The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 361 to 375.
Open letter to Hillary Clinton on Internet Freedom
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/open-letter-to-hillary-clinton
<b>Last month I wrote an open letter to Hillary Clinton. It was based on a presentation I that I made during a panel discussion at a Google sponsored conference titled Internet at Liberty 2012 in Washington DC on May 24, 2012.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sunil Abraham's article was <a class="external-link" href="http://thinkingaloud.in/ArticleComments.aspx?ArtId=1097">published</a> in Thinking Aloud on July 17, 2012</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The question that my panel tried to grapple with was "In a world where nearly nine out of ten Internet users are not American, what is the responsibility of United States institutions in promoting internet freedom?" My co-panelists were Cynthia Wong who is with the Centre for Democracy and Technology, Mohamed El Dahshan a writer and journalist, Dunja Mijatovic the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media.<br /><br />Internet freedom is a curious subject. It is a technology specific liberty - for a moment consider television freedom. The US has more Muslims than India has Christians. But Indian television in the average hotel comes in hundreds and there are at least 3 channels of Christian preaching. But US television in hotels is usually less than 50 channels with no channels of Islamic preaching. In fact even the reception of secular channels from the Islamic World like Al Jazeera is still difficult in America. Can we accuse the US of not having television freedom since their television features Christian evangelists but not Muslim evangelists? Should it be part of India's foreign policy to evangelize television freedom given that there is a large domestic industry with clear international potential?<br /><br />In an ideal world - citizens will possess technology-neutral freedom to communication and expression. But nothing can be farther from the truth. Communication technologies are regulated using a plethora of policies and practices and very often these have a chilling effect on freedoms.<br /><br />The following is my response to the technology-specific demands for deregulation from the US Government.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Text of the Open Letter[2]</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Recognise Access to Knowledge (A2K) as pre-condition for freedom of expression</b>: There is no difference between aggressive enforcement of imbalanced and obsolete intellectual property laws and censorship. The need of the moment is not more enforcement to protect obsolete business models against the everyday practices of ordinary netizens but rather the reform of intellectual property law (levies, broader exceptions and limitations, pools, statutory and compulsory licenses, prizes etc.) to keep pace with innovations in technology and the production of knowledge and culture.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Recognise privacy as pre-condition for security:</b> The alleged tension between privacy and security is a false dichotomy. Blanket surveillance by design compromises security. <b>Surveillance is like salt in cooking — essential in very small quantities but dangerous even if slightly in excess. Blanket surveillance technologies are only going make things easier for — and will only serve as targets for — current and future online villains.</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Don't lose the moral high-ground:</b> Remember, with great power comes great responsibility. Other countries are waiting to cherry pick from your worst practices. Also don't use trade agreements to selectively export components of US policy without the accompanying safeguards for civil liberties and rights. Citizens in oppressive and authoritarian states are depending on the US government, courts and civil society to protect their rights online. Don't undermine their capacity to shame their governments by holding up the US as the example of 'how to get things right'. They urgently need the US government to lead by example.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Recognise that freedom of expression has become a trade issue:</b> This is unfortunate but this is true — thanks to the precedent set by the developed world when it came to asymmetric trade negotiations. Just as the US is interested in protecting the interests of its corporations in global markets — other governments are keen protect the interests of their own corporations. The optimal solution in this case is where all countries and corporations are equally unsatisfied. This will remain a continuing discussion.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Address developing country anxieties around critical internet infrastructure:</b> Security by obscurity will no longer do — security by transparency through open standards, technologies and governance is the only way to fears and build a trust-worthy and secure Internet for all of us. For example, there is urgent need to develop standards for supply chain audits of information infrastructure. The US has dealt with the fear of back doors by banning the use of hardware and software from countries it does not trust. The developing world is not sure if there are back-doors in hardware and software manufactured by US corporations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Time has comes to address this and other related anxieties.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Appreciate diversity in nomenclature:</b> 'Freedom' and 'liberty' may be appropriate terms to use in the United States of America. But openness may be more in countries that are not yet full and robust liberal democracies. The Internet Governance Forum for example uses 'openness' instead of 'freedom'. Openness is also preferred because it includes 'freedom of expression', 'freedom of information' (also known as right to information, access to information or public and 'free knowledge' (free software, open standards, open content, open access, open data, open educational resources, etc.)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Don't be too instrumental in your interventions:</b> Don't undermine the local credibility of like-minded civil society, think-tanks and research organisations by being too directive in your support. Managerialism will undermine reform of policies and practices in information societies and so does inappropriate/premature monitoring and evaluation (for example, looking for explicit attribution in terms of casual connections between your actions and outcomes). There is a need to support greater reflexivity in the global information society by developing institutional capacity in developing countries through unrestricted funding. True critical thinking is the foundation of both scientific progress and open societies. Go out of your way to find and support those who disagree with you. Protect the plural foundation of our networked society!</p>
<hr />
<h3>Video</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sunil Abraham was a speaker along with Cynthia Wong, Mohamed El Dahshan and Dunja Mijatovic in Plenary IV Debate 3 at the <b>Internet at Liberty 2012 </b>event<b> </b>organised by Google on May 24, 2012. <b><br /></b></p>
<p><iframe frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/9YMte4hdYu0" width="320"></iframe></p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YMte4hdYu0">View the video on YouTube</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/open-letter-to-hillary-clinton'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/open-letter-to-hillary-clinton</a>
</p>
No publishersunilFreedom of Speech and ExpressionVideoInternet GovernanceAccess to Knowledge2012-09-04T08:28:02ZBlog EntryFreedom debate takes a new course
https://cis-india.org/news/freedom-debate-takes-a-new-course
<b>The focus is now on the dubious roles played by private entities on what goes online, says Deepa Kurup in this article published in the Hindu on July 1, 2012.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Deepa Kurup's article was published in the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/internet/article3589130.ece">Hindu</a> on July 1, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Debates on censoring the Internet, till recently, largely pitted the ‘people’, that is Net users, against the government which was perceived as seeking to stifle free speech on the Web, a medium that is believed to be vastly powerful and democratic. However, in recent weeks, the focus of the discourse has shifted from shrill anti-government stances to the dubious role that private entities — that often projected themselves as protectors of free speech in the earlier debates — play in controlling this important resource.<br /><br />That there are various private interests — ranging from Internet service providers, Web companies to the entertainment industry — at stake here is a no-brainer. However, this came to the fore only last month, when two major Internet service providers, Airtel and Reliance, in a pre-emptive move to comply with a Madras High Court order seeking to curb piracy of regional films, blocked access to at least a dozen sites. The blocked sites not only included file-sharing sites but also legitimate Web businesses such as video-sharing sites Vimeo and Daily Motion, that largely host high-quality original videos, and bookmarking sites such as Pastebin.<br /><br />What was noteworthy is that the High Court did not order the blocking of these websites, and merely ruled that piracy of regional films such as Dammu and 3 be curbed. The order was in response to a petition by makers of the Tamil film 3, yes, the same movie whose claim to fame was the viral Internet hit ‘Kolaveri di’, made popular because thousands of netizens freely shared and viewed the video.<br /><br />Not limited to regional films, there has been a steady increase in the number of Indian movie production houses, such as Reliance Entertainment Ltd. and Viacom18 Motion Pictures, seeking ex-parte injunctions (popularly known as John Doe or Ashok Kumar orders against unknown persons) to curb piracy of their copyrighted material. Most recently, Viacom18 went to court seeking pre-emptive orders for last Friday’s release, Gangs of Wasseypur, a move that in the context of increased awareness on such laws and their chilling effect on the Internet, drew much flak from netizens. Even in the past, ISPs and Web companies, eager to sidestep possible legal landmines, are known to have blocked entire sites in response to government requests.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Partial Relief?</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Last week, the Madras High Court, ruling on an appeal filed by a consortium of ISPs, decreed that ISPs need only block a few specific URLs that carry pirated content, and not entire websites. Following this clarification from the court, ISPs unblocked the sites.<br /><br />Though many rejoiced over the order, seeing it as an indicator of the success of campaigns — some overt and others more covert such as the hacktivist group Anonymous — others have been more guarded in their response to this.<br /><br />Pranesh Prakash, lawyer and copyright expert at the Centre for Internet and Society, feels that the victory is only partial given that the court has endorsed partial blocking of Web links. He says: “Under Indian copyright law, ISPs cannot be liable for copyright infringement committed by their users. So while it is good that the court clarified that its order was limited in its scope, it is possible to read even this as going far beyond that which is allowed under the law.” Mr. Prakash points out that the copyright law can be used for censorship, for instance, in the case of the Satish Seth video that Reliance Entertainment has gotten removed from YouTube by citing copyright infringement.”</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Hacktivist Exposes</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Satish Seth video was one among many links part of a list published by hacktivist group Anonymous India, on the blog Kafila. The group claimed to have hacked into the servers of Reliance Communication and found a list of 434 Web addresses that were blocked.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Not surprisingly, at least 45 of them were blocked on Reliance request and had little to do with government or court orders. While Reliance has denied the hack and said that list is not authentic, to the media, the list brought to the fore the uneasy role that private companies could play in who controls content on the Web.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Though it is unknown what the Satish Seth links originally contained, a simple search on the web reveals that Mr. Seth is a senior employee in the Reliance Group. These links were later unblocked.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Though some of the distributed denial of service (DDOS) attacks orchestrated by the group that calls itself Anonymous India targeted government websites, a major target have been these private companies.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In that sense, the contribution of Anonymous India has been interesting in changing the narrative of the discourse to include how private companies that have off late taken to sermonising on the merits of unrestricted freedom on the Web, could easily manipulate the system to further their own interests.<br /><br />This uneasy equation was also exposed in a ‘sting operation’ conducted by the CIS in 2010, in which Web companies eagerly complied to unsubstantiated or dummy take-down notices sent out.<br /><br />While the first round of activism focussed on the government’s proposal to clampdown on what it called ‘hate speech’ on the Web by fixing intermediary liabilities (through guidelines it notified in April 2011), this round has dealt with the complex issue of copyrights. A difficult issue worldwide, like in the U.S. for instance where the controversial Bill SOPA sought to block sites that host copyrighted material, here too huge entertainment lobbies, backed by big business, are likely to play a bigger and more forceful role in this debate.<br /><br />This is apparent even in the Google Transparency Report, released earlier this month, which shows the number of copyright removal notices received for Search (not including its other services such as YouTube and Blogger) in the past year is a climbing statistic.<br /><br />In June alone, Google Search received 2,221,212 takedown requests from copyright owners and reporting organisations. Not surprisingly, though the list of requestors is topped by software major Microsoft, among other top contenders are all the major production houses.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/freedom-debate-takes-a-new-course'>https://cis-india.org/news/freedom-debate-takes-a-new-course</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet Governance2012-07-22T16:34:54ZNews ItemClear and Present Danger: Attempts to Change Internet Governance and Implications for Press Freedom
https://cis-india.org/news/clear-and-present-danger
<b>The event was organised by National Endowment for Democracy in Washington, D.C., on June 26, 2012. Emma Llansó, Rebecca MacKinnon, Emin Milli, Susan Morgan and Katitza Rodriguez were the speakers. </b>
<p>Pranesh Prakash participated in the event. Susan Morgan from Global Network Initiative was the moderator.</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.ned.org/events/clear-and-present-danger-attempts-to-change-internet-governance-and-implications-for-press-fr"><span class="visualHighlight">More details are published on the National Endowment for Democracy website</span></a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/clear-and-present-danger'>https://cis-india.org/news/clear-and-present-danger</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet Governance2012-06-29T03:59:39ZNews ItemInternet Freedom Fellows Program Emphasizes Defense of Fundamental Freedoms Online
https://cis-india.org/news/defense-of-fundamental-freedoms-online
<b>At the Human Rights Council (HRC), the United States has consistently placed special emphasis on the protection and promotion of the freedoms of expression, peaceful assembly and association, because we understand that these fundamental freedoms are essential to facilitating the exercise of other universal rights.</b>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/site/entry/internet_freedom_fellows/"><span class="visualHighlight">Published on DipNote, the US Department of State Official Blog</span></a></p>
<p>Ambassador <span class="visualHighlight"><a class="external-link" href="http://geneva.usmission.gov/2010/03/13/donahoe-bi/">Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe</a></span> serves as the U.S. Representative to the <span class="visualHighlight"><a class="external-link" href="http://geneva.usmission.gov/us-hrc/">Human Rights Council</a></span>. His blog post was published on DipNote on June 25, 2012.</p>
<p id="_mcePaste" style="text-align: justify; ">As activity in the economic, social, and the political realms gravitates from the offline world to the online world, we have an additional responsibility to ensure that human rights and fundamental freedoms are not eroded simply because they are being exercised in the digital realm. The United States is committed to the principle that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected in the online world.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As activity in the economic, social, and the political realms gravitates from the offline world to the online world, we have an additional responsibility to ensure that human rights and fundamental freedoms are not eroded simply because they are being exercised in the digital realm. The United States is committed to the principle that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected in the online world.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Last week, I had the chance to spend time with the Internet Freedom Fellows, six young human rights activists, each of whom is working in his or her own way to promote and defend freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and association, and all other human rights on the Internet. The Internet Freedom Fellows (IFF) program is funded by the State Department's Innovation Fund and the <span class="visualHighlight"><a class="external-link" href="http://geneva.usmission.gov/us-hrc/">U.S. Mission in Geneva</a></span>, and was designed to follow up on Secretary Clinton's <span class="visualHighlight"><a class="external-link" href="http://http//www.state.gov/e/eb/cip/netfreedom/index.htm">pledge</a></span> to find innovative ways to promote the use of the Internet in support of human rights. The 2012 Fellows are: Dlshad Othman (Syria), Pranesh Prakash (India), Koundjoro Gabriel Kambou (Burkina Faso), Sopheap Chak (Cambodia), Andres Azpurua (Venezuela), and Emin Milli (Azerbaijan).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The fellows' visit to Geneva coincided with a moment when the Human Rights Council is seized with these issues: The United States and a cross regional group of countries consisting of Brazil, Nigeria, Tunisia, and Turkey have joined with Sweden to present a resolution on the Promotion, Protection and Enjoyment of Human Rights on the Internet. If adopted later this session, this landmark text will mark the first time the Council has substantively addressed the issue of human rights online in a resolution.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As the global community has watched during the past 18 months, individuals across the Middle East, North Africa and beyond have taken to both physical town squares and virtual spaces to express their legitimate aspirations and demand democracy. The Internet has become an essential medium through which journalists, activists, and citizens connect and share information in ways that are changing their societies.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">One of this year's fellows is Dlshad Othman, a Syrian activist and IT engineer who has put his own life in danger to assist his fellow Syrian citizen journalists. Sitting next to me at a UN press conference, Dlshad explained how he helps provide Syrians with digital security resources so that they can communicate online freely and securely despite Assad's "electronic army," with its active online censorship and surveillance. Although he cannot currently return to his country, Dlshad is focused on making it possible for the world to hear the voices of people inside Syria. "This is actually the only way that we have at this time, since there isn't any media on the ground."</p>
<div style="text-align: justify; ">As the Representative of the United States to the Human Rights Council, I am inspired by these fellows and the courage they've displayed in using the digital realm to advocate for the human rights of their fellow citizens. I will recall their stories and experiences as I work to promote these fundamental freedoms in the Human Rights Council.</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/defense-of-fundamental-freedoms-online'>https://cis-india.org/news/defense-of-fundamental-freedoms-online</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet Governance2012-07-02T06:47:31ZNews ItemInternet Freedom press conference at the UN Fellows
https://cis-india.org/news/internet-freedom-press-conference-at-un-fellows
<b>The Internet Freedom Fellows Program of the U.S. State funded Department and administered by the United States Mission to the United Nations in Geneva, provides human rights activists around the world in Geneva, Washington, and Silicon Valley to work with other activists, U.S. and international to meet government and members of civil society and the private sector in technology and the human rights involved.</b>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.weeklying.com/internet-freedom-press-conference-at-the-un-fellows.html"><span class="visualHighlight">Published in Weekly ING on June 22, 2012</span></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A central goal of the program is to share experiences and promote understanding of the importance of a free Internet to freedom of expression and association as fundamental rights of the people studied. Fellows are in Geneva June 19 to 22 at the 20th Session of the UN Human Rights Council. Fellows this year on Internet freedom, all human rights activists and practitioners active in the digital media, are from Syria, India, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Venezuela and Azerbaijan. . In Geneva, they will participate in a conversation, global webcast of the United Nations, to “global networks, individual freedom”, Wednesday, Juin 20-1000 EDT (14:00 UTC) The 2012 Fellows are: Dlshad Othman (Syria): Mr. Othman is a Syrian activist and software engineer with the Syrians, the digital resources and support for security features so that they can use online communication and advocacy work freely and safely, despite the increased repression of E-Government in the form of censorship, Cyber-attacks and sophisticated monitoring intense.Pranesh Prakash (India): Mr. Prakash is a program manager at the Center for Internet and Society at Bangalore. He works primarily in areas where policies intersect and technology, conduct research and policy advocacy on issues of online freedom of expression, access to knowledge, intellectual property and Internet governance reform Koundjoro Gabriel Kambou (Burkina Faso). Mr. Kambou is a newspaper reporter and a presenter at Lefaso.net blogs. He wooed and promotes human rights and the values of democracy and freedom of the press. He publishes articles and videos to educate and raise awareness on issues of human rights Sopheap Chak (Cambodia):. Ms Chak is the program director of the Cambodian Centre for Human Rights (CCHR) is a leading Cambodian human rights activist bloggers. It mobilizes youth activists around the country in civic engagement through the Youth Network of Cambodia to change. She is the author of the online Global Voice, UPI Asia Online, and calls Furutre.Andres Azpurua (Venezuela): Mr. Azpurua is committed to the creation of digital tools to allow Venezuelans to better exercise their rights. O He has to create a digital platform that promotes and defends the rights of voters helped. It is also the founder of a digital initiative to establish a voluntary civil society to the right of the Milli Venezuela.Emin (Azerbaijan) is to be promoted: Mr. Milli is a writer and dissident who has actively used online networking tools, to disseminate information on violations of human rights in Azerbaijan. He was in for 16 months for his critical views on the Government of Azerbaijan in prison. He was pardoned in 2010 and is currently writing his doctoral work in London, the “New Media and the Arab revolutions”. U.S. Mission Photo by Eric Bridiers.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Internet</h3>
<p>Image the U.S. mission in Geneva <br /><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/unmision.jpg/@@images/843a9493-f909-4e12-ac05-7dee3cae8e8d.jpeg" alt="UN Mission Geneva" class="image-inline" title="UN Mission Geneva" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Internet Freedom Fellows Program of the U.S. State funded Department and administered by the United States Mission to the United Nations in Geneva, provides human rights activists around the world in Geneva, Washington, and Silicon Valley to work with other activists, U.S. and international to meet government and members of civil society and the private sector in technology and the human rights involved. A central goal of the program is to share experiences and promote understanding of the importance of a free Internet to freedom of expression and association as fundamental rights of the people studied. Fellows are in Geneva June 19 to 22 at the 20th Session of the UN Human Rights Council. Fellows this year on Internet freedom, all human rights activists and practitioners active in the digital media, are from Syria, India, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Venezuela and Azerbaijan. . In Geneva, they will participate in a conversation, global webcast of the United Nations, to “global networks, individual freedom”, Wednesday, Juin 20-1000 EDT (14:00 UTC) The 2012 Fellows are: Dlshad Othman (Syria): Mr. Othman is a Syrian activist and software engineer with the Syrians, the digital resources and support for security features so that they can use online communication and advocacy work freely and safely, despite the increased repression of E-Government in the form of censorship, Cyber-attacks and sophisticated monitoring intense.Pranesh Prakash (India): Mr. Prakash is a program manager at the Center for Internet and Society at Bangalore. He works primarily in areas where policies intersect and technology, conduct research and policy advocacy on issues of online freedom of expression, access to knowledge, intellectual property and Internet governance reform Koundjoro Gabriel Kambou (Burkina Faso). Mr. Kambou is a newspaper reporter and a presenter at Lefaso.net blogs. He wooed and promotes human rights and the values of democracy and freedom of the press. He publishes articles and videos to educate and raise awareness on issues of human rights Sopheap Chak (Cambodia):. Ms Chak is the program director of the Cambodian Centre for Human Rights (CCHR) is a leading Cambodian human rights activist bloggers. It mobilizes youth activists around the country in civic engagement through the Youth Network of Cambodia to change. She is the author of the online Global Voice, UPI Asia Online, and calls Furutre.Andres Azpurua (Venezuela): Mr. Azpurua is committed to the creation of digital tools to allow Venezuelans to better exercise their rights. O He has to create a digital platform that promotes and defends the rights of voters helped. It is also the founder of a digital initiative to establish a voluntary civil society to the right of the Milli Venezuela.Emin (Azerbaijan) is to be promoted: Mr. Milli is a writer and dissident who has actively used online networking tools, to disseminate information on violations of human rights in Azerbaijan. He was in for 16 months for his critical views on the Government of Azerbaijan in prison. He was pardoned in 2010 and is currently writing his doctoral work in London, the “New Media and the Arab revolutions”.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/internet-freedom-press-conference-at-un-fellows'>https://cis-india.org/news/internet-freedom-press-conference-at-un-fellows</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet Governance2012-06-28T06:03:54ZNews ItemGlobal Networks, Individual Freedoms: A Peer Forum on Internet Freedom and Human Rights
https://cis-india.org/news/peer-forum-on-internet-freedom-and-human-rights
<b>In Connection with the 2012 Internet Freedom Fellows Program, the United States Mission to the United Nations in Geneva is pleased to invite Pranesh Prakash to a peer forum at the United States Mission to the United Nations on Thursday, June 21, 2012, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Join the Internet Freedom Fellows, diplomats, UN representatives, civil society, technologists and social media experts, Geneva media and other professionals engaged in the intersection of human rights, internet freedom and technology.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This peer forum is part of the Internet Freedom Fellows program, which brings human rights activists from across the globe to Geneva, Washington, and Silicon Valley to meet with fellow activists, U.S. and international government leaders, and members of civil society and the private sector engaged in technology and human rights.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This year’s Internet Freedom Fellows, all human rights activists and active practitioners of digital media, are from Syria, India, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Venezuela and Azerbaijan.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">For additional information on the program, please visit <span class="visualHighlight"><a class="external-link" href="http://geneva.usmission.gov/us-hrc/internet-freedom-fellows-2012/">Internet Freedom Fellows</a></span>.</p>
<h3 id="_mcePaste">Program</h3>
<table class="listing">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: justify; ">9:00 a.m.</td>
<td style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Welcome and introduction</strong><br />David Kennedy / John Horniblow</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>9:15 - 10:15</td>
<td style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Freedom to Connect and Freedom from Fear: The problem of surveillance in a networked world</strong>. <br /><span class="visualHighlight"><a class="external-link" href="http://consentofthenetworked.com/author/">Rebecca MacKinnon</a></span> – Co Founder Global Voices Online, Author “Consent of the Networked”, Boards of Directors of the Committee to Protect Journalists and the Global Network Initiative</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>10:15 - 10:45</td>
<td style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Developing Networked Voices and Promoting the protection of Human Rights </strong><br />Andreas Harsono, blogger and human rights activist (Indonesia), and Rosebell Kagumire, multimedia journalist working on peace and conflict issues in the Eastern Africa region (Uganda) <br />2011 Internet Freedom Fellows and journalists (via Skype)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>10:45 - 11:00</td>
<td><strong>Coffee break</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>11:00 - 12:00</td>
<td style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Moderated Panel Discussion – How Do we Protect Human Rights in a world of global networks? How do the needs of the grassroots, civil society and business inform the process of upholding the UDHR and IHL in networks and technologies?</strong><br />Dr. Robert Whelan (ICRC), Pranesh Prakash, Salil Trepathi (IHRB), Nicolas Seidler (ISOC), Emin Milli Moderated Panel Discussion followed by Q &A</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>12:00 - 13:00</td>
<td><strong>Buffet Luncheon</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>13:00 - 13:30</td>
<td style="text-align: justify; "><strong>The Open Internet - Empowering Digital Humanitarianism</strong><br />Paul Conneally - Head of Communications for ITU and a former Red Cross delegate (in various positions, locations and with IFRC plus ICRC and the Irish Red Cross).</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>13:40 - 14:10</td>
<td style="text-align: justify; ">Global Network Initiative and the multistakeholder approach ensuring an Open Internet<br />David Sullivan -Policy and Communications Director <br />Global Network Initiative</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left; ">14.15 <span style="text-align: left; ">- </span>14.40</td>
<td style="text-align: justify; "><strong>The Silicon Valley Standard and implications for technology companies in the protection of Human Rights and other freedoms </strong><br />Brett Solomon -Exec Director Access Now (via Skype)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left; ">15:00</td>
<td style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Twiplomacy </strong><br />Matthias Luefkins <i>Managing Director, Digital, EMEA</i>– Burson Marstellar</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div style="text-align: justify; ">Participation is limited. Please RSVP by noon on Friday, June 15 to <span class="visualHighlight"><a class="mail-link" href="mailto:iff@usmission.ch">iff@usmission.ch</a>. </span>When responding, please indicate whether you will also join us for the luncheon buffet.</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/peer-forum-on-internet-freedom-and-human-rights'>https://cis-india.org/news/peer-forum-on-internet-freedom-and-human-rights</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet Governance2012-06-28T09:12:28ZNews ItemInternet At Liberty 2012
https://cis-india.org/news/internet-liberty-2012
<b>Activists and experts from all over the world came together for this event organised by Google on May 23 and 24, 2012 to explore free expression in the digital age.</b>
<p><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/Internet.jpg/@@images/dc9d1698-03d0-4d2e-bdba-be0f3a5ccb51.jpeg" alt="Internet" class="image-inline" title="Internet" /></p>
<p> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sunil Abraham was a speaker in Plenary IV Debate 3: In a world where nearly nine out of ten Internet users are not American, what is the responsibility of United States institutions in promoting internet freedom? Cynthia Wong, Mohamed El Dahshan, Dunja Mijatović and Judy Woodruff were the other speakers in this panel. See the video below:</p>
<hr />
<h3>Video</h3>
<p><strong>Internet at Liberty 2012: Plenary IV - Sunil Abraham, Cynthia Wong, Mohamed El Dahshan and Dunja Mijatović</strong></p>
<p><iframe frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/9YMte4hdYu0" width="320"></iframe></p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YMte4hdYu0">View the video on YouTube</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/internet-liberty-2012'>https://cis-india.org/news/internet-liberty-2012</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionVideoInternet Governance2012-07-05T05:24:33ZNews ItemIndia: The New Front Line in the Global Struggle for Internet Freedom
https://cis-india.org/news/india-the-new-front-line-in-the-global-struggle-for-internet-freedom
<b>The government tussles with Internet freedom activists in the world's largest democracy.</b>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/india-the-new-front-line-in-the-global-struggle-for-internet-freedom/258237/">This article was published in the Atlantic on June 7, 2012</a></p>
<p>This Saturday, Indian Internet freedom advocates are planning to stage a nation-wide protest against what they see as their government's increasingly restrictive regulation of the Internet. An amorphous alliance of concerned citizens and activist hackers intend to use the streets and the Internet itself to make their opposition felt. </p>
<p>Over the last year, as Americans were focused on the domestic debates surrounding the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml">Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA)</a>, or on the more brazen displays of online censorship by mainstays of Internet restriction like China, Iran and Pakistan, India was rapidly emerging as a key battleground in the worldwide struggle for Internet freedom.</p>
<p>The confrontation escalated in April 2011, when the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology introduced sweeping new rules regulating the nature of material that Internet companies could host online. In response, civil liberties groups, Internet freedom supporters, and a growing assembly of online activist hackers have been fighting back, initiating street protests, organizing online petitions, and launching -- under the banner of the "Anonymous" hacker group -- a torrent of distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks against Indian government and industry web sites. </p>
<p>The <a class="external-link" href="http://www.mit.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/GSR314E_10511%281%29.pdf">April 2011 rules</a>, an update to India's <a class="external-link" href="http://www.mit.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/downloads/itact2000/it_amendment_act2008.pdf">Information Technology Act</a> (IT Act) of 2000 (amended in 2008), popularly known as the "intermediary guidelines," instruct online "intermediaries" -- companies that provide Internet access, host online content, websites, or search services -- to remove, within 36 hours, any material deemed to be "grossly harmful, harassing, blasphemous," "ethnically objectionable," or "disparaging" by any Internet user who submits a formal objection letter to that intermediary. Under the guidelines, any resident of India can compel Google, at the risk of criminal and/or civil liability, to remove content from its site that the resident finds politically, religiously, or otherwise "objectionable." </p>
<p>Information Technology Minister Kapil Sibal -- the intermediary guidelines' most important government evangelist, and the head of the agency responsible for administering the guidelines -- even <a class="external-link" href="http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/india-asks-google-facebook-others-to-screen-user-content/">instructed Internet companies</a> to go one step further and start pre-screening content for removal before it was flagged by concerned users. This requires companies like Facebook, in effect, to determine what material might offend its users and thus violate Indian law, and then remove it from the website. With <a class="external-link" href="http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-12-15/news/30520358_1_e-commerce-indian-internet-space-internet-and-mobile-association">over 100 million Internet users</a> in India, no company could possibly monitor all its content through human intervention alone; web companies would have to set up filters and other mechanisms to take down potentially objectionable content more or less automatically.</p>
<p>India's constitution, in large part crafted in response to the modern country's harrowing history of religious and communal violence, allows for "reasonable restrictions" on free speech. Indian officials have at times banned certain books, movies, or other materials touching on such sensitive subjects as religion and caste. </p>
<p>Left with little choice but to comply or risk legal action, Google, Yahoo!, and other Internet companies acquiesced and <a class="external-link" href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/06/india-internet-idUSL4E8D66SM20120206">began pulling down </a>webpages after receiving requests to do so. Yet many companies refused to remove all the content requested, prompting Mufti Aijaz Arshad Qasm, an Islamic scholar, and journalist Vinay Rai, respectively, to file civil and criminal suits against 22 of the largest Internet companies operating in India. The targets, including Google, Yahoo!, Facebook, and Microsoft, were accused of failing to remove material deemed to be offensive to the Prophet Mohammed, Jesus, several Hindu gods and goddesses, and various political leaders. </p>
<p>The companies have had some success in the litigation: Google India, Yahoo!, and Microsoft have all <a class="external-link" href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304356604577341101544076864.html">been dropped</a> from the civil case after the court heard preliminary arguments; the Delhi High Court recently dismissed Microsoft from the criminal case. Otherwise, both cases are still ongoing.</p>
<p>India has taken its Internet regulation internationally, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.thinkdigit.com/Internet/India-asks-US-to-remove-objectionable-content_9366.html">asking</a> the United States government to ensure that India-specific objectionable content is removed from sites such as Facebook, Google, and YouTube, and suggesting that these companies should be asked to relocate their servers to India in to order better to regulate the content locally.</p>
<p>The Indian government's state-centric view of Internet regulation and governance is also clear in their approach to international governance. Citing the need for more governmental input in the Internet's development and what happens online, India formally <a class="external-link" href="http://content.ibnlive.in.com/article/21-May-2012documents/full-text-indias-un-proposal-to-control-the-internet-259971-53.html">proposed the creation</a> of the Committee for Internet Related Policies (CIRP) at the 2011 United Nations General Assembly. The CIRP would be an entirely new multilateral UN body responsible for coordinating virtually all Internet governance functions, including multilateral treaties. </p>
<p>To be fair, some Indians see these as efforts not to impose censorship but to allow a greater degree of Indian and international control over a system considered by many in India and elsewhere to be <a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article3426292.ece">under the thumb of the U.S. government</a>. </p>
<p>Yet some Internet experts in both India and the West are criticizing the CIRP proposal as part of "<a class="external-link" href="http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-05-21/internet/31800574_1_governance-cyber-security-internet">thinly masked efforts to control or shape the Internet</a>," as one Indian official put it. They<a class="external-link" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-waz/internet-governance-at-a-_b_1203125.html"> warn</a> that a state-centric system of Internet governance could lead to serious restrictions on the type of information available online, and damage the Internet's potential for innovation.</p>
<p><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/IndiaAnonymous.jpg/image_preview" alt="India Anonymous" class="image-inline image-inline" title="India Anonymous" /></p>
<p>India's Internet freedom advocates are straining to keep up with the rapid pace of the last year. But, now, they're gathering some steam. Online petitions against the intermediary guidelines, the IT Act, and censorship in India in general have appeared on <a class="external-link" href="https://www.change.org/petitions/mps-of-india-support-the-annulment-motion-to-protect-internet-freedom-stopitrules">Change.org</a> and <a class="external-link" href="https://www.facebook.com/saveyourvoice">Facebook</a>; <a class="external-link" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtA194jig3s">protest videos</a> are popping up on Youtube. The Centre for Internet and Society, a web-focused think tank, released an <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/chilling-effects-on-free-expression-on-internet" class="external-link">extensive report highlighting</a> the intermediary guidelines' effects on freedom online. The Internet Democracy Project <a class="external-link" href="http://lighthouseinsights.in/bloggers-against-internet-censorship.html">organized a day-long training program</a> on freedom of expression and censorship for bloggers entitled "Make Blog not War." FreeSoftware Movement Karnataka organized a protest of hundreds of students in Bangalore, India's IT hub. And Save Your Voice activists <a class="external-link" href="http://kafila.org/2012/04/22/freedom-in-the-cage-photos-from-a-protest-against-internet-censorship-in-delhi/">held a sit in</a> outside Delhi's Jantar Mantar monument to pressure lawmakers.</p>
<p>Yet, not all the opposition has been so civil. Hackers, operating under the umbrella of the techno-libertarian hacker community, "Anonymous," are waging their own, less lawful fight against the government as well as the Internet companies that have, in their view, too readily complied with the government's censorship demands. </p>
<p>On May 17, Anonymous hackers attacked a number of Indian <a class="external-link" href="http://tech2.in.com/news/web-services/supreme-court-website-hacked-in-response-to-tpb-vimeo-block/307532">government websites</a>, including the Indian Supreme Court, the Reserve Bank of India, the ruling Congress Party and its <a class="external-link" href="http://windowsera.com/anonymous-india-hacks-aitmc-mizoram-government-website-redirects-to-twitter">coalition partners</a>, as well as the opposition Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP), making them all inaccessible for several hours. </p>
<p>Moreover, just this past week, Anonymous broke into the websites and servers of a number of Internet Service Providers, including <a class="external-link" href="http://www.firstpost.com/tech/anonymous-strikes-rcom-to-protest-india-net-censorship-322241.html">Reliance Communications</a>, seemingly to punish them for complying with government orders to block file-sharing hosts such as Pirate Bay and Vimeo. Once in the ISPs' servers, the hackers accessed their lists of <a class="external-link" href="http://tech2.in.com/news/general/anonymous-india-releases-blocked-sites-list-plans-peaceful-protest/310682">blocked sites</a> -- which they then distributed to media outlets. They also redirected people who tried to reach Reliance's site to an Anonymous <a class="external-link" href="http://www.cio.in/sites/default/files/topstory/2012/05/reliance_network_hacked.JPG">protest page</a>. </p>
<p>Building on the momentum of these attacks, and on the anti-censorship outrage growing across India, Anonymous <a class="external-link" href="http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-05-31/internet/31920036_1_occupy-protests-government-sites-website">has called for a national day of protest</a> in 11 Indian cities this Saturday, and an additional series online attacks against government and industry websites. The occupy-style protests -- which Anonymous insists will be non-violent -- are to include awareness campaigns on Facebook and other social networking sites. Protesters are being asked to don the <a class="external-link" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Anonymous_at_Scientology_in_Los_Angeles.jpg">Guy Fawkes mask</a>, a symbol now associated with Anonymous, among other protest movements, both in the streets and on their Facebook profiles. </p>
<p>It's unclear how much support the June 9 protest will receive, or how serious the planned Anonymous attacks with be, but given the attention that the announcement has attracted in the Indian media, it seems likely that people will at least be paying attention. And even if this weekend the protest fails to attract the type of large and vocal response protest organizers are hoping it will, that it's come so far is an indication that neither side looks ready to back down.</p>
<p>Still, the government has given some small signs recently that it is reconsidering its position on the "intermediary guidelines," if not on Internet regulation more generally. Information Technology Minister Sibal, under pressure from the political opposition and after Parliament Member P. Rajeeve tabled a motion to seek rescission of the new rules,<a class="external-link" href="http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/kapil-sibal-promises-to-rethink-on-internet-censorship/1/189265.html"> indicated</a> that he would reconsider his previous positions, and the government has agreed to <a class="external-link" href="http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-05-18/news/31765682_1_internet-rules-arun-jaitley-information-technology-rules">reexamine the rules</a>. </p>
<p>This is an encouraging sign, although it's unlikely that any government action will come in time to forestall this weekend's protests. But even if the intermediary guidelines are ultimately rescinded, India will likely continue its soul-searching on how it deals with the Internet.</p>
<p>As the world's largest democracy and a model for much of the developing world, and with an Internet population anticipated to surpass that of the United States in the next few years, India is an important, maybe the most important, test case for the future of Internet freedom globally. Should India continue down a course of restriction, other nations eager to restrict online speech could see precedent to impose their own technical and political barriers to free expression online. It would be a tragic irony if India, as one of the developing world's greatest beneficiaries of the information revolution, ended up curbing those same free flows of information and ideas.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/india-the-new-front-line-in-the-global-struggle-for-internet-freedom'>https://cis-india.org/news/india-the-new-front-line-in-the-global-struggle-for-internet-freedom</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceIntermediary LiabilityCensorship2012-06-18T07:10:21ZNews ItemIndia's struggle for online freedom
https://cis-india.org/news/indias-struggle-for-online-freedom
<b>"65 years since your independence," a new battle for freedom is under way in India — according to a YouTube video uploaded by an Indian member of Anonymous, the global "hacktivist" movement.
</b>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/indias-struggle-for-online-freedom-20120608-2016i.html">Rebecca MacKinnon's article was published in the Sydney Morning Herald on June 9, 2012</a></p>
<p>With popular websites like Vimeo.com blocked across India by court order, the video calls for action: "Fight for your rights. Fight for India." Over the past several weeks, the group has launched distributed denial-of-service attacks against websites belonging to internet service providers, government departments, India's Supreme Court, and two political parties.</p>
<p>Street protests are being planned for today in as many as 18 cities to protest laws and other government actions that a growing number of Indian internet users believe have violated their right to free expression and privacy online.</p>
<p>A lively national internet freedom movement has grown rapidly across India since the beginning of this year.</p>
<p>The most colourful highlight so far was a seven-day Gandhian hunger strike, otherwise known as a "freedom fast," held in early May on a New Delhi pavement by political cartoonist Aseem Trivedi and activist-journalist Alok Dixit. Trivedi's website was shut down this year in response to a police complaint by a Mumbai-based advocate who alleged that some of Trivedi's works "ridicule the Indian Parliament, the national emblem, and the national flag."</p>
<p>Escalating political and legal battles over internet regulation in India are the latest front in a global struggle for online freedom — not only in countries like China and Iran where the internet is heavily censored and monitored by autocratic regimes, but also in democracies where the political motivations for control are much more complicated.</p>
<p>Democratically elected governments all over the world are failing to find the right balance between demands from constituents to fight crime, control hate speech, keep children safe, and protect intellectual property, and their duty to ensure and respect all citizens' rights to free expression and privacy. Popular online movements — many of them globally interconnected — are arising in response to these failures.</p>
<p>Only about 10 per cent of India's population uses the web, making it unlikely that internet freedom will be a decisive ballot-box issue anytime soon. Yet activists are determined to punish New Delhi's "humourless babus," as one columnist recently called India's censorious politicians and bureaucrats, in the country's media. Grassroots organisers are bringing a new generation of white-collar protesters to the streets to defend the right to use a technology that remains alien to the majority of India's people.</p>
<p>The trouble started with the 2008 passage of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, whose Section 69 empowers the government to direct any internet service to block, intercept, monitor, or decrypt any information through any computer resource.</p>
<p>Company officials who fail to comply with government requests can face fines and up to seven years in jail. Then, in April 2011, the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology issued new rules under which internet companies are expected to remove within 36 hours any content that regulators designate as "grossly harmful," "harassing," or "ethnically objectionable" — designations that are open to a wide variety of interpretations and that free speech advocates argue have opened the door to abuse.</p>
<p>It is thanks to these rules that the website of the hunger-striking cartoonist, Trivedi, was taken offline. Also thanks to the 2011 rules, Facebook and Google are facing trial for having failed to remove objectionable content. If found guilty, the companies could face fines, and executives could be sentenced to jail time.</p>
<p>Saturday's protesters are calling for annulment of the 2011 rules and the repeal of part of the 2008 act. They are also calling for internet service companies to reverse the wholesale blocking of hundreds of websites, including the file-sharing services isoHunt and The Pirate Bay, as well as the video-sharing site Vimeo and Pastebin, which is primarily used for the sharing of text and links.</p>
<p>Internet service providers were responding to a court order from the Madras High Court demanding the blockage, which is aimed at preventing the online distribution of pirated versions of one particular film. The internet companies, fearing that they would not be able to catch every individual instance on every possible site they host, instead chose to block entire services along with all of their content — which had nothing to do with the film in question.</p>
<p>Such "John Doe" orders, named because they are directed against unknown potential offenders in the present and future, are characterised "by their overly broad and sweeping nature," argue lawyer Lawrence Liang and researcher Achal Prabhala, which extends "to a range of non-infringing activities as well, thus catching a whole range of legal acts in their net."</p>
<p>More broadly, as Delhi-based journalist Shivam Vij wrote in a recent essay: "The current mechanisms of internet censorship in India — blocking, direct removal requests to websites, intermediary rules — are draconian and unconstitutional. They need to be replaced with a new set of rules that are fair, transparent and accessible for public scrutiny. They should not be amenable to misuse by the powers-that-be for their own private interests."</p>
<p>Not only are the rules abused, but researchers find that they are causing extralegal censorship by companies that overcompensate in order to err on the side of caution. Last year, the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society performed an experiment in which it sent "legally flawed" takedown demands to seven companies that provide a range of online services, including search, online shopping, and news with user-generated comments.</p>
<p>The legal flaws in the notices were such that the companies could have rejected them without being in breach of the law. Yet "of the 7 intermediaries to which takedown notices were sent, 6 intermediaries over-complied with the notices, despite the apparent flaws in them," reads the Centre for Internet and Society report.</p>
<p>Despite the growing public opposition, a motion to annul the 2011 rules was defeated by voice vote in the upper house of Parliament last month. Yet the criticism was sufficiently sharp that Communications Minister Kapil Sibal announced that he will hold consultations with all members of Parliament, representatives of industry, and other "stakeholders" to discuss the law's problems and how it might be revised.</p>
<p>Many of the law's critics, however, are skeptical that this will eliminate the law's deep flaws and loopholes for abuse, especially given the government's failure to listen so far. Comments on the 2011 rules submitted last year by the Centre for Internet and Society were not even acknowledged as having been received by the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology. "Sibal uses the excuse of national security and hate speech," says the center's director, Sunil Abraham, "but that is not what is happening."</p>
<p>Abraham worries that what is really happening is a government effort at Internet "behavior modification" through a process akin to an experiment involving caged monkeys, bananas, and ice water. Put four monkeys in a cage and hang a bunch of bananas on the ceiling. Every time one of them climbs up to reach the bananas, you drench all of them with ice water.</p>
<p>Soon enough, the monkeys will start policing themselves — attacking anybody who tries to reach the bananas, making it unnecessary for their masters to deploy the ice water. "This is why the government is being so aggressive so early on, with only 10 percent of India's population online," says Abraham. "If you start the drenching early on, by the time you get to 50 per cent [internet penetration], every one will be well-behaved monkeys."</p>
<p>Companies will act as private internet police for fear of legal punishment before the government is called upon to step in and enforce the law. If it works, Indian politicians could have fewer reasons to worry about online critiques or mockery, because companies fearing prosecution will proactively delete speech that could potentially be designated "harassing" or "grossly harmful."</p>
<p>India is not China or Iran, however. Its politicians may be corrupt, and most of its voters may not understand why Internet freedom matters because they've never used the Internet. But it still has an independent press and boisterous civil society that are not going to give up their critiques and protests anytime soon. India also has a strong, independent judiciary, with a record of ruling against censorship and surveillance measures when a strong case can be made that they conflict with constitutional protections of individual rights. "On free speech I have high faith in the Indian judiciary," says Abraham. "There is a good chance to launch a constitutional challenge."</p>
<p>If Google and Facebook lose at their impending trial — now scheduled for July — they will most certainly appeal, which activists hope could provide just such an opportunity to prevent the sort of "behaviour modification" process that Abraham warns against.</p>
<p>Now India's burgeoning internet freedom movement needs its own reverse "behaviour modification" strategy — imposing consistent and regular doses of political and legal ice water upon India's bureaucrats, politicians, and companies whenever they do things that threaten to corrode the rights of India's internet users. Saturday's protest is just the beginning.</p>
<p><em>Sunil Abraham is quoted in the article. The report on Intermediary Guidelines co-produced by CIS and Google is also mentioned.</em></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/indias-struggle-for-online-freedom'>https://cis-india.org/news/indias-struggle-for-online-freedom</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaPrivacyFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-06-18T06:39:32ZNews Item'Anonymous' hackers to protest Indian Internet laws
https://cis-india.org/news/anonymous-hackers-to-protest-indian-internet-laws
<b>Global hacking movement Anonymous has called for protesters to take to the streets in 16 cities around India on Saturday over what it considers growing government censorship of the Internet, writes Pratap Chakravarty. </b>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gsnDdnLf9f_PmycvKCR-5aHsJiNw?docId=CNG.56f38ef15f6205d33c4a9b392db46ad0.551">This was published in AFP on June 8, 2012</a></p>
<p>The call for demonstrations by the Indian arm of the group follows a
March 29 court order issued in the southern city of Chennai demanding 15
Indian Internet providers block access to file-sharing websites such as
Pirate Bay.</p>
<p>The order has resulted in access being denied to a host of websites
that carry pirated films and music among other legal content, including <a class="external-link" href="http://www.isohunt.com/">www.isohunt.com</a> and <a class="external-link" href="http://www.pastebin.com/">www.pastebin.com</a>.</p>
<p>On Wednesday, the Anonymous forum fired an opening shot by attacking
the website of state-run telecom provider MTNL, pasting the logo of the
group -- the mask of 17th century revolutionary Guy Fawkes -- on <a class="external-link" href="http://www.mtnl.net.in">www.mtnl.net.in</a>.</p>
<p>In an open letter the same day, the group accused the government of
trying to create a "Great Indian Firewall" to establish control on the
web and issuing a "declaration of war from yourself... to us."</p>
<p>Internet users and supporters have been asked to join peaceful
rallies in cities including the capital New Delhi and the tech hub of
Bangalore, with detailed instructions issued online to participants.</p>
<p>Tech website <a class="external-link" href="http://www.pluggd.in/">www.pluggd.in</a>
reported the demonstrators have been asked to wear Guy Fawkes' masks,
download a recorded message to play to police, and are to chant "United
as one! Divided as zero! We are Anonymous! We are legion!"</p>
<p>Concerns about Internet freedom in India go beyond the court order in
Chennai, however, and stem from an update to India's Information
Technology Act that was given by the IT and communications ministry in
April last year.</p>
<p>The new rules regulating Internet companies -- providers, websites
and search engines -- instruct them that they must remove "disparaging"
or "blasphemous" content within 36 hours if they receive a complaint by
an "affected person".</p>
<p>Groups such as the Center for Internet and Society, a Bangalore-based
research and advocacy group, have waged a year-long campaign for
amendments to the rules, which were quietly released in April.</p>
<p>Industry groups have also objected, saying they are unclear on the
changes which are in any case impossible to implement when it comes to
acting on individual complaints about specific content.</p>
<p>"A lot of education is required in this field," secretary of the
Internet Service Providers Association of India S.P. Jairath told AFP.</p>
<p>The government has also become embroiled in a row with social
networks after Telecoms Minister Kapil Sibal held a series of meetings
with IT giants Google, Yahoo! and Facebook last year to discuss the
pre-screening of content.</p>
<p>The minister was said to have shown Internet executives examples of
obscene images found online that risked offending Muslims or defamed
politicians, including his boss, the head of the ruling Congress party,
Sonia Gandhi.</p>
<p>Since these meetings, 19 Internet firms including Google, Yahoo! and
Facebook have been targeted in criminal and civil cases lodged in lower
courts, holding them responsible for content posted by users of their
platforms.</p>
<p>Anonymous is a secretive "hacker-activist" network and is thought to
be a loosely knit collective with no clearly defined leadership
structure.</p>
<p>It has claimed dozens of online attacks on sites ranging from the
Vatican to Los Angeles Police Canine Association, but is increasingly
the target of law enforcement agencies who have arrested dozens of
members.</p>
<hr />
<p>The above was published in the following places as well:</p>
<ol><li><a class="external-link" href="http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/anonymous-hackers-call-for-protests-across-india-today-against-internet-censorship-229238">NDTV</a>, June 9, 2012</li><li><a class="external-link" href="http://post.jagran.com/anonymous-to-protest-internet-policing-1339243820">Jagran Post</a>, June 9, 2012</li><li><a class="external-link" href="http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-06-09/internet/32140515_1_internet-firms-websites-internet-companies">The Times of India</a>, June 9, 2012</li><li><a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/2012/06/09185541/8216Anonymous8217-activi.html">LiveMint</a>, June 9, 2012</li><li><a class="external-link" href="http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-06-09/news/32140719_1_government-websites-anonymous-facebook-page">Economic Times</a>, June 9, 2012<br /></li></ol>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/anonymous-hackers-to-protest-indian-internet-laws'>https://cis-india.org/news/anonymous-hackers-to-protest-indian-internet-laws</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-06-18T04:55:51ZNews ItemHackers Take Protest to Indian Streets and Cyberspace
https://cis-india.org/news/hackers-take-protest-to-indian-streets-and-cyberspace
<b>First there was self-styled Gandhian activist Anna Hazare who took to the streets to protest corruption. Now a group agitating against censorship on the Internet has arrived in India.</b>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2012/06/08/hackers-take-protest-to-indian-streets-and-cyberspace/">This article by Shreya Shah was published in the Wall Street Journal on June 8, 2012 </a>Pranesh Prakash is quoted in this article.</p>
<p>Only this time, the location is cyberspace and their modus operandi hacking.</p>
<p>In the last few months, Anonymous –a group of hackers, or hacktivists as they like to call themselves –has gone after Web sites of political parties, government sites and Internet service providers, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/article3496968.ece">the latest being MTNL</a>, to protest censorship on the Internet.</p>
<p>The group says they are opposing laws including the 2008 Information Technology (Amendment) Act and the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules of 2011, which they say unfairly restrict Internet freedom.</p>
<p>On Saturday, the hackers will take their protest to the streets, with an Occupy Wall Street-style march called ”Operation Occupy India” planned in 17 cities including Mumbai, Delhi, Indore in Madhya Pradesh, Nagpur in Maharashtra and Kundapur in Karnataka. The group has requested all protestors to wear Guy Fawkes masks, the symbol of Anonymous.</p>
<p>“This time the common man wants to help us,” an “anon,” which is what members of the group call themselves, told India Real Time.</p>
<p>Anonymous, which has a global presence, catapulted to fame with its <a class="external-link" href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704457604576011873881591338.html">attacks on Visa, Mastercard and Paypal</a>.</p>
<p>This is how the group attacks Web sites: It overwhelms them with thousands of requests from different computer systems simultaneously. The Web site is unable to handle the load and crashes.</p>
<p>The group intensified its attacks after Internet Service Providers like Reliance, MTNL and Airtel temporarily <a class="external-link" href="http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2012/05/18/vimeo-ban-more-web-censorship/">blocked file sharing sites like Vimeo</a>, Dailymotion, Patebin and Pirate bay, citing a Court order.</p>
<p>But many question the method used by Anonymous.</p>
<p>“I don’t believe in defacing or hacking government Web sites to prove a point,” says Ankit Fadia, a cyber security expert. “You can’t hold the government ransom,” he adds.</p>
<p>In an <a class="external-link" href="http://opindia.posterous.com/open-letter-from-anonymous-to-government-of-i">open letter</a> to the government, Anonymous India defended its actions. It wrote that traditional ways of protesting are losing meaning and this is a new method to pressure the politicians.</p>
<p>Members of the group say that like a regular protest on the street, they too block the infrastructure of their opponents. Except in this case, the infrastructure is located in cyberspace.</p>
<p>This is a “geek method of attacking,” said the anon who spoke to India Real Time. The group does not plan to attacks sites like that of the Indian railways, for instance, which is used by the masses, he explained.</p>
<p>But not everyone is convinced.</p>
<p>The group attacked the Web site of India’s Supreme Court even when it says it does not attack Web sites used by the common man, says Pranesh Prakash, Program Director of the Center for Internet and Society.</p>
<p>The IT Act is another reason Anonymous is protesting. The Act gives the government the power to remove content it finds offensive. The government can also restrict public access to a Web site.</p>
<p>Anonymous is also protesting the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.mit.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/GSR314E_10511%281%29.pdf">Intermediary Guidelines of 2011</a>. According to this Act, a site that hosts offensive content will have to remove it within 36 hours of a complaint against it.</p>
<p>As a result, Web sites like Google and Facebook are <a class="external-link" href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304746604577381791461076660.html%20%20%E2%80%9CThis%20government%20does%20not%20stand%20for%20censorship;%20this%20government%20does%20not%20stand%20for%20infringement%20of%20fr">facing criminal cases</a> for hosting objectionable content on their site.</p>
<p>“This government does not stand for censorship; this government does not stand for infringement of free speech. Indeed, this government does not stand for regulation of free speech,” Kapil Sibal, the Communications and Information Technology Minister told the Rajya Sabha, or the upper house of the Indian Parliament, last month.</p>
<p>Pranesh Prakash, of the Center for Internet and Society told India Real Time that he does not believe that Anonymous will influence policy makers. He says that the main aim of a protest is to get media attention, and in turn get the attention of the people.</p>
<p>But he agrees that India’s cyber laws are “hopelessly flawed” and create a framework by which not only the government but <a class="external-link" href="http://kafila.org/2012/01/11/invisible-censorship-how-the-government-censors-without-being-seen-pranesh-prakash/">everyone can censor</a>.</p>
<p>He adds, “The laws are a greater threat than Anonymous.”</p>
<p>Photo Source: Joel Saget/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/hackers-take-protest-to-indian-streets-and-cyberspace'>https://cis-india.org/news/hackers-take-protest-to-indian-streets-and-cyberspace</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-06-18T04:02:21ZNews ItemPoor Guarantee of Online Freedom in India
https://cis-india.org/news/poor-guarantee-of-online-freedom-in-india
<b>The debate over the "Intermediaries Guidelines" as part of the Information Technology Act, 2000 in Parliament brought focus to the issue of censorship and lack of accountability of governing bodies vis-à-vis the internet in the country. This cannot be divorced from the larger questions related to the threats to freedom of expression from both the state and various societal actors today.</b>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.epw.in/commentary/poor-guarantee-online-freedom-india.html">This article by Geeta Seshu was published in the Economic & Political Weekly, Vol XLVII No. 24, June 2012</a>.</p>
<p>An annulment motion against the Information Technology (Inter-mediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 moved by Member of Parliament (MP) P Rajeev of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) in the Rajya Sabha, was the first serious attempt by internet freedom activists to get the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000 discussed and reviewed by the country’s lawmakers.</p>
<p>Not unexpectedly, the motion, specifically against the rules governing intermediaries – clause (zg) of subsection (2) of Section 87 read with subsection (2) of Section 79 of the >IT Act, 2000 – was not carried. However, the discussion that preceded it at least demonstrated the concerns of parliamentarians about what internet freedom activists have termed the “draconian” provisions of the IT Act.<br /><br />It is about time, really, that parliamentarians sit down to review what they very quickly acquiesced to in December 2009. It is also about time that the debate over the provisions of the IT Act be conducted in the public domain, instead of in closed-door meetings with expert groups and committees comprising a narrow set of stakeholders favoured by the government or its various wings.<br /><br />The discussion in the Rajya Sabha largely centred around the vague and sweeping terminology of the range of content that anyone could take objection to. P Rajeev said that while he supported the regulation of the internet, he was not in favour of its control. The rules were ultra vires the IT Act, he said. Echoing his concern, leader of the opposition Arun Jaitley of the Bharatiya Janata Party, D Raja of the Communist Party of India and N K Singh of the Janata Dal (United) – to name just a few – also said that the internet was different from other media and censoring it was untenable.<br /><br />Finally, union minister for information technology, Kapil Sibal, was forced to give an assurance to the house that he would call a meeting of MPs, industry and all stakeholders and implement whatever consensus emerges after a discussion on the specific words members had objections to.<br /><br />There was no mention from the minister on a host of other problem areas in the rules as they are currently framed, including the very sweeping definition of an “intermediary” itself (any entity which on behalf of another receives, stores or transmits any electronic record – which means internet service providers, web hosting providers, search engines, online payment sites, cybercafes and bloggers too). No mention either of the rules for intermediaries to takedown notices within 36 hours of receiving a complaint, irrespective of whether these are fair and reasonable. No mention of whether the rules need to provide procedures for hearing and adjudicating complaints before any content is taken down.</p>
<h3>The IT Guidelines</h3>
<p>In several ways, the rules have gone way beyond what was laid down in the IT Act, but they also add considerably to the original reasonable restrictions laid down under Article 19 (2) of the Constitution of India. Some of the terms that can invite objections under the guidelines are:<br /><br />(a) Belongs to another person and to which the user does not have any right to; (b) grossly harmful, harassing, blasphemous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, paedophiliac, libellous, invasive of another’s privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically objectionable, disparaging, relating or encouraging money laundering or gambling, or otherwise unlawful in any manner whatever; (c) harm minors in any way; (d) infringes any patent, trademark, copyright or other proprietary rights; (e) violates any law for the time being in force; (f) deceives or misleads the addressee about the origin of such messages or communicates any information which is grossly offensive or menacing in nature; (g) impersonate another person; (h) contains software viruses or any other computer code, files or programmes designed to interrupt, destroy or limit the functionality of any computer resource; (i) threatens the unity, integrity, defence, security or sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign states, or public order or causes incitement to the commission of any cognisable offence or prevents investigation of any offence or is insulting any other nation.<br /><br />With this wide-ranging and entirely arbitrary set of potential violations, the possibility of misuse is also immense. In its comments submitted in response to the draft rules, Privacy India and the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) pointed out that Sections 79(1) and (2) of the amended IT Act itself did provide for exemptions for third party liabilities of intermediaries, something that the rules have now virtually set aside.<a name="fr1" href="#fn1">[1]</a><br /><br />Other comments submitted by these organisations about security and privacy of cybercafe users deal with minors and with the general architecture of cybercafes. In the first instance, the organisations expressed concern that undue restrictions on the use of the internet by minors (photo identity cards, accompanied by adults, etc) would hamper their access to the internet and would actually discourage poorer children from using the internet.<br /><br />In the second instance, the detailed restrictions on the layout of the cybercafés – the height of cabins and the directions of the screens, etc, would, they felt, be intrusive and violate the privacy of internet users in cybercafes. Besides, vulnerable sections like sexual minorities or HIV positive patients may even be open to identity theft, they feared.<br /><br />The discussion on the rules unfortunately did not come close to addressing these fears. While the lawmakers generally accepted the importance of regulation of the internet and electronic communication, there is still very little clarity on exactly how this must be done, the extent to which regulation must take place and the agency that will be entrusted with this task.<br /><br />The IT Act, 2000 was first passed in an era when the country was transitioning to an electronic age. E-commerce was uppermost in the minds of policymakers, their eyes firmly fixed on the new economy. But soon enough, it was clear that technology was developing rapidly and an expert committee was constituted to revise the act and suggest amendments that would incorporate technological changes.</p>
<h3>Lack of Accountability</h3>
<p>In the wake of the 26 November 2008 attack in Mumbai, national security and intelligence were powerful emotional catchwords and few questioned some of the sweeping provisions laid down by the rules under the IT Act. While the annulment motion focuses on the pernicious nature of the guidelines for intermediaries, this is only one amongst a series of rules that seek to change the very manner in which Indians can access and use the internet. Other rules relate to decrypting, monitoring and blocking of communication, data security and privacy (Section 69: interception, monitoring and decryption of information, Section 69 A: blocking, Section 69 B: monitoring of traffic data or information) and of course, the complete absence of checks and balances for the powers given to authorities like Computer Emergency Response Team India (CERT-In).<br /><br />In fact, there has been little or no review of the responsibility vested in an agency like CERT-In, which describes itself as the nodal agency to oversee the security of the nation. Conflating security concerns with content that may be objectionable to some is one thing but also providing this agency with the powers to block sites without even the creators of these sites getting to know about it is another.<br /><br />Most of our attention today is on the censorship rampant on the internet in India. Most recently, there have been several instances of internet sites being blocked and takedown notices sent to bloggers. In the last few months, we have had the arbitrary blocking of the website cartoonsagainstcorruption.com which was run by Kanpur-based cartoonist Aseem Trivedi, the arrest of Jadavpur University professor Ambikesh Mohapatra and the controversial move last year by the Indian government to get internet service providers to remove so-called objectionable content on Facebook, Orkut and Youtube, apart from other sites. A complaint against these sites by journalist Vinay Rai followed soon after, though it strangely did not invoke provisions of the IT Act, preferring to cite alleged violations under the Indian Penal Code.<br /><br />Trivedi did not even know that his site was blocked till some friends called him to tell him that they could not access his site. After an exchange of emails with his webhost, the portal “Big Rock”, he was informed that the site was suspended because it contained cartoons that showed disrespect to national emblems. A complaint had been received by Mumbai’s cybercrime cell by a Mumbai-based advocate, R P Pandey. The Kanpur resident also learnt later from newspaper reports that another case, this time under charges of sedition, were lodged against him in Beed district of Maharashtra.</p>
<p>While this method of embroiling someone in cases in far-flung geographical areas is not new (the complaint by the Indian Institute of Planning and Management against New Delhi-based Caravan magazine in Silchar, Assam is a good case in point), Trivedi quickly moved the content on his site onto another blogging platform, also got together friends and supporters to launch “Saveyourvoice”, an online and offline campaign, with a cheeky celebration of All Fool’s Day on 1 April 2012 with a greeting to the minister Kapil Sibal “for his foolish attempts to try censoring internet” and another campaign – “Freedom in a cage” – at Jantar Mantar, Delhi, in April 2012.<br /><br />Other internet freedom activists have got together to secure information on censorship. Last year, a right-to-information (RTI) application by the CIS revealed that 11 websites were blocked on orders from the department of information technology. A writ petition against the IT Act has been filed in the Kerala High Court and the Software Freedom Law Centre, which was instrumental in campaigning for the annulment motion in the Rajya Sabha, has launched an online petition against the IT Act rules that refers to government authority to censor facebook posts, monitor emails and skype conversations, access private information and mine sensitive personal data.<a name="fr2" href="#fn2">[2]</a><br /><br />Governments the world over are exercised about the need to impose restrictions on online freedom and a good indication is the bi-annual Google Transparency Report that monitors the number and categories of requests sent by different governments to take down content. In the last report for the period January to June 2011, the report recorded requests to remove 358 items and 68 content removal requests, 58% of which were fully or partially complied with. In addition, there were government requests to remove Youtube videos that were protests against local leaders or used offensive language against religious leaders, besides 236 communities and profiles from Orkut which were critical of a local politician.<br /><br />Interestingly, while content removal requests for the Orkut profiles remained as Google maintained it did not fit its own community standards or local law, Google chose to “locally” restrict the videos that may incite enmity between communities. With minor variations, this is a stance adopted by other online companies, like Facebook and Twitter, with the latter coming out with a policy earlier this year that it would remove content that appeared to violate local laws.</p>
<p>In the struggle to keep the internet free and protect communication from surveillance and blocking by governments, it would be naive to expect commercially-driven internet companies to put up much of a stand. Most of these stakeholders have agreed with lawmakers that the internet does need regulation. On their part, the Indian government, which has flexed its desire to regulate the internet, has also been sensitive to criticism of its role in censoring online freedom. Other stakeholders – the vast community of users of the internet, bloggers, website hosts, creators and producers of online videos, file-sharers, software developers, etc, are only engaged in a race to protect their content and shift it to more amenable sites every time they run into trouble.</p>
<h3>Threats to Freedom of Expression</h3>
<p>However, it must be noted that the censorship of online media is but a reflection of the curbs on freedom of expression in general. The attacks on freedom of expression in “offline” media, the attacks on journalists and the deaths of eight journalists since 2010,<a name="fr3" href="#fn3">[3]</a> the alarming regularity with which we are witnessing a ban on books and cinema, art or theatre, the increasing intolerance of dissenting or differing opinions in society, the abject fear of free and independent debate and discussion and the role of the government in actively furthering this intolerance are suggestive of a dangerous trend.<br /><br />Almost all these instances are marked by the clear absence of any due procedure in addressing the content that becomes objectionable to someone or some sections of society, instead arbitrarily and speedily removing this content from the public domain. Whether it is the withdrawal of Rohinton Mistry’s book Such a Long Journey, a prescribed textbook by Bombay University, midway through the academic year, or that of recent issue of the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) textbook on the Constitution of India, institutional redressal mechanisms were simply not given a chance.<br /><br />The woeful absence of similar redressal mechanisms for so-called objectionable content under the rules of the amended IT Act only exacerbates this situation further.</p>
<h3>Notes</h3>
<p>[<a name="fn1" href="#fr1">1</a>].http://privacyindia.org/2011/03/10/comments-on-the-information-technology-guidelines-for-cyber-cafe-rules-2011/<br />[<a name="fn2" href="#fr2">2</a>].www.softwarefreedom.org<br />[<a name="fn3" href="#fr3">3</a>].The Free Speech Hub, which has been tracking violations of freedom of expression as part of a project from the media-watch site, The Hoot (www.thehoot.org), has this list: Hemchandra Pandey (July 2010), Bimala Prasad Talukdar (September 2010), Sushil Pathak (December 2010), Umesh Rajput (January 2011), J Dey (June 2011), Ramesh Singhla (October 2011), Chandrioka (February 2012) and Rajesh Mishra (March 2012).</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/poor-guarantee-of-online-freedom-in-india'>https://cis-india.org/news/poor-guarantee-of-online-freedom-in-india</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernancePrivacy2012-06-17T04:18:26ZNews ItemWhy this blocking di?
https://cis-india.org/news/why-this-blocking
<b>In a bid to curb piracy, film producers are now approaching courts to block websites that host pirated content. But the court orders are so vaguely worded that users lose access to even legitimate content. R Krishna reports.</b>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.dnaindia.com/lifestyle/report_why-this-blocking-di_1694228">The article by R Krishna was published in Daily News & Analysis on May 27, 2012</a>. Pranesh Prakash is quoted in it.</p>
<p>The film 3 owes its popularity to thousands of netizens who watched the song ‘Why this kolaveri di’ on YouTube, and then recommended it to their friends on social networking sites. It is rather ironic that the same netizens were denied access to legitimate content — such as other independent films, free software, etc — on the internet, by the producers of the film.</p>
<p>Last week, the producers, via Copyright Labs, obtained an order from the Madras High Court against 15 internet service providers (ISPs) and five ‘Ashok Kumars’, directing them to not infringe on the film’s copyright. The result: many popular torrent sites as well as video sharing websites like Vimeo and Dailymotion were blocked by some ISPs.</p>
<p>The ‘Ashok Kumar’ in the order refers to unknown people who may infringe on the film’s copyright. It is the desi version of what is known as a John Doe order, used by courts in the US, UK, Canada and Australia.</p>
<h3>Acting against unknown offenders</h3>
<p>According to Delhi-based advocate Apar Gupta, John Doe orders came into practice in India in the early 2000s to help producers counter cable operators airing pirated versions of recently released films on their local channels. Films normally release on Friday, and if someone had pirated the movie, producers would have to wait till Monday to file a plea in court against the offenders.</p>
<p>By the time the court issued the order, the pirated film would have done its damage. That’s why courts started granting producers temporary injunctions against unknown people — John Doe — who were likely to infringe on the film’s copyright. This way, producers could serve court notices without any delay.</p>
<p>“The internet is now being included within the scope of such orders,” says Gupta. As a result, a film producer armed with a John Doe order can ask ISPs to block access to any website that is likely to infringe upon his copyright.</p>
<p>“In the digital age, it takes seconds to spread pirated copies with good prints across the world. A John Doe order makes it convenient for us to serve a notice. Of course, we have to prove that (the website) has infringed copyright,” says Sanjay Tandon, vice president, music and anti-piracy, Reliance Entertainment, which started the trend by blocking torrent websites during the release of their film Singham.</p>
<h3>Carpet blocking websites</h3>
<p>But according to Pranesh Prakash, programme manager, Centre for Internet & Societies, “Unlike the Calcutta High Court order in March this year, which specified the 104 websites that should be blocked, a John Doe order doesn’t mention any specific website. In some cases, the websites are being blocked without any evidence (of copyright infringement). Courts need to be informed of what people with John Doe orders are doing. We need to be specific about what can be blocked and what can’t be.”</p>
<p>A case in point is Vimeo, a website similar to YouTube, which has been blocked by certain ISPs. There is no information about which particular video on Vimeo infringes upon copyright. And even if there is some such video, experts are perplexed why the entire website was blocked.</p>
<p>“The injunctions being granted in India are very generalised and broad. For instance, all it states is that the court is preventing defendants from transmitting copyrighted content. It doesn’t set any limitations, such as requiring the plaintiff to identify specific URLs to be blocked, instead of the whole website,” says Gupta.</p>
<p>However, Tandon points out, Reliance Entertainment has not been asking ISPs to block entire websites. “We are asking ISPs and websites to not allow our content to be streamed via their service. I don’t know why ISPs choose to block entire websites,” he says.</p>
<p>ISPs are not forthcoming in explaining why entire websites are being blocked. “Access to certain sites has been blocked by Airtel pursuant to and in compliance with court orders,” is all an Airtel spokesperson is willing to reveal.</p>
<p>According to Gupta, entire websites are being blocked either because copyright owners demand this, or because ISPs are trying to avoid potential liability. “The fault lies with the legislative procedure. If the ISP is afraid and blocks the entire website, it shows that our laws are not good enough to protect its interests,” says Gupta.</p>
<p>In either case, the present system of functioning is too ham-handed and is like using a butcher’s knife where a surgeon’s scalpel is needed. “Courts should be strict in monitoring how the plaintiff is using the John Doe order. But for things to change, we need one of those unnamed defendants to come before the court and express how the order was used against him,” adds Gupta. Will a John Doe please stand up?</p>
<h3>What is happening internationally</h3>
<p>John Doe orders are used by courts in the US, UK, Canada and Australia. However, there are few instances abroad where they have been used to block websites. According to Apar Gupta, advocate, there is only instance in the UK where a court ordered the blocking of Pirate Bay. “But even that order was specific to Pirate Bay. In the US, they have the Digital Millennium Copyright Act wherein the copyright holder can write to the website asking them to take down content. It clearly specifies that only specific torrent files can be taken down, not the entire website. Indian laws do not go into such detail,” says Gupta.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/why-this-blocking'>https://cis-india.org/news/why-this-blocking</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-05-28T05:47:20ZNews ItemGoogle Policy Fellowship Programme: Call for Applications
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/google-policy-fellowship
<b>The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) is inviting applications for the Google Policy Fellowship programme. Google is providing a USD 7,500 stipend to the India Fellow, who will be selected by August 15, 2012.</b>
<p>The <a class="external-link" href="http://www.google.com/policyfellowship/">Google Policy Fellowship</a> offers successful candidates an opportunity to develop research and debate on the fellowship focus areas, which include Access to Knowledge, Openness in India, Freedom of Expression, Privacy, and Telecom, for a period of about ten weeks starting from August 2012 upto October 2012. CIS will select the India Fellow. Send in your applications for the position by June 27, 2012.</p>
<p>To apply, please send to<a class="external-link" href="mailto:google.fellowship@cis-india.org"> google.fellowship@cis-india.org</a> the following materials:</p>
<ol><li><strong>Statement of Purpose</strong>: A brief write-up outlining about your interest and qualifications for the programme including the relevant academic, professional and extracurricular experiences. As part of the write-up, also explain on what you hope to gain from participation in the programme and what research work concerning free expression online you would like to further through this programme. (About 1200 words max).</li><li><strong>Resume</strong></li><li><strong>Three references</strong></li></ol>
<h2>Fellowship Focus Areas</h2>
<ul><li><strong>Access to Knowledge</strong>: Studies looking at access to knowledge issues in India in light of copyright law, consumers law, parallel imports and the interplay between pervasive technologies and intellectual property rights, targeted at policymakers, Members of Parliament, publishers, photographers, filmmakers, etc.</li><li><strong>Openness in India</strong>: Studies with policy recommendations on open access to scholarly literature, free access to law, open content, open standards, free and open source software, aimed at policymakers, policy researchers, academics and the general public. </li><li><strong>Freedom of Expression</strong>: Studies on policy, regulatory and legislative issues concerning censorship and freedom of speech and expression online, aimed at bloggers, journalists, authors and the general public.</li><li><strong>Privacy</strong>: Studies on privacy issues like data protection and the right to information, limits to privacy in light of the provisions of the constitution, media norms and privacy, banking and financial privacy, workplace privacy, privacy and wire-tapping, e-governance and privacy, medical privacy, consumer privacy, etc., aimed at policymakers and the public.</li><li><strong>Telecom</strong>: Building awareness and capacity on telecommunication policy in India for researchers and academicians, policymakers and regulators, consumer and civil society organisations, education and library institutions and lay persons through the creation of a dedicated web based resource focusing on knowledge dissemination.<br /></li></ul>
<h2>Frequently Asked Questions</h2>
<ul><li><strong>What is the Google Policy Fellowship program?</strong><br />The Google Policy Fellowship program offers students interested in Internet and technology related policy issues with an opportunity to spend their summer working on these issues at the Centre for Internet and Society at Bangalore. Students will work for a period of ten weeks starting from July 2012. The research agenda for the program is based on legal and policy frameworks in the region connected to the ground-level perceptions of the fellowship focus areas mentioned above.<br /></li></ul>
<ul><li><strong>I am an International student can I apply and participate in the program? Are there any age restrictions on participating?</strong><br />Yes. You must be 18 years of age or older by January 1, 2012 to be eligible to participate in Google Policy Fellowship program in 2012.<br /></li></ul>
<ul><li><strong>Are there citizenship requirements for the Fellowship?</strong><br />For the time being, we are only accepting students eligible to work in India (e.g. Indian citizens, permanent residents of India, and individuals presently holding an Indian student visa. Google cannot provide guidance or assistance on obtaining the necessary documentation to meet the criteria.<br /></li></ul>
<ul><li><strong>Who is eligible to participate as a student in Google Policy Fellowship program?</strong><br />In order to participate in the program, you must be a student. Google defines a student as an individual enrolled in or accepted into an accredited institution including (but not necessarily limited to) colleges, universities, masters programs, PhD programs and undergraduate programs. Eligibility is based on enrollment in an accredited university by January 1, 2012.<br /></li></ul>
<ul><li><strong>I am an International student can I apply and participate in the program?</strong><br />In order to participate in the program, you must be a student (see Google's definition of a student above). You must also be eligible to work in India (see section on citizen requirements for fellowship above). Google cannot provide guidance or assistance on obtaining the necessary documentation to meet this criterion.</li><li><strong>I have been accepted into an accredited post-secondary school program, but have not yet begun attending. Can I still take part in the program?</strong><br />As long as you are enrolled in a college or university program as of January 1, 2012, you are eligible to participate in the program.</li><li><strong>I graduate in the middle of the program. Can I still participate?</strong><br />As long as you are enrolled in a college or university program as of January 1, 2012, you are eligible to participate in the program.</li></ul>
<h2>Payments, Forms, and Other Administrative Stuff</h2>
<h3>How do payments work?*</h3>
<p>Google will provide a stipend of USD 7,500 equivalent to each Fellow for the summer.</p>
<ul><li>Accepted students in good standing with their host organization will receive a USD 2,500 stipend payable shortly after they begin the Fellowship in August 2012.</li><li>Students who receive passing mid-term evaluations by their host organization will receive a USD 1,500 stipend shortly after the mid-term evaluation in September 2012.</li><li>Students who receive passing final evaluations by their host organization and who have submitted their final program evaluations will receive a USD 3,500 stipend shortly after final evaluations in October 2012.</li></ul>
<p>Please note: <em>Payments will be made by electronic bank transfer, and are contingent upon satisfactory evaluations by the host organization, completion of all required enrollment and other forms. Fellows are responsible for payment of any taxes associated with their receipt of the Fellowship stipend</em>.</p>
<p><strong>*</strong>While the three step payment structure given here corresponds to the one in the United States, disbursement of the amount may be altered as felt necessary.</p>
<h3>What documentation is required from students?</h3>
<p>Students should be prepared, upon request, to provide Google or the host organization with transcripts from their accredited institution as proof of enrollment or admission status. Transcripts do not need to be official (photo copy of original will be sufficient).</p>
<h3>I would like to use the work I did for my Google Policy Fellowship to obtain course credit from my university. Is this acceptable?</h3>
<p>Yes. If you need documentation from Google to provide to your school for course credit, you can contact Google. We will not provide documentation until we have received a final evaluation from your mentoring organization.</p>
<h2>Host Organizations<br /></h2>
<h3>What is Google's relationship with the Centre for Internet and Society?</h3>
<p>Google provides the funding and administrative support for individual fellows directly. Google and the Centre for Internet and Society are not partners or affiliates. The Centre for Internet and Society does not represent the views or opinions of Google and cannot bind Google legally.</p>
<h2>Important Dates<br /></h2>
<h3><strong>What is the program timeline?</strong></h3>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>June 27, 2012</td>
<td>Student Application Deadline. Applications must be received by midnight.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>July 18, 2012</td>
<td>Student applicants are notified of the status of their applications.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>August 2012</td>
<td>Students begin their fellowship with the host organization (start date to be determined by students and the host organization); Google issues initial student stipends.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>September 2012</td>
<td>Mid-term evaluations; Google issues mid-term stipends.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>October 2012</td>
<td>Final evaluations; Google issues final stipends.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/google-policy-fellowship'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/google-policy-fellowship</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaAccess to KnowledgeFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceResearchTelecomIntermediary LiabilityCensorshipOpenness2012-05-24T15:38:28ZBlog EntryKapil Sibal & Co shoot down motion to kill IT Rules: cite terrorism, drugs
https://cis-india.org/news/sibal-shoot-down-motion-to-kill-it-rules
<b>The Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules 2011 (The Rules) continue to breathe after the statutory motion to annul them moved by member of parliament (MP) from Kerala P Rajeeve was defeated by voice vote in the Rajya Sabha yesterday.</b>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.legallyindia.com/Social-lawyers/motion-to-kill-it-rules-defeated">This blog post by Prachi Shrivastava was published in Legally India on May 18, 2012</a></p>
<p>Telecom Minister Kapil Sibal was heard on Rajya Sabha TV saying: “We are more liberal than US and Europe but let’s not cut our arms.”</p>
<p>Sibal countered Rajeeve’s annulment motion arguing that the government needs to be armed to meet the “new challenges” posed by “new media”, according to <a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/2012/05/17225536/Govt-pledges-to-review-plans-t.html">Mint</a>.</p>
<p>"Kapil Sibal reminds me of badly briefed counsels fumbling in the High Court" tweeted <a class="external-link" href="https://twitter.com/#!/pranesh_prakash">Pranesh Prakash</a> of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) as Sibal was mid-delivery in contending that online media not registered in India escaped the ambit of Indian legislation and thus created the peril of terrorism and increased drug peddling.</p>
<p>Another person tweeted: "The gist of Sibal’s argument was that we need to censor the internet because people are doing drugs."</p>
<p>Sibal’s answer to MP Ram Yadav’s attack on The Rules for being inconsistent with their parent act – the Information Technology Act 2000 (IT Act) – was that <a class="external-link" href="http://www.mit.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/GSR314E_10511(1).pdf">Rule 3(2)</a> which prescribes “due diligence” to be observed by an internet intermediary, originates from <a class="external-link" href="http://www.lawzonline.com/bareacts/information-technology-act/section66A-information-technology-act.htm">Section 66A of the IT Act</a>, thus making the rules consistent with the parent act.</p>
<p>Section 3(2) obligates the intermediary to take down content posted on a website, on the basis of several undefined criteria.</p>
<p>"Minister you have created perverse incentives for censoring speech through law. That is regulation, not merely a definition of due diligence” proclaimed Supreme Court advocate <a class="external-link" href="https://twitter.com/#!/aparatbar">Apar Gupta</a> in a tweet posted during Sibal’s defense of the rules.</p>
<p>Prakash tweeted: "The IT Rules don’t just prescribe ‘due diligence’ but create a takedown mechanism. That’s not the same thing Mr. Sibal."</p>
<p>Sibal went on to establish that the government’s motive was not censorious by stating: “It is your choice, you are free to work with the user who complains to an intermediary. Where does the government come in?”</p>
<p>To which quipped Prakash: “Government is not censoring. It has created a system by which anyone can censor with impunity.”</p>
<h3>Jaitley in-perspective</h3>
<p>Leader of the opposition senior advocate Arun Jaitley objected to The Rules holding that terms such as “disparaging”, ”libellous”, “defamatory”<a class="external-link" href="http://www.legallyindia.com/201201182502/Legal-opinions/sopa-blackout-day-bah-wheres-the-kolaveri-about-indias-it-act-intermediaries-rules"> not defined in the Act or the Rules but enabling take-down of content</a>, could be misused, according to <a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/news/internet/Internet-would-have-made-1975-Emergency-a-fiasco-Arun-Jaitely/articleshow/13219214.cms">Times of India</a>.</p>
<p>IBN Live reported him as urging Sibal to "reconsider the language of restraints".</p>
<p>Sibal addressed the house inviting objections from MPs on specific “words” contained in The Rules which provide for control of speech over the internet, according to<a class="external-link" href="http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/govt-for-consensus-on-rules-for-internet-content-control/999876.html"> PTI</a>.</p>
<p>He further proposed to call a meeting of “stakeholders” to discuss the MPs’ objections, and assured that the consensus that emerges from the meeting will be implemented.</p>
<h3>Draconian Censorious Rules</h3>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.legallyindia.com/Social-lawyers/mps-to-be-taught-draconian-it-act-rules-as-indianet-support-galvanises-for-annul-motion">Legally India</a> reported last month how Rajeeve was trying to spread awareness among MPs about the draconian effect of the Rules which censor free speech and expression, by over-scrutinising users of the internet, over-authorising intermediaries to monitor content posted over the internet, and letting the government, individuals and institutions by-pass the due process of law.</p>
<p>The Rules in their present form require intermediaries - providers of internet, telecom, e-mail or blogging services, including cyber cafes - to publish terms of use prohibiting users from publishing content of the nature specified in the Rules.</p>
<p>Once the intermediaries have knowledge of posted content that is in violation of such terms of use, they are liable for compensation if they fail to initiate action for removal of the posted content.</p>
<p>Some of the categories of prohibited content specified in the Rules are undefined, are not an offence under existing law, and <a class="external-link" href="http://www.legallyindia.com/201203062622/Bar-Bench-Litigation/read-first-writ-challenging-censorious-it-act-intermediaries-rules-in-kerala">are claimed to be in violation of article 19(1) of the Constitution guaranteeing the freedom of speech and expression</a>.</p>
<p>CIS uncovered an additional problem the rules pose - that of <a class="external-link" href="http://www.legallyindia.com/201112072434/Regulatory/kapil-sibal-to-sterilise-net-but-cis-sting-shows-6-out-of-7-websites-already-trigger-happy-to-censor-content-under-chilling-it-act">“over-complying” intermediaries</a> who in order to minimize the risk of liability may block more content than required, adversely impacting the fundamental right guaranteed under article 19(1).</p>
<p>"By and large, the impression is that India is going in the direction of censorship," Mint reported cyber law expert and supreme court lawyer Pavan Duggal as saying, yesterday.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/sibal-shoot-down-motion-to-kill-it-rules'>https://cis-india.org/news/sibal-shoot-down-motion-to-kill-it-rules</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceCensorshipInformation Technology2012-05-24T09:45:43ZNews Item