The Centre for Internet and Society
http://editors.cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 1 to 15.
Using Social Media for Mobilisation: Discussion with Dina Mehta and Peter Griffin
http://editors.cis-india.org/events/event-blogs/using-social-media-for-mobilisation-discussion-with-dina-mehta-and-peter-griffin
<b>Zainab Bawa reports on the discussion with Peter Griffin and Dina Mehta, hosted at CIS on 19 June 2009, on 'Using Social Media for Mobilisation'. </b>
<p></p>
<p>Iran
Elections and the Twitter Revolution …</p>
<p>Memes
– how and why do some memes become popular on Twitter?</p>
<p>FaceBook
– privacy, community, locality, socializing?</p>
<p>Blogs
– once, we thought they would revolutionize the world, but how are blogs now placed
vis-à-vis twitter and facebook?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Many
questions abound concerning the phenomenon called 'social media', particularly
in the wake of the protests taking place in Iran and the ways in which information has
reached out to the world about what is going on in the country. The panel
discussion on social media, organised by the Centre for Internet and Society
(CIS) on 19 June 2009, aimed to understand how mobilisations take
place through social media and how memes are engineered and spread across
communities. We invited Dina Mehta and Peter Griffin to join us as panellists at the event and share
their experiences.</p>
<p>Dina
and Peter set up the tsunami help blog in December 2004 (<a href="http://tsunamihelp.blogspot.com/">http://tsunamihelp.blogspot.com</a>)
which for the first time demonstrated the importance of social media tools in
coordinating local efforts and disseminating information in the region. What
caused them to become involved through this medium? Both Dina and Peter used
discussion forums and email during the formative years of the internet in
India. 'The sheer miracle of chat', as Peter puts it, also allowed them to
connect with people. When the tsunami struck, they became nodes through which
action was mobilised and information was spread. It still remains to be
explored how nodes develop in different circumstances, how spaces of
conversations develop and what causes some individuals to enter the space of
social media and inhabit them in significant ways, to the extent of becoming
nodes for coordination and mobilisation.</p>
<p>So,
what is social media? Dina says she does not like the term. But, since it is
used so commonly, she follows the tide. For Dina and Peter, social media is a
set of tools which can be mobilised for various purposes – for a call to action,
response to a crisis, and persuading people to support a cause, among many other
things. What is curious however is that the use of social media becomes more marked
and prominent during moments of crisis. This observation led one audience member to ask
whether social media is mirroring some of the behaviours of mainstream media.
Dina pointed out that social media does not exist in opposition to mainstream
media – both complement each other. Social media becomes more powerful
during moments of crisis due to some of the following factors:</p>
<ol><li>Powerful search functions;</li><li>Tools for aggregating content which helps in picking
up the noise;</li><li>Hash (#) tags which make it easy to search and to
connect and contribute to ongoing conversations and mobilizations.
</li></ol>
<p>These
help to amplify what is going on. Dina also referred to the simplicity of
social media tools which enables diverse individuals to participate in their
own ways. She cited the recent example of showing solidarity with the Iranian
revolutionaries by adding the colour green to one’s Twitter image. 'I only had
to click to indicate whether I wanted to show support in this way and a program
automatically applied the green colour to my twitter image without my having to
do anything. I don’t have to write code to participate in this medium. I can be
anyone,' she added.</p>
<p>What
is also unique is that unlike newspapers and early television, interactions via
social media tend to be two-way. For instance, blogs have made it possible for
individuals to become publishers of their own materials whether it is diary-like entries or filter blogging. Moreover, in the case of the protests
following the Iran elections, people used their mobile phones to capture
images, make videos and post these on the internet for others to see.</p>
<p>Individuals
from the audience raised questions about how they and their organisations could
use social media tools effectively to raise funds and to communicate their
causes/issues to other people. To this, both Dina and Peter suggested that it
is important to find the spaces where conversations about issues are already
taking place and to participate in them. They also stated that credibility is
built over time through acts of giving to different communities that develop
around various issues. Dina also emphasised the need to recognise target
audiences, identify the mediums they use regularly and accordingly develop
strategies concerning the use of social media. If the outreach group is more
tuned into radio, it is more effective to reach out to them in this way. Dina
mentioned that the mobile phone is a powerful medium that is
often neglected because of the publicity that the internet tends to receive.
She said that in South East Asian countries, people have better mobile phone
connectivity, and often, political activism has taken place by spreading
messages through mobile phones. One of the participants questioned the feasibility of moving from an existing yahoogroup to start a new discussion group; to
which another audience member responded that it is preferable to stay with
existing mediums used rather than to switch. Discussion forums require
more participation and if the goal is only to send out announcements, a
yahoogroup serves the purpose.</p>
<p>The
issue of arm-chair activism was also raised – whether social media is in fact
leading people to participate in issues only through clicking ‘yes’ or ‘no’.
Peter stated that this is true, but the ease of transmitting information to
others enhances the possibility of moving beyond arm-chair activism. 'For
instance, I am concerned about eve teasing and harassment of women in public
spaces, but I may not have the time to participate in an intervention or gathering
on a particular day. However, I forward the email/invitation to my friends who are
concerned similarly and they may choose to participate on-site,' he explained.</p>
<p>The
lack of connectivity to the internet and therefore to social media was referred
to in the discussions. An audience member pointed out that according to a
recent study, only 10% of the people in India are connected to the internet.
Peter immediately remarked that the figure of 10% translated into 10 million
people which is still a large number that can be reached out to. Similarly, it
was pointed out that English is still the predominant language of the web and
therefore social media can be exclusive. In this respect, the issues are
developing technologies for facilitating the use of scripts, the extent to
which the masses use languages other than English on the internet and also
whether people in fact use the internet and other communication technologies as
a means to learn English. In this context, a participant drew our attention to a
twitter community of approximately 800 people who tweet regularly in Malayalam.</p>
<p>The
discussion brought up some interesting nuanced perspectives on social media that users and
novices may not have thought about. Questions still remain about the efficacy
of social media, the nature and characteristics of communities that are formed
around use of social media, distinctions between networks and communities, etc. Over time, these questions will be answered as usage increases
and trends are studied in all their complex aspects.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/events/event-blogs/using-social-media-for-mobilisation-discussion-with-dina-mehta-and-peter-griffin'>http://editors.cis-india.org/events/event-blogs/using-social-media-for-mobilisation-discussion-with-dina-mehta-and-peter-griffin</a>
</p>
No publishersachiaSocial mediaDigital ActivismDiscussion2011-08-20T22:28:42ZBlog EntryRound Table on Assessing the Efficacy of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) for Public Initiatives: A Report
http://editors.cis-india.org/events/event-blogs/round-table-assessing-efficacy
<b>Zainab Bawa reports on the Round Table on Assessing the Efficacy of Information and Communication Technologies for Public Initiatives, hosted by the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, on 17 June 2009, in collaboration with the Liberty Institute, New Delhi. </b>
<p></p>
<p>
In
recent times, there has been an upsurge in the use of ICTs to provide
information to people and to elicit participation. Individuals, corporate
organisations, NGOs, civil society organisations, collectives, municipalities,
political parties and politicians have been using the internet and other
mediums to communicate with people. The round table was organised primarily to
discuss two issues:</p>
<ol><li>What is the
effectiveness of the initiatives introduced in recent times?</li><li>How do we
move forward in terms of partnerships/collaborations in the areas of data
gathering, sharing, dissemination and architecture of information? </li></ol>
<p>Given
the constraints of time, however, we were only able to discuss a few issues with
respect to efficacy of initiatives, rather than come up with a concrete action
plan on how to measure effectiveness of many of the existing initiatives. This
remains an agenda for subsequent meetings.</p>
<p>This round table was the first meeting of its kind. It
brought together participants from diverse backgrounds to discuss key issues
involved in leveraging ICTs towards various ends, and to collaborate with each
other on ongoing initiatives. Participants included researchers,
persons who have developed information platforms and databases, individuals
working in the area of leveraging technology for streamlining processes in
society and people who have been studying usage patterns of social media tools.
Most of the participants were using ICTs to improve information access
related to health issues, education, budgets, development of rural areas and
recently, elections and governance. In the subsequent sections, I will briefly
elaborate on some of the key themes around which discussions took place
during the round table.</p>
<p><strong>Building on Ideas:</strong> In the morning
and pre-lunch sessions, one issue that featured prominently was the importance of developing ideas rather than trying to work out a perfect model that
we believe will solve what we perceive to be people’s problems. Two of the
participants explained that they started implementing ideas as they came to
them, rather than trying to come up with a framework that they thought would
work for the masses. They worked towards evolving their ideas, exploring what
works and what does not. One of them further pointed out that such evolution
cannot be observed as it happens; it only becomes apparent in hindsight. Hence,
discussions such as the current round table are useful.</p>
<p>It is
also important to note that we are still in a nascent stage of understanding
how ICTs can impact people’s lives and deploying them accordingly. As a result, many efforts are likely to be in the stage of trial and error.</p>
<p><strong>Key areas of interest and concern:</strong> Based
on the input from participants in the morning session, we
arrived at a list of areas that require more understanding and discussion.</p>
<ol><li><u>Information gathering, dissemination, access –
including information architecture, technology design</u>:
Here, three issues were discussed:</li>
<ul><li>Who are we talking about when we refer to information
access? It was pointed out that information is crucial particularly for people
who do not have computers and for whom internet is not a priority. The intensity
with which they seek information is remarkable. One of the participants argued
that we undervalue the potential of information to make a difference to
people’s lives.</li><li>How do we deliver information? Providing information
is not enough.</li><li>Representativeness of the information for those who it
is provided for.
</li></ul>
</ol>
<p>Another issue that was referred to
was whether language is a problem, i.e., most information is available only in
English. One of the participants suggested that this is not the case because Google has found that a very small percentage of the population actually refers
to material on the web in languages other than English.</p>
<ol type="1" start="2"><li><u>Community mobilization</u>:
During the deliberations, we referred to the problem of replication of initiatives. Two observers of social media pointed
out that replication happens because people are trying to create their own
unique communities around their initiatives. This is an important insight
for future efforts and also indicates the need to share databases and
information that individuals and organisations have compiled. They also
suggested that it is important to discover existing communities and spaces
where conversations around issues of governance, education, health and
development are taking place. This helps to plug into existing resource
pools and to extend outreach. <br /></li></ol>
<ol type="1" start="3"><li><u>Citizens’ participation</u>:
Initiatives that work and why they
succeed - We briefly discussed the Jaagore campaign and India Vote Report,
which were launched before the 2009 national elections in India to enable
people to register on the electoral rolls and to report irregularities during
elections respectively. Some people found it difficult to register
themselves on the Jaagore website and some had difficulties in finding the
local offices where they needed to follow-up with the process. It was also
pointed out that Vote Report did not connect with the end user because it
would have been easier to report irregularities and anomalies via SMS
rather than trying to report them by logging on to the site. If one looks
at the case of the Online Complaint Management System (OCMS) developed by
Praja, the availability of the telephone hotline service through which
citizens could register their complaints helped in widening usage. Thus,
it appears that two issues are pertinent:</li>
<ul><li>Whether the initiative connects with the people who
are likely to use it;</li><li>Simplicity of design/system that enables more users. <br />
</li></ul>
</ol>
<p><strong>Target
Audience:</strong> One of
the participants pointed out that some initiatives do not work because they are
targeted towards the wrong audiences. For example, when it comes to voting and
elections, poor groups are the ones who go out and vote in large numbers.
Hence, information systems need to be tailored to provide them with the data
that they need most. Access also has to be configured accordingly. In some
instances, the target is too broad to reach out effectively.</p>
<p>It appears that there is a need to
develop strategies on how platforms and databases that have been created to
enhance access to information can be made known among the masses and how people
can be made aware to use them. It is equally important to understand what
constitutes ‘information’ and for whom. Here,
the other issue to explore is how information links back to the people for who
it is provided.</p>
<ol type="1" start="4"><li><u>Technology</u>: In this
area, a key concern was the high costs involved in developing technologies
and whether we could learn from each other’s experience of developing
technologies instead of reinventing the wheel. We also discussed whether
open source software helps to reduce costs of development. The other issue
with respect to open source is whether there is enough assistance and
support available to resolve problems that may crop up during use of
technology from time to time. </li></ol>
<p><strong>Sharing
of Data:</strong> Discussions also veered around the issue of whether
appropriate technology and applications could be created to help with sharing
existing databases and information pools. We did not discuss this issue
in depth, but it remains relevant for subsequent meetings.</p>
<ol type="1" start="5"><li><u>Back end integration</u>: According
to some of the participants, one of major problems is the interface
between government and citizens, which remains weak. Technology
can be used to enhance the interactions. Participants also pointed out
the difficulty in obtaining data from government bodies that is important
to create the interface between government and citizens. A participant
involved with the Jaagore campaign referred to the problem of back-end
integration during their efforts to help citizens register themselves with
the election commission (EC) offices. A participant from Google similarly
reported that they faced problems in obtaining election results from the EC’s
offices as a result of which, they had to rely on their partners for this
information. Here too, we could not deliberate on how to resolve this
problem, but this could be a major theme for a subsequent meeting. <br /></li></ol>
<ol type="1" start="6"><li><u>Performance (monitoring, evaluation)</u>:
One of the themes that participants zeroed in on was the evaluation of
the performance of elected representatives and making this evaluation available for
people to see. Here, the debate was around the problem of evaluation being carried out according to the criteria we set which may not seem relevant
to other sections of society. One of the suggestions that came up was to
develop a matrix for evaluation and put out information accordingly.
People can then use it to make their own judgments. <img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/events/event-blogs/uploads/00016.jpg/image_preview" alt="rt2" class="image-right" title="rt2" /><br /></li></ol>
<p>In
the post-lunch session, some of the participants shared their experiences with
implementation and also the work they and their organisations are currently
engaged with. Towards the end of the round table, each one of the participants
explained their respective projects and how they may wish to collaborate with
other participants (who were present) in their initiatives. An e-group called “CIS-Info-Access” has
been created to take these conversations and collaborations further. </p>
<h3><strong>Evaluation of the Round Table and Way Forward:</strong> <br /></h3>
<p>When
invitations were sent out to people to participate in the round table, many of
the invitees expressed a genuine and enthusiastic interest in being part of
this effort. As mentioned above, one of the reasons for this enthusiasm was
because this was the first meeting of its kind, bringing together
individuals from the fields of technology, research and implementation. We
invited a total of 35 people out of which 27 finally attended the meeting.
The diversity of the participants was an asset in that a variety of issues were
brought to the table. The drawback was that there was not enough time to
discuss some of the pertinent issues in depth. Future meetings can be tailored
to discuss one or two specific themes such as back-end integration and sharing
of information, technology issues, ideas for mobilising citizens and
communities, etc.</p>
<p>The
possibilities of collaboration between participants in this meeting are immense
and we hope that some of the synergies will materialise into concrete outcomes.
Further, a few participants have expressed an interest in organising similar
meetings in their cities/towns, perhaps focusing on a few issues instead of
bringing people together under a broad theme. Of some of the issues discussed,
participants have indicated that back-end integration with government and
ideating on different ways of disseminating data can be further deliberated on
in future. One of the participants also suggested that there is a need to make
‘data’ more relevant to people’s lives.</p>
<p>While
the meeting was fruitful in many respects, one issue needs to be underlined.
This concerns the imagination of internet and ICTs as mediums that can resolve all existing problems with respect to citizen-government
interface, streamlining of processes and provision of information. Such an
overarching imagination of technology overlooks the cultural, economic, social and
political specificities of communities and contexts. Technology
can also have negative implications in some circumstances. It also needs to be
reinforced that technology is embedded in society and culture. Therefore we
need to view technology as one of the avenues among others available which will
facilitate interactions between people and their governments and the state.
Democratisation is more likely to be realised through such a perspective.</p>
<p></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/events/event-blogs/round-table-assessing-efficacy'>http://editors.cis-india.org/events/event-blogs/round-table-assessing-efficacy</a>
</p>
No publishersachiaSocial mediaDigital ActivismDigital AccessPublic AccountabilityDiscussionFeaturedTransparency, Politics2011-08-20T22:28:55ZBlog EntrySome ISPs block Wordpress domain across India
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/tech2-in-com-som-isps-block-wordpress-domain-across-india
<b>Latest reports confirm that Tata Photon has blocked access to the Wordpress.com domain across India, following a government order to block web pages containing offensive content.</b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Published in<a class="external-link" href="http://tech2.in.com/news/services/some-isps-block-wordpress-domain-across-india/392092"> tech 2 </a>on August 25, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Apparently, the ISP has resorted to a blanket ban, blocking access to the entire site instead of clamping down on specific web pages carrying unacceptable content. Wordpress is accessible through other ISPs such as Airtel and Reliance. However, there is no clarity yet about any other ISP blocking out Wordpress entirely, and we are in the process of verifying this.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">We find that the domain can be accessed through means such as free proxy websites when using a Tata Photon connection, which could indicate that the problem does not lie with the Wordpress server. Despite the inability to view Wordpress websites and blogs, those with registered accounts on Wordpress are able to log in to the website. Certain portions of the Dashboard or website backend are known to have been blocked, and what remains accessible is functioning very slowly for Tata Photon users. Users cannot edit or post new content at the moment, but can view sections such as the website's stats. However, this all-encompassing block seems to be affecting only the Wordpress.com platform and not Wordpress.org.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img alt="Error message" height="348" src="http://im.tech2.in.com/gallery/2012/aug/error_message_251726069579_640x360.jpg" width="620" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The error message that most users are coming to</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A blogger by the name 'Anon and on' has written, <i>“I can’t access any WordPress.com blog from home. Neither can I open up the window for a new post or access any support forums. I’ve cleared the cache and tried different browsers, but no luck. All I can do is log in. If I try to see any WordPress.com blog or access my Dashboard or hit “New Post”, the notification I get is that the server couldn’t be contacted and that I should check my connection. Which I would do if it wasn’t for the fact that I can open any and every other website”.</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">We tried to contact Tata Photon to get a clear idea, but it was unavailable for comment. We also contacted Tata Photon users, who run their websites and blogs on the Wordpress platform. They said they have been unable to access the service since Monday. Many users tweeted out their puzzlement and frustration after discovering that they were suddenly unable to view their own blogs and sites.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>"Tata simply blocked 25 MILLION wordpress blogs @cis_india highlight this"</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i> "Not able to open http://Wordpress.com blogs on Tata Photon Plus."</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>"all wordpress blogs blocked in Tata photon plus"</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>"It's some Tata Photon bug. Wordpress working fine with Reliance."</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>"There is a known issue with Tata Photon and Wordpress. Found 5 people who have the same."</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In protest, some bloggers from across the country have formed a group called the Indian Bloggers' Forum. The forum plans to approach the Supreme Court with a PIL seeking immediate unblocking of their blogs and websites.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Earlier this week, a list containing 309 URLs sought to be banned by the government in light of the Assam violence and the subsequent exodus in northeast India was <b><a href="http://tech2.in.com/news/general/ne-exodus-list-containing-309-blocked-urls-leaks-online/387722" target="_blank" title="NE exodus: List containing 309 blocked URLs leaks online">leaked online</a>.</b> The URLs comprising Twitter accounts, HTML img tags, blog posts, entire blogs, and a handful of websites, were blocked between August 18 and 21. In an analysis of the leaked information, Pranesh Prakash, Programme Manager at the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) wrote, <i>"It is clear that the list was not compiled with sufficient care". </i>The list included Wordpress.com and Wordpress.org among other domains. However, only select entries - 3 from Wordpress.org and 8 from Wordpress.com- were meant to be blocked out.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The clampdown on websites with content deemed to be offensive and disruptive led to the Indian government ordering the <b><a href="http://tech2.in.com/news/web-services/65-more-web-pages-with-offensive-content-blocked/385252" target="_blank" title="Government blocking web pages with offensive content">blocking of around 310 web pages</a></b>. The Centre began to come down heavily on the channels it believed were playing a role in triggering fear, and leading to violence and the mass displacement of Indians from the northeast. It has been reported that morphed images and videos were uploaded to these websites with the intention of inciting the Muslim community in the country.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">If your access to Wordpress has been blocked, let us know in your comments.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/tech2-in-com-som-isps-block-wordpress-domain-across-india'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/tech2-in-com-som-isps-block-wordpress-domain-across-india</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionSocial mediaInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-08-26T15:16:30ZNews ItemIndia Blocks News Website Pages for 'Spreading Fear' over Assam Violence
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/www-ibi-times-co-uk-gianluca-mezzofiore-aug-24-2012-india-blocks-news-website-pages-for-spreading-fear-over-assam-violence
<b>Access to more than 300 internet web pages including some published by Telegraph, Times of India and Al-Jazeera blocked.</b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This article by Gianluca Mezzofiore was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/377157/20120824/india-blocks-more-300-internet-pages-news.htm">published</a> in International Business Times on August 24, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Indian government has blocked more than 300 internet web pages including ones published by the Daily Telegraph, Australia's ABC and Al-Jazeera claiming they contained <a href="http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/376629/20120823/india-threatens-block-twitter-over-ethnic-violence.htm" target="_blank">"incendiary" material</a> likely to spread panic.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Internet experts said the move might be illegal as the Indian government interfered with hundreds of website, including some Twitter accounts, blogs and links to certain stories.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Internet posts, phone text messages and fake video clips have allegedly spread rumours that Muslims were poised to attack the Assamese population in Chennai, Mumbai and Pune. More than 10,000 Assamese workers fled to their native state in northeastern India.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The content, bound to fuel tension between Muslim migrants and Assamese workers, included images that falsely portrayed the relief effort for the 2010 Tibetan earthquake disaster as Burmese Buddhists walking among their Muslim victims.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The mass exodus from southern cities followed clashes in Assam between the Bodo tribe and Muslims. At least 80 people were killed and hundreds of thousands were displaced.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Telegraph reported that India blocked its pages including a photo-gallery of Reuters and AFP news pictures that documented "attacks by Burma's Buddhist Rakhine community on villages which had been occupied by Rohingya Muslims, who had migrated from Bangladesh several decades earlier".</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Among other news outlets blocked were The Times of India, the Dainik Bhaskar and FirstPost.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"The government has gone overboard and many of its efforts are legally questionable," Pranesh Prakash, who studies internet governance and freedom of speech at the Centre for Internet and Society, said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"The government's highest priority should have been to counter the rumours and it did a really bad job of that."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Victoria Nuland, spokeswoman for the US State Department, said it was urging the Indian government "to take into account the importance of freedom of expression in the online world" while addressing its security concerns.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/www-ibi-times-co-uk-gianluca-mezzofiore-aug-24-2012-india-blocks-news-website-pages-for-spreading-fear-over-assam-violence'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/www-ibi-times-co-uk-gianluca-mezzofiore-aug-24-2012-india-blocks-news-website-pages-for-spreading-fear-over-assam-violence</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial mediaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-08-27T04:53:08ZNews ItemIndia faces Twitter backlash over Internet clampdown
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/in-reuters-com-devidutta-tripathy-satarupa-bhattacharjya-aug-24-2012-india-faces-twitter-backlash
<b>The Indian government faced an angry backlash from Twitter users on Thursday after ordering Internet service providers to block about 20 accounts that officials said had spread scare-mongering material that threatened national security.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Written by Devidutta Tripathy and Satarupa Bhattacharjya, this post was <a class="external-link" href="http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/08/23/net-us-india-internet-clampdown-idINBRE87M0LG20120823">published</a> in Reuters on August 24, 2012. (Additional reporting by Ross Colvin, Annie Banerji and David Lalmalsawma and Andrew Quinn in Washington; Writing by Ross Colvin; Editing by John Chalmers, Andrew Osborn, Gary Hill). Pranesh Prakash is quoted.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The backlash came as New Delhi turned up the heat on Twitter, threatening "appropriate and suitable action" if it failed to remove the accounts as soon as possible. Several Indian newspapers said this could mean a total ban on access to Twitter in India but government officials would not confirm to Reuters that such a drastic step was being considered.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Twitter, which does not have an office in India, declined to comment. There are about 16 million Twitter users in the South Asian country.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The government has found itself on the defensive this week over what critics see as a clumsy clampdown on social media websites - including Google, YouTube and Facebook - that has raised questions about freedom of information in the world's largest democracy.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"Dear GOI (Government of India), Keep your Hands Off My Internet. Else face protest" tweeted one user, @Old_Monk60.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India blocked access to more than 300 Web pages after threatening mobile phone text messages and doctored website images fuelled rumors that Muslims, a large minority in the predominantly Hindu country, were planning revenge attacks for violence in the northeastern state of Assam, where 80 people have been killed and 300,000 have been displaced since July.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Fearing for their lives, tens of thousands of migrants fled Mumbai, Bangalore and other cities last week. The exodus highlighted underlying tensions in a country with a history of ethnic and religious violence.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">According to documents obtained by Reuters, the government has targeted Indian journalists, Britain's Daily Telegraph, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and Al Jazeera television in its clampdown on Internet postings it says could inflame communal tensions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The directives to Internet service providers listed dozens of YouTube, Facebook and Twitter pages. A random sampling of the YouTube postings revealed genuine news footage spliced together with fear-mongering propaganda.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In Washington, the State Department urged New Delhi to balance its security push with respect for basic rights including freedom of speech.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"As the Indian government seeks to preserve security we are urging them also to take into account the importance of freedom of expression in the online world," State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nuland said Washington stood ready to consult with U.S. companies as they discuss the issue with the Indian government, although it was not now directly involved.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"The unique characteristics of the online environment need to be respected even as they work through whether there are things these companies can do to help calm the environment," she said.</p>
<p><b>Indian Journalists Targeted</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The government says Google and Facebook have largely cooperated while Twitter has been much slower to respond.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"Every company, whether it's an entertainment company, or a construction company, or a social media company, has to operate within the laws of the given country," said Sachin Pilot, minister of state in the Ministry of Communications.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Twitter has been instructed to remove 28 pages containing "objectionable content," an interior ministry official said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"If they do not remove the pages, the Indian government will take appropriate and suitable action," he added.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The government has ordered Internet service providers to block the Twitter accounts of veteran journalist Kanchan Gupta and television anchor Shiv Aroor. Some appeared to have begun complying with the order on Thursday as Twitter users reported difficulties in accessing their pages.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"It is a political decision, because of my criticism of the government," said Gupta, who was an official in the previous government led by the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The government's actions triggered a storm of criticism from Twitter users, with the hashtags #Emergency2012 and #GOIBlocks among the top trending topics on Twitter in India on Thursday. Some compared the situation with the state of emergency imposed by the government in 1975, when some journalists were jailed.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Centre for Internet and Society, which analyzed the 300 banning orders, found that they contained "numerous mistakes and inconsistencies." Some of the banned websites belonged to people trying to debunk the rumors, for example, it said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"This isn't about political censorship. This is about the government not knowing how to do online regulation properly," said CIS program manager Pranesh Prakash.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India's parliament last year passed a law that obliges Internet companies to remove a range of objectionable content when requested to do so, a move criticized at the time by rights groups and social media companies.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/in-reuters-com-devidutta-tripathy-satarupa-bhattacharjya-aug-24-2012-india-faces-twitter-backlash'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/in-reuters-com-devidutta-tripathy-satarupa-bhattacharjya-aug-24-2012-india-faces-twitter-backlash</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial mediaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-08-27T06:56:37ZNews ItemIndian mobiles go quiet amid SMS curbs
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/www-ft-com-aug-21-2012-victor-mallet-james-crabtree-indian-mobiles-go-quiet-amid-sms-curb
<b>India’s 900m-plus mobile telephones have fallen unusually quiet since Saturday, when the government curbed text and multimedia messages for 15 days in an attempt to dispel panic among north-easterners fearing attacks from angry Muslims.</b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This article written by Victor Mallet in New Delhi and James Crabtree in Mumbai was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/91446d40-eb94-11e1-b8b7-00144feab49a.html#axzz24isDQfds">published</a> in Financial Times on August 21, 2012. <i>Additional reporting by Jyotsna Singh in New Delhi. </i>Pranesh Prakash is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The order limiting the number of SMS and MMS messages to five a day from each pre-paid account – which comprise 97 per cent of the market – has disrupted personal communications and threatens to squeeze the revenues of the mobile operating companies.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The government has also urged social media websites including Facebook and Twitter to remove “inflammatory” content it said had helped spread rumours that caused an exodus of migrants from some cities last week. Access to 245 web pages containing doctored videos and images had been blocked, the government claimed, and the relevant sites told to take the pages down.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Indians send more than a billion text messages a day, although it is not clear how many people have been affected by the restrictions or how many of the messages are mass mailings.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Akshat Dwivedi, 20, an undergraduate student at Delhi University, said the restrictions were “a stupid idea”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“How can the government take away something that has become a basic, fundamental need today?” he said. “The ban has affected mostly students who use pre-paid connections because pre-paid connections are cheaper and more affordable for students like us. The ban has hugely disrupted our life. There are many people who rely on text messages because you can’t always call everybody.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Civil rights activists wary of censorship accept that the ban may have been necessary to ease ethnic and religious tensions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“There is the fear that the state will exercise inordinate powers,” said Akila Shivdas, a civil and consumer rights activist. “But regulation and state control are two different things … This is an opportunity to look at regulation seriously.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India’s mobile industry earned about $20bn in revenue last year, of which 15-18 per cent was from data services, according to the Cellular Operators Association of India, a trade body. This suggests operators are set to suffer a loss of about $133m for the 15-day period, according to COAI figures.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“When we are going through the trauma of increased costs, being challenged on revenues does not help,” said Rajan Matthew, COAI director-general. “The government’s heart is in the right place in trying to address this issue ... But when we are fighting for every nickel and dime, this loss is not a small amount.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Other analysts cautioned that the likely revenue impact would be much smaller, noting that most customers bought pre-paid SMS packages. “I’m not saying there will be no loss, but it will not be dramatic”, said Rohit Chordia, a telecoms analyst at Kotak, a Mumbai-based brokerage.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Industry sources and analysts also questioned the government’s decision to impose an extended nationwide ban, rather than experimenting with more limited short-term restrictions targeted to particular trouble spots.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“Some kind of limitation on communication was a reasonable step, but restricting everyone to just five per day I don’t think is reasonable at all,” said Pranesh Prakash, programme manager at the Centre for Internet and Society, a Bangalore-based think tank.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Thousands of north-easterners – physically similar to the Bodo people who have been <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/939f9604-d56a-11e1-b306-00144feabdc0.html" title="India struggles to control Assam riots - FT.com">fighting Muslim migrants over land and political power in Assam </a>– fled from cities such as Bangalore and Hyderabad last week after threats of violence sent by SMS.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Muslims in Mumbai had previously been inflamed by media messages purportedly showing brutality towards their fellow followers of Islam, though the Indian government said some pictures were doctored and had been uploaded from Pakistan.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Events in Bangalore, said Pavan Duggan, a lawyer specialising in IT issues, were “a classic case of mobile cyberterrorism”. He backed the government’s measures despite concerns about censorship. “Obviously there are some rumblings, but these are still small murmurs because everyone is very clear that the national interest will come over [mobile] revenues.”</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/www-ft-com-aug-21-2012-victor-mallet-james-crabtree-indian-mobiles-go-quiet-amid-sms-curb'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/www-ft-com-aug-21-2012-victor-mallet-james-crabtree-indian-mobiles-go-quiet-amid-sms-curb</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial mediaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-08-27T07:15:01ZNews ItemDetails emerge on government blockade of websites
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/www-the-hindu-com-aug-24-2012-details-emerge-on-govt-blockade-of-websites
<b>Facebook pages, Twitter handles among 300 unique web addresses blocked by ISPs.</b>
<hr />
<p>Pranesh Prakash's analysis is quoted in this article <a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article3812819.ece">published</a> in the Hindu on August 24, 2012.</p>
<hr />
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "><span>Over the past week, the Ministry of Communications and IT has sent out orders to ISPs (Internet service providers) to block over 300 unique addresses on the Web, cracking down on websites, Facebook pages, YouTube videos and even Twitter handles, ostensibly to prevent incitement to communal tension and rioting.</span></p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "><span>But a closer look at the specific URLs (web addresses) blocked by the government has given rise to doubts whether the government may have acted high-handedly, in some instances cracking down on parody Twitter handles.</span></p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "><span>Through four orders, one issued a day from August 18 to 21, the government sent out lists of specific URLs to be blocked by the Internet service providers.</span></p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "><span>An analysis of the leaked government orders by blogger Pranesh Prakash of the Center for Internet and Society (www.cis-india.org) revealed the extent of the government missive: in specific cases, it had asked for blocking of some portions of a website — like Facebook pages or Twitter handles — and in other instances asked for entire websites.</span></p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "><span>The government orders carried no specific reasons for the blockades. But in the backdrop of the paranoia surrounding the exodus of northeast people from South Indian cities, it appears that it may have been to disallow the use of the Web for spreading information that incites communal violence and rioting.</span></p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "><span>Cyber law expert N. Vijayashankar said though the government seemed to have acted within the Rules of IT Act 2008, the onus fell on it to justify the reasons why the specific websites were blocked and dispel doubts that there may have been some political motives at least pertaining to specific sites, especially in the blocking of some parody Twitter accounts spoofing the official Twitter account of the Prime Minister’s office (@PMOIndia).</span></p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "><span>“No website can be blocked permanently. Any blocked website must be taken up for review by a committee in a span of two months,” Mr. Vijayashankar added. “But sadly the review committee does not have any public representatives. It comprises only the secretaries to government.”</span></p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "><span>If the websites had indeed been blocked considering the emergency of the situation and keeping in mind national security, then the responsibility for preparing the list falls with the Home Ministry.</span></p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "><span>“Whatever be the case, this cannot pave the way for clamping down on websites at one swipe,” Mr. Vijayashankar added.</span></p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "><span>The news about the clampdown set the social networks abuzz through Thursday. Popular humour Twitter account holder Ramesh Srivats tweeted: “Am slightly worried that some government guy will notice that all the offending sites have “http” in them, and then go ban that.”</span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/www-the-hindu-com-aug-24-2012-details-emerge-on-govt-blockade-of-websites'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/www-the-hindu-com-aug-24-2012-details-emerge-on-govt-blockade-of-websites</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIT ActSocial mediaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-08-28T09:51:01ZNews ItemFacebook's Delicate Dance With Delhi On Censorship
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/www-forbes-com-mark-bergen-aug-29-2012-facebooks-delicate-dance-with-delhi-on-censorship
<b>At the end of last week, a hashtag briskly rose across India: #Emergency2012. It was a reference to the 21-month stint, beginning in the summer of 1975, when then PM Indira Gandhi determined democracy an inconvenience.</b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Contributed by Mark Bergen, the post was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/markbergen/2012/08/29/facebooks-delicate-dance-with-delhi-on-censorship/">published</a> in Forbes on August 29, 2012. Sunil Abraham is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This time around, the government launched a jumbled attempt, following ethnic violence in the northeast, to stem rumors behind a panicked exodus. They blocked over 300 sites and axed at least 16 Twitter accounts, including those of <a href="http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-08-23/news/33342537_1_twitter-accounts-twitter-users-block-six-fake-accounts" target="_blank">political opponents and journalists</a>. Many of us found our cell phone texts suddenly, with no announcement, cut off after five missives.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It was hardly the Emergency of 1975. The government’s actions were far less draconian than three decades ago. But, back then, there were no foreign internet companies to complicate matters—and, it seems, absolve the government.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In response to the recent charges, <a href="http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-08-24/internet/33365421_1_twitter-accounts-objectionable-content-twitter-users" target="_blank">Delhi claimed</a> that there was “no censorship at all.” As the communications minister, Kapil Sibal, put it, “Facebook and Google are cooperating with us.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Under the circumstances, shutting down the incendiary hate speech online was warranted, explained Sunil Abraham, the director of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) in Bangalore. The process was just incredibly inept. “There were so many things they did wrong,” he told me when I asked about the government’s response. And the reaction can be tacked onto <a href="http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/india-asks-google-facebook-others-to-screen-user-content/" target="_blank">a very recent history</a> of Delhi issuing sweeping, usually empty, threats of censoring U.S. internet companies.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“Perhaps the Indian government has wasted, frittered a way goodwill,” Abraham continued. “It has cried ‘wolf’ so many times that this time the internet intermediaries are not taking them as seriously as they should.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">His group <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/analysing-blocked-sites-riots-communalism" target="_blank">analyzed the sites</a> shut down last week, pointing out the “numerous mistakes and inconsistencies that make blocking pointless and ineffectual.” It’s clear that the censorship was also opportunistic—used to stamp out political parody Twitter accounts—and counterproductive. Among the sites blocked was a Pakistani blog debunking the rumors behind the whole exodus episode.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Abraham criticized the government for coming to the intermediaries with broad demands first, rather than directly to Twitter, Facebook and Google. That approach, coupled with earlier censorship demands, may strain the trust between the ruling coalition and the web giants.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Still, Facebook has every reason to keep Delhi happy. This year, the number of users in India <a href="http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-08-05/social-media/29854245_1_advertisers-and-developers-social-networking-number-of-internet-users" target="_blank">hit 32 million</a>—a 85 percent jump from the last. The total is expected to nearly double next year, leap-frogging Indonesia for the title of second largest market. An overwhelming chunk of that growth will come from mobile users. As this solid report from <a href="http://forbesindia.com/article/special/facebooktoo-much-hype-too-little-substance/33106/1#ixzz24kFQXSMH" target="_blank"><i>Forbes India</i></a> shows, the company is still struggling here, as it is in the U.S., to turn those new users into ad revenue:</p>
<p class="callout" style="text-align: justify; ">Indian businesses spent Rs 2,850 crore on digital advertising as of March 2012, a number that’s expected to grow to Rs 4,391 crore next year, according to a report by the Internet Mobile Association of India/Indian Market Research Bureau (IAMAI/IMRB).<br /><br />…But Facebook has not been able to capture much of this share. Mahesh Murthy reckons that businesses spent about Rs 150 crore on Facebook marketing, but only a third went to Facebook’s own kitties in the form of ad revenues. The rest went to social media marketing firms which handle Facebook accounts.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">That’s not to say that the company will discontinue its aggressive efforts. It likely will not be deterred by policies that attack free speech—Zuckerberg’s empire has long been accused of <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/markbergen/2012/08/29/facebooks-delicate-dance-with-delhi-on-censorship/techcrunch.com/2007/11/22/is-facebook-really-censoring-search-when-it-suits-them/" target="_blank">complacency with censorship</a>. It’s India’s<a href="http://www.indianexpress.com/news/facebook-google-face-heat-on-india-tax/958603/" target="_blank">infamously unpredictable tax policies</a> toward foreign entities that would conceivably slow the company’s expansion.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There’s little reason to suspect, then, that Facebook, Google and the western web behemoths will not continue to cooperate with Delhi moving forward. And much of that cooperation should come not as blatant censorship but covert surveillance. According to the <a href="http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/map/" target="_blank">Google Transparency Report</a>, India has made over 2,000 data requests and 100 removal requests, third only to the States and Brazil. As the mobile revolution soars, that number will surely rise.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On Monday evening, Christopher Soghoian, a D.C.-based privacy analyst, spoke at the CIS before a crowd of young Indian law students and activists. Despite the shoddy security default of internet firms, he said, they can impose limits on government surveillance. “When these companies receive requests from where they don’t have an office,” he claimed, “they refuse.” Two years ago, Facebook India opened its first office in Hyderabad.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Soghoian advised his audience to push for privacy and transparency standards in India. He shared the story of the long-fought <a href="http://mashable.com/2011/01/27/facebook-https/" target="_blank">battle for encryption protection</a> with Facebook in the U.S. Yet, he admitted that security provisions can falter when a government is bent on policing the internet—and a company is bent on cooperation. “If you can force companies to hand over the keys,” he said, “then encryption is useless.”</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/www-forbes-com-mark-bergen-aug-29-2012-facebooks-delicate-dance-with-delhi-on-censorship'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/www-forbes-com-mark-bergen-aug-29-2012-facebooks-delicate-dance-with-delhi-on-censorship</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial mediaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-09-03T04:39:45ZNews ItemThe state. And the rage of the cyber demon
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/www-tehelka-com-vol-9-issue-36-sep-8-2012-shougat-dasgupta-the-state-and-the-rage-of-the-cyber-demon
<b>The Internet might be a Pandora’s box. But should the government be wasting time regulating the cacophony?</b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Shougat Dasgupta's article was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.tehelka.com/story_main53.asp?filename=Op080912State.asp">published</a> in Tehelka, Vol 9, Issue 36, Dated September 8, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">SOME YEARS ago a cartoon was doing the rounds that caught in a few sharp strokes the selfimportance and self-righteousness of the Internet warrior. A man sits hunched at his computer, the keyboard lit with his fervour. Not looking away from the screen, he has a terse, impatient exchange with his partner off-panel: ‘Are you coming to bed?’ ‘I can’t. This is important.’ ‘What?’ ‘Someone is wrong on the Internet.’ It is the anonymous exchange that gives cyber debates their peculiar animus; that anonymity coupled with the low stakes, as is famously said of academic politics, is what makes the sniping so bitter and vicious. The complaints about social media like Twitter or the comment sections on blogs have mostly centred on the incivility of the discourse, on ‘trolls’ too eager to throw rotting vegetables at journalists, politicians, celebrities unused to such irreverence. But action taken by the government in the last fortnight to block content from over 300 websites and a dozen Twitter accounts imputes a far more vitiating effect on society than the mere puncturing of already overinflated egos.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Kapil Sibal, Minister for Communications & Information Technology, has said in interviews that the government’s intent was to “protect the victims” from these “mischievous acts happening through these sites and blogs”. There is, by now, little doubt that the threats and fake pictures of slain Muslims spread through mobile phones and social media, “disseminating misinformation” in the minister’s phrase, helped exacerbate tensions and fears. There is equally little doubt that what action the government took was both late and clumsy: blocking blogs that debunked the rumours and morphed images that the government held responsible for causing panic; blocking web pages of international news organisations such as The Telegraph and Al-Jazeera; blocking Twitter accounts of journalists, the government’s political opponents, accounts parodying the prime minister, even people who tweeted mostly about information technology and cricket. Like a giant in clown shoes chasing a sprite, the government has looked lumbering and foolish, led a merry dance by light-footed ‘netizens’, while the rest of us pointed and laughed.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Can the government’s actions be at all justified? Appearing on NDTV’s ‘We the People’, R Chandrashekhar, Secretary, Department of Information Technology, argued that “once a law enforcement agency has made an assessment you act first and then make corrections as you go along”. In essence, extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures, which along with concern for ‘national security’ is trotted out by every democratic government accused of ignoring civil liberties. Congress spokesperson Manish Tewari, on the same programme, claimed that the “mandate of section 69a of the Information Technology Act and the rules with regard to safeguards and blocking is fairly clear and rule 9 allows the government, if it thinks that there’s an expedient situation in order to protect the sovereignty of the State or public order, to go ahead with this blocking on an interim basis”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">We will discuss the section being referred to and the 2011 guidelines for intermediaries later but for now let’s accept the government’s argument that it acted in the face of a clear and present danger, to borrow from Oliver Wendell Holmes, the famous 19th-century US Supreme Court Justice. Kharan Thapar, citing another of Holmes’s shopworn phrases, wrote that “[ j]ust as it’s not acceptable to shout fire in a crowded cinema hall for the fun of it, it cannot be permitted to deliberately frighten helpless innocent people who, for whatever reason, believe you and panic”. Thapar is making the point that free speech is not without its responsibilities. He does so, however, using a long discredited cliché and compounds this error with condescension, refusing to grant people (“helpless”, “innocent”, like babies) their full agency. Besides, the government only acted from 18 August to limit text messaging, already months after initial images of supposed Burmese atrocities against Muslims had been widely circulated to stir anger. It also chose to block webpages and Twitter handles, some for spurious, even mystifying reasons. The result has been embarrassment. Acting arbitrarily in the name of communal harmony to prevent damage after terrible damage has already been done, does little to convince the people you are supposedly protecting that you have the situation in hand.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The government has left itself open to being serially lectured about free speech by the US government, by journalists (particularly Kanchan Gupta, whose apparently blocked Twitter account has made him a patron saint of free speech), by hysterical twitterers (ok, ‘tweeple’) drawing an entirely ridiculous parallel to the Emergency, and most egregiously by Narendra Modi. Presumably, Modi, by blackening his display picture was not commenting on the black irony of a man who bans books mourning constraints on freedom of speech. Pranesh Prakash of the Bengaluru-based Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), a trenchant critic of the government’s recent blocks (social media not coal) and the “horrendously drafted” legislation that permits the leeway for such indiscriminate action, says that “people [were] losing a sense of reality”.</p>
<table class="invisible">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th><img align="middle" height="268" src="http://www.tehelka.com/channels/Op-ed/2012/September/08/images/Illustration.jpg" width="185" /></th>
<td style="text-align: justify; ">He points to the criticism of the government’s blocking of parodies of the prime minister’s Twitter account. “An underreported part of this whole controversy,” he says,“is Twitter’s own terms of service and one parody account in particular violates those terms.” He confesses to “having to look quite closely” to tell the PMO account from PMO, which substitutes a zero for the letter ‘o’. Also, according to sources, a letter sent last year by the government to the likes of Google and Facebook asking them to screen for offensive content specifically excepted parody and satire. If accurate, this underscores that the Prime Minister’s Office did not have a problem with parody but a genuine, if peculiar, fear of misinformation stemming from the six accounts it asked Twitter to remove.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">NONE OF this is to say that the government, in its haste, acted with reason. Certainly, it has since last year been working assiduously to exert at least some control over online content. The rules from April last year updating sections of the Information Technology Act, 2000, requires “due diligence” from companies like Twitter, or Facebook, to not “host, display, upload, modify, publish, transmit, update or share any information that… is grossly harmful, harassing, blasphemous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, paedophilic, 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…” Disparaging? Encouraging gambling? Well, gambling, at least in casinos, is lawful in Goa and Sikkim. No wonder Kapil Sibal felt he was on firm legal ground when he complained in December about “derogatory pictures” of Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh that the government had culled from Facebook accounts.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Prakash, of the CIS, describes the Information Technology Act, particularly sections 69a and 66 as “having issues and being badly worded”. The powers it gives the government are too intrusive and that the prison sentences for offenders “are greater than those for death by negligence”. What he finds most troubling is how little transparency exists around issues of censorship; how, for instance, there is no easily accessible central list of banned books. “How,” he asks, “are people even supposed to know if their website or Twitter account is blocked if the government won’t issue proper notices and lists?” Our democratically elected government appears fond of the aristocratic maxim to never contradict, never explain, never apologise, as if hauteur and bluster are adequate substitutes for communication and we are subjects rather than citizens.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Seen in isolation, the blocking of websites and rationing of text messages is just a comical bungle by an unwieldy, Luddite administration. In the context of the last 12 months though, the government’s recent actions are a logical extension of its drive to bring the Internet to heel. The unregulated nature of the Internet is a particular bugbear of this government. It had already made a proposal to the United Nations in October last year, at the 66th session of the General Assembly, for the institution of a Committee for Internet- Related Policies. This 50-nation body would be tasked not to control the Internet, “or allow Governments to have the last word in regulating the Internet, but to make sure that the Internet is governed not unilaterally, but in an open, democratic, inclusive and participatory manner, with the participation of all stakeholders”. For all the incompetence the government has displayed, both most recently and in previous attempts to censor Internet content, it asks an important question about the future of Internet regulation, about the need for multilateral debate and international consensus.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">TEHELKA, as cyber chatter about the blocked sites grew increasingly frenzied, asked its online readers to define the forum provided by social media. Most agreed that Twitter, for instance, was a public space, a place to give vent to private thoughts publicly with, if wanted or needed, the comfort of anonymity. The metaphor used is often that of a public square or town hall. I’ve always thought of Twitter as a carnival — a space, as defined by the Russian literary theorist Mikhail Bakhtin, where the existing social order is overturned, where social pieties are profaned. Twitter, like carnival, appeared to me an exhilarating space. This is utterly naïve. The fact is that Twitter is not a public space, it is privately owned and its investors are in the business of revenue generation and profit. This means Twitter’s terms of service are subject to change, as is its cooperation with governments over the private information it controls and owns.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Rahul Bose, the actor, told me in a conversation about social media that he thinks individual freedom is increasingly an “illusion”, that the very idea has become “laughable”. We live our lives, particularly our online lives, under the unblinking gaze of government: “You don’t need a close circuit camera at Flora Fountain to know you’re being watched, that every piece of information is on a file somewhere.” (This is probably not quite true of our dozy government.) It is indisputable that private entities such as Facebook and Twitter hold enormous amounts of information about individuals. In that light, surely, the Indian government is correct about the need for multilateral oversight of a system currently beholden in significant ways to the United States. ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, for instance, still makes only a token gesture at global participation and any question of greater United Nations involvement is generally met with US suspicion.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Arguably, the Indian government doesn’t go far enough in its call for greater inclusivity in the governance of the Internet. The academic Jeremy Malcolm, an influential figure in discussions about Internet governance, has written that the World Summit on the Information Society has “established at the level of principle that governance of the Internet should be a transparent, democratic and multilateral process, with the participation of governments, private sector, civil society and international organisations, in their respective roles”. More immediate, perhaps, is the question of how a democratic country, committed to free speech, should regard social media.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This is not a discussion confined to India. During the August 2012 London riots, David Cameron threatened to ban people suspected of planning criminal activity from using Facebook, Twitter, and Blackberry Messenger. In words similar to those used by Sibal, Cameron spoke about reminding these companies of their responsibilities. In an interview with TEHELKA, Congress General Secretary Digvijaya Singh held close to the party line, insisting that “anything that incites violence is problematic, as is anything that is factually incorrect, and must be removed”. He envisages a future where online exchanges are governed by the same rules as public life, governed by similar cultural codes and basic civility. This is, it has to be said, an optimistic view of public life.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There are, as discussed earlier, as many different ways to see online exchanges as there are Internet users. The Internet’s shapelessness, its Moby Dick-like vast blankness, makes it impossible to apply the same standards to conversation on Twitter or Facebook, even if it is in print and in public, as you might apply to a magazine article. Pranesh Prakash points out that “while some people may see Twitter as akin to friends talking in the pub, others use the service as a bulletin board”. When I propose to Prakash the idea of an ombudsman to monitor online dialogue in the same way an independent press commission might monitor newspaper reports, he makes a cogent rebuttal: “There is no ombudsman for regular speech, or to outline what you can or cannot say from a podium. Besides, there are laws that deal with defamation, slander and unless there is a requirement for an extra-legal authority I cannot see the need for an ombudsman.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Much of the debate over the last couple of weeks has devolved, as so much debate in all our media, mainstream or online, does, into grandstanding — in this instance about ‘freedom of speech’ versus the national security imperative. This is to miss the woods for the trees. For all its heavy-handedness, the Indian government is correct to be concerned about oversight of the Internet and correct that not enough stakeholders are currently involved in its governance. Cant about freedom of speech cannot change the fact that the government is also correct that in a precariously held together democracy comprising various, widely different cultures and religions, certain standards of respectful speech are necessary. Of course, we can and should argue those standards and there needs to be a national conversation about the strictures of Internet legislation in India. Still, let us not pretend that the mob mentality of political discourse on the Internet is not a cause for worry and is not, as are all mobs, subject to manipulation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>With inputs from Ajachi Chakrabarti</i>. <br />Shougat Dasgupta is an Assistant Editor with Tehelka.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/www-tehelka-com-vol-9-issue-36-sep-8-2012-shougat-dasgupta-the-state-and-the-rage-of-the-cyber-demon'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/www-tehelka-com-vol-9-issue-36-sep-8-2012-shougat-dasgupta-the-state-and-the-rage-of-the-cyber-demon</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionSocial mediaInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-09-03T11:03:53ZNews ItemGovernment to hold talks with stakeholders on Internet censorship
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/www-the-hindu-com-shalini-singh-sep-4-2012-govt-to-hold-talks-with-stakeholders-on-internet-censorship
<b>In an unprecedented move, the government, through the Department of Telecommunications and the Department of Electronics and Information Technology, has agreed to initiate dialogue on Internet censorship with mega Internet companies, social media giants such as Google and Facebook, members of civil society, technical community, media, ISPs and legal experts.</b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This article by Shalini Singh was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article3856121.ece">published</a> in the Hindu on September 4, 2012. Pranesh Prakash's analysis is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The triggers for the discussion, which will be held on Wednesday, are the riots in Assam, Mumbai and Uttar Pradesh, as well as the mass exodus of north-east Indians from Bangalore, which resulted in bringing the government, civil society organisations and the media to a flashpoint.<br /><br />Two of India’s seniormost officers in the area of Internet censorship, DoT Secretary R. Chandrashekhar and Director General, CERT-IN, Gulshan Rai will engage with a range of stakeholders in a two-hour meeting titled ‘Legitimate Restrictions on Freedom of Online Speech: The need for balance – from Deadlock to Dialogue.’<br /><br />Other panellists include representatives from Google and Facebook; Pranesh Prakash from the Centre for Internet and Society (a civil society group); Prabir Purkayasta, Delhi Science Forum (technical community); Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, president, Foundation for Media Professionals; Rajesh Chharia, president, Internet Service Providers Association of India; and Apar Gupta, an advocate dealing with cyber issues.<br /><br />One analysis by the CIS has shown that 309 specific items, including URLs, Twitter accounts, IMG tags, blog posts and blogs were blocked. Complaints arose when blocking a page resulted in the blocking of an entire website — which has scores or hundreds of web pages. The government maintained that this was necessary as there was a sense of crisis. Home Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde insisted that the government was “taking strict action only against those accounts or people which are causing damage or spreading rumours.” However, the collateral damage of the move was the Twitter accounts of several people, including journalists like Kanchan Gupta, being blocked.<br /><br />“Mass censorship is like killing a fly with a sledgehammer. Rather than blocking the sites, the government should have used the same media, Facebook, Twitter and Google to counter terrorism and hate speech. I am glad that they are now open to dialogue,” says Mr. Thakurta.<br /><br />“It is an extremely productive move as it will generate awareness among content providers, government and users. In the absence of any dialogue, everyone was just sticking to their own positions without listening to the other stakeholders’ point of view,” says Mr. Chharia.<br /><br />The meeting is to bring several stakeholders in dialogue on a single platform.<br /><br />Nearly 50 other experts from industry, mobile service providers, Internet companies, intermediaries, academia and some international organisations as well as multilaterals are expected to join the conference, which will be held at 2.30 p.m. on September 4 at FICCI.<br /><br />While this is seen as a brave attempt by some, there are an equal number of sceptics who believe that the discussion may not yield the desired result given the national security objectives governing law enforcement agencies on the one hand and the desire of users, media and civil society to preserve free speech on the other. Clearly, ISPs, Internet companies and social media are in a tough spot since they face legal obligations on legitimate orders for blocking on one hand while needing to protect their user privacy and rights to unhindered access to information.<br /><br />If successful, it is possible that this dialogue will ensure that legitimate restrictions do not slide into illegitimate censorship.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/www-the-hindu-com-shalini-singh-sep-4-2012-govt-to-hold-talks-with-stakeholders-on-internet-censorship'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/www-the-hindu-com-shalini-singh-sep-4-2012-govt-to-hold-talks-with-stakeholders-on-internet-censorship</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIT ActSocial mediaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-09-04T03:39:32ZNews ItemGovernment asks Twitter to block fake 'PMO India' accounts; site fails to respond
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/articles-economictimes-indiatimes-com-govt-asks-twitter-to-block-fake-pmo-india-accounts-site-fails-to-respond
<b>A standoff between the government and microblogging service Twitter, that has got India's online community up in arms, continues, as Twitter is still to act on India's requests to block some of the fake 'PMO India' accounts. </b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This article was <a class="external-link" href="http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-08-23/news/33342478_1_twitter-parody-accounts-unlawful-content">published</a> in the Economic Times on August 23, 2012. Sunil Abraham is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India's Minister for Communications and Information Technology <a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/Kapil%20Sibal">Kapil Sibal</a> said, "Twitter has not responded to our requests in a satisfactory manner. The fake accounts are still there. The government of India is contemplating what action should be taken against Twitter and this will be announced as soon as we have finalised our response," he said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sibal further added that the government received a response from the <a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/US%20Department%20of%20Justice">US Department of Justice</a>, which also agreed that the content on the sites India sought to ban was inappropriate.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Twitter's operating code allows for parody accounts to be allowed as long as such accounts clearly identify as parody. The accounts in question - including @Indian_pm, @PMOIndiaa, @dryumyumsingh, @PM0India- do so.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Unlike other popular parody accounts of world leaders, though, some of these accounts make no attempt to 'spoof' tweets from the Prime Minister. The user of the @PM0India handle, with over 11 thousand followers, has changed their handle to @thehinduexpress, and tweeted "When I've to parody PM, I'll use the other a/c and RT that. For countering media and <a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/Congress">Congress</a>, this ID will be used. To hell with censorship."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">An email by ET to <a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/Twitter%20Inc">Twitter Inc</a>, received no response at the time of going to press. However, news agency PTI quoted sources saying that Twitter has communicated to the PMO that it would be locating the "unlawful content". "India is important to us and we would like to have clearer communication in these matters in future," PTI quoted Twitter as saying. Official spokesperson for Indian Prime Minister's Office Pankaj Pachauri confirmed that Twitter is looking into the matter.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Over the past few days, the government has blocked around 300 websites which it blames for spreading rumours that triggered the exodus of people from the North East from several cities. <a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/Google">Google</a> and <a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/Facebook">Facebook</a> on Tuesday told ET they were working with India in removing content which can incite violence.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img class="gwt-Image" src="http://www.economictimes.indiatimes.com/photo/15610805.cms" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"There is clear evidence that these social networks have caused harm and disruption. However, they need to be clearer about the way they go about blocking sites and other links. The block order contained around 20 accounts and over 80 <a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/Youtube">Youtube</a> videos.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It also had several mainstream media reports and a few Pakistani sites," Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bangalore-based <a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/Centre%20for%20Internet">Centre for Internet</a> and Society said. Analysts do not rule out the possibility that Twitter itself will be blocked in India if it does not act.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/articles-economictimes-indiatimes-com-govt-asks-twitter-to-block-fake-pmo-india-accounts-site-fails-to-respond'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/articles-economictimes-indiatimes-com-govt-asks-twitter-to-block-fake-pmo-india-accounts-site-fails-to-respond</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial mediaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceIntermediary LiabilityCensorship2012-09-04T12:24:52ZNews ItemDigital AlterNatives with a Cause?
http://editors.cis-india.org/digital-natives/blog/dnbook
<b>Hivos and the Centre for Internet and Society have consolidated their three year knowledge inquiry into the field of youth, technology and change in a four book collective “Digital AlterNatives with a cause?”. This collaboratively produced collective, edited by Nishant Shah and Fieke Jansen, asks critical and pertinent questions about theory and practice around 'digital revolutions' in a post MENA (Middle East - North Africa) world. It works with multiple vocabularies and frameworks and produces dialogues and conversations between digital natives, academic and research scholars, practitioners, development agencies and corporate structures to examine the nature and practice of digital natives in emerging contexts from the Global South. </b>
<p></p>
<p><strong>I</strong><strong>ntroduction</strong></p>
<p>In the 21<sup>st</sup>
Century, we have witnessed the simultaneous growth of internet and digital
technologies on the one hand, and political protests and mobilisation on the
other. Processes of interpersonal relationships, social communication, economic
expansion, political protocols and governmental mediation are undergoing a
significant transition, across in the world, in developed and emerging
Information and Knowledge societies.</p>
<p>The young
are often seen as forerunners of these changes because of the pervasive and
persistent presence of digital and online technologies in their lives. The “
Digital Natives with a Cause?” is a research inquiry that uncovers the ways in
which young people in emerging ICT contexts make strategic use of technologies
to bring about change in their immediate environments. Ranging from personal
stories of transformation to efforts at collective change, it aims to identify
knowledge gaps that existing scholarship, practice and popular discourse around
an increasing usage, adoption and integration of digital technologies in
processes of social and political change.</p>
<p><strong>Methodology</strong></p>
<p>In 2010-11,
three workshops in Taiwan, South Africa and Chile, brought together around 80
people who identified themselves as Digital Natives from Asia, Africa and Latin
America, to explore certain key questions that could provide new insight into
Digital Natives research, policy and practice. The workshops were accompanied
by a ‘Thinkathon’ – a multi-stakeholder summit that initiated conversations
between Digital Natives, academic researchers, scholars, practitioners,
educators, policy makers and corporate representatives to share learnings on
new questions: Is one born digital or does one become a Digital Native? How do
we understand our relationship with the idea of a Digital Native? How do
Digital Natives redefine ‘change’ and how do they see themselves implementing
it? What is the role that technologies play in defining civic action and social
movements? What are the relationships
that these technology based identities and practices have with existing social
movements and political legacies? How do we build new frameworks of sustainable
citizen action outside of institutionalisation?</p>
<strong>
</strong>
<p><strong>Rationale</strong></p>
<p>One of the
knowledge gaps that this book tries to address is the lack of digital natives’
voices in the discourse around them. In the occasions that they are a part of
the discourse, they are generally represented by other actors who define the
frameworks and decide the issues which are important. Hence, more often than
not, most books around digital natives concentrate on similar sounding areas
and topics, which might not always resonate with the concerns that digital
natives and other stake-holders might be engaged with in their material and
discursive practice. The methodology of the workshops was designed keeping this
in mind. Instead of asking the digital natives to give their opinion or recount
a story about what we felt was important, we began by listening to their
articulations about what was at stake for them as e-agents of change. As a
result, the usual topics like piracy, privacy, cyber-bullying, sexting etc.
which automatically map digital natives discourse, are conspicuously absent
from this book. Their absence is not deliberate, but more symptomatic of how
these themes that we presumed as important were not of immediate concerns to
most of the participants in the workshop who are contributing to the book<strong>.</strong></p>
<strong>
</strong>
<p><strong>Structure</strong></p>
<p>The
conversations, research inquiries, reflections, discussions, interviews, and
art practices are consolidated in this four part book which deviates from the
mainstream imagination of the young people involved in processes of change. The
alternative positions, defined by geo-politics, gender, sexuality, class,
education, language, etc. find articulations from people who have been engaged
in the practice and discourse of technology mediated change. Each part
concentrates on one particular theme that helps bring coherence to a wide
spectrum of style and content.</p>
<p><strong>Book 1: To Be: Digital AlterNatives with a Cause? Download <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/digital-natives/dnbook1/at_download/file" class="external-link">here</a></strong></p>
<strong>
</strong>
<p>The first
part, <em>To Be</em>, looks at the questions
of digital native identities. Are digital natives the same everywhere? What
does it mean to call a certain population ‘Digital Natives”? Can we also look
at people who are on the fringes – Digital Outcasts, for example? Is it
possible to imagine technology-change relationships not only through questions
of access and usage but also through personal investments and transformations?
The contributions help chart the history, explain the contemporary and give ideas
about what the future of technology mediated identities is going to be.</p>
<strong>Book 2: To Think: Digital AlterNatives with a Cause? Download <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/digital-natives/dnbook2/at_download/file" class="external-link">here</a></strong><strong>
</strong>
<p>In the
second section, <em>To Think,</em> the
contributors engage with new frameworks of understanding the processes,
logistics, politics and mechanics of digital natives and causes. Giving fresh
perspectives which draw from digital aesthetics, digital natives’ everyday
practices, and their own research into the design and mechanics of technology
mediated change, the contributors help us re-think the concepts, processes and
structures that we have taken for granted. They also nuance the ways in which
new frameworks to think about youth, technology and change can be evolved and
how they provide new ways of sustaining digital natives and their causes.</p>
<p><strong>Book 3: To Act: Digital AlterNatives with a Cause? Download <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/digital-natives/dnbook3/at_download/file" class="external-link">here</a></strong></p>
<p><em>To Act</em> is the third part that concentrates on stories
from the ground. While it is important to conceptually engage with digital
natives, it is also, necessary to connect it with the real life practices that
are reshaping the world. Case-studies, reflections and experiences of people
engaged in processes of change, provide a rich empirical data set which is
further analysed to look at what it means to be a digital native in emerging
information and technology contexts.</p>
<strong>
</strong>
<p><strong>Book 4: To Connect : Digital AlterNatives with a Cause? Download <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/digital-natives/dnbook4/at_download/file" class="external-link">here</a></strong></p>
<p>The last
section, <em>To Connect</em>, recognises the
fact that digital natives do not operate in vacuum. It might be valuable to
maintain the distinction between digital natives and immigrants, but this
distinction does not mean that there are no relationships between them as
actors of change. The section focuses on the digital native ecosystem to look
at the complex assemblage of relationships that support and are amplified by
these new processes of technologised change.</p>
<p>We see this
book as entering into a dialogue with the growing discourse and practice in the
field of youth, technology and change. The ambition is to look at the digital
(alter)natives as located in the Global South and the potentials for social
change and political participation that is embedded in their interactions
through and with digital and internet technologies. We hope that the book
furthers the idea of a context-based digital native identity and practice,
which challenges the otherwise universalist understanding that seems to be the
popular operative right now. We see this as the beginning of a knowledge
inquiry, rather than an end, and hope that the contributions in the book will
incite new discussions, invoke cross-sectorial and disciplinary debates, and
consolidate knowledges about digital (alter)natives and how they work in the
present to change our futures<strong>.</strong></p>
<p><strong><a class="external-link" href="https://www.surveymonkey.com/MyAccount_Login.aspx">Click here</a> to order your copy. We invite readers to contribute reviews of an essay they found particularly interesting. Contact us: nishant@cis-india.org and fjansen@hivos.nl if you want more information, resources, or dialogues</strong></p>
<p>Nishant
Shah</p>
<p>Fieke
Jansen</p>
<p><strong>For media coverage and book reviews,</strong> <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/digital-natives/media-coverage" class="external-link">read here</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/digital-natives/blog/dnbook'>http://editors.cis-india.org/digital-natives/blog/dnbook</a>
</p>
No publishernishantSocial mediaDigital ActivismRAW PublicationsCampaignDigital NativesAgencyBlank Noise ProjectFeaturedCyberculturesFacebookPublicationsBeyond the DigitalDigital subjectivitiesBooksResearchers at Work2015-04-10T09:22:29ZBlog EntryAnalyzing the Latest List of Blocked Sites (Communalism and Rioting Edition) Part II
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/analyzing-the-latest-list-of-blocked-sites-communalism-and-rioting-edition-part-ii
<b>Snehashish Ghosh does a further analysis of the leaked list of the websites blocked by the Indian Government from August 18, 2012 till August 21, 2012 (“leaked list”). </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Unnecessary Blocks and Mistakes:</b></p>
<ol>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">http://hinduexistance.files.wordpress.com/..., which appears on the leaked list, does not exist because the URL is incorrect. However, the correct URL does contain an image which, in my opinion, can be considered to be capable of inciting violence. It has not been blocked due to a spelling error in the order. Instead of blocking hinduexist<b><i>e</i></b>nce.wordpress.com/... the DoT has ordered the blocking of hinduexist<b><i>a</i></b>nce.wordpress.com/..., which does not exist.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Two URLs in the block order are from the website of the High Council for Human Rights, Judiciary of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The reason for blocking these two links from this particular website is unclear.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">The website of the Union of NGOs of the Islamic World was blocked. Again, the reason for blocking this website remains unclear.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">URLs such as, http://farazahmed.com/..., mumblingminion.blogspot.com, were blocked. The content on these URLs was in fact debunking the fake photographs.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Certain blocked Facebook pages did not have any bearing on the North East exodus which was the main reason behind the blocks. For example, Facebook link leading to United States Institute for Peace page was blocked.</li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b> </b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Duration of the Block</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Department of Telecommunications (DoT) did not specify the period for which the block has been implemented in its orders. As a result of which certain URLs still remain blocked while a majority of the links in the leaked list can be accessed. Lack of clear directions from the DoT has resulted in haphazard blocking and certain internet service providers (ISPs) have lifted the block on certain links whereas some other ISPs have continued with a complete block.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b> </b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>How have the intermediaries reacted to the block orders?</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Going by the leaked list of websites blocked by DoT, it issued the block orders to ‘all internet service licensees’. Intermediaries that do not fall in the category of 'internet service licensees’ were also sent a separate set of requests for taking down third party content. However, it is unclear under which provision of the law such request was made by the Government.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Internet Service Licensees</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/chart_1.png" alt="Implementation of the order at the ISP level" class="image-inline" title="Implementation of the order at the ISP level" /><br /></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The internet service licensee or the ISPs have not followed any uniform system to notify that a particular URL or website in the leaked list is blocked according to DoT’s orders. The lack of transparency in the implementation of the block orders, have a chilling effect on free speech.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">For instance, BSNL returns the following messages:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"This website/URL has been blocked until further notice either pursuant to Court orders or on the Directions issued by the Department of Telecommunications" or “This site has been blocked as per instructions from Department of Telecom (DOT).”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, these messages are not uniform across all the URLs/websites in the leaked list. BSNL does not generate any response for the majority of the URLs in the leaked list. This results in ‘invisible censorship’ as the person who is trying to access the blocked URL does not have any means to know whether a particular URL is unavailable or certain sites are blocked by government orders.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Lack of notification does not only infringes upon the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression but also violates the fundamental right to a constitutional remedy guaranteed under Article 32 of our Constitution. The person aggrieved by such block orders cannot approach the Court for a remedy because there is no means to figure out:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">(a) Description of the content blocked?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">(b) Who has issued the block order/request?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">(c) Under which provision of the law such block order/request has been issued?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">(d) Who has implemented the block order/request? and</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">(e) What was the reason for the block?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The intermediaries should provide with the above notification details while implementing a block order issued by the Government. </p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Intermediaries hosting third party content: </b></p>
<p align="right" style="text-align: justify; ">More than 100 out of the 309 blocks are Facebook (http and https) URLs. Facebook has not informed its users about the reasons behind unavailability of certain pages or content. This is another instance of invisible censorship. However, YouTube, a Google service, has maintained certain level of transparency, and informs the user that the content has been blocked as per ‘government removal request’. It is interesting to note that certain YouTube user accounts were terminated as well. It is unclear whether this was as a result of the block order. Furthermore, links associated with blogger.com, which is another service provided by Google, have been removed.</p>
<hr />
<p align="right" style="text-align: justify; ">This was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.medianama.com/2012/09/223-analyzing-the-latest-list-of-blocked-sites-communalism-rioting-edition-part-ii/">re-posted</a> by Medianama on September 26, 2012.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/analyzing-the-latest-list-of-blocked-sites-communalism-and-rioting-edition-part-ii'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/analyzing-the-latest-list-of-blocked-sites-communalism-and-rioting-edition-part-ii</a>
</p>
No publishersnehashishIT ActSocial mediaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceIntermediary LiabilitySocial Networking2012-09-27T10:42:30ZBlog EntryOnline Pre-Censorship is Harmful and Impractical
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/online-pre-censorship-harmful-impractical
<b>The Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology, Mr. Kapil Sibal wants Internet intermediaries to pre-censor content uploaded by their users. Pranesh Prakash takes issue with this and explains why this is a problem, even if the government's heart is in the right place. Further, he points out that now is the time to take action on the draconian IT Rules which are before the Parliament.</b>
<p>Mr. Sibal is a knowledgeable lawyer, and according to a senior lawyer friend of his with whom I spoke yesterday, greatly committed to ideals of freedom of speech. He would not lightly propose regulations that contravene Article 19(1)(a) [freedom of speech and expression] of our Constitution. Yet his recent proposals regarding controlling online speech seem unreasonable. My conclusion is that the minister has not properly grasped the way the Web works, is frustrated because of the arrogance of companies like Facebook, Google, Yahoo and Microsoft. And while he has his heart in the right place, his lack of knowledge of the Internet is leading him astray. The more important concern is the<a class="external-link" href="http://www.mit.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/RNUS_CyberLaw_15411.pdf"> IT Rules</a> that have been in force since April 2011.</p>
<h3>Background <br /></h3>
<p>The New York Times scooped a story on Monday revealing that Mr. Sibal and the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.mit.gov.in/">MCIT</a> had been <a class="external-link" href="http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/india-asks-google-facebook-others-to-screen-user-content/?scp=2&sq=kapil%20sibal&st=cse">in touch with Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft</a>, asking them to set up a system whereby they would manually filter user-generated content before it is published, to ensure that objectionable speech does not get published. Specifically, he mentioned content that hurt people's religious sentiments and content that Member of Parliament Shashi Tharoor described as <a class="external-link" href="http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/i-am-against-web-censorship-shashi-tharoor_745587.html">'vile' and capable of inciting riots as being problems</a>. Lastly, Mr. Sibal defended this as not being "censorship" by the government, but "supervision" of user-generated content by the companies themselves.</p>
<h3>Concerns <br /></h3>
<p>One need not give lectures on the benefits of free speech, and Mr. Sibal is clear that he does not wish to impinge upon it. So one need not point out that freedom of speech means nothing if not the freedom to offend (as long as no harm is caused). There can, of course, be reasonable limitations on freedom of speech as provided in Article 19 of the <a class="external-link" href="http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm">ICCPR</a> and in Article 19(2) of our Constitution. My problem lies elsewhere.</p>
<h3>Secrecy <br /></h3>
<p>It is unfortunate that the New York Times has to be given credit for Mr. Sibal addressing a press conference on this issue (and he admitted as much). What he is proposing is not enforcement of existing rules and regulations, but of a new restriction on online speech. This should have, in a democracy, been put out for wide-ranging public consultations first.</p>
<h3>Making intermediaries responsible <br /></h3>
<p>The more fundamental disagreement is that over how the question of what should not be published should be decided, and how that decision should be and how that should be carried out, and who can be held liable for unlawful speech. I believe that "to make the intermediary liable for the user violating that code would, I think, not serve the larger interests of the market." Mr. Sibal said that in May this year <a class="external-link" href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304563104576355223687825048.html">in an interview with the Wall Street Journal</a>. The intermediaries (that is, all persons and companies who transmit or host content on behalf of a third party), are but messengers just like a post office and do not exercise editorial control, unlike a newspaper. (By all means prosecute Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft whenever they have created unlawful content, have exercised editorial control over unlawful content, have incited and encouraged unlawful activities, or know after a court order or the like that they are hosting illegal content and still do not remove it.)
Newspapers have editors who can take responsibility for content published in the newspaper. They can afford to, because the number of articles in a newspaper is limited. YouTube, which has 48 hours of videos uploaded every minutes, cannot. One wag suggested that Mr. Sibal was not suggesting a means of censorship, but of employment generation and social welfare for censors and editors. To try and extend editorial duties to these 'intermediaries' by executive order or through 'forceful suggestions' to these companies cannot happen without amending s.79 of the Information Technology Act which ensures they are not to be held liable for their user's content: the users are.
Internet speech has, to my knowledge, and to date, has never caused a riot in India. It is when it is translated into inflammatory speeches on the ground with megaphones that offensive speech, whether in books or on the Internet, actually become harmful, and those should be targeted instead. And the same laws that apply to offline speech already apply online. If such speech is inciting violence then the police can be contacted and a magistrate can take action. Indeed, Internet companies like Facebook, Google, etc., exercise self-regulation already (excessively and wrongly, I feel sometimes). Any person can flag any content on YouTube or Facebook as violating the site's terms of use. Indeed, even images of breast-feeding mothers have been removed from Facebook on the basis of such complaints. So it is mistaken to think that there is no self-regulation. In two recent cases, the High Courts of Bombay (<a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/janhit-manch-v-union-of-india" class="internal-link" title="Janhit Manch & Ors. v. The Union of India"><em>Janhit Manch v. Union of India</em></a>) and Madras (<em>R. Karthikeyan v. Union of India</em>) refused to direct the government and intermediaries to police online content, saying that places an excessive burden on freedom of speech.</p>
<h3>IT Rules, 2011 <br /></h3>
<p>In this regard, the IT Rules published in April 2011 are great offenders. While speech that is 'disparaging' (while not being defamatory) is not prohibited by any statute, yet intermediaries are required not to carry 'disparaging' speech, or speech to which the user has no right (how is this to be judged? do you have rights to the last joke that you forwarded?), or speech that promotes gambling (as the government of Sikkim does through the PlayWin lottery), and a myriad other kinds of speech that are not prohibited in print or on TV. Who is to judge whether something is 'disparaging'? The intermediary itself, on pain of being liable for prosecution if it is found have made the wrong decision. And any person may send a notice to an intermediary to 'disable' content, which has to be done within 36 hours if the intermediary doesn't want to be held liable. Worst of all, there is no requirement to inform the user whose content it is, nor to inform the public that the content is being removed. It just disappears, into a memory hole. It does not require a paranoid conspiracy theorist to see this as a grave threat to freedom of speech.
Many human rights activists and lawyers have made a very strong case that the IT Rules on Intermediary Due Diligence are unconstitutional. Parliament still has an opportunity to reject these rules until the end of the 2012 budget session. Parliamentarians must act now to uphold their oaths to the Constitution.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/online-pre-censorship-harmful-impractical'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/online-pre-censorship-harmful-impractical</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIT ActObscenityFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityYouTubeSocial mediaInternet GovernanceFeaturedIntermediary LiabilityCensorshipSocial Networking2011-12-12T17:00:50ZBlog EntryPitroda seeks to put govt information in public domain
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/www-livemint-september-25-2012-surabhi-agarwal-pitroda-seeks-to-put-govt-information-in-public-domain
<b>In the first-ever Indian government press conference on Twitter, Sam Pitroda, adviser to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on public information infrastructure and innovations, championed the cause of putting government information in the public domain to usher in openness and empowerment. </b>
<hr />
<p>Surabhi Agarwal's article was <a class="external-link" href="http://origin-www.livemint.com/Politics/5xXKN9JH15noiYuQtVQtrL/Governments-first-ever-conference-on-Twitter-to-begin-short.html">published in LiveMint</a> on September 25, 2012. Sunil Abraham is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p> </p>
<p><img alt=" " src="http://origin-www.livemint.com/rw/LiveMint/Period1/2012/09/26/Photos/sam%20pitroda1--621x414.jpg" title=" " /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“In India, we have the Right to Information (Act) but the information is locked up in files,” he said in a video that was uploaded on YouTube before the conference started. Pitroda said the government has various plans to build robust information infrastructure on a scale that has never been done before.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“I firmly believe that information is the fourth pillar of democracy along with (the) legislature, executive and judiciary,” he tweeted as opening remarks during the press conference titled “Democratization of information”.</p>
<table class="invisible">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th><img alt="photo" height="220" src="http://origin-www.livemint.com/rf/Image-330x220/LiveMint/Period1/2012/09/26/Photos/web_socialmedia.jpg" width="330" /></th>
<td style="text-align: justify; ">
<p>Even though Pitroda largely reiterated the government’s already announced plans in the space of digitization, the move to hold a press conference over Twitter has been largely construed as as a sign that the administration, criticised for attempting to rein in social media, is trying to come to terms with it.</p>
<p>Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bangalore-based research organization Centre for Internet and Society, said too much shouldn’t be read into Pitroda holding a press conference on Twitter. One government bureaucrat available on Twitter for a fixed period doesn’t make up for the non-existence of the government on social media, he said. “They (government) should be available all the time.”</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The department of electronics and information technology recently issued guidelines for government agencies on improved engagement with citizens through social media. Tuesday’s press conference may spark a trend of more such engagements on social media platforms by government agencies.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Pitroda said that the public information infrastructure (PII) will include a national knowledge network that will connect 1,500 nodes for universities, colleges, research labs and libraries along with connecting 250,000 panchayats in the country through fibre optics. The information network will be operational in the next two year, Pitroda said in the YouTube video.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The government’s open data platform (<i>http://www.data.gov.in</i>), the beta site for which was launched some time ago, will provide access to government data and documents, he said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Even though the government’s battles with the Internet continue over issues of regulation, which have often been construed as censorship, an increasing number of political leaders and agencies have been using the route to get their message across.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Gujarat chief minister <a href="http://origin-www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Narendra%20Modi">Narendra Modi</a> has sought to engage with people through video chat on <a href="http://origin-www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Google+">Google+</a> Hangout. West Bengal chief minister and Trinamool Congress (TMC) chief <a href="http://origin-www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Mamata%20Banerjee">Mamata Banerjee</a> has been using <a href="http://origin-www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Facebook">Facebook</a> to make public her views on recent economic and political developments.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) has also been communicating over Twitter in the recent past. The authorities have sought to block accounts that style themselves as belonging to the Prime Minister. Account holders have said that some of these are satirical in nature.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/www-livemint-september-25-2012-surabhi-agarwal-pitroda-seeks-to-put-govt-information-in-public-domain'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/www-livemint-september-25-2012-surabhi-agarwal-pitroda-seeks-to-put-govt-information-in-public-domain</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceSocial media2012-09-27T05:13:05ZNews Item