identification feature of any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to rupees one lakh.

[Section 66D] [Punishment for cheating by personation by using computer resource] (Inserted Vide ITA 2008):
Whoever, by means of any communication device or computer resource cheats by personation, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to one lakh rupees.

[Section 66E] [Punishment for violation of privacy] (Inserted Vide ITA 2008):
Whoever, intentionally or knowingly captures, publishes or transmits the image of a private area of any person without his or her consent, under circumstances violating the privacy of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine not exceeding two lakh rupees, or with both

Explanation - For the purposes of this section--

“transmit” means to electronically send a visual image with the intent that it be viewed by a person or persons;
“capture”, with respect to an image, means to videotape, photograph, film or record by any means;
“private area” means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breast;
“publishes” means reproduction in the printed or electronic form and making it available for public;
“under circumstances violating privacy” means circumstances in which a person can have a reasonable expectation that:

he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image of his private area was being captured; or
any part of his or her private area would not be visible to the public, regardless of whether that person is in a public or private place.

[Section 66F] [Punishment for cyber terrorism]:
(1) Whoever,-

(A) with intent to threaten the unity, integrity, security or sovereignty of India or to strike terror in the people or any section of the people by –

denying or cause the denial of access to any person authorized to access computer resource; or
attempting to penetrate or access a computer resource without authorisation or exceeding authorized access; or
introducing or causing to introduce any Computer Contaminant and by means of such conduct causes or is likely to cause death or injuries to persons or damage to or destruction of property or disrupts or knowing that it is likely to cause damage or disruption of supplies or services essential to the life of the community or adversely affect the critical information infrastructure specified under section 70, or

(B) knowingly or intentionally penetrates or accesses a computer resource without authorization or exceeding authorized access, and by means of such conduct obtains access to information, data or computer database that is restricted for reasons of the security of the State or foreign relations; or any restricted information, data or computer database, with reasons to believe that such information, data or computer database so obtained may be used to cause or likely to cause injury to the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, group of individuals or otherwise, commits the offence of cyber terrorism.

(2) Whoever commits or conspires to commit cyber terrorism shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to imprisonment for life’.

Critique: We find the terminology in multiple sections too vague to ensure consistent and fair enforcement. The concepts of ‘annoyance’ and ‘insult’ are subjective. Clause (d) makes it clear that phishing requests are not permitted, but it is not clear that one cannot ask for information on a class of individuals.

Section 67 [Publishing of information which is obscene in electronic form] amended vide Information Technology Amendment Act 2008 reads as under:

Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published in the electronic form, any material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it, shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two three years and with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees and in the event of a second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and also with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees.

[Section 67 A] [Punishment for publishing or transmitting of material containing sexually explicit act, etc. in electronic form] (Inserted vide ITAA 2008):
Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted in the electronic form any material which contains sexually explicit act or conduct shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees and in the event of second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and also with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees.

Exception: This section and section 67 does not extend to any book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting, representation or figure in electronic form-

the publication of which is proved to be justified as being for the public good on the ground that such book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting, representation or figure is in the interest of science, literature, art, or learning or other objects of general concern; or
which is kept or used bona fide for religious purposes.

[Section 67 B] Punishment for publishing or transmitting of material depicting children in sexually explicit act, etc. in electronic form:

Whoever,-

(a) publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted material in any electronic

form which depicts children engaged in sexually explicit act or conduct or

(b) creates text or digital images, collects, seeks, browses, downloads, advertises,

promotes, exchanges or distributes material in any electronic form depicting children in

obscene or indecent or sexually explicit manner or

and on sexually explicit act or in a manner that may offend a reasonable adult on the computer resource or

(d) facilitates abusing children online or

(e) records in any electronic form own abuse or that of others pertaining to sexually explicit act with children, shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and with a fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees and in the event of second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and also with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees:

Provided that the provisions of section 67, section 67A and this section does not extend to any book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting, representation or figure in electronic form-

(i) The publication of which is proved to be justified as being for the public good on the ground that such book, pamphlet, paper writing, drawing, painting, representation or figure is in the interest of science, literature, art or learning or other objects of general concern; or

(ii) which is kept or used for bonafide heritage or religious purposes

Explanation: For the purposes of this section, "children" means a person who has not completed the age of 18 years.

[Section 67 C] [Preservation and Retention of information by intermediaries]:

(1) Intermediary shall preserve and retain such information as may be specified for such duration and in such manner and format as the Central Government may prescribe.

(2) Any intermediary who intentionally or knowingly contravenes the provisions of sub section (1) shall be punished with an imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Critique: This provision adequately protects both the corporate and the citizen in a positive way.

Section 69 [Powers to issue directions for interception or monitoring or decryption of any information through any computer resource] amended vide Information Technology Amendment Act 2008 reads as under:

(1) Where the central Government or a State Government or any of its officer specially authorized by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, in this behalf may, if is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient to do in the interest of the sovereignty or integrity of India, defense of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above or for investigation of any offence, it may, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order, direct any agency of the appropriate Government to intercept, monitor or decrypt or cause to be

intercepted or monitored or decrypted any information transmitted received or stored through any computer resource.

(2) The Procedure and safeguards subject to which such interception or monitoring or decryption may be carried out, shall be such as may be prescribed.

(3) The subscriber or intermediary or any person in charge of the computer resource shall, when called upon by any agency which has been directed under sub section (1), extend all facilities and technical assistance to –

(a) provide access to or secure access to the computer resource generating, transmitting, receiving or storing such information; or

(b) intercept or monitor or decrypt the information, as the case may be; or

(4) The subscriber or intermediary or any person who fails to assist the agency referred to in sub-section (3) shall be punished with an imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

[ Section 69B] Power to authorize to monitor and collect traffic data or information through any computer resource for Cyber Security:

(1) The Central Government may, to enhance Cyber Security and for identification, analysis and prevention of any intrusion or spread of computer contaminant in the country, by notification in the official Gazette, authorize any agency of the Government to monitor and collect traffic data or information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource.

(2) The Intermediary or any person in-charge of the Computer resource shall when called upon by the agency which has been authorized under sub-section (1), provide technical assistance and extend all facilities to such agency to enable online access or to secure and provide online access to the computer resource generating, transmitting, receiving or storing such traffic data or information.

(3) The procedure and safeguards for monitoring and collecting traffic data or information, shall be such as may be prescribed.

(4) Any intermediary who intentionally or knowingly contravenes the provisions of subsection

(2) shall be punished with an imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation: For the purposes of this section,

(i) "Computer Contaminant" shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 43

(ii) "traffic data" means any data identifying or purporting to identify any person, computer system or computer network or location to or from which the communication is or may be transmitted and includes communications origin, destination, route, time, date, size, duration or type of underlying service or any other information.

Critique: Though we recognize how important it is for a government to protect its citizens against cyberterrorism, we are concerned at the friction between these provisions and the guarantees of free dialog, debate, and free speech that are Fundamental Rights under the Constitution of India.

Specifically:

a) there is no clear provision of a link between an intermediary and the information or resource that is to be monitored.

c)the penalties laid out in the clause are believed to be too harsh, and when read in conjunction with provision 66, there is no distinction between minor offenses and serious offenses.

e) the ITA is too broad in its categorization of acts of cyberterrorism by including information that is likely to cause: injury to decency, injury to morality, injury in relation to contempt of court, and injury in relation to defamation.

Section 72 [Breach of confidentiality and privacy] amended vide Information Technology Amendment Act 2008 reads as under:

Save as otherwise provided in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, any person who, in pursuant of any of the powers conferred under this Act, rules or regulations made there under, has secured access to any electronic record, book, register, correspondence, information, document or other material without the consent of the person concerned discloses such electronic record, book, register, correspondence, information, document or other material to any other person shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.

[Section 72 A] Punishment for Disclosure of information in breach of lawful contract (Inserted vide ITAA-2008):

Save as otherwise provided in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, any person including an intermediary who, while providing services under the terms of lawful contract, has secured access to any material containing personal information about another person, with the intent to cause or knowing that he is likely to cause wrongful loss or wrongful gain discloses, without the consent of the person concerned, or in breach of a lawful contract, such material to any other person shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with a fine which may extend to five lakh rupees, or with both.

General Notes and Critiques:

As general notes on the ITA and data protection we find that the Act is lacking in many ways, including:

there is no definition of “sensitive personal data or information” and that term is used indiscriminately without.
the provisions and protections cover only electronic data and not stored data or non-electronic systems of media
in the absence of a data controller, liability is often imposed on persons who are not necessarily in a position to control data
civil liability for data breach arises where negligence is involved
criminal liability only applies to cases of information obtained in the context of a service contract.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/privacy/privacy-ita2008

Transparency and MDGs: the Role of the Media and Technology

praskrishna — 2011-04-02T10:16:21Z

Key quotes from sixth panel

“We are thinking globally, acting locally. We take the bottom-up approach with radio for people in the community to tell their government what they need and to partake in decision making process.”
— Lucy Maathai, Slums Information Development and Resource Centers, Kenya

“For HIV/AIDS in Botswana during the 1990s, we tried creating big billboards saying ‘get tested’, we tried working through NGOs, but it was not until we also got local churches and local tribal leaders together, that things changed. We had to focus on getting buy-in from the political leadership and every local leader. UNDEF was set up to fill the gaps between UN agencies like UNICEF, UNDP, etc. What I have seen in botswana and 30 years of experience, is that if we always add information and communication at the end, we will fail. Rather we need to make sure that it is integrated all along. Furthermore, people in Botswana are aware of technologies, but they do not feel that they can use it or are supported to use it. Instead they use traditional methods, such as churches, in bars, and with local tribal leaders. The UN are mostly used to dealing with formal institutions, but in order to help the bottom billion in the world, we need to engage with the informal institutions, sometimes even with the ‘bad guys’”.
— Bjoern Ferde, UNDP Oslo Center, Norway

“If a transparency system is based on suspicion rather than trust, it breeds corruption. If your demand for transparency and accountability undermines social safety nets, you will undermine your entire argument. Transparency may seem to add to accountability, but we must understand that it oftens undermines privacy (in the Gujarat genocide, muslims were found and killed by rioters using tax and electoral records). In addition, in india, a name alone reveals a lot of information on caste, area and religion, so what is normal in the west – disclosing names – is not always a good idea. Finally, in many places, particularly those in conflict, disclosing your income may lead to groups turning up at your door and demanding a share.”

— Sunil Abraham, Centre for Internet and Society, India

“It’s great what ARTICLE 19 is doing. There’s often a lot of discussion within communities, but not so often discussions between communities. I want to connect the media too. So little has been done at the international level on how information and communication help development. We do need to acknowledge that the media has massive advantages as an information and transparency mechanism. If you ask politicians what they are worried about in regards to transparency, they are worried about the media. In peru, a report states that Fujimori bribed media executives 100x the amount that he bribed a judge. Indeed, there are so few people paid within UN organisations to focus on understanding and using communication to effect people’s lives. We are operating in a strategic vaccum. It’s hugely exciting to work out where we can go in the future. This event takes us a long way forward.”
— James Deane, BBC World Trust, UK

“There are simple and creative ways to demonstrate information, such as the ‘stone’ test. In Botswana, each person in a village was asked to place a stone in the middle of the group for every person that died due to HIV/AIDS. It created an immediate and devastating effect when people suddenly visualised the effect on their community and then collectively began to think about what that meant in regards to families and society.”
— Bjoern Ferde, UNDP Oslo Center, Norway

“In the south we call the media the fourth estate – a moral and ethical force to protect democracy and the constitution of our country. In the north however, we have a business model which completely removes any sense of ethics. The Indian Express, for example, will only talk about markets, not about people and their lives in poverty. Furthermore, whilst we want information shared, we do not want the information collected by the state to destroy the people.
— Aruna Roy, MKSS

Read the original

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/transparency-mdgs-key-quotes

Centre for Internet and Society

UNESCO's Open Forum

Software Freedom Day Inter-college Contest

A Talk by Charlotte Lapsansky

About Charlotte Lapsansky

INDIA Fears of Privacy Loss Pursue Ambitious ID Project

On Talking Back: A Report on the Taiwan Workshop

The Great Fire Wall

In Academia Sinica

The First Day

Same Same - But Different

Chips Ahoy!

Innovate / Activate

WEBINAR: Closed for Business

Participants

Information is Beautiful hacks in India with David Cameron

Bus Map Hack

National Election Watch

Missed Calls

The madness of software patents

Why piracy is tough to rein in

Enabling Access to Education through ICT - A Conference in Delhi

Background

Seminar on Software Patent and the Commons

Videos

Seminar on Software Patents and the Commons

Cybercrime and Privacy

What is Cybercrime?

What is India's current legislation on cybercrime?

The Information Technology Act 2000 (amended in 2008)

General Notes and Critiques:

Transparency and MDGs: the Role of the Media and Technology