Centre for Internet and Society

Freedom of Expression or Access to Knowledge: Are We Taking the Necessary Steps Towards an Open and Inclusive Internet?

praskrishna — 2011-04-05T03:59:34Z

The Centre for Internet and Society is co-organising a workshop on Freedom of Expression or Access to Knowledge: Are We Taking the Necessary Steps Towards an Open and Inclusive Internet? at the Internet Governance Forum on

Although cyber-utopian visions have long been discredited, the promise that the Internet contains as a tool to work towards democratisation and greater social justice has not yet lost its attraction. This workshop will consider what kind of Internet architecture is needed, what kind of 'openness' and Internet 'freedom' is required to ensure that such visions can actually translate into reality. While the importance of freedom of expression has been fairly widely acknowledged, a concerted approach to many more Internet governance issue is urgently required if those who are at the forefront of struggles for social justice online are to continue to do their important work. The interplay between access to knowledge (including access to information and access to culture) on the one hand and human rights on the other, too, for example, requires our urgent attention.

The aim of this workshop will be, then, to come to a more in-depth and more rounded understanding of what issues impact the democratising potential of the Internet and how exactly they do so, so that we can also start communicating about these with greater clarity. To reach this aim, the workshop will bring together activists, researchers and other stakeholders with expertise on different regions of the world and, consequently, at times diverging opinions on what the problems and solutions with regard to Internet governance are, and will bring them in debate with each other.

The workshop will be organized in a roundtable format in order to increase the involvement of the participants. Initial remarks of the speakers will be followed by debate, and active moderation will ensure that the discussions are dynamic. The issues raised by the speakers will be grouped under several axes, including: (i) Civic empowerment online: towards a new public sphere?; (ii) governmental and private control over information and personal data; (iii) Cases of tension between copyright protection and access to knowledge online. Cases such as the adoption of laws following the three strikes model and the adoption of open data regulations will be taken into consideration.

Which of the five broad IGF Themes or the Cross-Cutting Priorities does your workshop fall under?
Security, Openness and Privacy

Have you organized an IGF workshop before? Yes
If so, please provide the link to the report:
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=Workshopsreports2009View&curr=1&wr=94

Provide the names and affiliations of the panellists you are planning to invite:
Civil Society:
Robert Guerra – Freedom House, US
Anja Kovacs – Centre for Internet and Society, India
Kevin Bankston – EFF, US

Academics:
Marília Maciel - Center for Technology and Society - Brazil
Jeremy Malcolm - Consumers International, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Government:
Johan Hallenborg – Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Sweden
José Murilo Junior – Brazilian Ministry of Culture, Brazil

Business sector:
Alan Davidson – Director of Public Policy and Government Affairs for the Americas
Cornelia Kutterer, Microsoft, Belgium

Multistakeholder initiative:
Susan Morgan, Global Network Initiative

Remote moderator:
Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza - Center for Technology and Society, Getulio Vargas Foundation, Brazil

(A moderator is still to be determined but will be chosen from among the civil society and academic speakers. All speakers have confirmed their participation)

Biographies:
There are no panelists biographies associated to this workshop at the moment.

Provide the name of the organizer(s) of the workshop and their affiliation to various stakeholder groups:
Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza - Center for Technology and Society, Getulio Vargas Foundation – civil society
Johan Hallenborg, Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs - government
Anja Kovacs, Centre for Internet and Society - civil society
Jeremy Malcolm. Consumers International - civil society
Marília Maciel - Center for Technology and Society, Getulio Vargas Foundation – civil society

Organization:Centre for Internet and Society, India, and Center for Technology and Society of the Getulio Vargas Foundation, Brazil

Contact Persons: Anja Kovacs and Marília Maciel

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/events/freedom-of-expression

Freedom of Expression in a Digital Age: Effective Research, Policy Formation & the Development of Regulatory Frameworks in South Asia

jyoti — 2015-04-12T03:53:04Z

The Centre for Internet & Society cordially invites you to a panel discussion on Freedom of Expression in a Digital Age. The event organized by Center for Global Communication Studies at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, Observer Research Foundation and the Centre for Internet and Society will be held at Observer Research Foundation on April 21, 2015 from 11.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m.

The discussion will highlight the challenges in promoting and strengthening online freedom of expression and evaluating the application of existing regulatory frameworks in South Asia. Click to view the invite.

International Frameworks and Freedom of Expression

Freedom of expression-an important fundamental right in itself, is also critical for defending and upholding other freedoms and rights. We exercise this right in our day-to-day lives, through the exchange of ideas, opinions and information. Understanding the means and structures of communication, and the regulation of environments that facilitate such exchange therefore become crucial for those seeking to realize freedom of expression.

Freedom of expression is enshrined in Article 19 of both theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The UDHR holds that " everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers" . The ICCPR holds that, " everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice".

Freedom of expression has also been enshrined in regional conventions and charters, for example the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the American Convention on Human Rights4, and the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights ("Banjul Charter") .

The former UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, highlighted in his 2013 report report that these frameworks are applicable to actions that take place online.6 While there may be no disagreements on freedom of expression as a legal right, it is important to bear in mind that it is not a non-derogable right, and may therefore be limited subject to safeguards indicated, for example, in Article 19(3) of the ICCPR.

While there may be limitations are placed on the exercise of freedom of expression, there is limited clarity on when and how freedom of expression can be legitimately circumscribed. There have been attempts by civil society groups to articulate more clearly the specific conditions when freedom of expression may be derogated, most notably the Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ("Siracusa Principles" ), and the Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information ("Johannesburg Principles").

Freedom of Expression and Communications

Over the years, the norms and standards required for freedom of expression in the traditional media world have received much attention. When regulating communication, some restrictions upon freedom of expression have been regarded necessary and are enforceable by national or international courts. Such restrictions have been defined in international human rights laws and cover issues such as defamation, incitement to violence and hate speech. While these restrictions are not affected by the introduction of new means of communication, the proliferation of digital communications does warrant the recognition that there are new forms of censorship, unsettled questions of jurisdiction, and the need to develop new norms and standards that can keep pace with the myriad forms of expression and information sharing.

Communication in the digital age has led to the evolution of the Internet as a medium that has revolutionised largely local capacity for communication into a worldwide phenomenon that encompasses everything from personal one-to-one emails, social networks and reaching out to large audiences globally. The proliferation of digital technologies has not only fostered unprecedented access to information; the very environment stands transformed by the introduction of new kinds of information from voice, sound, image, text and code, that are accessible on a range of devices and across several types of technologies.

These networks and services democratized communication by lowering barriers to access and creating new space for publishing and peer-to-peer collaboration. Bypassing traditional gatekeepers of other forms of media, users can take on the role of writers, broadcasters or publishers on the Internet thus creating limitless possibilities for producing, sharing and exchanging all kinds of content. From this view, the Internet has sprung up as a globally accessible means of communication that is free from traditional restraints on free speech and expression. However, there are other unintended consequences that the Internet has had on both forms of power and control in the regulation of content, as online content has become increasingly contested, enclosed in a nationalized sphere challenging the free flow of information and freedom of expression.

Freedom of Expression in South Asia

As a network of networks, the internet has no overarching jurisdiction and with no single entity governing the totality of the internet, there exists a jurisdictional vacuum over content on the web. Further, there are no means of regulating content internationally or even a broad consensus on the norms that should be applied for restricting freedom of expression either on traditional or modern media. This has led to adverse consequences such as states adopting arbitrary actions and standards or companies exercising private censorship with content online.

South Asia has an important role in global development, with its share of the world's largest working-age population, a quarter of the world's middle-class consumers, the largest number of poor and undernourished in the world, and several fragile states of global geopolitical importance. With inclusive growth, South Asia has the potential to change the global order and communications and technology continue to play a critical role in realising the region's potential. Unfortunately, the history of colonial rule, authoritarian governments and a turbulent geo-political landscape have resulted in a tendency to over-regulate speech. Governments have construed the advent of the Internet as a challenge to their authority and their anxiousness to restrict use of the medium by citizens has resulted in often regressive and sometimes draconian laws such as Myanmar's Electronic Transactions Law, India's IT Act and Pakistan's Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act.

As the Internet expands and provides greater access, it also places censorship and surveillance capacities in the hands of states and corporations. It is therefore crucial that there exist strong protections of the right to freedom of expression that balance state powers and citizen rights. While the Internet has thrown up its own set of challenges such as hate speech, the verbal online abuse of women and the use of the Internet to spread rumours of violence, the regulation of content is a question that is far from being settled and needs our urgent attention. What role can and should the law play? When is it justified for the government to intervene? What can be expected from intermediaries, such as social networks and ISPs? And what can users do to protect the right to free speech - their own and that of others?

Balancing freedom of expression with other rights is further complicated by the challenges of fast paced and changing regulatory environment. By highlighting these challenges and questioning the application of existing frameworks we aim to contribute to further promoting and strengthening the right to freedom of expression, in India and beyond.

Introduction to panel and conference:

This is the context in which the Centre for Internet and Society, the Observer Research Foundation, the University of Pennsylvania's Internet Policy Observatory, and the Programme for Comparative Media Law and Policy at Oxford University are coming together to organise an event under the title 'Freedom of Expression in a Digital Age'. The event is a discussion and deliberation on 'Effective Research, Policy Formation, & the Development of Regulatory Frameworks in South Asia', aimed at bringing together policymakers, researchers, experts and civil society in discussing some of the most crucial issues in this space. The event would seek to look at past experiences, look at current realities and look ahead to how things could be made better in the South Asian context. The program agenda includes

Freedom of Expression in a Digital Age' Effective Research, Policy Formation, & the Development of Regulatory Frameworks in South Asia
Program Agenda and Article Submission Tracks
Learnings from the past		Current Realities		Looking ahead
11:00 - 1:00	1:00 - 2:00	2:00 - 4:00	4:00- 4:15	4:15-6:00
Welcome and Introductions		Welcome and Introductions		Welcome and Introductions
Overview of existing policies and regulatory models and their impact on FoEx online including the implementation of these models across South Asia	Lunch	How FoEx is being enabled online in different jurisdications and sectors of society across South Asia	Coffee break	Challenges associated with formulating a standard, harmonized, and adaptable regulation that is applicable to multiple digital platforms, both at the national and international level and possible solutions
FoEx as defined in jurisdictions across South Asia and as compared to international standards		Ways in which FoEx is, or may be, curtailed online		Ways forward to bridge existing gaps between policy formation and policy implementation with respect to FOEX online
Emerging technologies, markets, services and platforms and how they have shaped FoEx across South Asia		Online FoEx and the present need to balance it against other digital rights in jurisdictions across South Asia		Exploration of emerging regulatory questions such as whether online speech should be regulated in the same manner as offline speech or, if there are there are particular forms of online speech that are difficult to regulate such as defamation, hate speech, if there are effective models of remedy for violation of FOEX online
Impact of challenges on FoEx online such as barriers of entry, access, accessibility, cost, liability, policies and enforcement mechanisms differing across platforms across South Asia		The impact of jurisdiction, multi-national platforms, and domestic regulation on FOEX online		Ways in which civil society can impact and influence the development and implementation of Internet regulation
Research techniques that have been applied to the issue and have been effective in different political contexts across South Asia		Role and responsibility of intermediaries in regulating online speech as per governmental standards via content policies, terms of service, and other practices across South Asia		Exploration of the future role and interplay of technology and policy in enabling FOEX online
Q&A		Q&A		Q&A

About the Organisers

The Center for Global Communication Studies at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania-has created the Internet Policy Observatory (IPO) to research the dynamic technological and political contexts in which these Internet governance debates take place. The IPO serves as a platform for informing relevant communities of activists, academics, and policy makers, and for displaying collected data and analysis. The Observatory encourages and sponsors research and studies ongoing events, key decisions and proposals, on Internet policy. The IPO seeks to deepen understanding of the evolution of mechanisms and processes that affect domestic Internet policies in key jurisdictions and the legal, political, economic, international and social factors that influence the implementation, or non-implementation, of such policies.The IPO also seeks to understand the relationship between national efforts and international policy formations and the role of civil society in domestic Internet policy processes and control.

The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS)-is a non-profit research organization working to explore, understand and affect the shape and form of the Internet and its relationship with the political, cultural, and social milieu of our times. CIS' multidisciplinary research, intervention and collaboration engages with policy issues relating to freedom of expression, privacy, accessibility for persons with disabilities, access to knowledge and IPR reform, openness (including open government data, free/open source software, open standards, open access to scholarly literature, open educational resources, and open video). CIS also engages in academic research on digital natives and digital humanities.

The Observer Research Foundation (ORF)- is India's premier independent public policy think tank and is engaged in developing and discussing policy alternatives on a wide range of issues of national and international significance. The fundamental objective of ORF is to influence the formulation of policies for building a strong and prosperous India in a globalised world. It hosts India's largest annual cyber conference - CyFy: the India Conference on Cyber Security and Internet Governance.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/freedom-of-expression-in-digital-age

Freedom of Expression in a Digital Age

Geetha Hariharan and Jyoti Panday — 2015-07-15T14:42:23Z

The Centre for Internet & Society, the Observer Research Foundation, the Internet Policy Observatory, the Centre for Global Communication Studies and the Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania organized this conference on April 21, 2015 in New Delhi.

This report was edited by Elonnai Hickok

Effective research, policy formulation, and the development of regulatory frameworks in South Asia

Inside this Report

BACKGROUND TO THE CONFERENCE

THE ORGANIZERS

CONFERENCE PROGRAMME

WELCOME ADDRESS

SESSION 1: LEARNINGS FROM THE PAST

Vibodh Parthasarathi, Associate Professor, Centre for Culture, Media and Governance (CCMG), Jamia Millia Islamia University

Smarika Kumar, Alternative Law Forum

Bhairav Acharya, Advocate, Supreme Court and Delhi High Court & Consultant, CIS

Ambikesh Mahapatra, Professor of Chemistry, Jadavpur University

Questions & Comments

SESSION 2: CURRENT REALITIES

Cherian George, Associate Professor, Hong Kong Baptist University

Zakir Khan, Article 19, Bangladesh

Chinmayi Arun, Research Director, Centre for Communication Governance (CCG), National Law University (Delhi)

Raman Jit Singh Chima, Asia Consultant, Access Now

Questions & Comments

SESSION 3: LOOKING AHEAD

Sutirtho Patranobis, Assistant Editor, Hindustan Times

Karuna Nundy, Advocate, Supreme Court of India

Geeta Seshu, The Hoot

Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director, Centre for Internet & Society

Questions & Comments

Conclusion

Background to the Conference

As the Internet expands and provides greater access and enables critical rights such as freedom of expression and privacy, it also places censorship and surveillance capabilities in the hands of states and corporations. It is therefore crucial that there exist strong protections for the right to freedom of expression that balance state powers and citizen rights. While the Internet has thrown up its own set of challenges such as extremist/hate speech, the verbal online abuse of women, and the use of the Internet to spread rumours of violence, the regulation of cont ent is a question that is far from being settled and needs urgent attention. These are compounded by contextual challenges. What role can and should the law play? When is it justified for the government to intervene? What can be expected from intermediaries, such as social networks and Internet Service Providers (ISPs)? And what can users do to protect the right to free speech - their own and that of others?

Balancing freedom of expression with other rights is further complicated by the challenges of fast paced and changing technologies and the need for adaptable and evolving regulatory frameworks. By highlighting these challenges and questioning the application of existing frameworks we aim to contribute to further promoting and strengthening the right to freedom of expression across South Asia.

The Organizers

Centre for Internet & Society

Established in 2008, the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) is a non-profit research organization that works on policy issues relating to freedom of expression, privacy, accessibility for persons with disabilities, access to knowledge and intellectual property rights, and openness (including open standards and open government data). CIS also engages in scholarly research on the budding disciplines of digital natives and digital humanities. CIS has offices in Bangalore and New Delhi.

Observer Research Foundation

ORF, established in 1990, is India's premier independent public policy think tank and is engaged in developing and discussing policy alternatives on a wide range of issues of national and international significance. The fundamental objective of ORF is to influence the formulation of policies for building a strong and prosperous India in a globalised world. It hosts India's largest annual cyber conference - CyFy: the India Conference on Cyber Security and Internet Governance

The Annenberg School for Communication, The Centre for Global Communication Studies & the Internet Policy Observatory (U. Penn.)

The Annenberg School of Communication (ASC) at the University of Pennsylvania produces research that advances the understanding of public and private communications. The Center for Global Communication Studies (CGCS) is a focused academic center at ASC and a leader in international education and training in comparative media law and policy. It affords students, academics, lawyers, regulators, civil society representatives and others the opportunity to evaluate and discuss international communications issues. The Internet Policy Observatory (IPO) was started by CGCS to research the dynamic technological and political contexts in which Internet governance debates take place. The IPO serves as a platform for informing relevant communities of activists, academics, and policy makers, displaying collected data and analysis.

Conference Programme

'Freedom of Expression in a Digital Age' Effective Research, Policy Formation & the Development of Regulatory Frameworks in South Asia
April 21^st, 2015 - 11 a.m. to 6 p.m.

The Observer Research Foundation

20, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area

New Delhi - 110 002, INDIA

About the Conference

The conference will be a discussion highlighting the challenges in promoting and strengthening online freedom of expression and evaluating the application of existing regulatory frameworks in South Asia

Agenda

Learnings from the past		Current Realities		Looking ahead
11:00 - 1:00	1:00 - 2:00	2:00 - 4:00	4:00- 4:15	4:15 - 6:00
Overview of online FoEx policy and regulatory models across South Asia		Enabling FOEX in South Asia		Challenges associated with formulating regulation for online FoEx
Definitions of FoEx across South Asia		Ways in which FoEx is, or may be, curtailed online		Ways forward to bridge existing gaps between policy formation and policy implementation with respect to FOEX online
Impact of technology and markets on FoEx across South Asia		Balancing FoEx and other digital rights		Exploring emerging regulatory questions for FoEx online
Challenges to FoEx online across South Asia		The impact of jurisdiction, multi-national platforms, and domestic regulation on FoEx online		Impacting and influencing the development and implementation of Internet regulation through research
Effective research techniques and online FoEx		Role and responsibility of intermediaries in regulating online speech across South Asia		Exploration of the future role and interplay of technology and policy in enabling FOEX online

Ms. Mahima Kaul, Head (Cyber & Media Initiative), Observer Research Foundation (ORF), introduced the conference and its context and format, as well as the organisers. In three sessions, the Conference aimed to explore historical lessons, current realities and future strategies with regard to freedom of expression on the Internet in India and South Asia.

Mr. Manoj Joshi, Distinguished Fellow, ORF, provided the welcome address. Mr. Joshi highlighted the complexities and distinctions between print and electronic media, drawing on examples from history. He stated that freedom of expression is most often conceived as a positive right in the context of print media, as restrictions to the right are strictly within the bounds of the Constitution. For instance, during the riots in Punjab in the 1980s, when hate speech was prevalent, constitutionally protected restrictions were placed on the print media. When efforts were made to crack down on journalists with the introduction of the Defamation Bill in the 1980s, journalists were lucky that the Bill also included proprietors as those liable for defamation. This created solidarity between journalists and proprietors of newspapers to fight the Bill, and it was shelved.

Freedom of expression is necessary in a democratic society, Mr. Joshi stated, but it is necessary that this freedom be balanced with other rights such as privacy of individuals and the protection against hate speech. In the absence of such balance, speech becomes one-sided, leaving no recourse to those affected by violative speech.

In the digital age, however, things become complex, Mr. Joshi said. The freedom available to speech is enhanced, but so is the misuse of that freedom. The digital space has been used to foment riots, commit cybercrime, etc. Online, in India the restrictions placed on freedom of speech have become draconian. Section 66A and the incidents of arrests under it are an example of this. It is, therefore, important to consider the kind of restrictions that should be placed on free speech online. There is also the question of self-regulation by online content-creators, but this is rendered complex by the fact that no one owns the Internet. This conference, Mr. Joshi said, will help develop an understanding of what works and what frameworks we will need going forward.

Mr. Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director, Centre for Internet & Society (CIS), introduced the speakers for the first session. Mr. Vibodh Parthasarathi, Associate Professor, Centre for Culture, Media and Governance, Jamia Millia Islamia University, would first share his views and experience regarding the various ways of curtailing freedom of expression by the State, markets and civil society. Ms. Smarika Kumar of theAlternative Law Forum (ALF) would then expand on structural violations of freedom of expression. Mr. Bhairav Acharya, Advocate with the Delhi Bar and Consultant for CIS, would throw light on the development of free speech jurisprudence and policy in India from the colonial era, while Prof. Ambikesh Mahapatra, Professor of Chemistry, Jadavpur University, was to speak about his arrest and charges under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (am. 2008), providing insight into the way Section 66A was misused by police and the West Bengal government.

Vibodh Parthasarathi, Associate Professor, Centre for Culture, Media and Governance (CCMG), Jamia Millia Islamia University

Mr. Parthasarathi began his talk with an anecdote, narrating an incident when he received a call from a print journalist, who said "TV people can get away with anything, but we can't, and we need to do something about it." The notion of news institutions getting away with non-kosher actions is not new - and has been a perception since the 19^th century. He stressed that there have always been tensions between Freedom of Expression, access, and other rights. Curtailment happens not just by the state, but by private parties as well - market and civil society. Indeed, a large number of non-state actors are involved in curtailing FoE. Subsequently a tension between individual FoE and commercial speech freedom is emerging. This is not a new phenomenon. Jurisprudence relating to free speech makes a distinction between the persons in whom the right inheres: individuals on the one hand (including journalists and bloggers), and proprietors and commercial entities on the other.

In India, freedom of speech cases - from 1947 - relate primarily to the rights of proprietors. These cases form the legal and constitutional basis for issues of access, transmission and distribution, but are not necessarily favourable to the rights of individual journalists or newsreaders. At the individual level, the freedom to receive information is equally important, and needs to be explored further. For entities, it is crucial to consider the impact of curtailment of speech (or threats of curtailment) on entities of different sizes and kinds.

Mr. Parthasarathi further explained that online, freedom of expression depends on similar structural conditions and stressed that scholarship must study these as well. For example, intermediaries in the TV industry and online intermediaries will soon come together to provide services, but scholarship does not link them yet. The law is similarly disjointed. For instance, 'broadcasting' falls in the Union List under Schedule VII of the Constitution, and is centrally regulated. However, distribution is geographically bounded, and States regulate distribution. In order to have a cohesive broadcast regulation, he raised the point that the placement of 'broadcasting' in the Union List may need to be re-thought.

According to Mr. Parthasarathi, the underlying conceptual basis - for the interlinked scholarship and regulation of intermediaries (online and broadcast), of commercial speech and individual access to information, and censorship (State and private, direct and structural) - lies in Article 19(1)(a). He noted that there is a need to rethink the nature of this freedom. For whom do we protect freedom of speech? For individuals alone, or also for all private entities? From what are we protecting this freedom? For Mr. Parthasarathi, freedom of speech needs to be protected from the State, the market, civil society and those with entrenched political interests. Additionally, Mr. Parthasarathi raised the question of whether or not in the online context freedom of the enterprise becomes antithetical to universal access

Mr. Parthasarathi also highlighted that it is important to remember that freedom of expression is not an end in itself; it is a facilitator - the 'road'- to achieve crucial goals such as diversity of speech. But if diversity is what freedom of expression should enable, it is important to ask whether institutional exercise of freedom has led to enhanced diversity of speech. Do media freedom and media diversity go together? For Mr. Parthasarathi, media freedom and media diversity do not always go together. The most vivid example of this is the broadcast environment in India, following the deregulation of broadcast media beginning from the mid 1990s - much of which was done through executive orders on an ad hoc basis.

This led to infrastructural censorship, in addition to the ex-post curtailment of content. Increasingly the conditions on which content is produced are mediated i.e. which entities are eligible to obtain licenses, what type of capital is encouraged or discouraged, how is market dominance measured, accumulation of interests across content and carriage, or various carriage platforms? Mediating the conditions of producing speech, or infra censorship, is primarily operationalised through regulatory silences, as illustrated in the absence of any coherent or systematic anti-competitive measures.

Indian courts are champions in protecting the freedom of expression of 'outlets' - of proprietors and entities. But this has not led to diversity of speech and media. Perhaps there is a need to rethink and reformulate ideas of freedom. He pointed out that it is not enough merely to look at ex post curtailment of speech (i.e., the traditional idea of censorship). Instead the conditions in which speech is made and censored need to be explored; only then can our understanding expand. Mr Parthasarathi ended his talk by stressing that a proactive understanding of freedom of expression can highlight architectural curtailment of speech through the grant of licenses, competition and antitrust laws, media ownership and concentration across carriage and content, etc. This is essential in a digital age, where intermediaries play a crucial, growing role in facilitating freedom of speech.

Smarika Kumar, Alternative Law Forum
Beginning where Mr. Parthasarathi left off, the focus of Ms. Kumar's presentation was the curtailment of speech and the conditions under which speech is produced. At the outset, she sought from the audience a sense of the persons for whom freedom of speech is protected: for government-controlled media, the markets and commercial entities, or for civil society and citizens? Ms. Kumar aimed to derive ideas and conceptual bases to understand freedom of speech in the digital space by studying judicial interpretations of Article 19(1)(a) and its limitations. Towards this end, she highlighted some Indian cases that clarify the above issues.

Ms. Kumar began with Sakal Papers v. Union of India [AIR 1962 SC 305]. In Sakal Papers, the issue concerned the State's regulation of speech by regulation of the number of permitted pages in a newspaper. This regulation was challenged as being in violation of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The rationale for such regulation, the State argued, was that newsprint, being imported, was a scarce commodity, and therefore needed to be equitably distributed amongst different newspapers - big or small. Further, the State defended the regulation citing its necessity for ensuring equal diversity and freedom of expression amongst all newspapers. The petitioners in the case argued that such a regulation would negatively impact the newspapers' right to circulation by reducing the space for advertisements, and thus forcing the newspaper to increase selling prices. Readers of the newspaper additionally argued that such increase in prices would affect their right to access newspapers by making them less affordable, and hence such regulation was against the readers' interests. Ultimately, the Supreme Court struck down the regulation. The Constitution Bench noted that if the number of pages of a newspaper were to be limited and regulated, the space available for advertisements would reduce. Were advertisements to reduce, the cost of newspapers would increase, affecting affordability and access to information for the citizens. Ultimately, newspaper circulation would suffer; i.e., the State's regulation affected the newspapers' right of circulation which would amount to a violation of freedom of expression as the right extends to the matter of speech as well as the ability to circulate such speech.

Apart from the number of pages, the Indian government has sought to regulate newsprint in the past. In Bennett Coleman and Co. & Ors. v. Union of India [AIR 1973 SC 106], a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court considered whether regulation of the number of pages permitted in a newspaper constituted an unreasonable restriction on freedom of expression. Towards this, the Government of India set forth a Newsprint Policy in 1972, under the terms of which the number of pages of all papers were to be limited to ten; where there were small newspapers that did not achieve the ten-page limit, a 20% increase was permitted; and finally, new newspapers could not be started by common ownership units. The Newsprint Order aimed to regulate a scarce resource (newsprint), while the Newsprint Policy sought to promote small newspapers, encourage equal diversity among newspapers and prevent monopolies. The Supreme Court upheld the Newsprint Order, stating that newsprint was indeed a scarce resource, and that the matter of import and distribution of newsprint was a matter of government policy. The Court would not interfere unless there was evidence of mala fides. However, the Court struck down the Newsprint Policy for reasons similar to Sakal Papers ; that the rights afforded to newspapers under Article 19(1)(a) - including circulation - could not be abridged for reasons of protecting against monopolies.

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Mathew stated that in conceiving freedom of expression, it is important to also consider the hearer (the reader). For Justice Mathew, Meiklejohn's view the "what is essential is not that everyone shall speak, but that everything worth saying shall be said" cannot be affected if, because of concentration of media ownership, media are not available for most speakers. In such a situation, " the hearers [cannot] be reached effectively". However, the imperative is to maximise diversity of speech. For this, we need to balance the rights of citizens against those of the press; i.e., the rights of the reader against those of the speaker.

Ms. Kumar pointed out that this was the first case to consider the right of readers to access a diversity of speech. Justice Mathew distinguished curtailment of speech by the state, and by the market - and that this is crucial in the digital age, where information is predominantly accessible through and because of intermediaries. Ms. Kumar further stressed that especially in an age where 'walled gardens' are a real possibility (in the absence of net neutrality regulation, for instance), Justice Mathew's insistence on the rights of readers and listeners to a diversity of speech is extremely important.

Ms. Kumar went on to explain that though judges in the Supreme Court recognised the rights of readers/listeners (us, the citizens) for the purposes of news and print media, a similar right is denied to us in the case of TV. In Secretary, Ministry of Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal [AIR 1995 SC 1236], the issue surrounded private operators' right to use airwaves to broadcast. The Supreme Court considered whether government agencies and Doordarshan, the government broadcaster, " have a monopoly of creating terrestrial signals and of telecasting them or refusing to telecast them", and whether Doordarshan could claim to be the single host broadcaster for all events, including those produced or organised by the company or by anybody else in the country or abroad. The Supreme Court held that the TV viewer has a right to a diversity of views and information under Article 19(1)(a), and also that the viewer must be protected against the market. The Court reasoned that " airwaves being public property, it is the duty of the state to see that airwaves are so utilised as to advance the free speech right of the citizens, which is served by ensuring plurality and diversity of views, opinions and ideas ".

If every citizen were afforded the right to use airwaves at his own choosing, "powerful economic, commercial and political interests" would dominate the media. Therefore, instead of affirming a distinct right of listeners, the Court conflated the interests of government-controlled media with those of the listeners, on the ground that government media fall under public and parliamentary scrutiny. According to Ms. Kumar this is a regressive position that formulates State interest as citizen interest. Ms. Kumar argued that in order to ensure freedom of speech there is a need to frame citizens' interests as distinct from those of the market and the government.

Bhairav Acharya, Advocate, Supreme Court and Delhi High Court & Consultant, CIS
Mr. Acharya's presentation focused on the divergence between the jurisprudence and policy surrounding freedom of expression in India. According to him, the policies of successive governments in India - from the colonial period and thereafter - have developed at odds with case-law relating to freedom of expression. Indeed, it is possible to discern from the government's actions over the last two centuries a relatively consistent narrative of governance which seeks to bend the individual's right to speech to its will. The defining characteristics of this narrative - the government's free speech policy - emerge from a study of executive and legislative decisions chiefly in relation to the press, that continue to shape policy regarding the freedom of expression on the Internet. Thus, there has been consistent tension between the individual and the community, as well as the role of the government in enforcing the expectations of the community when thwarted by law.

Today, free speech scholarship (including digital speech) fails to take into account this consistent divergence between jurisprudence and policy. Mr. Acharya pointed out that we think of digital speech issues as new, whereas there is an immense amount of insight to gain by studying the history of free speech and policy in India.

Towards this, Mr. Acharya highlighted that to understand dichotomy between modern and native law and free speech policy, it is useful to go back to the early colonial period in India, when Governor-General Warren Hastings established a system of courts in Bengal's hinterland to begin the long process of displacing traditional law to create a modern legal system. J. Duncan M. Derrett notes that the colonial expropriation of Indian law was marked by a significant tension caused by the repeatedly-stated objective of preserving some fields of native law to create a dichotomous legal structure. These efforts were assisted by orientalist jurists such as Henry Thomas Colebrook whose interpretation of the dharmasastras heralded a new stage in the evolution of Hindu law. By the mid-nineteenth century, this dual system came under strain in the face of increasing colonial pressure to rationalise the legal system to ensure more effective governance, and native protest at the perceived insensitivity of the colonial government to local customs.

Mr. Acharya explained that this myopia in Indian policy research is similar social censorship (i.e., social custom as creating limits to free speech). Law and society scholars have long studied the social censorship phenomenon, but policy research rejects this as a purely academic pursuit. But the truth is that free speech has been regulated by a dual policy of law and social custom in India since colonial times. The then-Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court Elijah Impey required officers to respect local customs, and this extended to free speech as well. But as colonial courts did not interpret Hindu law correctly; interpretations of freedom of speech suffered as well. Mr. Acharya noted that the restrictions on freedom of speech introduced by the British continue to affect individuals in India today. Prior to British amendments, India had drawn laws from multiple sources - indeed customs and laws were tailored for communities and contexts, and not all were blessed with the consistency and precedent so familiar to common law. Since the British were unable to make sense of India's law and customs, they codified the principles of English customary law.

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) saw the codification of English criminal law (the public offences of riots, affray, unlawful assembly, etc., and private offences such as criminal intimidation). In Macaulay's initial drafts, the IPC did not contain sedition and offences of hurting religious sentiments, etc. Sections 124A ("Sedition") and 295A (" Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs") were added to the IPC in 1860, and changes were made to the Code of Criminal Procedure as well. Today, these sections are used to restrict and criminalise digital speech.

The Right to Offend :

Mr. Acharya then considered the history of the "right to offend", in light of the controversies surrounding Section 66A, IT Act. Before the insertion and strengthening of Section 295A, citizens in India had a right to offend others within the bounds of free speech. He clarified that in 1925 a pamphlet " Rangila Rasool" was published by Lahore-based Mahashe Rajpal (the name(s) of the author(s) were never revealed). The pamphlet concerned the marriages and sex life of the Prophet Mohammed, and created a public outcry. Though the publisher was acquitted of all charges and the pamphlet was upheld, the publisher was ambushed and stabbed when he walked out of jail. Under pressure from the Muslim community, the British enacted Section 295A, IPC. The government was seeking to placate and be sensitive to public feeling, entrenching the idea that the government may sacrifice free speech in the face of riots, etc. The death of India's "right to offend" begins here, said Mr. Acharya.

A prior restraint regime was created and strengthened in 1835, then in 1838, etc. At this time, the press in India was largely British. Following the growth of Indian press after the 1860s, the British made their first statutory attempt at censorship in 1867: a prior sanction was required for publication, and contravention attracted heavy penalties such as deportation and exile. Forfeiture of property, search and seizures and press-inspections were also permitted by the government under these draconian laws. Mr. Acharya noted that it is interesting that many leaders of India's national movement were jailed under the press laws.

Independence and After :

Mr. Acharya further explained that the framers of the Constitution deliberately omitted "freedom of the press" from the text of Article 19(1)(a) and that Jawaharlal Nehru did not think the press ought to be afforded such a right. This is despite a report of the Law Commission of India, which recommended that corporations be provided an Article 19 right. But why distrust the press, though citizens are granted the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a)? In Mr. Acharya's opinion, this is evidence of the government's divergent approach towards free speech policy; and today, we experience this as a mistrust of the press, publications, and of online speech.

Mr. Acharya also explained that statutory restrictions on free speech grew at odds with judicial interpretation in the 1950s. Taking the examples ofRomesh Thapar v. the State of Madras [AIR 1950 SC 124] and Brij Bhushan v. the State of Delhi [(1950) Supp. SCR 245], Mr. Acharya showed how the judiciary interpreted Article 19 favourably. Despite the government's arguments about a public order danger, the Supreme Court refused to strike down left wing or right wing speech ( Romesh Thapar concerned a left wing publication; Brij Bhushan concerned right wing views), as "public order" was not a ground for restricting speech in the Constitution. The government reacted to the Supreme Court's judgement by enacting the First Amendment to the Constitution: Article 19(2) was amended to insert "public order" as a ground to restrict free speech. Thus, it is possible to see the divergence between free speech jurisprudence and policy in India from the time of Independence. Nehru and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel had supported the amendment, while B.R. Ambedkar supported Romesh Thapar and Brij Bhushan. On the other hand, then-President Rajendra Prasad sought Constitutional protection for the press.

Why Study Free Speech History?

Mr. Acharya noted how the changes in free speech policy continue to affect us, including in the case of content restrictions online. In the 1950s, then-Prime Minister Nehru appointed the First Press Commission, and the newspaper National Herald was established to promote certain (left wing) developmental and social goals. Chalapati Rao was the editor of the National Herald, and a member of the First Press Commission.

At that time, the Commission rejected vertical monopolies of the press. However, today, horizontal monopolies characterize India's press. The First Press Commission also opposed 'yellow journalism' (i.e., sensational journalism and the tabloid press), but this continues today. Decades later, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi called for a "committed bureaucracy, judiciary and press", taking decisive steps to ensure the first two. For instance, Justice Mathew (one of the judges in the Bennett Coleman case) was an admirer of Indira Gandhi. As Kerala's Advocate General, he wanted the Press Registrar to have investigative powers similar to those given in colonial times; he also wanted the attacks on government personalities to be criminalized. The latter move was also supported by M.V. Gadgil, who introduced a Bill in Parliament that sought to criminalise attacks on public figures on the grounds of privacy. Mr. Acharya noted that though Indira Gandhi's moves and motives with regard to a "committed press" are unclear, the fact remains that India's regional and vernacular press was more active in criticizing the Emergency than national press.

Demonstrating the importance of understanding a contexts history - both social and legislative, following the striking down of 66A in Shreya Singhal & Ors. v. Union of India (Supreme Court, March 24, 2015), elements in the government have stated their wish to introduce and enact a new Section 66A. Mr. Acharya explained that such moves from elements in the government shows that despite the striking down of 66A, it is still possible for the repressive and mistrustful history of press policy to carry forward in India. This possibility is supported by colonial and post-Independence press history and policy that has been developed by the government. When looking at how research can impact policy, greater awareness of history and context may allow for civil society, academia, and the public at large to predict and prepare for press policy changes.

Ambikesh Mahapatra, Professor of Chemistry, Jadavpur University

Prof. Mahapatra introduced himself as a victim of the West Bengal administration and ruling party. He stated that though India's citizens have been granted the protection of fundamental rights after Independence, these rights are not fully protected; his experience with the West Bengal ruling party and its abuse of powers under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (am. 2008) ("IT Act") highlights this.

On March 23, 2012, Prof. Mahapatra had forwarded a cartoon to his friends by email. The cartoon poked fun at West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and her ruling party. On the night of April 12, 2012, individuals not residing in the Professor's housing colony confronted him, dragging him to the colony building and assaulting him. These individuals forced Prof. Mahapatra to write a confession about his forwarding of the cartoon and his political affiliations. Though the police arrived at the scene, they did not interfere with the hooligans. Moreover, when the leader of the hooligans brought the Professor to the police and asked that he be arrested, they did so even though they did not have an arrest warrant. At the police station, the hooligans filed a complaint against him. The Professor was asked to sign a memo mentioning the charges against him (Sections 114 and 500, Indian Penal Code, 1860 & Section 66A, IT Act). Prof. Mahapatra noted that the police complaint had been filed by an individual who was neither the receiver nor the sender of the email, but was a local committee member with the Trinamool Congress (the West Bengal ruling party).

The arrest sparked a series of indignant responses across the country. The West Bengal Human Rights Commission took suo motu cognizance of the arrest, and recommended action against the high-handedness of the police. Fifty six intellectuals appealed to the Prime Minister of India to withdraw the arrest; the former Supreme Court judge Markandey Katju was among those who appealed. Thirty cartoonists' organisations from across the world also appealed to the President and the Prime Minister to withdraw the case.

The West Bengal government paid no heed to the protests, and Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee publicly supported the actions of the police - making public statements against Justice Katju and A.K. Ganguly, former judge of the Supreme Court and head of the West Bengal Human Rights Commission respectively. A charge sheet was framed against Prof. Mahapatra and others, with Section 66A as one of the charges.

The case has been going on for over two years. Recently, on March 10, 2015, the Calcutta High Court upheld the recommendations of the West Bengal Human Rights Commission, and directed the government to implement them. The West Bengal government has preferred an appeal before a division bench, and the case will continue. This is despite the fact that Section 66A has been struck down (by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal & Ors. v. Union of India).

Though noting that he was not an expert, Prof. Mahapatra put forward that it seemed that the freedom of expression of the common man depends on the whims of the ruling parties and the State/Central governments. It is of utmost importance, according to him, to protect the common man's freedom of speech, for his recourse against the government and powerful entities is pitifully limited.

Questions & Comments

Q. A participant stated that the core trouble appears to lie in the power struggle of political parties. Political parties wish to retain power and gather support for their views. Despite progressive laws, it is the Executive that implements the laws. So perhaps what is truly required is police and procedural reforms rather than legislative changes.

A. Members of the panel agreed that there is a need for more sensitivity and awareness amongst the law enforcement agencies and this might be long overdue and much needed step in protecting the rights of citizens.

Q. A participant was interested in understanding how it might be possible to correct the dichotomy between FoE policy and doctrine? The participant also wanted the panel to comment on progressive policy making if any.

A. Members of the panel stated that there is no easy way of correcting this dichotomy between custom and law. Scholars have also argued that the relationship between custom and pernicious social censorship is ambiguous. Towards this, more studies are required to come to a conclusion.

Q. A participant requested clarity on what rights can be created to ensure and support a robust right to freedom of expression, and how this might affect the debates surrounding net neutrality?

A. Members of the panel noted that the Internet allows citizens and corporations to regulate speech on their own (private censorship), and this is problematic. Members of the panel also responded that the existing free speech right does not enable diversity of speech. Social and local customs permit social censorship, and this network effect is clearly visible online; individuals experience a chilling effect. Finally, in the context of net neutrality, the interests of content-producers (OTTs, for instance) are different from those of users. They may benefit economically from walled gardens or from non-interference with traffic-routing, but users may not. Therefore, there is a need for greater clarity before coming to a conclusion about potential net neutrality regulation.

Session 2: Current Realities

Dr. Cherian George, Associate Professor, Hong Kong Baptist University
Dr. George began his talk by highlighting how there is no issue as contentious as offensive speech and how it should be dealt with. The debate around free speech is often framed as a battle between those who support democracy and those who oppose it. Yet, this is also a tension within democracy. Citizens should not be unjustly excluded from participating in democracy (companion rights in Article 19 and 20, ICCPR). Relevant UN institutions and Article 19 have come up with reports and ideals that should be universally adopted - norms that apply to many areas including speech. These norms are different from traditional approaches. For example:

Human Rights Norms	Traditional Approach
Regulate incitement of violence (discrimination, hate, etc.)	Law protects people's feelings from speech that offends
Protect minorities as they are more vulnerable to exploitation and uprooting of their values	Law sides with the majority, to protect mainstream values over minority values
Allow robust criticism of ideas, religions, and beliefs	Law protects religion, beliefs, and ideas from criticism
Strive for balance between liberty and equality	Aims for order and maintenance of status quo
Promote harmony through the media	Enforces harmony by the state

Commenting on the traditional approach, Dr. George noted that if the state protects feelings of offence against speech, it allows groups to use such protection as a political weapon: "hate spin", which is the giving or taking of offence as a political strategy. Hate spin is normally framed as a "visceral, spontaneous reaction" to a video, writing, or speech, etc. Yet, the spontaneous reaction of indignation to speech or content can consistently be revealed to result from conscious manipulation by middlemen for political purposes.

South Asia is similar to West Asia - as the legal frameworks provide immunity for dangerous speech. In practice, this allows for the incitement of discrimination, hostility, and violence. At the same time, the legal frameworks allow for excessive sympathy for wounded feelings, and often the taking of offence turns into a political strategy. Power enters the equation here. The law allows the powerful to take offence and use hate speech against those not in powerful positions.

Dr. George highlighted a number of legal quandaries surrounding freedom of expression including:

Enforcement gaps: There is a lack of enforcement of existing laws against incitement.
Non-regulated zones: Socio-political research demonstrates that many problems cannot be regulated, and yet the law can only deal with what can be regulated. Hate speech is one of these as hate speech is not in the speech itself, but in the meaning that is produced in the mind of those saying/listening.
Verdict-proof opportunities: Political entrepreneurs can use legislative and judicial processes to mainstream hateful views, regardless of how legislature and courts ultimately act. The religious right, for instance, can always pit themselves morally against "secular" decisions of apex authorities (SC, etc.). For example, in the context of the US and Islamophobia - the State legislature in Alabama introduced an anti-Shariah law. Yet, the law is against a non-existent threat and appears to be a ploy to normalize anti-Muslim sentiments, including in political rhetoric. While focusing on winning battles in courts or legislature, the intolerant groups do not need to win a legal court case to introduce and entrench language of intolerance in public discourse and discussion. This demonstrates that there is a need to begin moving away from a purely legal analysis (interpretation or development) of the laws, and a need to begin studying these issues through a sociological lens.

Zakir Khan, Article 19, Bangladesh
Mr. Khan introduced Article 19 and its work in Bangladesh and the rest of South Asia. He noted that Article 19 is involved in documenting and analysing laws and regulations affecting freedom of expression, including in Bangladesh. Article 19 also campaigns for changes in law and policy, and responds from a policy perspective to particular instances of government overreach.

Mr. Khan explained that India has the Information Technology Act, 2000 (am. 2008) ("IT Act"), and in Bangladesh, the equivalent legislation is the Information and Communication Technology Act, 2006 ("ICT Act"). The ICT Act was enacted to bring Bangladeshi law in conformity with international law; i.e. in accordance with the UNCITRAL model law on e-commerce and online transactions. The ICT Act deals with hacking, crimes committed with the use of a computer system, breach of data, breach of computer system, and hardware.

Like the IT Act in India, Bangladesh's ICT Act also criminalizes speech and expression online. For instance, Section 57, ICT Act, criminalizes the publication of "fake, obscene or defaming information in electronic form". Similarly, bringing damage to "the state's image" online is criminalized. In 2013, the Bangladesh Ministry of Law amended the ICT Act to increase penalties for online offences, and allow for the detention of suspected offenders, warrantless arrests and indefinite detention without bail. Bloggers and activists have been protesting these changes, and have been targeted for the same.

Mr. Khan noted that Article 19 has developed a tool to report violations online. Individuals who have experienced violations of their rights online can post this information onto a forum, wherein Article 19 tracks and reports on them, as well as creating awareness about the violation. Any blogger or online activist can come and voice concerns and report their stories. Mr. Khan also highlighted that given the ICT Act and the current environment, online activists and bloggers are particularly threatened. Article 19 seeks to create a safe space for online bloggers and activists by creating anonymity tools, and by creating awareness about the distinctions between political agenda and personal ideology.

Chinmayi Arun, Research Director, Centre for Communication Governance (CCG), National Law University (Delhi)
Ms. Arun began by noting that usually conversations around freedom of expression look at the overlap between FoE and content i.e. the focus is on the speaker and the content. Yet, when one targets the mediator - it shifts the focus as it would be approaching the issue from the intermediary's perspective. When structural violation of free speech happens, it either places the middleman in the position of carrying through the violation, or creates a structure through which speech violations are incentivized.

An example of this is the Bazee.com case. At the time of the case the law was structured in such a way that not only perpetrators of unlawful content were punished, but so were the bodies/persons that circulated illegal content. In regulatory terms this is known as "gatekeeper liability". In the Bazee.com case, a private party put obscene content up for sale and Bazee.com could and did not verify all of the content that was for sale. In the case, the Delhi HC held Avnish Bajaj, the CEO of Bazee.com, liable on the precedent of strict liability for circulation of obscene content. The standard of strict liability was established under Ranjit Udeshi case. The standard of strict liability is still the norm for non-online content, but after Bazee.com, a Parliament Standing Committee created a safe harbour for online intermediaries under Section 79 of the IT Act. As per the provision, if content has been published online, but an intermediary has not edited or directly created the content, it is possible for them to seek immunity from liability for the content. The Parliament Standing Committee then stated that intermediaries ought to exercise due diligence. Thus, the Indian legal regime provides online intermediaries with immunity only if content has not been published or edited by an intermediary and due diligence has been exercised as defined by Rules under the Act. While developing India's legal regime for intermediary liability the Parliamentary Standing Committee did not focus on the impact of such regulation on online speech.

To a large extent, present research and analysis of Freedom of Expression is focused on the autonomy of the speaker/individual. An alternative formulation and way of understanding the right, and one that has been offered by Robert Post through his theory of democratic self governance, is that Freedom of Expression is more about the value of the speech rather than the autonomy of the speaker. In such a theory the object of Freedom of Expression is to ensure diversity of speech in the public sphere. The question to ask then is: "Is curtailment affecting democratic dialogue?" The Supreme Court of India has recognized that people have a right to know/listen/receive information in a variety of cases. Ms. Arun explained that if one accepts this theory of speech, the liability of online intermediaries will be seen differently.

Ms. Arun further explained that in Shreya Singhal, the notice-and-takedown regime under section 79 of the IT Act has been amended, but the blocking regime under section 69A has not. Thus, the government can still use intermediaries as proxies to take down legitimate content, and not provide individuals with the opportunity to to challenge blocking orders. This is because as per the Act, blocking orders must be confidential. Though the blocking regime has not been amended, the Supreme Court has created an additional safeguard by including the requirement that the generator of content has to be contacted (to the extent possible) before the government can pass and act upon a blocking order. Mr. Arun noted that hopefully, when implemented, this will provide a means of recourse for individuals and counter, to some extent, the mandated secrecy of content blocking orders.

Raman Jit Singh Chima, Asia Consultant, Access Now
Mr. Chima began his presentation by noting that the Internet is plagued by a few founding myths. Tim Goldsmith and Jack Wu (in Who Controls the Internet: Illusions of a Borderless World) name one: that no laws apply to the Internet; that, because of the borderless nature of the Internet - data flows through cables without regard for State borders - and thus countries' laws do not affect the Internet. These cyber-anarchists, amongst whom John Perry Barlow of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is inspiring, also argue that regulation has no role for the Internet.

Mr. Chima countered these 'myths', arguing that the law affects the Internet in many ways. The US military and Science departments funded the invention of the Internet. So the government was instrumental in the founding of the Internet, and the US Department of Commerce has agreements with ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) to govern the Domain Names System. So the law, contracts and regulation already apply to the Internet.

Mr. Chima further explained that today organisations like EFF and civil society in India argue for, and seek to influence, the creation of regulation for the protection of journalists against unfair and wrongful targeting by the government. This includes moves to protect whistleblowers, to ensure the openness of the Internet and its protection from illegitimate and violative acts against freedom of expression, access and other rights. Some governments, like India, also place conditions in the licenses granted to Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to ensure that they bring access to the rural, unconnected areas. Such law and regulation are not only common, but they are also good; they help the population against virtual wrongdoing.

Mr. Chima pointed out that when States contemplate policy-making for the Internet, they look to a variety of sources. Governments draw upon existing laws and standards (like India with the virtual obscenity offence provision Section, 67 and 67A, IT Act, which is drawn from the real-world penal provision Section 292, IPC) and executive action (regulation, by-laws, changes to procedural law) to create law for the Internet. Additionally, if a government repeats a set of government actions consistently over time, such actions may take on the force of law. Mr. Chima also spoke of web-developers and standards-developers (the technical community), who operate by rules that have the force of law, such as the 'rough consensus and running code' of the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force). Governments also prescribe conditions ("terms of use") that companies must maintain, permitting or proscribing certain kinds of content on websites and platforms.

Finally, Mr. Chima highlighted international legal and policy standards that play a role in determining the Internet's law and regulation. ICANN, the administrator of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions and governing body for the Domain Names System, functions by a set of rules that operate as law, and in the creation of which, the international legal community (governments, companies, civil society and non-commercial users, and the technical community) play a role. The ITU (International Telecommunications Union) and organisations like INTERPOL also play a role.

Mr. Chima explained that when one wants to focus on issues concerning freedom of expression, multiple laws also apply. Different States set different standards. For instance, in the US, the main standards for the Internet came from issues relating to access to certain types of online content. In Reno v. ACLU (1997), the US Supreme Court considered what standards should be created to access obscene and indecent content on the Internet. The judges held that the Internet, as a medium of unprecedented dynamism, deserved the higher protection from governmental overreach.

In Asia, the main legal standards for the Internet came from Internet commerce: the UNCITRAL model law, which prescribed provisions best suited to the smoother commercial utilization of a fast and growing medium, became the foundation for Internet-related law in Asian states. Predictably, this did not offer the strongest rights protections, but rather, focused on putting in place the most effective penalties. But when Asian states drew from the European UNCITRAL law, many forgot that European states are already bound by the European Convention for Human Rights, the interpretation of which has granted robust protections to Internet-related rights.

Mr. Chima provided the example of Pakistan's new Cybercrime Bill. The Bill has troubling provisions for freedom of expression, and minimal to no due process protections. While drafting the law, Pakistan has drawn largely from model cybercrime laws from the Council of Europe, which are based on the Budapest Convention. In Europe and the US, States have strong parallel protections for rights, but States in Asia and Africa do not.

Mr. Chima concluded that when one talks of freedom of expression online, it is important to also remember the roles of intermediaries and companies. The ISPs can be made liable for content that flows through their wires, through legal mechanisms such as license provisions. ISPs can also be made to take further control over the networks, or to make some websites harder to access (like the Internet Watch Foundation's blacklist). When policy organisations consider this, it is critical that they ask whether industry bodies should be permitted to do this without public discussion, on the basis of government pressure.

Questions & Comments

Q. Participants asked for panel members to talk about the context in which bloggers find themselves in danger in Bangladesh.

A. Panel members stated that the courts are not fair to bloggers as often they side with government. It was added that courts have labelled bloggers as atheist, and subsequently all bloggers are being associated with the label. Further, it was added that most people who are outraged, do not even know what blogging is, and people associate blogging with blasphemy and as opposing religious beliefs. It was also noted that in Bangladesh, while you see violations of FoE from the State, you see more violations of blogger rights from non-state actors.

Q. Participants asked if there is anything specific about the Internet that alters how we should consider hate speech online and their affective/visceral impact.

A. Pa nel members noted that they are still grappling with the question of what difference the Internet makes, but noted that it has indeed complicated an already complex issue as there is always the question about political entrepreneurs using convenient content to foment fires.

Q. Participants questioned panel members about how the right to offend is protected in jurisdictions across Asia where there is still tension between classical liberalism and communitarian ideologies, and where the individuated nature of rights is not clearly established or entrenched.

A. Panel members responded by stating that when one compares the US, Indonesia and India, the US seems to be able to strike a balance between free speech and other competing interests as they are committed to free speech and committed to religious tolerance and plurality of competing interests. Panel members also added that the fabric of civil society also has an impact. For example, Indonesian civil society is simultaneously religious and secular and pro-democracy. In India, there seems to be a tension between secular and religious groups. In Indonesia, people are moving to religion for comfort, while still seeking a world that is religious and secular.

Q. Participants asked for clarification on ways to approach regulation of hate speech given that hate speech is not just about a particular kind of threatening speech, but encompasses rumours and innuendos.

A . Panel members acknowledged that more research needs to be done in this area and added that applying the socio-cultural lens on such issues would be beneficial.

Q. Participants asked if panel members had a framework for a regulating the content practices of private actors, who are sometimes more powerful than the state and also enforcing censorship.

A. Panel members responded that private censorship is an important issue that needs to be reflected upon in some depth, though a framework is far from being developed even as research is ongoing in the space.

Session 3: Looking Ahead

The third and final session of the conference aimed to find principles and methods to achieve beneficial and effective regulation of the Internet. One of the core aims was the search for the right balance between the dangers of the Internet (and its unprecedented powers of dissemination) and the citizens' interest in a robust right to freedom of expression. Mr. Sutirtho Patranobis, Assistant Editor with the Hindustan Times (Sri Lanka desk, previously China correspondent), shared his experience with governmental regulation of online free speech in China and Sri Lanka. Ms. Karuna Nandy,Advocate, Supreme Court of India, analysed the Indian Supreme Court's decision in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (March 24, 2015), and sought to draw lessons for the current debate on net neutrality in India. Ms. Geeta Seshu, founder and editor of the online magazine The Hoot, offered an expanded definition of freedom of speech, focusing on universal access as the imperative. Finally, Mr. Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director, Centre for Internet & Society, offered his views on net neutrality and the issue of zero-rating, as well as arguing for an increased, cooperative role of civil society in creating awareness on issues relating to the Internet.

Sutirtho Patranobis, Assistant Editor, Hindustan Times
During his career, Mr. Patranobis was the China correspondent for the Hindustan Times. Mr. Patranobis began his presentation by sharing his experiences in China. In China, multiple online platforms have become sources of news for citizens. Chinese citizens, especially the urban young, spend increasing amounts of time on their mobile phones and the Internet, as these are the major sources of news and entertainment in the country.

The Chinese government's attitude towards freedom of expression has been characterized by increasing control over these online platforms. The includes control over global companies like Google and Facebook, which have negotiated with the Chinese government to find mutually acceptable operating rules (acceptable to the government and the company, but in most cases unfavourable to the citizens) or have faced being blocked or filtered from the country. Mr. Patranobis noted that free speech regulation in China has evolved into a sophisticated mechanism for control and oppression, and the suppression of dissent. Not only China, but Sri Lanka has also adopted similar approaches to dealing with freedom of expression.

In China, free speech regulations have evolved with an aim to curtail collective action and dissent. China's censorship programmes work towards silencing expression that can represent, reinforce or spur social mobilisation. Mr. Patranobis explained that these programmes aim to put an end to all collective activities (current or future) that may be at odds with government policies. Therefore, any online activity that exposes government action as repressive, corrupted or draconian is meted out harsh treatment. Indeed it is possible to see that there are sharp increases in online censorship and crackdowns when the government implements controversial policies offline.

Mr. Patranobis went on to discuss the nature of objectionable content, and the manner in which different jurisdictions deal with the same. Social and cultural context, governmental ideologies, and political choices dictate the nature of objectionable content in States such as China and Sri Lanka. On the flipside, media literacy, which plays a big role in ensuring an informed and aware public, is extremely low in Sri Lanka, as well as in many other States in South Asia.

Mr. Patranobis raised the question of how the Internet can be regulated while retaining freedom of expression - noting that the way forward is uncertain. In Sri Lanka, for instance, research by UNESCO shows that the conflicting policy objectives are unresolved; these first need to be balanced before robust freedom of expression can be sustained. The Internet is a tool, after all; a tool that can connect people, that can facilitate the spread of knowledge and information, to lift people from the darkness of poverty. The Internet can also be a tool to spread hate and to divide societies and peoples. Finding the right balance, contextualised according to the needs of the citizens and the State, is key to good regulation.

Karuna Nundy, Advocate, Supreme Court of India
Ms. Nandy focused her presentation on two issues currently raging in India's free speech debates: the Supreme Court's reasoning on Sections 66A and 69A, IT Act, in Shreya Singhal & Ors. v. Union of India (Supreme Court, March 24, 2015), and issues of access and innovation in the call for a net neutrality regulation. She stated that the doctrine of the "marketplace of ideas" endorsed by Justices Nariman and Chelameswar in Shreya Singhal speaks to the net neutrality debate.

Ms. Nandy held that a law can be challenged as unconstitutional if it prohibits acts that are legitimate and constitutional. Such an argument refers to the impugned law's "overbroad impact". For instance, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A, IT Act, on the ground (among others) that the impugned section leads to the prohibition and criminalisation of legitimate and protected speech. Cases such asChintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(1950) SCR 759] and Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar [1962 Supp. (3) SCR 369] speak to this principle. They expand the principle of overbreadth to include the notion of "chilling effect" - i.e., situations where overbroad blocking leads to the prohibition of legitimate constitutional speech. In such situations, citizens are unsure what constitutes protected speech and what does not, leading to a chilling effect and self-censorship for fear of reprisals.

In Shreya Singhal, the Supreme Court also considered the "reasonable person" doctrine that has been developed under the law of obscenity. India had initially adopted the Hicklin test, under which the test to determine what is obscene depended on whether prurient minds (minds that have a tendency to be corrupted) would find the impugned material lascivious and corrupting. This test, laid down in Ranjit Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1965 SC 881] and altered/refined by decades of jurisprudence, was put to rest in Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal [AIR 2014 SC 1495]. In Aveek Sarkar, the Supreme Court adopted the "community standards" test to determine obscene content. According to Ms. Nandy, the "community standards" test rests on the doctrine of reasonable persons. Ms. Nandy noted that in effect there is a need for more police officers to protect those who produce legitimate content from hecklers.

Quoting from the U.S. decision of Whitney v. California [71 L. Ed. 1095], Ms. Nandy submitted that:

" It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. To justify suppression of free speech there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the evil to be prevented is a serious one. "

On the issue of website blocking and the Supreme Court's reasoning on Section 69A, IT Act, in Shreya Singhal, Ms. Nandy explained that the Additional Solicitor General had conceded a number of points during the oral arguments. She further explained that website blocking can be applied when the Central Government is satisfied that there is a necessity for it. However, reasons must be recorded in writing. Also, according to the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 (" Blocking Rules"), both the intermediary and the originator of the communication (the content-creator) have to be given a chance to be heard.

Rule 16 of the Blocking Rules, which mandates confidentiality of all blocking requests and orders, was also discussed in Shreya Singhal. Though some confusion has arisen about the Rule's interpretation, Ms. Nandy submitted that Rule 16 has been read down. There is no longer a strict, all-encompassing requirement of confidentiality. While the identity of the complainant and the exact nature of the complaint must be kept confidential, the blocking order and the reasoning behind the order are no longer bound by Rule 16. This is because in §109 of the judgment, the Supreme Court accepts that writ petitions can lie on the basis of blocking orders. In order for writs to lie, affected parties must first be aware of the existence and content of the blocking order. Therefore, Ms. Nandy explained, the effect of the Supreme Court's reasoning is that the confidentiality requirement in Rule 16 has been read down.

On net neutrality, Ms. Nandy argued that zero-rating is an efficient solution to providing universal access to the Internet. Services like Internet.org are not strictly market-driven. This is because there is not a large demand for Facebook or specific over-the-top (OTT) service providers. In speaking about the marketplace for ideas in Shreya Singhal, the Supreme Court did not indirectly outlaw services seeking to balance access with diversity of speech. Ms. Nandy held that price discrimination in the provision of telecom, broadband and mobile Internet services already exists. In light of this, the focus should the provision of these services on the basis of consumer choice.

Geeta Seshu, The Hoot
Ms. Seshu began her presentation by noting that one's perspective on online censorship cannot be the same as that on traditional censorship. Traditional censorship cuts off an individual's access to the censored material, but on the Internet, material that is censored in traditional media finds free and wide distribution. One's conceptualisation of freedom of expression and curtailment of this right must include access to the medium as a crucial part. To this end, it is important to not forget that access to the Internet is controlled by a limited number of Internet service and content providers. Thus, a large section of the population in India cannot exercise their right to free speech because they do not have access to the Internet.

In this context, it is important to understand the way in which the digital rollout is happening in India. Ms. Seshu explained that the rollout process lacks transparency, and noted the example of the 4G/LTE rollout plan in India. There is, of course, a diversity of content: those that have access to the Internet have the ability to exercise their right to free speech in diverse ways. However, introducing access into the free speech universe highlights many inequalities that exist in the right; for instance, Dalit groups in India have limited access to the Internet, and some kinds of content receive limited airtime.

Importantly, Ms. Seshu argued that the government and other entities use technology to regulate content availability. Policymakers exploit the technology and architecture of the networks to monitor, surveil and censor content. For instance, one may see the UID scheme as an adaptation of technology to facilitate not only service-provision, but also as a move towards a Big Brother state. Civil society and citizens need to study and respond to the ways in which technology has been used against them. Unfortunately, the debates surrounding regulation do not afford space for Internet users to be part of the discussion. In order to turn this around, it is important that citizens' and users' rights are developed and introduced into the regulatory equation.

Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director, Centre for Internet & Society
Taking up where Ms. Seshu left off, Mr. Prakash wished to explore whether the Internet was merely an enabler of discussion - allowing, for instance, a ruckus to be raised around the consultation paper of the Telecom Regulatory Authority in India (TRAI) on Over-The-Top (OTT) services and net neutrality - or whether the Internet positively adds value. The Internet is, of course, a great enabler. The discussions surrounding OTTs and net neutrality are an example: in response to the TRAI consultation, a campaign titled "Save the Internet" resulted in over 9.5 lakh comments being submitted to the TRAI. It is inconceivable that such a widespread public discussion on so complex a topic (net neutrality) could take place without the Internet's facilitation.

But, Mr. Prakash held, it is important to remember that the Internet is the tool, the platform, for such mobilisation. Campaigns and conversations such as those on net neutrality could not take place without the organisations and people involved in it. Civil society organisations have played prominent roles in this regard, creating awareness and well-informed discussions. For Mr. Prakash, civil society organisations play their role best when they create such public awareness, and it is important, to play to a stakeholders strengths. Some organisations are effective campaigners, while others (such as CIS) are competent at research, analysis and dissemination.

According to Mr. Prakash, it is equally important to remember that successful discussions, campaigns or debates (such as the ongoing one on net neutrality) do not occur solely because of one organisation's strengths, or indeed because of civil society alone. Networks are especially critical in successful campaigns and policy changes. As researchers, we may not always know where our work is read, but sometimes they reach unexpected venues. For instance, one of Mr. Prakash's papers was used by the hacker collective Anonymous for a local campaign, and he was made aware of it only accidentally. Mr. Prakash noted that civil society has to also accept its failures, pointing to the controversy surrounding the Goondas Act in Karnataka. Where there are strong counter-stakeholders (such as the film lobby in south Indian states), civil society's efforts alone may not lead to success.

On net neutrality, Mr. Prakash noted the example of a strategy employed by the Times of India newspaper, when it undercut its competitors by slashing its own prices. Such moves are not unknown in the market, and they have their benefits. Consumers benefit from the lowered prices. For instance, were a Whatsapp or Facebook pack to be introduced by a telecom operator, the consumers may choose to buy this cheap, limited data pack. This is beneficial for consumers, and also works to expand access to the Internet. At the same time, diversity of speech and consumer choice is severely restricted, as these companies and telecom operators can create 'walled gardens' of information and services. Mr. Prakash put forth that if we can facilitate competitive zero-rating, and ensure that anti-competitive cross-subsidization does not occur, then perhaps zero-rated products can achieve access without forcing a trade off between diversity and choice.

Finally, on the issue of website blocking and takedowns under Sections 69A and 79, IT Act, Mr. Prakash noted that the Shreya Singhal judgment does nothing to restrict the judiciary's powers to block websites. According to Mr. Prakash, at the moment, the Shreya Singhal judgment relieves intermediaries of the responsibility to take down content if they receive private complaints about content. After the judgment, intermediaries will lose their immunity under Section 79, IT Act, only if they refuse to comply with takedown requests from government agencies or judicial orders.

But, as Mr. Prakash explained, the judiciary is itself a rogue website-blocker. In the past few years, the judiciary has periodically ordered the blocking of hundreds of websites. Such orders have resulted in the blocking of a large number of legitimate websites (including, at one point, Google Drive and Github). To ensure that our freedom of expression online is effectively protected, Mr. Prakash argued that ways to stop the judiciary from going on such a rampage must be devised.

Questions & Comments

A. Participants and panel members commented that researchers and commentators err by making analogies between the Internet and other media like newspapers, couriers, TV, satellite, cable, etc. The architecture of the Internet is very different even from cable. On the Internet, traffic flows both ways, whereas cable is not bi-directional. Moreover, pricing models for newspapers have nothing in common with those on the Internet. The comparisons in net neutrality debates stand the danger of incorrectness, and we must guard against that. Zero-rating and net neutrality issues in high-access countries are very different from the issues in low-access countries like India.

B. Participants and panel members commented that access and availability must play a predominant role in thinking about freedom of expression. In India, we are technologically far behind other states, though we have potential. The real end-goal of this is the convergence of services and information, with the user at the centre of the ecosystem. Our technological capabilities include satellite and spectrum; the best spectrum bands are lying vacant and can be re-framed. For this, the government must be educated.

C. Participants and panel members commented that in high-access states, the net neutrality issues surround competition and innovation (since there is no or very little ISP competition and switching costs are not low), while in India and France, where there is already competition amongst providers, access plays a crucial role. On the Internet, the networking or engineering aspects can disrupt the content carried over the network, so that is also a concern.

D. Participants and panel members commented that zero-rating is both a blessing and a curse. Zero-rating would not be detrimental in a market with perfect information and competition. But the reality is information asymmetry and imperfect competition. If today, we were to allow zero-rating, diversity would suffer and we would be left with 'walled gardens'.

Conclusion

The conference addressed a range of issues characteristic of debates surrounding freedom of expression in India and South Asia. Beginning with the conceptual understanding of freedom of expression, panellists advocated an expanded definition, where the right to free speech is teleological. The panellists considered freedom of speech as a tool to ensure diversity of speech, both horizontally and vertically. Towards this end, panellists gave several suggestions:

First , policymakers and scholars must understand freedom of speech as a right of both the speaker and the listener/reader, and carve out a separate listeners' right. Panellists expanded upon this to show the implications for the debate on net neutrality, cross-media ownership and website-blocking, for instance.

Second , there is a need for scholars to examine the historical dichotomy between the policy and jurisprudence of free speech in India and other contexts across South Asia. Such an approach to scholarship and policy research would help predict future government policy (such as in the case of the Indian government's stance towards Section 66A following the Supreme Court's decision in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India) and strategize for the same.

Third , particularly with regard to the Internet, there is a need for policy advocates and policy makers to "bust" the founding myths of the Internet, and look to various domestic and international sources of law and regulation. Studies of regulation of freedom of speech on the Internet in different jurisdictions (Bangladesh, China, Sri Lanka) indicate differing government approaches, and provide examples to learn from. The interpretation and consequences of Shreya Singhal on website-blocking and intermediary liability in India provide another learning platform.

Fourth , panellists discussed the possibilities of cooperation and strategies among civil society and policy organisations in India. Taking the example of the Save the Internet campaign surrounding net neutrality in India, panellists speculated on the feasibility of using the Internet itself as a tool to campaign for governance and policy reform. Together with the audience, the panellists identified several areas that are ripe for research and advocacy, such as net neutrality and zero-rating, and citizens' free speech right as being separate from governmental and corporate interests.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/freedom-of-expression-in-a-digital-age

Free Net advocates flay Trai's public Wi-Fi paper

praskrishna — 2016-11-20T03:21:41Z

Stakeholders vouching for a cheap and open Internet have flagged concerns over privacy and regulatory hurdles.

The article by Anita Babu was published in the Business Standard on November 20, 2016. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

With the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India releasing its consultation paper on public Wi-Fi this week, stakeholders vouching for a cheap and open Internet have flagged concerns over privacy and regulatory hurdles.

The Internet Freedom Foundation has pointed out that the proposed regulations might lead to invasion of privacy and interfere with the freedom of hotspot providers to operate freely.

“While we welcome Trai’s vision that increasing the number of public Wi-Fi hotspots could be the way to bringing the majority of Indians online, the proposals turn out to be regressive and poorly thought out,” said Aravind Ravi Sulekha, co-founder of the Internet Freedom Foundation.

The regulator in its consultation paper issued earlier this week proposed hotspot providers would have to register with the government and users could access hotspots only after paying using a service tied to their Aadhaar number. It wants to utilise Aadhaar, electronic-Know Your Customer (e-KYC) and the Unified Payment Interface (UPI) to build a standard authentication mechanism for access to public Wi-Fi in India. While the aim of Trai is to increase the number of Wi-Fi hotspots in India, proponents of free Internet fear these proposed rules might have a contrary effect.

Hotspot providers will have to incur costs on account of hardware installations for one-time password verification in addition to the costs of sending out the passwords. This might discourage entrepreneurs.

“This system of verification makes it harder for entrepreneurs to set up hotspots and for people to access them. It is impossible for broadband to proliferate in any significant way if Trai insists on applying ineffective and cumbersome regulations on those who wish to set up their own hotspots,” Internet Freedom Foundation said in its comments to Trai’s consultation paper.

The proposals have excluded individuals who do not have an Aadhaar account from accessing public Wi-Fi. “This not only brings concerns of costs and exclusion but also privacy, given the constitutionality of the Aadhaar project, and its government-mandated use, is pending adjudication in the Supreme Court,” the foundation pointed out.

The proposals also come at the cost of anonymity. The foundation, cofounded by the crusaders of last year’s SaveTheInternet campaign, trashed the argument that imposing eKYC norms would help in countering terrorism and other crimes. “This prohibition on anonymous communication is a violation of Indians’ freedom of expression… making a call at a PCO, sending a telegram and posting a letter have always been possible without showing ID — even though criminals and terrorists occasionally abused these services… KYC measures are ineffective in preventing crime and terrorism, as tools like VPNs, TOR, and proxies can easily mask the identity of an Internet user,” it stated.

“The solution proposed by Trai is a classic example of centralism and over-regulation. It turns out that Trai is unclear about the problem to be solved,” said Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society. He added that the new proposals had also failed to address the limitations on foreigners or tourists in India.

Current regulations prevent foreigners without a local mobile number from accessing public Wi-Fi connections. While Trai had identified the problem, it failed to come up with a plausible solution.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-november-20-2016-anita-babu-free-net-advocates-flay-trais-public-wifi-paper

Free Knowledge and Indian Government Work

tito — 2017-06-28T10:02:00Z

Indian Government works are not available under free and open licenses. On the other hand a large number countries such as Argentina, Australia, Austria, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Israel, Macedonia, Mexico, New Zealand, Poland, Serbia, Spain, Taiwan, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Venezuela etc. have adopted the Creative Commons and other free licenses. The works by the US Federal Government automatically go into public domain. This article promotes the idea that the Government works should be freely licensed, wherever possible and applicable.

Part 1: Free Knowledge

Free knowledge movement is a worldwide movement that creates and tries to get works under free and open licenses. It claims that knowledge is a common human property, and must be easily, freely accessible.

While discussing the topic "Access to knowledge: a basic human right", American scientist and researcher Jack Andraka feels:

Access to knowledge is, you know, a basic human right. Knowledge should not be commoditized; it wants to be free.

The Open Definition defines the term “Open Knowledge” in Open Definition 2.0 as:

"Knowledge is open if anyone is free to access, use, modify, and share it — subject, at most, to measures that preserve provenance and openness."

All open content must be a) available under free licenses, b) accessible as a whole, and c) should be in open format (see more details)

A big name in the world of free content is (of course) Wikipedia, where you can use, share, remix content from the site under the Creative Commons licenses. There are many organizations, networks and groups working to get more and more content under free and open licenses such as Creative Commons (text, audio, video, image), Free and Open Source Software or FOSS (software), Open design principle (machine, engineering), Open Access (academic works) etc.

Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights suggests that education should be free. Right to information is also a human right and Article 27 of the declaration states:

(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

These are just not possible unless knowledge /information is easily and preferably freely accessible to everyone without restrictions. If the first barrier is accessibility, i.e, not having enough digital content or information or content behind paywall, then the second barrier is its openness. Just having access to some web pages is not enough, it also requires rights like free using, sharing, remixing, Unrestricted content can be utilized in the best way.

Part 2: Indian Government Work

Indian Government websites are not freely licensed. In section 2(k) of Indian Copyright Act, 1957 the meaning of “Government work” is explained:

"Government work" means a work which is made or published by or under the direction or control of—
(i) the Government or any department of the Government;
(ii) any Legislature in India;
. . .

Read Indian Copyright Act, section 2(c) here.

Indian Copyright Act section 17(d) informs about the “First owner of copyright” of a Government work:

in the case of a Government work, Government shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright therein;

Read section 17(d) here.

Section 28 is about “Term of copyright in Government works”. It states:

In the case of Government work, where Government is the first owner of the copyright therein, copyright shall subsist until [sixty years] from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the record is first published.—In the case of Government work, where Government is the first owner of the copyright therein, copyright shall subsist until [sixty years] from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the record is first published."

Read section 28 here

Section 52 of the act allows some “fair use” and informs how content can be used for research, education, review, criticism and some other purpose. The lengthy copyright section may be read here. However, it does not make the content free. You are not allowed to remix the work or use for commercial purpose. You can not freely use, modify, distribute it.

Now let’s have a look at a few Government websites and their license details pages.

Indian Prime Minister’s official website

(http://www.pmindia.gov.in/en/website-policies)

In this website the copyright policy page informs:

Material featured on this website may be reproduced free of charge. However, the material has to be reproduced accurately and not to be used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context. Wherever the material is being published or issued to others, the source must be prominently acknowledged. However, the permission to reproduce this material shall not extend to any material which is identified as being copyright of a third party. Authorisation to reproduce such material must be obtained from the department/copyright holder concerned.

A screenshot may be seen below:

Here-

“Wherever the material is being published or issued to others, the source must be prominently acknowledged.” -- this part of the policy is similar to the Creative Commons licenses, where the owner or author of a work must be given attribution.

but,

“has to be reproduced accurately” -- it prohibits remix or modification works,
“not to be used in a derogatory manner” -- it is unclear that what is “derogatory manner”! Can it be used for criticism?

Indian Vice President’s official website
(http://vicepresidentofindia.nic.in/website-policies)

This is similar to the Prime Minister’s website policy and does not allow remix, commercial use etc. See screenshot:

Indian President’s official website
(http://presidentofindia.gov.in/copyright-policy.htm)

Although the Vice President’s website allows some fair use, the Indian President’s official web portal’s license is different and does not allow to reproduce the work “partially or fully”. The copyright policy states:

This contents of this website may not be reproduced partially or fully, without due permission from The President of India, If referred to as a part of another publication, the source must be appropriately acknowledged. The contents of this website can not be used in any misleading or objectionable context.

We have shown 3 example above, but it is more or less similar in all government web portals.

Part 3: Government works — Worldwide

It might be interesting to note that unlike India, a large number of countries publish their Government works under open licenses or public domain. We’ll discuss only a few here:

United States

The works by the US Federal Government automatically go into public domain.
The White House website and third party content such as text or speeches by the first lady are licensed under CC SA 3.0 US license. U.S.
On 18 June, 2013, Barack Obama and other G7 leaders endorsed the Open Data Charter. Open Data Action plan is licensed under CC0.
Several other works such as works created by New York State Senate, works created by the State of Virginia are also under different creative commons licenses. Details may be seen here.

United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, Open Government License (OGL) is used for Crown Copyright works published by the UK government. Since 2001, some works by the UK government were available under the Click-Use license. This license was replaced by OGL in 2010. The first version of OGL was released on 30 September 2010. OGL is compatible with the CC licenses. OGL allows to:

copy, publish, distribute and transmit the Information,
adapt the Information,
exploit the Information commercially and non-commercially for example, by combining it with other Information, or by including it in your own product or application.

However,

Attribution must be given to with source link, which is similar to the creative commons licenses.
Some documents such as the British passport, military insignia, property rights, including patents, trademarks, and design rights, personal information in data don’t come under OGL.

More about the Open Government License may be seen here.

France

France government’s website http://www.gouvernement.fr/ is licensed under the CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 FR license. The English version of the policy page may be seen here.
France government’s cultural department’s website http://www.culture.fr/ is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 FR.
The Culture Communication website http://www.culturecommunication.gouv.fr/ is also licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 FR.

Russian Federation

Content of the website http://kremlin.ru are under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International. License policy page may be seen here. Many other Russian government works are under different open licenses, details may be seen here.

Netherlands

The Dutch government official website http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/ is licensed under CC 0. All content of this website is under public domain, unless any other license is specified.

Bulgaria

The President of Bulgaria’s official website https://www.president.bg/ is licensed under CC BY ND 2.5 Bulgaria.

Croatia

Croatian Government website http://otvorenikod.nsk.hr/ is licensed under CC BY SA 3.0 Croatia.

The Long list

More than 30 countries have adopted and publishing their works under the Creative Commons and other free licenses. Other the above mentioned countries, the list include countries like Argentina, Australia, Austria, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Georgia, Greece, Guatemala, Israel, Macedonia, Mexico, New Zealand, Poland, Serbia, Spain, Taiwan, Ukraine, Venezuela etc. Other than the counties, several international organizations such as the World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) endorsed the free license concept and have adopted the same. See a long list of countries using free licenses here.

Last line

It is unfortunate that the Indian Government works are not under free licenses, however it would be great if the Government rethinks and relicense their general content under the free licenses. This will help not only the movement, but the content itself can be utilized in a much better and broader way.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/free-knowledge-and-indian-government-work

Free data, net neutrality: Discussion on TRAI paper

praskrishna — 2016-10-25T01:34:13Z

Given the complicated issues around net neutrality, an open house discussion was held in Hyderabad on October 24, 2016 on Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s consultation paper on free data. The event was organized by TRAI. Udbhav Tiwari attended the open house discussion.

The consultation paper by TRAI can be found here. I largely espoused the position put forth by CIS in its Written Comments submitted to TRAI in June, 2016 which can be found here. The TRAI open house discussion was attended by:

Telenor
Reliance Communications Ltd.
Idea Cellular
Aircel
COAI & AUSPI
IAMAI
Datami
Internet Freedom Foundation

There was also a seminar on Unsolicited Downloads & Background Exchange organised by TRAI and IIT Hyderabad. The participants in the seminar were:

Venki Nishtala, CTO, Rediff.com
Ashwani Rana, Head of Connectivity & Access Policy, Facebook
Sachin Yadav, Director Forensic Services, PWC
Vijay Kolli, Head Mobile Strategy and Market Development, Akamai India
Dr. Abhinav Kumar, Assistant Professor, IIT Hyderabad

Also see the report on Indian Television

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/telecom/news/free-data-net-neutrality-discussion-on-trai-paper

Free Culture Roadshow

radha — 2011-04-05T04:20:44Z

The Free Culture Roadshow from 07th December, 2009 to 22nd December, 2009: A presentation on The Right to Share and The Promise of Open Video.

CIS in association with different institutions across India invites you to join in the Free Culture Roadshow: A presentation on The Right to Share and The Promise of Open Video.

The Co-hosts, Dates and the Venues for the Talk are given below:

Co-Host: Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay
Date: 07th December, 2009 from 10am to 2pm
Venue – IIT-B, Mumbai
Co-Host: Centre for Media and Cultural Studies, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Bombay
Date: 07th December, 2009 from 4.30pm to 7pm
Venue – TISS, Mumbai
Co-Host: Department of Media Sciences, CEGC, Anna University, Chennai
Date: 08th December, 2009 from 9.30am
Venue – Seminar Hall, Dept. Of Media Sciences, Anna University, Chennai
Co-Host: Dept. Of Management Studies, IIT-M, and BodhBridge Espl.
Date: 09th December, 2009 from 9.30am to 01.30pm
Venue – Central Lecture Theatre, Indian Institute of Technology, Madras.
Co-Host: Dept. Of Journalism, Mount Carmel College, Bangalore
Date: 14th December, 2009 from 10am to 01pm
Venue – Golden Jubilee Hall, Bangalore
Co-Host: National Law School, Bangalore
Date: 17th December, 2009 from 2.30pm onwards
Venue – National Law School, Bangalore
Co-Host: Faculty of Architecture, Centre for Environmental Planning and Technology, Ahmedabad
Date: 18th December, 2009 from 4pm to 7pm
Venue – Auditorium, CEPT
Co- Host: Magic Lantern Foundation
Date: 20th December, 2009 from 9am to 1pm
Venue - Conference Room 2, India International Centre, Max Mueller Marg, New Delhi
Co-Host: The Media Lab, Jadavpur University, Kolkata
Date: 22nd December, 2009 from 11.30am to 3.30pm
Venue – Jadavpur University, Kolkata

A Brief Abstract of the two discussions and the profile of the speakers are given below:

The Right to Share: What Does Copying Have to Do with Freedom?

The Internet has unleashed the potential to communicate and collaborate like never before, and the result has been an unprecedented flow of culture and information. Millions of individuals are now sharing and creating culture: copying, cutting, remixing, and participating in new and different ways.
Sometimes this activity is transformative. Sometimes it's straight copying. In either case, there is a clear connection between this sharing of culture and personal freedom.
This talk will explore how various conceptions of "freedom" have shaped the social movements for free software, free culture, and free knowledge, and how this ideology has manifested itself in real action. It will connect theory with practice, exploring the cultural innovations and political changes that have spawned forth from these movements. Lastly, it will make the case that the broad-based availability, accessibility, and abundance of culture is a good thing for our global society.

Speaker Profile:

Elizabeth Stark is a leader in the global free culture movement. She is a Fellow at the Yale Information Society Project and a Lecturer in Computer Science at Yale University. A graduate of Harvard Law School, Stark founded the Harvard Free Culture Group and served on the board of directors of Students for Free Culture. While at Harvard, she was Editor-at-Large of the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, and worked on using new media to promote human rights with the Harvard Advocates for Human Rights. Elizabeth has worked extensively with the Berkman Center for Internet & Society and has taught courses in Cyberlaw, Digital Copyright, Technology and Politics, and Electronic Music. She recently produced the inaugural Open Video Conference in NYC, garnering over 8000 viewers across the web. Elizabeth regularly gives talks around the world on free culture, and has collaborated with myriad organizations on promoting shared knowledge and the open web.

The Revolution Will Be Recorded, Remixed, and Redistributed: The Promise of Open Video

Between news, cinema, television, and documentary film, we find ourselves swimming in a sea of moving images. This has been the story of the 20th century. Yet in this age, the tools for creating and sharing video are becoming widely distributed in the hands of millions of individuals. Desktop video editing software is pervasive; webcams and video-equipped mobile phones abound. Video now belongs to everyone. It is becoming a powerful medium for self-expression, a kind of cultural currency.
How will this phenomenon change the Internet? How will it change society? What questions persist for the architecture of the Internet, and how will public policy address this ultimately political transformation? This talk sets forth a vision of networked video as a truly participatory medium, one that will power the next 10 years of innovation on the web. Dean Jansen and Ben Moskowitz introduce some core technologies for open video, and the obstacles they face on the road to mass adoption.

Speaker Profiles:

Dean Jansen is a Free Culture activist and guerrilla artist based in New York. He attended Harvard University and was a leader in the Harvard Free Culture Group. Dean assisted in teaching media studies and law courses at MIT and Harvard, and has organized numerous academic conferences.
He currently serves as outreach director at the non-profit Participatory Culture Foundation, makers of the Miro internet TV player. His art projects can be viewed at www.notthemessiah.net.

Ben Moskowitz is general coordinator at the Open Video Alliance, a coalition to democratize the moving image. Ben co-founded the UC Berkeley chapter of Students for Free Culture and taught a seminar on the politics of piracy at Berkeley's School of Information.
He currently serves on the board of directors of the international organization Students for Free Culture, dedicated to promoting access to knowledge, technological freedom, and participatory culture.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/events/free-culture-roadshow

Free and Open Source Software

royson — 2009-01-26T08:04:12Z

Context

Lack of balance between proprietary software and FOSS in the market, educational sector and public sector.
Vendor lock-in of public data and infrastructure resulting in a dilution of citizen and consumer rights

Research Agenda

Document, summarize and analyse the participation divide (Gender, Rural/Urban, North/South) in production and consumption of FOSS by analysing code repositories, mailing list and discussion group archives, public URLs, etc. Case-studies of FOSS developers.
Aggregate, publicly archive and analyse academic curricula in various state and national school and college boards for vendor and technology neutrality.
Documenting the pedagogic impact, development impact, total cost of ownership and sustainability of e-learning and ICT4D projects based proprietary/open/mixed technologies. For instance, Friends in Kerala, and other such projects.
Designing and prototyping improved user interfaces and improvements to existing user interfaces. Pay particular attention to localization and internationalization issues related to Indic languages.
Documenting and designing best practices and processes for training, capacity-building, mentoring, testing and certification for FOSS developers from the global South. Looking at volunteer and corporate participation for example Apache in Sri Lanka.
Understand the similarities and differences between southern and northern Linux User Groups and Free Software User Groups.

Intervention Agenda

Provide feedback to the Open Source policy document to be published by the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology.
Support Free Software Foundation, Delhi Science Forum and others in the campaign against software patents—specifically deletion of “per se” in the Patent Act and related sections in the Indian Patent Office manual.
Advocate that software developed using public funds be licensed under an appropriate FOSS license. Advocate that e-governance software that directly impinges on the quality of citizenship stands public scrutiny.
Advocate for a vendor and technology neutral ICT curriculum in schools, colleges and universities.
Advocate that students participate in global projects for academic credits and all student work be archived on online code repositories. Advocate for local repositories in colleges and universities with insufficient access to the Internet.
Promote choice rather than mono-culture in public organisations, civil society and educational sector to ensure appropriate balance between innovation and access.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/about/substantive-areas/public-accountability/free-and-open-source-softwar

Free Access to Law—Is it here to Stay? An Environmental Scan Report

rebecca — 2012-03-20T18:36:08Z

The following is a preliminary project report collaboratively collated by the researchers of the "Free Access to Law" research study. This report aims to highlight the trends, as well as the risks and opportunities, for the sustainability of Free Access to Law initiatives in each of the country examined.

The Environmental Scans are the first component of the “Free Access to Law – Is it Here to Stay” global study, examining the sustainability of Free Access to Law (FAL) initiatives. The overall goal of this research is to respond to a need to study what free access to law initiatives do and how they do it. This will lead to an understanding of the effects FAL initiatives have on society and to an exploration of the factors determining their sustainability.

For the Environmental Scans, Local Researchers were asked to collect data according to the Environmental Scan Matrix and draft a synopsis of the data, highlighting the trends, risks and opportunities for the field of online legal research publication in general and for the FAL initiative in particular. In sum, the researchers looked at how the individual indicators listed in the Environmental Scan Matrix work together to impact free access to law. The results of the Scans provided the local researchers and their audiences with a rich knowledge on the field of law and informatics in each respective country examined.

The project covers the following regions: (1) Southern and Eastern Africa, (2) Western Africa, (3) Asia and the Pacific and (4) Canada. In order to complete a cross-case comparative analysis, countries have been selected to represent multiple legal traditions with FAL initiatives at various stages of development.

The report can be accessed here.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/free-access-to-law-is-it-here-to-stay-environmental-scan

Francis Jayakanth's Presentation

praskrishna — 2012-02-29T10:54:33Z

Dr. Jayakanth gave a presentation on Open Access.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/francis-jayakanth-presentation

Francis Bags EPT Award for Open Access in Developing World

praskrishna — 2013-08-03T05:36:54Z

The Electronic Publishing Trust recently announced a new annual award to be made to individuals working in developed countries who have made significant contribution for the cause of open access and free exchange of research findings. There were 30 nominations from 17 countries around the world and Dr. Francis Jayakanth from the National Centre of Science Information, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore was selected for the inaugural EPT Award for Open Access in the Developing World by a committee that went through all the nominations.

The award function organised by the Electronic Publishing Trust for Development and the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), Bangalore was held at the Sambasivan Auditorium, M S Swaminathan Research Foundation (MSSRF) in Chennai on 14 February 2012. Leading luminaries such as Prof. M.S. Swaminathan, Prof. Subbiah Arunachalam, Prof. G Baskaran and Prof. K Mangala Sunder participated in the award felicitation ceremony.

Giving the welcome speech, Prof. Arunachalam, distinguished fellow at CIS said that Dr. Jayakanth works for the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, has trained many students and helped a number of institutes to set up open access repositories. Prof. Arunachalam added that the event is being celebrated in India as the winner is from India and specified that it is being held at the MS Swaminathan Foundation as this was the institution that hosted the first workshop to promote open access. Prof. Swaminathan had a vital role in arranging funds for the workshop. About 50 people had learnt what open access was, how to set up open access repositories, how to use the EPrints software, etc. For this very reason it was decided to hold the event in Chennai and not Bangalore where Dr. Jayakanth is based.

Felicitating Dr. Jayakanth, Prof. Swaminathan who presented the award added that it is important to highlight the contributions of those who really convert the concept of social inclusion to reality. He said that today every politician talks about inclusive growth. What is this inclusive growth, how do you convert exclusion to inclusion? Exclusion creates large problems, social problems, economic problems, etc. On a concluding note, Prof. Swaminathan said that the Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh has declared 2012-13 as the year of science and he hopes that there will be a new science policy and technology policy and that he hopes that a very important component of that should be methods of ensuring open access including open access to knowledge and open access to literature.

In his award acceptance speech, Dr. Jayakanth said that the atmosphere was very overwhelming and never in his two-and-a-half decade old career he had the opportunity to speak amidst such luminaries and added that it was a privilege and prestige to have received the award from Prof. Swaminathan, the father of the Green Revolution in India. He also added that no event in India or elsewhere is complete without the active participation and mentioning of the name of Prof. Arunachalam, the greatest advocate of open access that India has seen so far, and that he wouldn’t have been here at the award ceremony but for the timely intervention of Prof. Arunachalam.

Dr. Jayakanth concluded by saying that he would like to thank Prof. NV Joshi, Prof. Derek Law, Prof. Alma Swan, Prof. Balaram, Prof. N Balakrishnan, Prof. Giridhar, and Prof. TB Rajashekar, and particularly the students of the information and knowledge management programme at the National Centre of Science Information, Indian Institute of Science, who were responsible for the growth of a repository granting more visibility to the 32,000 publications that are part of the repository.

Prof. Mangala Sunder of IIT Madras and Prof. G Baskaran of the Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Chennai, also participated in the event. Prof. Sunder said that it is for the kind of information that we talk about, which we want to make public for which champions like Dr. Jayakanth have been working on the sidelines but working so efficiently to get institution after institution to convert what is known as a rigid framework into a flexible more open policy of bringing their scientific content to their intellectual information content. He said that he works in the area of content development from the point of view of education and he understands the difficulty of bringing material to the public.

There are many issues, such as issues about copyright, issues about people owning the information, issues about people feeling very rigid on what they want to say in the public, etc. Dr. Jayakanth has gone through all these exercises for the last 30 years in slowly creating the “little after little” what are called the waterways to finally see that everyone benefits. The linking of science, knowledge and sustainable development to open access to information, open access to research and open access to content completes the whole cycle of knowledge.

Prof. Baskaran said that it is a very well deserved award and Dr. Jayakanth has definitely raised the bar for future awardees. Prof. Baskaran stressed upon the aspects of open access. He said that as a theoretical physicist he understands the need for open access very well. Physicists, when they have new research results place them in arXiv, the open access repository for preprints in physics. Some people wonder what if some physicists deposit all kinds of articles in the arXiv. Experience has shown that 99 per cent of the articles appear in good journals later. He added that once it is put in the arXiv, the whole world gets access and a bad paper will be noticed and commented upon by many. No one likes to be the author of such a paper! He urged that other sciences, especially the life sciences should have a repository similar to arXiv and requested Prof. Swaminathan to take the intiative at MSSRF.

Dr. Francis Jayakanth

Dr. Francis Jayakanth is a library-trained scientific assistant based at the National Centre for Science Information (NCSI), the information centre of the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) in Bangalore. He has played a significant role in the establishment of India’s first institutional repository (IR) (http://eprints.iisc.ernet.in). He now manages the IR and has provided technical support for establishing IRs in many other universities and institutes in India. He has been the key resource person at many events to train people in setting up IRs and open access journals. He has delivered presentations on IRs, open access journals, the OAI protocol, OAI compliance, and the benefits of open access to authors and institutions and the role of libraries. He has developed a free and open source software tool (CDSOAI), which is widely used. Dr. Jayakanth can indeed be considered an open access ‘renaissance man’, an advocate and technical expert in all aspect of open access development and an inspiration to all, both at the research and policy level.

See Francis's presentation on Who Benefits from Open Access to Scholarly Literature? [Powerpoint, 1523 KB]

See the video of the award function below:

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/francis-wins-ept-award

Four volumes of Kannada Encyclopaedia digitised

praskrishna — 2014-07-14T05:49:48Z

The content is available online under Creative Commons License.

The article by R. Krishna Kumar was published in the Hindu on July 12, 2014, Dr. U.B.Pavanaja is quoted.

Articles from the Kannada Encyclopaedia (Kannada Vishwakosha) of the University of Mysore can now be accessed online under the Creative Commons License. The move to make content of the Kannada Vishwakosha accessible is part of the ongoing effort to enrich Kannada content on Internet.

The University of Mysore is working with the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) to digitise encyclopaedic publications for which the copyrights are owned by the varsity, and to re-release them under the Creative Common License.

U.B. Pavanaja of the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, who is promoting Kannada content on the Internet, told The Hindu that of the 14 volumes, digitised content of the first four volumes has been uploaded.

And, the CIS is awaiting the release of the revised edition of the other two volumes. “Each volume has about 900 pages and hence over 3,600 pages of the Kannada Vishwakosha can now be accessed. What is significant is that people seeking quality information in Kannada can now access reliable content. It is also subject to editing in real time and hence will remain updated,” according to Mr. Pavanaja. The content was digitised and uploaded with the help of students who were interning with the CIS and included three boys and five girls, said Mr. Pavanaja.

The permission for digitising the content has been accorded for the first six volumes. However, the CIS has sought permission from the varsity for digitising the content of the other volumes, including Subject Encyclopaedia.

The Centre for Internet and Society signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the University of Mysore in February. The varsity issued a certificate to publish the work under the Creative Common License in May.

As per the plan, the digitised content will be made available for everyone through free content distribution platforms like Wikipedia, Wikisource and this is expected to enhance digital literacy in Kannada language while helping in free dissemination of knowledge in Kannada to students, academics, researchers and the general public. As of now, the articles have been uploaded on Wikisource and will shortly be migrated to Wikipedia also.

Besides, the CIS is trying to hold talks with Kannada University, Hampi, on digitising the Janapada Vishwakosha and make it available under the Creative Common License, said Mr. Pavanaja.

Niranjan Vanalli, Director of EMMRC of the University of Mysore, said digitisation of Kannada Vishwakosha has given a new lease of life to publications. “The 14-volume Kannada Vishwakosha was not available to everyone earlier and was confined to research institutions or libraries. But now that the content is available online, it is accessible to all those who are interested. And, what it is more is that most articles, especially those pertaining to history, art and culture, will be of reference quality and that will act as a major boost to the cause of Kannada language,” he added.

Meanwhile, the University of Mysore and CIS will celebrate World Open Knowledge Festival on July 15 at the Kuvempu Institute of Kannada Studies from 11 a.m. to commemorate the event.

Those interested to access the Kannada Vishwakosha online can log on to: http://bit.ly/mysoreuniv

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/the-hindu-july-12-2014-r-krishna-kumar-four-volumes-of-kannada-encyclopaedia-digitised

Fostering Strategic Convergence in US-India Tech Relations: 5G and Beyond

Justin Sherman and Arindrajit Basu — 2019-07-05T02:19:09Z

The 2019 G-20 summit underscores the importance of fostering strategic convergence in U.S.-India tech relations.

The article by Justin Sherman and Arindrajit Basu was published in the Diplomat on July 3, 2019.

As world leaders gathered for the G-20 summit in Osaka, Japan this past weekend, a multitude of issues from climate to trade to technology came to the fore. Much of the focus was on U.S.-China interactions at the summit, as the two nations are locked in both a trade war and broader technological and geopolitical competition. Despite the present focus on the U.S. and China, however, it is crucial to not overlook another bilateral relationship of ever-growing importance in the process: The tech relationship between the United States and India.

Certainly, the two countries have many disagreements on some technology issues. But this is a geopolitical relationship that is both strategically important for each country, and a vital opportunity for the two largest democracies in the world to collectively combat Chinese-style digital authoritarianism.

Huawei and 5G

First, with respect to national security and 5G roll-outs, the U.S and India are not on the same page. The United States, for several months now, has been on a diplomatic messaging tour of the world to try to convince — with great resistance (some would argue failure) — allies, partners, and potential partners alike to ban Chinese firm Huawei from supplying components of 5G networks. Many officials across Europe, the Middle East, South America, and elsewhere have been reluctant to ban Huawei per the U.S. recommendation, and India is no exception. Indeed, National Security Advisory Board Chairman P.S. Raghavan told The Hindu that “5G is becoming a fault line in the technology cold war between world powers” and that India must avoid getting caught in these fault lines.

In large part, U.S. diplomatic messaging here has fallen short due to heavy conflations of national security- and trade-related risks; and Trump only contributed further to this fact with his latest reference to Huawei, during the G-20, as a potential trade war bargaining chip. The sheer population of India, however, combined with its fast growing technology sectors and desire to digitize, makes the country an important market player when it comes to the 5G revolution. U.S.-India engagement on 5G issues must be managed effectively through robust articulation of each country’s national interests underscored by a clean segregation of trade and security questions in the discussion. This partnership has the potential to wield great influence in the global market, including in ways that could prioritize or deprioritize certain 5G equipment suppliers (like Huawei).

Data Sovereignty and Data Privacy

Data sovereignty is another hot area in which the U.S.-India tech relationship demands careful negotiation. Over the past year, the Indian government has introduced a range of policy instruments which dictate that certain kinds of data must be stored in servers located physically within India — termed “data localization.” While there are a number of policy objectives this gambit ostensibly seeks to serve, the two which stand out are (1) the presently cumbersome process for Indian law enforcement agencies to access data stored in the U.S. during criminal investigations, and (2) extractive economic models used by U.S. companies operating in India.

A range of conflicting developments emerging from the G-20 summit underscore this fact. India, along with the BRICS grouping, focused on the development dimensions of data governance and re-emphasized the need for data sovereignty — broadly understood as the sovereign right of nations to govern data in their national interest for the welfare of their citizens. President Trump reigned in his focus on the need for cross-border data flows and, in direct opposition to some proposals that have emerged from India, explicitly opposed data localization. While India did not sign the Osaka Declaration on the Digital Economy that promoted cross-border data flows, the importance of cross-border data flows in spurring the global economy did find its way into the Final G-20 Leaders Declaration — which, of course, both countries signed.

Geopolitically, the importance of India’s data governance stance cannot be overstated as it could pave the way for the approach adopted by other emerging economies — most notably the BRICS countries. Likewise, the U.S. has important thinking to do around such questions as what shape a national data privacy law could take. Even though the two countries’ views on data may be quite different from one another, the seats that India and the U.S. have at the table for global data governance discussions — alongside others like Japan, China, and the European Union — underscore the value of meaningful interactions and mutual trust and respect on this issue.

Norms for a Democratic Digital Future

Finally, as the United Nations Group of Governmental Experts and the Open-Ended Working Group meet to resurrect the norm-formulation process for fostering responsible state behavior in cyberspace, India has some homework to do. Even though it has been a member of five out of the six Group of Governmental Experts set up thus far, India is yet to come out with a public statement delineating its views on the applicability of International Law applies in cyberspace. Further, India has also failed to articulate a cohesive digital strategy — instead relying on a patchwork of hastily rolled out and often ill-conceived regulatory policies, some of which commentators in the West have hastily labeled as digital authoritarianism. The U.S., for its part, amidst a cutback to diplomatic cyber engagement (as part of cutbacks to diplomacy writ large), could also up its support of international engagement on these issues. Its recent repeal of net neutrality protections could also be argued as a step back from long-time international norm promotion around internet openness.

Through a combination of domestic policy gambits and foreign policy maneuvers, both states need to draw lines in the sand that safeguard human rights, international law, and democracy online, while arriving at some balance with each other’s national interests.

A primary example lies with artificial intelligence (AI). AI has found increasing use in digital authoritarianism, as dictators use automated, intelligent systems to boost their surveillance capabilities. The Chinese government has arguably been at the forefront of this enhanced level of authoritarian rule for the digital age.

In addition to focusing on AI applications for everything from natural language processing to self-driving cars — through investments, strategies, policy documents, and so on — Beijing has also been deploying AI in the service of large-scale human-rights abuses. Chinese strategy papers on AI, while similarly emphasizing many commercial or benign applications and raising attention to such issues as algorithmic fairness, concurrently have discussed using AI for “social governance,” censorship, and surveillance. To combat the rising intersection of AI and digital authoritarianism, the U.S. and India could wield enormous leverage — as the two largest democracies in the world — in governing these technologies in a democratic fashion that counters dangerous arms-race narratives and uses of AI for surveillance and repression.

The same goes for paying attention to technology exports and diffusion to human-rights abusers. For instance, companies incorporated in China, among those incorporated elsewhere, have been heavily involved in exports of dual-use surveillance technologies to other countries, including those with questionable or outright poor human-rights records. Although companies incorporated in democracies may engage in such practices as well, most democracies take steps to curtail these practices as much as possible, such as through the multilateral Wassenaar Arrangement — which lays out export controls around conventional weapons and dual-use goods and technologies. The U.S. has long been a party to this agreement, and India officially joined in 2018. Arguments persist about the extent to which Beijing is involved in these dual-use surveillance technology exports, but these exports may only increase going forward as companies increasingly sell not just internet surveillance tools but also dual-use AI tools. In this way, too, India and the U.S. could play an important role in countering the spread of such capabilities to human-rights abusers and standing against the spread of digital authoritarianism in the process.

The relationship here is, therefore, one that requires careful navigation for its significant geopolitical, economic, and ideological consequences. For the future of the technological relationship between the world’s largest democracies—and the extent to which they respect each other’s strategic autonomy while converging on issues of mutual interest—could determine the future of global digital governance.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/telecom/blog/the-diplomat-justin-sherman-and-arindrajit-basu-july-3-2019-fostering-strategic-convergence-in-us-india-tech-relations-5g-and-beyond

FOSS: Smart Choice for Developing Countries

praskrishna — 2013-10-21T05:28:06Z

This workshop is being organised by TechNation and Open Source Alliance of Central Asia on October 23. Sunil Abraham is participating as a panelist and will speak on FOSS and IT Growth Policies in South Asia.

Read the original published on the IGF website

The Internet Governance Forum 2013 is being held at Bali from October 22 to 25. The overarching theme for the 2013 IGF meeting is: "Building Bridges"- Enhancing Multistakeholder Cooperation for Growth and Sustainable Development".

Theme: The Internet as an Engine for Growth and Advancement

Free and Open Source Software (FOSS), once limited to advanced users, now attracts average users. Countries have adopted FOSS for its social, economic and political benefits. Russia has started to shift government to Linux by 2015 and plans to build a national repository of Open Source Software. China is teaming up with Canonical to develop an open source operating system for Chinese users called Ubuntu Kylin. According to Black Duck Software and North Bridge Venture Partners Open-Source Survey, Open Source Software is helping improve enterprise networking, smartcars, and academia. InformationWeek’s survey “Open Source Software Use Joins The Mix,” confirms that FOSS “is believed to create more opportunities for innovation than commercial or proprietary software.”

This workshop emphasizes three main issues: 1) Innovative FOSS technologies, 2) Capacity building in FOSS, and 3) Women as FOSS users and developers. It will discuss benefits, costs and implications of choosing FOSS; highlight the representation, role and achievements of women from the Central and South Asian region; and, guide recommendations to build capacity of women in utilizing FOSS for education, health, governance, and civil society.

Why FOSS? FOSS fosters education for the persons contributing to it and for those using it. In addition to learning new skills, FOSS developers can help solve real-life problems. Irrespective of geographic location, volunteers work collaboratively to develop software. This creates a sense of community ownership of their technology and enhances employment, employability and increases local innovation. FOSS reduces deployment costs making it a smart choice by developing countries. FOSS is affordable, stable, reliable, and free of virus.

What are innovative FOSS technologies? This workshop will showcase some of the most innovative Open Source Software technologies. It will highlight the fact that most servers are based on open source, and now common users, governments and businesses around the world are transitioning to FOSS.

Why Capacity Building? Capacity building in computer education should teach students concepts, ensure that students learn through hands on experience using a variety of tools, and leave students the choice of which tool to use to create virtual worlds. Students should be given responsibilities, including helping run IT systems. For example, students of higher classes could build or modify software for lower classes.

Organized by Open Source Alliance of Central Asia (OSACA), this workshop will explore whether the requirements to be a FOSS contributor prevent women from doing so and what it will take for women in Central and South Asia, to become valuable contributors.

Has the proponent organised a workshop with a similar subject during past IGF meetings?

No.

Co-organisers

Mr. Omar Mansoor Ansari, TechNation, Private Sector, AFGHANISTAN, Asia-Pacific Group
Mr. Sufyan Kakakhel, Open Source Alliance of Central Asia (OSACA), Civil Society, PAKISTAN, Asia-Pacific Group

Have the Proponent or any of the co-organisers organised an IGF workshop before?

No.

Panelists

H.E. Baryalai Hassam, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Male, Government, AFGHANISTAN, Asia-Pacific Group
Maria Beebe, Telecom Advisory Team (Afghanistan) Deloitte, Female, Private Sector, UNITED STATES, Western Europe and Others Group - WEOG
Sunil Abraham, Center for Internet and Society, Male, Civil Society, INDIA, Asia-Pacific Group
Roxana Radu, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Female, Technical Community, ROMANIA, Eastern European Group
Matthias Stürmer, Open Source Switzerland, Male, Technical Community, SWITZERLAND, Western Europe and Others Group - WEOG
Asomiddin Atoev, ISP Association of Tajikistan, Male, Private Sector, TAJIKISTAN, Asia-Pacific Group
Prof. Dr. rer. pol. Wolfgang F. Finke, Ernst-Abbe University of Applied Sciences, Male, Civil Society, GERMANY, Western Europe and Others Group - WEOG
Dominique Lazankski, The TaxPayers' Alliance, Civil Society, UNITED KINGDOM, Western Europe and Others Group - WEOG

Moderator

Omar Mansoor Ansari

Remote Moderator

Ana Perdigao

Agenda

FOSS: FOSS Smart Choice for Developing Countries

This high-level thematic workshop discusses the most up-to-dated advancements in Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) technologies. With some of the best minds from the government, industry, civil society and academia learn about innovative FOSS technologies, policy and regulatory environments, project and initiatives, and how Open Source Software technologies can help enhance governance, business, education and the society. The panel will discuss implications for capacity building for women and girls in FOSS.

Workshop Agenda

0900 - 0910
Welcome and Introduction
Welcome and introduction by Session Chairman
Mr. Omar Mansoor Ansari, President at TechNation, Cofounder/ Board Director, Open Source Alliance of Central Asia (OSACA)

0910 - 0920
State of FOSS and Government Policies in Afghanistan.
H.E. Eng. Baryalai Hassam, Deputy Minister (Technical), Ministry of Communications and IT, Afghanistan

0920 - 0930
MOOCs, M-learning and other Resources Online: Implications for Capacity Building
Dr. Maria Beebe, Sr. ICT Advisor (Education), Telecom Advisory Team (Afghanistan) Deloitte, United States

0930 - 0940
Kick-Starting the Utilization of FOSS in the Public Sector in Afghanistan – Afghan Center of Open Source Systems
Prof. Dr. rer. pol. Wolfgang F. Finke, Ernst-Abbe University of Applied Sciences, Germany

0940 - 0950
Women Creating Their Spaces Online

0950 - 1000
Technology transfer and North-South partnerships through open source communities
Dr. Matthias Stürmer, Swiss Open Systems User Group /ch/open, Switzerland

1000 - 1010
FOSS and the Internet in Central Asia
Asomiddin Atoev, Cofounder/ Board Director, Open Source Alliance of Central Asia (OSACA), Chairman, ISP Association of Tajikistan.

1010 -1020
FOSS and IT Growth Policies in South Asia
Mr. Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, Center for Internet and Society, India

1020 - 1030
Open Data
Dominique Lazanski
The TaxPayers' Alliance, UK

1030 -1100
Q&A and Open Discussion

Inclusiveness of the Session

This will be a panel workshop, it will allow considerable time for an Open Discussion and Q&A. We will be making the meeting highly interactive and participatory by engaging the speakers and participants to exchange ideas, knowledge and experience.

Suitability for Remote Participation

We will be providing remote participation through video conferencing, creating social media, Twitter and Facebook, accounts that are interlinked and can communicate real time updates with the remote participants. A team of volunteers will be engaged to manage the communication with remote participants.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/igf-2013-workshop-287-foss-smart-choice-for-developing-countries

FOSS, Wikimedia and Mozilla Under One Roof at GNUnify 2013, Pune

subha — 2013-07-17T06:55:43Z

GNUnify 2013 organized in the campus in Pune from February 15 to 17, 2013. The event was organized by Pune Linux/Unix User Group (PLUG) and Symbiosis Institute of Computer Studies & Research (SICSR). Subhashish Panigrahi reports the outcomes in this blog post.

GNUnify is an annual gathering consisting of Free and Open Source software workshops, talks, seminars and BOFs (Birds of a feather). This was hosted by the Pune Linux User Group and the Symbiosis Institute of Computer Studies and Research in Pune, India.

Day 1: February 15, 2013
The first day of the event had many parallel tracks including talks on KDE, Firefox OS, FUEL Project, Wikimedia Localization, OpenSSL, Discussions on Creative Commons, OpenStack and few technical workshops.

Day 2: February 16, 2013
Few of the full day events includes several talks and discussions about Mozilla and Firefox, Internationalization, Localization and Indic language input method related talks and workshops by the Wikimedia Foundation Engineering team (More details on mediawiki.org), Drupal and workshop and talks on Python. Wikipedians, translators from various languages, A2K team members Vishnu Vardhan and Subhashish had an open conversation with the Wikimedia Foundation Engineering team.

Day 3: February 17, 2013
The final day of GNUnify had 3 major parallel day long events; Mozilla India community meetup, Wikipedia translation sprint and Wikipedia gadget workshop. At the end of all the events participants gathered for a group photo and socialized.

Videos

Podcasts

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/foss-wikimedia-under-one-roof-gnunify