Centre for Internet and Society

Zuckerberg's India Backlash Imperils Free Global Web Vision

praskrishna — 2016-01-06T14:51:42Z

When Facebook's co-founder proposed bringing free Web services to India, his stated aim was to help connect millions of impoverished people to unlimited opportunity. Instead, critics have accused him of making a poorly disguised land grab in India's burgeoning Internet sector. The growing backlash could threaten the very premise of Internet.org, his ambitious, two-year-old effort to connect the planet.

The blog post by Bhuma Shrivastava was published by NDTV on January 4, 2016. Pranesh Prakash gave inputs.

Indian authorities are circumspect because the Facebook initiative provides access to only a limited set of websites -- undermining the equal-access precepts of net neutrality. The telecommunications regulator is calling for initial comments by Jan 7, extending the deadline from today, on whether wireless carriers can charge differently for data usage across websites, applications and platforms.

Losing this fight could imperil Facebook's Free Basics, which allows customers to access the social network and select services such as Messenger and Microsoft's Bing without a data plan.

"The India fight is helping shape debates elsewhere," said Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society, a Bangalore-based non-profit advocacy group. "Activists in other countries such as Brazil, Venezuela and Colombia are watching this debate and will seize the momentum created in India."

Zuckerberg's argument for free Web access is based in part on Deloitte research showing that for every 10 people who are connected to the Web, one is lifted out of poverty and one job is created.

Facebook argues that by giving people free access to a small slice of the Internet, they will quickly see the value in paying for the whole thing. Zuckerberg has said his biggest challenge in connecting people to the Web isn't access to cellular networks, but a social hurdle: he needs to prove to people who have never been online that the Internet is useful.

"Who could possibly be against this?" Zuckerberg wrote in an impassioned op-ed in the Times of India this week. "Surprisingly, over the last year there's been a big debate about this in India."

Zuckerberg's pleas underscore what's at stake. Facebook already attracts 1.55 billion people monthly, or about half of the Internet-connected global population. To keep growing, the world's largest social network needs to get more people online. Hence the billions of dollars Facebook is spending on projects to deliver the Web to under-served areas via drones, satellites and lasers. And Internet.org, which now spans 37 nations.

India, as the world's second most populous nation, is arguably the most important piece of Zuckerberg's Free Basics strategy. But the opposition is fierce. Critics note that the Facebook service doesn't offer Web favorites such as Google's search. Facebook has said it would be open to adding more features from competitors, but critics are skeptical of giving the social-networking giant such influence on the Internet.

Critics also say that by offering a limited swath of the Internet at comparatively slow speeds, the company is creating a diluted version of the Web. That could stifle innovation by causing disadvantages for Indian startups building rival apps, or allow Facebook and its telecommunications carrier-partners to act as Internet gatekeepers.

In a sign of the importance he attaches to the issue, Zuckerberg on Tuesday called one of India's most prominent entrepreneurs to make his case.

One97 Communications, the mobile payments startup backed by Alibaba Group Holding, is one of several tech companies that have come out against Facebook's plans.

"We are totally against telcos preferring one developer over another," One97 founder Vijay Shekhar Sharma said in a phone interview before that call. "We are asking for access neutrality. We are hoping that all startups will be treated equally."

Sonia Dhawan, a spokeswoman for One97's payment website Paytm, said the call took place but didn't describe the conversation further. Sharma wasn't available for further comment.

Facebook is now scrambling to drum up support. It's started a "Save Free Basics In India" campaign, asking Indian users to support "digital equality" by filling out a form that shoots an e-mail to regulators. That also has the effect of sending notifications to user's friends unless they opt out.
Facebook has also taken out full-page advertisements, including one featuring a smiling Indian farmer and his family who the ads say used new techniques to double his crop yield.

While countries such as the Philippines have embraced Free Basics, India has been "the outlier and more challenging," Chris Daniels, vice president of Internet.org, said in a Dec. 26 chat on Reddit.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/ndtv-bhuma-shrivastava-january-4-2016-zuckerberg-india-backlash-imperils-free-global-web-vision

Zero Draft of Content Removal Best Practices White Paper

jyoti — 2014-09-10T07:11:09Z

EFF and CIS Intermediary Liability Project is aimed towards the creation of a set of principles for intermediary liability in consultation with groups of Internet-focused NGOs and the academic community.

The draft paper has been created to frame the discussion and will be made available for public comments and feedback. The draft document and the views represented here are not representative of the positions of the organisations involved in the drafting.

http://tinyurl.com/k2u83ya

3 September 2014

Introduction

The purpose of this white paper is to frame the discussion at several meetings between groups of Internet-focused NGOs that will lead to the creation of a set of principles for intermediary liability.

The principles that develop from this white paper are intended as a civil society contribution to help guide companies, regulators and courts, as they continue to build out the legal landscape in which online intermediaries operate. One aim of these principles is to move towards greater consistency with regards to the laws that apply to intermediaries and their application in practice.

There are three general approaches to intermediary liability that have been discussed in much of the recent work in this area, including CDT’s 2012 report called “Shielding the Messengers: Protecting Platforms for Expression and Innovation.” The CDT’s 2012 report divides approaches to intermediary liability into three models: 1. Expansive Protections Against Liability for Intermediaries, 2. Conditional Safe Harbor from Liability, 3. Blanket or Strict Liability for Intermediaries.^[1]

This white paper argues in the alternative that (a) the “expansive protections against liability” model is preferable, but likely not possible given the current state of play in the legal and policy space (b) therefore the white paper supports “conditional safe harbor from liability” operating via a ‘notice-to-notice’ regime if possible, and a ‘notice and action’ regime if ‘notice-to-notice’ is deemed impossible, and finally (c) all of the other principles discussed in this white paper should apply to whatever model for intermediary liability is adopted unless those principles are facially incompatible with the model that is finally adopted.

As further general background, this white paper works from the position that there are three general types of online intermediaries- Internet Service Providers (ISPs), search engines, and social networks. As outlined in the recent draft UNESCO Report (from which this white paper draws extensively);

“With many kinds of companies operating many kinds of products and services, it is important to clarify what constitutes an intermediary. In a 2010 report, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) explains that Internet intermediaries “bring together or facilitate transactions between third parties on the Internet. They give access to, host, transmit and index content, products and services originated by third parties on the Internet or provide Internet-based services to third parties.”

Most definitions of intermediaries explicitly exclude content producers. The freedom of expression advocacy group Article 19 distinguishes intermediaries from “those individuals or organizations who are responsible for producing information in the first place and posting it online.” Similarly, the Center for Democracy and Technology explains that “these entities facilitate access to content created by others.” The OECD emphasizes “their role as ‘pure’ intermediaries between third parties,” excluding “activities where service providers give access to, host, transmit or index content or services that they themselves originate.” These views are endorsed in some laws and court rulings. In other words, publishers and other media that create and disseminate original content are not intermediaries. Examples of such media entities include a news website that publishes articles written and edited by its staff, or a digital video subscription service that hires people to produce videos and disseminates them to subscribers.

For the purpose of this case study we will maintain that intermediaries offer services that host, index, or facilitate the transmission and sharing of content created by others. For example, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) connect a user’s device, whether it is a laptop, a mobile phone or something else, to the network of networks known as the Internet. Once a user is connected to the Internet, search engines make a portion of the World Wide Web accessible by allowing individuals to search their database. Search engines are often an essential go-between between websites and Internet users. Social networks connect individual Internet users by allowing them to exchange messages, photos, videos, as well as by allowing them to post content to their network of contacts, or the public at large. Web hosting providers, in turn, make it possible for websites to be published and to be accessed online.”^[2]

General Principles for ISP Governance - Content Removals

The discussion that follows below outlines nine principles to guide companies, government, and civil society in the development of best practices related to the regulation of online content through intermediaries, as norms, policies, and laws develop in the coming years. The nine principles are: Transparency, Consistency, Clarity, Mindful Community Policy Making, Necessity and Proportionality in Content Restrictions, Privacy, Access to Remedy, Accountability, and Due Process in both Legal and Private Enforcement. Each principle contains subsections that expand upon the theme of the principle to cover more specific issues related to the rights and responsibilities of online intermediaries, government, civil society, and users.

Principle I: Transparency

“Transparency enables users’ right to privacy and right to freedom of expression. Transparency of laws, policies, practices, decisions, rationale, and outcomes related to privacy and restrictions allow users to make informed choices with respect to their actions and speech online. As such - both governments and companies have a responsibility in ensuring that the public is informed through transparency initiatives.” ^[3]

Government Transparency

In general, governments should publish transparency reports:

As part of the democratic process, the citizens of each country have a right to know how their government is applying its laws, and a right to provide feedback about the government’s legal interpretations of its laws. Thus, all governments should be required to publish online transparency reports that provide information about all requests issued by any branch or agency of government for the removal or restriction of online content. Further, governments should allow for the submission of comments and suggestions by a webform hosted on the same webpage where that government’s transparency report is hosted. There should also be some legal mechanism that requires the government to look at the feedback provided by its citizens, ensure that relevant feedback is passed along to legislative bodies, and provide for action to be taken on the citizen-provided feedback where appropriate. Finally, and where possible, the raw data that constitutes each government’s transparency report should be made available online, for free, in a common file format such as .csv, so that civil society may have easy access to it for research purposes.

Governments should be more transparent about content orders that they impose on ISPs
The legislative process proceeds most effectively when the government knows how the laws that it creates are applied in practice and is able to receive feedback from the public about how those laws should change further, or remain the same. Relatedly, regulation of the Internet is most effective when the legislative and judicial branches are aware of what the other is doing. For all of these reasons, governments should publish information about all of the court orders and executive requests for content removals that they send to online intermediaries. Publishing all of this information in one place necessarily requires that some single entity within the government collects the information, which will have the benefits of giving the government a holistic view of how it is regulating the internet, encouraging dialogue between different branches of government about how best to create and enforce internet content regulation, and encouraging dialogue between the government and its citizens about the laws that govern internet content and their application.

Governments should make the compliance requirements they impose on ISPs public
Each government should maintain a public website that publishes as complete a picture as possible of the content removal requests made by any branch of that government, including the judicial branch. The availability of a public website of this type will further many of the goals and objectives discussed elsewhere in this section. The website should be biased towards high levels of detail about each request and towards disclosure that requests were made, subject only to limited exceptions for compelling public policy reasons, where the disclosure bias conflicts directly with another law, or where disclosure would reveal a user’s PII. The information should be published periodically, ideally more than once a year. The general principle should be: the more information made available, the better. On the same website where a government publishes its ‘Transparency Report,’ that government should attempt to provide a plain-language description of its various laws related to online content, to provide users notice about what content is lawful vs. unlawful, as well as to show how the laws that it enacts in the Internet space fit together. Further, and as discussed in section “b,” infra, government should provide citizens with an online feedback mechanism so that they may participate in the legislative process as it applies to online content.

Governments should give their citizens a way to provide input on these policies
Private citizens should have the right to provide feedback on the balancing between their civil liberties and other public policies such as security that their government engages in on their behalf. If and when these policies and the compliance requirements they impose on online intermediaries are made publicly available online, there should also be a feedback mechanism built into the site where this information is published. This public feedback mechanism could take a number of different forms, like, for example, a webform that allowed users to indicate their level of satisfaction with prevailing policy choices by choosing amongst several radio buttons, while also providing open text fields to allow the user to submit clarifying comments and specific suggestions. In order to be effective, this online feedback mechanism would have to be accompanied by some sort of legal and budgetary apparatus that would ensure that the feedback was monitored and given some minimum level of deference in the discussions and meetings that led to new policies being created.

Government should meet users concerned about its content policies in the online domain. Internet users, as citizens of both the internet and the country their country of origin, have a natural interest in defining and defending their civil liberties online; government should meet them there to extend the democratic process to the Internet. Denying Internet users a voice in the policymaking processes that determine their rights undermines government credibility and negatively influences users’ ability to freely share information online. As such, content policies should be posted in general terms online and users should have the ability to provide input on those policies online.

ISP Transparency
“The transparency practices of a company impact users’ freedom expression by providing insight into the scope of restriction that is taking in place in specific jurisdiction. Key areas of transparency for companies include: specific restrictions, aggregate numbers related to restrictions, company imposed regulations on content, and transparency of applicable law and regulation that the service provider must abide by.”^[4]

“Disclosure by service providers of notices received and actions taken can provide an important check against abuse. In addition to providing valuable data for assessing the value and effectiveness of a N&A system, creating the expectation that notices will be disclosed may help deter fraudulent or otherwise unjustified notices. In contrast, without transparency, Internet users may remain unaware that content they have posted or searched for has been removed pursuant due to a notice of alleged illegality. Requiring notices to be submitted to a central publication site would provide the most benefit, enabling patterns of poor quality or abusive notices to be readily exposed.”^[5] Therefore, ISPs at all levels should publish transparency reports that include:

Government Requests

All requests from government agencies and courts should be published in a periodic transparency report, accessible on the intermediary’s website, that publishes information about the requests the intermediary received and what the intermediary did with them in the highest level of detail that is legally possible. The more information that is provided about each request, the better the understanding that the public will have about how laws that affect their rights online are being applied. That said, steps should be taken to prevent the disclosure of personal information in relation to the publication of transparency reports. Beyond redaction of personal information, however, the maximum amount of information about each request should be published, subject as well to the (ideally minimal) restrictions imposed by applicable law. A thorough Transparency Report published by an ISP or online intermediary should include information about the following categories of requests:

Police and/or Executive Requests
This category includes all requests to the intermediary from an agency that is wholly a part of the national government; from police departments, to intelligence agencies, to school boards from small towns. Surfacing information about all requests from any part of the government helps to avoid corruption and/or inappropriate exercises of governmental power by reminding all government officials, regardless of their rank or seniority, that information about the requests they submit to online intermediaries is subject to public scrutiny.

Court Orders
This category includes all orders issued by courts and signed by a judicial officer. It can include ex-parte orders, default judgments, court orders directed at an online intermediary, or court orders directed at a third party presented to the intermediary as evidence in support of a removal request. To the extent legally possible, detailed information should be published about these court orders detailing the type of court order each request was, its constituent elements, and the actions(s) that the intermediary took in response to it. All personally identifying information should be redacted from any court orders that are published by the intermediary as part of a transparency report before publication.

First Party
Information about court orders should be further broken down into two groups; first party and third party. First party court orders are orders directed at the online intermediary in an adversarial proceeding to which the online intermediary was a party.

Third Party
As mentioned above, ‘third party’ refers to court orders that are not directed at the online intermediary, but rather a third party such as an individual user who posted an allegedly defamatory remark on the intermediary’s platform. If the user who obtains a court order approaches an online intermediary seeking removal of content with a court order directed at the poster of, say, the defamatory content, and the intermediary decides to remove the content in response to the request, the online intermediary that decided to perform the takedown should publish a record of that removal. To be accepted by an intermediary, third party court orders should be issued by a court of appropriate jurisdiction after an adversarial legal proceeding, contain a certified and specific statement that certain content is unlawful, and specifically identify the content that the court has found to be unlawful, by specific, permalinked URL where possible.

This type of court order should be broken out separately from court orders directed at the applicable online intermediary in companies’ transparency reports because merely providing aggregate numbers that do not distinguish between the two types gives an inaccurate impression to users that a government is attempting to censor more content than it actually is. The idea of including first party court orders to remove content as a subcategory of ‘government requests’ is that a government’s judiciary speaks on behalf of the government, making determinations about what is permitted under the laws of that country. This analogy does not hold for court orders directed at third parties- when the court made its determination of legality on the content in question, it did not contemplate that the intermediary would remove the content. As such, the court likely did not weigh the relevant public interest and policy factors that would include the importance of freedom of expression or the precedential value of its decision. Therefore, the determination does not fairly reflect an attempt by the government to censor content and should not be considered as such.

Instead, and especially considering that these third party court order may be the basis for a number of content removals, third party court orders should be counted separately and presented with some published explanation in the company’s transparency report as to what they are and why the company has decided it should removed content pursuant to its receipt of one.

Private-Party Requests
Private-party requests are requests to remove content that are not issued by a government agency or accompanied by a court order. Some examples of private party requests include copyright complaints submitted pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act or complaints based on the laws of specific countries, such as laws banning holocaust denial in Germany.

Policy/TOS Enforcement
To give users a complete picture of the content that is being removed from the platforms that they use, corporate transparency reports should also provide information about the content that the intermediary removes pursuant to its own policies or terms of service, though there may not be a legal requirement to do so.

User Data Requests
While this white paper is squarely focused on liability for content posted online and best practices for deciding when and how content should be removed from online services, corporate transparency reports should also provide information about requests for user data from executive agencies, courts, and others.

Principle II: Consistency

Legal requirements for ISPs should be consistent, based on a global legal framework that establishes baseline limitations on legal immunity
Broad variation amongst the legal regimes of the countries in which online intermediaries operate increases compliance costs for companies and may discourage them from offering their services in some countries due to the high costs of localized compliance. Reducing the number of speech platforms that citizens have access to limits their ability to express themselves. Therefore, to ensure that citizens of a particular country have access to a robust range of speech platforms, each country should work to harmonize the requirements that it imposes upon online intermediaries with the requirements of other countries. While a certain degree of variation between what is permitted in one country as compared to another is inevitable, all countries should agree on certain limitations to intermediary liability, such as the following:

Conduits should be immune from claims about content that they neither created nor modified
As noted in the 2011 Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and the Internet, “[n]o one who simply provides technical Internet services such as providing access, or searching for, or transmission or caching of information, should be liable for content generated by others, which is disseminated using those services, as long as they do not specifically intervene in that content or refuse to obey a court order to remove that content, where they have the capacity to do so (‘mere conduit principle’).”^[6]

Court orders should be required for the removal of content that is related to speech, such as defamation removal requests
In the Center for Democracy and Technology’s Additional Responses Regarding Notice and Action, CDT outlines the case against allowing notice and action procedures to apply to defamation removal requests. They write:

“Uniform notice-and-action procedures should not apply horizontally to all types of illegal content. In particular, CDT believes notice-and-takedown is inappropriate for defamation and other areas of law requiring complex legal and factual questions that make private notices especially subject to abuse. Blocking or removing content on the basis of mere allegations of illegality raises serious concerns for free expression and access to information. Hosts are likely to err on the side of caution and comply with most if not all notices they receive, because evaluating notices is burdensome and declining to comply may jeopardize their protection from liability. The risk of legal content being taken down is especially high in cases where assessing the illegality of the content would require detailed factual analysis and careful legal judgments that balance competing fundamental rights and interests. Intermediaries will be extremely reluctant to exercise their own judgment when the legal issues are unclear, and it will be easy for any party submitting a notice to claim a good faith belief that the content in question is unlawful. In short, the murkier the legal analysis, the greater the potential for abuse.

To reduce this risk, removal of or disablement of access to content based on unadjudicated allegations of illegality (i.e., notices from private parties) should be limited to cases where the content at issue is manifestly illegal – and then only with necessary safeguards against abuse as described above.

CDT believes that online free expression is best served by narrowing what is considered manifestly illegal and subject to takedown upon private notice. With proper safeguards against abuse, for example, notice-and-action can be an appropriate policy for addressing online copyright infringement. Copyright is an area of law where there is reasonable international consensus regarding what is illegal and where much infringement is straightforward. There can be difficult questions at the margins – for example concerning the applicability of limitations and exceptions such as “fair use” – but much online infringement is not disputable.

Quite different considerations apply to the extension of notice-and-action procedures to allegations of defamation or other illegal content. Other areas of law, including defamation, routinely require far more difficult factual and legal determinations. There is greater potential for abuse of notice-and-action where illegality is less manifest and more disputable. If private notices are sufficient to have allegedly defamatory content removed, for example, any person unhappy about something that has been written about him or her would have the ability and incentive to make an allegation of defamation, creating a significant potential for unjustified notices that harm free expression. This and other areas where illegality is more disputable require different approaches to notice and action. In the case of defamation, CDT believes “notice” for purposes of removing or disabling access to content should come only from a competent court after full adjudication.

In cases where it would be inappropriate to remove or disable access to content based on untested allegations of illegality, service providers receiving allegations of illegal content may be able to take alternative actions in response to notices. Forwarding notices to the content provider or preserving data necessary to facilitate the initiation of legal proceedings, for example, can pose less risk to content providers’ free expression rights, provided there is sufficient process to allow the content provider to challenge the allegations and assert his or her rights, including the right to speak anonymously.”^[7]

Principle III: Clarity

All notices that request the removal of content should be clear and meet certain minimum requirements
The Center for Democracy and Technology outlined requirements for clear notices in a notice and action system in response a European Commission public comment period on a revised notice and action regime.^[8] They write:

“Notices should include the following features:

Specificity. Notices should be required to specify the exact location of the material – such as a specific URL – in order to be valid. This is perhaps the most important requirement, in that it allows hosts to take targeted action against identified illegal material without having to engage in burdensome search or monitoring. Notices that demand the removal of particular content wherever it appears on a site without specifying any location(s) are not sufficiently precise to enable targeted action.
Description of alleged illegal content. Notices should be required to include a detailed description of the specific content alleged to be illegal and to make specific reference to the law allegedly being violated. In the case of copyright, the notice should identify the specific work or works claimed to be infringed.
Contact details. Notices should be required to contain contact information for the sender. This facilitates assessment of notices’ validity, feedback to senders regarding invalid notices, sanctions for abusive notices, and communication or legal action between the sending party and the poster of the material in question.
Standing: Notices should be issued only by or on behalf of the party harmed by the content. For copyright, this would be the rightsholder or an agent acting on the rightsholderʼs behalf. For child sexual abuse images, a suitable issuer of notice would be a law enforcement agency or a child abuse hotline with expertise in assessing such content. For terrorism content, only government agencies would have standing to submit notice.
Certification: A sender of a notice should be required to attest under legal penalty to a good-faith belief that the content being complained of is in fact illegal; that the information contained in the notice is accurate; and, if applicable, that the sender either is the harmed party or is authorized to act on behalf of the harmed party. This kind of formal certification requirement signals to notice-senders that they should view misrepresentation or inaccuracies on notices as akin to making false or inaccurate statements to a court or administrative body.
Consideration of limitations, exceptions, and defenses: Senders should be required to certify that they have considered in good faith whether any limitations, exceptions, or defenses apply to the material in question. This is particularly relevant for copyright and other areas of law in which exceptions are specifically described in law.
An effective appeal and counter-notice mechanism. A notice-and-action regime should include counter-notice procedures so that content providers can contest mistaken and abusive notices and have their content reinstated if its removal was wrongful.
Penalties for unjustified notices. Senders of erroneous or abusive notices should face possible sanctions. In the US, senders may face penalties for knowingly misrepresenting that content is infringing, but the standard for “knowingly misrepresenting” is quite high and the provision has rarely been invoked. A better approach might be to use a negligence standard, whereby a sender could be held liable for damages or attorneys’ fees for making negligent misrepresentations (or for repeatedly making negligent misrepresentations). In addition, the notice-and-action system should allow content hosts to ignore notices from senders with an established record of sending erroneous or abusive notices or allow them to demand more information or assurances in notices from those who have in the past submitted erroneous notices. (For example, hosts might be deemed within the safe harbor if they require repeat abusers to specifically certify that they have actually examined the alleged infringing content before sending a notice).”^[9]

All ISPs should publish their content removal policies online and keep them current as they evolve
The UNESCO report states, by way of background, that “[c]ontent restriction practices based on Terms of Service are opaque. How companies remove content based on Terms of Service violations is more opaque than their handling of content removals based on requests from authorized authorities. When content is removed from a platform based on company policy, [our] research found that all companies provide a generic notice of this restriction to the user, but do not provide the reason for the restriction. Furthermore, most companies do not provide notice to the public that the content has been removed. In addition, companies are inconsistently open about removal of accounts and their reasons for doing so.”^[10]

There are legitimate reasons why an ISP may want to have policies that permit less content, and a narrower range of content, than is technically permitted under the law, such as maintaining a product that appeals to families. However, if a company is going to go beyond the minimal legal requirements in terms of content that it must restrict, the company should have clear policies that are published online and kept up-to-date to provide its users notice of what content is and is not permitted on the company’s platform. Notice to the user about the types of content that are permitted encourages her to speak freely and helps her to understand why content that she posted was taken down if it must be taken down for violating a company policy.

When content is removed, a clear notice should be provided in the product that explains in simple terms that content has been removed and why
This subsection works in conjunction with “ii,” above. If content is removed for any reason, either pursuant to a legal request or because of a violation of company policy, a user should be able to learn that content was removed if they try to access it. Requiring an on-screen message that explains that content has been removed and why is the post-takedown accompaniment to the pre-takedown published online policy of the online intermediary: both work together to show the user what types of content are and are not permitted on each online platform. Explaining to users why content has been removed in sufficient detail may also spark their curiosity as to the laws or policies that caused the content to be removed, resulting in increased civic engagement in the internet law and policy space, and a community of citizens that demands that the companies and governments it interacts with are more responsive to how it thinks content regulation should work in the online context.

The UNESCO report provides the following example of how Google provides notice to its users when a search result is removed, which includes a link to a page hosted by Chilling Effects:^[11]

“When search results are removed in response to government or copyright holder demands, a notice describing the number of results removed and the reasons for their removal is displayed to users (see screenshot below) and a copy of the request to the independent non-proft organization ChillingEffects.org, which archives and publishes the request. When possible the company also contacts the website’s owners.”^[12]

This is an example of the message that is displayed when Google removes a search result pursuant to a copyright complaint.^[13]

Requirements that governments impose on intermediaries should be as clear and unambiguous as possible
Imposing liability on internet intermediaries without providing clear guidance as to the precise type of content that is not lawful and the precise requirements of a legally sufficient notice encourages intermediaries to over-remove content. As Article 19 noted in its 2013 report on intermediary liability:

“International bodies have also criticized ‘notice and takedown’ procedures as they lack a clear legal basis. For example, the 2011 OSCE report on Freedom of Expression on the internet highlighted that: Liability provisions for service providers are not always clear and complex notice and takedown provisions exist for content removal from the Internet within a number of participating States. Approximately 30 participating States have laws based on the EU E-Commerce Directive. However, the EU Directive provisions rather than aligning state level policies, created differences in interpretation during the national implementation process. These differences emerged once the national courts applied the provisions.

These procedures have also been criticized for being unfair. Rather than obtaining a court order requiring the host to remove unlawful material (which, in principle at least, would involve an independent judicial determination that the material is indeed unlawful), hosts are required to act merely on the say-so of a private party or public body. This is problematic because hosts tend to err on the side of caution and therefore take down material that may be perfectly legitimate and lawful. For example, in his report, the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression noted:

[W]hile a notice-and-takedown system is one way to prevent intermediaries from actively engaging in or encouraging unlawful behavior on their services, it is subject to abuse by both State and private actors. Users who are notiﬁed by the service provider that their content has been ﬂagged as unlawful often has little recourse or few resources to challenge the takedown. Moreover, given that intermediaries may still be held ﬁnancially or in some cases criminally liable if they do not remove content upon receipt of notiﬁcation by users regarding unlawful content, they are inclined to err on the side of safety by overcensoring potentially illegal content. Lack of transparency in the intermediaries’ decision-making process also often obscures discriminatory practices or political pressure affecting the companies’ decisions. Furthermore, intermediaries, as private entities, are not best placed to make the determination of whether a particular content is illegal, which requires careful balancing of competing interests and consideration of defenses.”^[14]

Considering the above, if liability is to be imposed on intermediaries for certain types of unlawful content, the legal requirements that outline what is unlawful content and how to report it must be clear. Lack of clarity in this area will result in over-removal of content by rational intermediaries that want to minimize their legal exposure and compliance costs. Over-removal of content is at odds with the goals of freedom of expression.

The UNESCO Report made a similar recommendation, stating that; “Governments need to ensure that legal frameworks and company policies are in place to address issues arising out of intermediary liability. These legal frameworks and policies should be contextually adapted and be consistent with a human rights framework and a commitment to due process and fair dealing. Legal and regulatory frameworks should also be precise and grounded in a clear understanding of the technology they are meant to address, removing legal uncertainty that would provide opportunity for abuse.”^[15]

Similarly, the 2011 Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and the Internet states:

“Consideration should be given to insulating fully other intermediaries, including those mentioned in the preamble, from liability for content generated by others under the same conditions as in paragraph 2(a). At a minimum, intermediaries should not be required to monitor user-generated content and should not be subject to extrajudicial content takedown rules which fail to provide sufficient protection for freedom of expression (which is the case with many of the ‘notice and takedown’ rules currently being applied).”^[16]

Principle IV: Mindful Community Policy Making

“Laws and regulations as well as corporate policies are more likely to be compatible with freedom of expression if they are developed in consultation with all affected stakeholders – particularly those whose free expression rights are known to be at risk.”^[17] To be effective, policies should be created through a multi-stakeholder consultation process that gives voice to the communities most at risk of being targeted for the information they share online. Further, both companies and governments should embed an ‘outreach to at-risk communities’ step into both legislative and policymaking processes to be especially sure that their voices are heard. Finally, civil society should work to ensure that all relevant stakeholders have a voice in both the creation and revision of policies that affect online intermediaries. In the context of corporate policymaking, civil society can use strategies from activist investing to encourage investors to make the human rights and freedom of expression policies of Internet companies’ part of the calculus that investors use to decide where to place their money. Considering the above;

Human rights impact assessments, considering the impact of the proposed law or policy on various communities from the perspectives of gender, sexuality, sexual preference, ethnicity, religion, and freedom of expression, should be required before:
New laws are written that govern content issues affecting ISPs or conduct that occurs primarily online
“Protection of online freedom of expression will be strengthened if governments carry out human rights impact assessments to determine how proposed laws or regulations will affect Internet users’ freedom of expression domestically and globally.”^[18]

Intermediaries enact new policies
“Protection of online freedom of expression will be strengthened if companies carry out human rights impact assessments to determine how their policies, practices, and business operations affect Internet users’ freedom of expression. This assessment process should be anchored in robust engagement with stakeholders whose freedom of expression rights are at greatest risk online, as well as stakeholders who harbor concerns about other human rights affected by online speech.”^[19]

Multi-stakeholder consultation processes should precede any new legislation that will apply to content issues affecting online intermediaries or online conduct
“Laws and regulations as well as corporate policies are more likely to be compatible with freedom of expression if they are developed in consultation with all affected stakeholders – particularly those whose free expression rights are known to be at risk.”^[20]

Civil society and public interest groups should encourage responsible investment in companies who implement policies that reflect best practices for internet intermediaries
“Over the past thirty years, responsible investors have played a powerful role in incentivizing companies to improve environmental sustainability, supply chain labor practices, and respect for human rights of communities where companies physically operate. Responsible investors can also play a powerful role in incentivizing companies to improve their policies and practices affecting freedom of expression and privacy by developing metrics and criteria for evaluating companies on these issues in the same way that they evaluate companies on other “environmental, social, and governance” criteria.”^[21]

Principle V: Necessity and Proportionality in Content Restriction

Content should only be restricted when there is a legal basis for doing so, or the removal is performed in accordance with a clear, published policy of the ISP
As CDT outlined in its 2012 intermediary liability report, “[a]ctions required of intermediaries must be narrowly tailored and proportionate, to protect the fundamental rights of Internet users. Any actions that a safe-harbor regime requires intermediaries to take must be evaluated in terms of the principle of proportionality and their impact on Internet users’ fundamental rights, including rights to freedom of expression, access to information, and protection of personal data. Laws that encourage intermediaries to take down or block certain content have the potential to impair online expression or access to information. Such laws must therefore ensure that the actions they call for are proportional to a legitimate aim, no more restrictive than is required for achievement of the aim, and effective for achieving the aim. In particular, intermediary action requirements should be narrowly drawn, targeting specific unlawful content rather than entire websites or other Internet resources that may support both lawful and unlawful uses.”^[22]

When content must be restricted, it should be restricted in the most minimal way possible (i.e., prefer domain removals to IP-blocking)
There are a number of different ways that access to content can be restricted. Examples include hard deletion of the content from all of a company’s servers, blocking the download of an app or other software program in a particular country, blocking the content on all IP addresses affiliated with a particular country (“IP-Blocking”), removing the content from a particular domain of a product (i.e., removing from a link from the .fr version of a search engine that remains accessible on the .com version), blocking content from a ‘version’ of an online product that is accessible through a ‘country’ or ‘language’ setting on that product, or some combination of the last three options (i.e., an online product that directs the user to a version of the product based on the country that their IP address is coming from, but where the user can alter a URL or manipulate a drop-down menu to show her a different ‘country version’ of the product, providing access to content that may otherwise be inaccessible).

While almost all of the different types of content restrictions described above can be circumvented by technical means such as the use of proxies, IP-cloaking, or Tor, the average internet user does not know that these techniques exist, much less how to use them. Of the different types of content restrictions described above, a domain removal, for example, is easier for an individual user to circumvent than IP-Blocked content because you only have to change the URL of the product you are using to, i.e. “.com” to see content that has been locally restricted. To get around an IP-block, you would have to be sufficiently savvy to employ a proxy or cloak your true IP address.

Therefore, the technical means used to restrict access to controversial content has a direct impact on the magnitude of the actual restriction on speech. The more restrictive the technical removal method, the fewer people that will have access to that content. To preserve access to lawful content, online intermediaries should choose the least restrictive means of complying with removal requests, especially when the removal request is based on the law of a particular country that makes certain content unlawful that is not unlawful in other countries. Further, when building new products and services, intermediaries should built in removal capability that minimally restricts access to controversial content.

If content is restricted due to its illegality in a particular country, the geographical scope of the content restriction should be as minimal as possible
Building on the discussion in “ii,” supra, a user should be able to access content that is lawful in her country even if it is not lawful in another country. Different countries have different laws and it is often difficult for intermediaries to determine how to effectively respond to requests and reconcile the inherent conflicts that result. For example, content that denies the holocaust is illegal in certain countries, but not in others. If an intermediary receives a request to remove content based on the laws of a particular country and determines that it will comply because the content is not lawful in that country, it should not restrict access to the content such that it cannot be accessed by users in other countries where the content is lawful. To respond to a request based on the law of a particular country by blocking access to that content for users around the world, or even users of more than one country, essentially allows for extraterritorial application of the laws of the country that the request came from. While it is preferable to standardize and limit the legal requirements imposed on online intermediaries throughout the world, to the extent that this is not possible, the next-best option is to limit the application of laws that are interpreted to declare certain content unlawful to the users that live in that country. Therefore, intermediaries should choose the technical means of content restriction that is most narrowly tailored to limit the geographical scope and impact of the removal.

The ability of conduits (telecommunications/internet service providers) to filter content should be minimized to the extent technically and legally possible

The 2011 Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and the Internet made the following points about the dangers of allowing filtering technology:

“Mandatory blocking of entire websites, IP addresses, ports, network protocols or types of uses (such as social networking) is an extreme measure – analogous to banning a newspaper or broadcaster – which can only be justified in accordance with international standards, for example where necessary to protect children against sexual abuse.

Content filtering systems which are imposed by a government or commercial service provider and which are not end-user controlled are a form of prior censorship and are not justifiable as a restriction on freedom of expression.

Products designed to facilitate end-user filtering should be required to be accompanied by clear information to end-users about how they work and their potential pitfalls in terms of over-inclusive filtering.”^[23]

In short, filtering at the conduit level is a blunt instrument that should be avoided whenever possible. Similar to how conduits should not be legally responsible for content that they neither host nor modify (the ‘mere conduit’ rule discussed supra), conduits should technically restrict their ability to filter content such that it would be inefficient for government agencies to contact them to have content filtered. Mere conduits are not able to assess the context surrounding the controversial content that they are asked to remove and are therefore not the appropriate party to receive takedown requests. Further, when mere conduits have the technical ability to filter content, they open themselves to pressure from government to exercise that capability. Therefore, mere conduits should limit or not build in the capability to filter content.

Notice and notice, or notice and judicial takedown, should be preferred to notice and takedown, which should be preferred to unilateral removal
Mechanisms for content removal that involve intermediaries acting without any oversight or accountability, or those which only respond to the interests of the party requesting removal, are unlikely to do a very good job at balancing public and private interests. A much better balance is likely to be struck through a mechanism where power is distributed between the parties, and/or where an independent and accountable oversight mechanism exists.

Considered in this way, there is a continuum of content removal mechanisms that ranges from those are the least balanced and accountable, and those that are more so. The least accountable is the unilateral removal of content by the intermediary without legal compulsion in response to a request received, without affording the uploader of the content the right to be heard or access to remedy.

Notice and takedown mechanisms fit next along the continuum, provided that they incorporate, as the DMCA attempts to do, an effective appeal and counter-notice mechanism. However where notice and takedown falls down is that the cost and incentive structure is weighted towards removal of content in the case of doubt or dispute, resulting in more content being taken down and staying down than would be socially optimal.

A better balance is likely to be struck by a “notice and notice” regime, which provides strong social incentives for those whose content is reported to be unlawful to remove the content, but does not legally compel them to do so. If legal compulsion is required, a court order must be separately obtained.

Canada is an example of a jurisdiction with a notice and notice regime, though limited to copyright content disputes. Although this regime is now established in legislation, it formalizes a previous voluntary regime, whereby major ISPs would forward copyright infringement notifications received from rightsholders to subscribers, but without removing any content and without releasing subscriber data to the rightsholders absent a court order. Under the new legislation additional record-keeping requirements are imposed on ISPs, but otherwise the essential features of the regime remain unchanged.

Analysis of data collected during this voluntary regime indicates that it has been effective in changing the behavior of allegedly infringing subscribers. A 2010 study by the Entertainment Software Association of Canada (ESAC) found that 71% of notice recipients did not infringe again, whereas a similar 2011 study by Canadian ISP Rogers found 68% only received one notice, and 89% received no more than two notices, with only 1 subscriber in 800,000 receiving numerous notices.^[24] However, in cases where a subscriber has a strong good faith belief that the notice they received was wrong, there is no risk to them in disregarding the erroneous notice – a feature that does not apply to notice and takedown.

Another similar way in which public and private interests can be balanced is through a notice and judicial takedown regime, whereby the rightsholder who issues a notice about offending content must have it assessed by an independent judicial (or perhaps administrative) authority before the intermediary will respond by taking the content down.

An example of this is found in Chile, again limited to the case of copyright.^[25] In response to its Free Trade Agreement with the United States, the system introduced in 2010 is broadly similar to the DMCA, with the critical difference that intermediaries are not required to take material down in order to benefit from a liability safe harbor, until such time as a court order for removal of the material is made. Responsibility for evaluating the copyright claims made is therefore shifted from intermediaries onto the courts.

Although this requirement does impose a burden on the rightsholder, this serves a purpose by disincentivizing the issue of automated or otherwise unjustified notices that are more likely to restrict or chill freedom of expression. In cases where there is no serious dispute about the legality of the content, it is unlikely that the lawsuit would be defended. In any case, the legislation authorizes the court to issue a preliminary injunction on an ex parte basis, on condition of payment of a bond.

Intermediaries should be allowed to charge for the time and expense associated with processing legal requests
As an intermediary, it is time consuming and relatively expensive to understand the obligations that each country’s legal regime imposes on you, and to accurately how each legal request should be handled. Especially for intermediaries without many resources, such as forum operators or owners of home Wifi networks, the costs associated with being an intermediary can be prohibitive. Therefore, it should be within their rights to charge for their compliance costs if they are either below a certain user threshold or can show financial necessity in some way.

Legal requirements imposed on intermediaries should be a floor, not a ceiling- ISPs can adopt more restrictive policies to more effectively serve their users as long as they have published policies that explain what they are doing
The Internet has space for a wide range of platforms and applications directed to different communities, with different needs and desires. A social networking site directed at children, for example, may reasonably want to have policies that are much more restrictive than a political discussion board. Therefore, legal requirements that compel intermediaries to take down content should be seen as a ‘floor,’ but not a ‘ceiling’ on the range and quantity that of content those intermediaries may remove. Intermediaries should retain control over their own policies as long as they are transparent about what those policies are, what type of content the intermediary removes, and why they removed certain pieces of content.

Principle VI: Privacy

It is important to protect the ability of Internet users to speak by narrowing and making less ambiguous the range of content that intermediaries can be held liable for, but it is also very important to make users feel comfortable sharing their view by ensuring that their privacy is protected. Protecting the user’s ability to share her views, especially when those views are controversial or have a direct bearing on important political issues, requires that the user can trust the intermediaries that she uses. This concept can be further broken down into three sub-principles:

The user’s personal information should be protected to the greatest extent possible given the state of the art in encryption, security, and policy
Users will be less willing to speak on important topics if they have legitimate concerns that their data may be taken from them. As stated in the UNESCO Report, “[b]ecause of the amount of personal information held by companies and ability to access the same, a company’s practices around collection, access, disclosure, and retention are key. To a large extent a service provider’s privacy practices are influenced by applicable law and operating licenses required by the host government. These can include requirements for service providers to verify subscribers, collect and retain subscriber location data, and cooperate with law enforcement when requested. Outcome: The implications of companies trying to balance a user’s expectation for privacy with a government’s expectation for cooperation can be serious and are inadequately managed in all jurisdictions studied.”^[26]

Where possible, ISPs should help to preserve the user’s right to speak anonymously
An important aspect of an Internet user’s ability to exercise her right to free expression online is ability to speak anonymously. Anonymous speech is one of the great advances of the Internet as a communications medium and should be preserved to the extent possible. As noted by special rapporteur Frank LaRue, “[i]n order for individuals to exercise their right to privacy in communications, they must be able to ensure that these remain private, secure and, if they choose, anonymous. Privacy of communications infers that individuals are able to exchange information and ideas in a space that is beyond the reach of other members of society, the private sector, and ultimately the State itself. Security of communications means that individuals should be able to verify that only their intended recipients, without interference or alteration, receive their communications and that the communications they receive are equally free from intrusion. Anonymity of communications is one of the most important advances enabled by the Internet, and allows individuals to express themselves freely without fear of retribution or condemnation.”^[27]

The user’s PII should never be sold or used without her consent, and she should always know what is being done with it via an easily comprehensible dashboard
The user’s trust in the online platform that she uses and relies upon is influenced not only by the relationships the intermediary maintains with the government, but also with other commercial entities. A user, who feels that her data will be constantly shared with third parties, perhaps without her consent and/or for marketing purposes, will never feel like she is able to freely express her opinion. Therefore, it is the intermediary’s responsibility to ensure that its users know exactly what information it retains about them, who it shares that information with and under what circumstances, and how to change the way that her data is shared. All of this information should be available on a dashboard that is comprehensible to the average user, and which gives her the ability to easily modify or withdraw her consent to the way her data is being shared, or the amount of data, or specific data, that the intermediary is retaining about her.

Principle VII: Access to Remedy

As noted in the UNESCO Report, “Remedy is the third central pillar of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, placing an obligation both on governments and on companies to provide individuals access to effective remedy. This area is where both governments and companies are almost consistently lacking. Across intermediary types, across jurisdictions and across the types of restriction, individuals whose content is restricted and individuals who wish to access such content are offered little or no effective recourse to appeal restriction decisions, whether in response to government orders, third party requests or in accordance with company policy. There are no private grievance or due process mechanisms that are clearly communicated and readily available to all users, or consistently applied.”^[28]

Any notice and takedown system is subject to abuse, and any company policy that results in the removal of content is subject to mistaken or inaccurate takedowns, both of which are substantial problems that can only be remedied by the ability for users to let the intermediary know when the intermediary improperly removed a specific piece of content and the technical and procedural ability of the intermediary to put the content back. However, the technical ability to reinstate content that was improperly removed may conflict with data retention laws. This conflict should be explored in more detail. In general, however, every time content is removed, there should be:

A clear mechanism through which users can request reinstatement of content
When an intermediary decides to remove content, it should be immediately clear to the user that content has been removed and why it was removed (see discussion of in-product notice, supra). If the user disagrees with the content removal decision, there should be an obvious, online method for her to request reinstatement of the content.

Reinstatement of content should be technically possible
When intermediaries (who are subject to intermediary liability) are building new products, they should build the capability to remove content into the product with a high degree of specificity so as to allow for narrowly tailored content removals when a removal is legally required. Relatedly, all online intermediaries should build the capability to reinstate content into their products while maintaining compliance with data retention laws.

Intermediaries should have policies and procedures in place to handle reinstatement requests
Between the front end (online mechanism to request reinstatement of content) and the backend (technical ability to reinstate content) is the necessary middle layer, which consists of the intermediary’s internal policies and processes that allow for valid reinstatement requests to be assessed and acted upon. In line with the corporate ‘responsibility to respect’ human rights, and considered along with the human rights principle of ‘access to remedy,’ intermediaries should have a system in place from the time that an online product launches to ensure that reinstatement requests can be made and will be processed quickly and appropriately.

Principle VIII: Accountability

Governments must ensure that independent, transparent, and impartial accountability mechanisms exist to verify the practices of government and companies with regards to managing content created online
“While it is important that companies make commitments to core principles on freedom of expression and privacy, make efforts to implement those principles through transparency, policy advocacy, and human rights impact assessments, it is also important that companies take these steps in a manner that is accountable to stakeholders. One way of doing this is by committing to external third party assurance to verify that their policies and practices are being implemented to a meaningful standard, with acceptable consistency wherever their service is offered. Such assurance gains further public credibility when carried out with the supervision and affirmation of multiple stakeholders including civil society groups, academics, and responsible investors. The Global Network Initiative provides one such mechanism for public accountability. Companies not currently participating in GNI, or a process of similar rigor and multi-stakeholder involvement, should be urged by users, investors, and regulators to do so.”^[29]

Civil society should encourage comparative studies between countries and between ISPs with regards to their content removal practices to identify best practices
Civil society has the unique ability to look longitudinally across this issue to determine and compare how different intermediaries and governments are responding to content removal requests. Without information about how other governments and intermediaries are handling these issues, it will be difficult for each government or intermediary to learn how to improve its laws or policies. Therefore, civil society has an important role to play in the process of creating increasingly better human rights outcomes for online platforms by performing and sharing ongoing, comparative research.

Civil society should establish best practices and benchmarks against which ISPs and government can be measured, and should track governments and ISPs over time in public reports
“A number of projects that seek, define and implement indicators and benchmarks for governments or companies are either in development (examples include: UNESCO’s Indicators of Internet Development project examining country performance, Ranking Digital Rights focusing on companies) or already in operation (examples include the Web Foundation’s Web Index, Freedom House’s Internet Freedom Index, etc.). The emergence of credible, widely-used benchmarks and indicators that enable measurement of country and company performance on freedom of expression will help to inform policy, practice, stakeholder engagement processes, and advocacy.”^[30]

Principle IX: Due Process - In Both Legal and Private Enforcement

ISPs should always consider context before removing content and Governments and courts should always consider context before ordering that certain content be removed
“Governments need to ensure that legal frameworks and company policies are in place to address issues arising out of intermediary liability. These legal frameworks and policies should be contextually adapted and be consistent with a human rights framework and a commitment to due process and fair dealing. Legal and regulatory frameworks should also be precise and grounded in a clear understanding of the technology they are meant to address, removing legal uncertainty that would provide opportunity for abuse.”^[31]

Principles for Courts

An independent and impartial judiciary exists, at least in part, to preserve the citizen’s due process rights. Many have called for an increased reliance on courts to make determinations about the legality of content posted online in order to both shift the censorship function from unaccountable private actors and to ensure that courts only order the removal of content that is actually unlawful. However, when courts do not have an adequate technical understanding of how content is created and shared on the internet, the rights of the intermediaries that facilitate the posting of the content, and who should be ordered to remove unlawful content, they do not add value to the online ecosystem. Therefore, courts should keep certain principles in mind to preserve the due process rights of the users that post content and the intermediaries that host the content.

Preserve due process for intermediaries- do not order them to do something before giving them notice and the opportunity to appear before the court

In a dispute between two private parties over a specific piece of content posted online, it may appear to the court that the easy solution is to order the intermediary who hosts the content to remove it. However, this approach does not extend any due process protections to the intermediary and does not adequately reflect the intermediary's status as something other than the creator of the content. If a court feels that it is necessary for an intermediary to intervene in a legal proceeding between two private parties, the court should provide the intermediary with proper notice and give them the opportunity to appear before the court before issuing any orders.

Necessity and proportionality of judicial determinations- judicial orders determining the illegality of specific content should be narrowly tailored to avoid over-removal of content

With regards to government removal requests, the UNESCO Report notes that “[o]ver-broad law and heavy liability regimes cause intermediaries to over-comply with government requests in ways that compromise users’ right to freedom of expression, or broadly restrict content in anticipation of government demands even if demands are never received and if the content could potentially be found legitimate even in a domestic court of law.”^[32] Courts should follow the same principle: only order the removal of the bare minimum of content that is necessary to remedy the harm identified and nothing more.

Courts should clarify whether ISPs have to remove content in response to court orders directed to third parties, or only have to remove content when directly ordered to do so (first party court orders) after an adversarial proceeding to which the ISP was a party

See discussion of the difference between first party and third party court orders (supra, section a., “Transparency”). Ideally, any decision that courts reach on this issue would be consistent across different countries.

Questions- related unresolved issues that should be kicked to the larger group

How should the conflict between access to remedy and data retention laws that say content must be hard deleted after a certain period of time be resolved? I think the access to remedy has to be subordinated to the data protection laws. Let's make that our draft position, but continue to flag it for discussion.

Should ISPs have to remove content in response to court orders directed to third parties, or only have to remove content when directly ordered to do so (first party court orders) after an adversarial proceeding to which the ISP was a party? I think first party orders. Let's make that our draft position, but continue to flag it for discussion.

[1] Center for Democracy and Technology, Shielding the Messengers: Protecting Platforms for Expression and Innovation at 4-15 (Version 2, 2012), available at https://www.cdt.org/files/pdfs/CDT-Intermediary-Liability-2012.pdf (see pp.4-15 for an explanation of these different models and the pros and cons of each).

[2] UNESCO, “Fostering Freedom Online: The Roles, Challenges, and Obstacles of Internet Intermediaries” at 6-7 (Draft Version, June 16th, 2014) (Hereinafter “UNESCO Report”).

[3] UNESCO Report at 56.

[4] UNESCO Report at 37.

[5] Center for Democracy and Technology, Additional Responses Regarding Notice and Action, Available at https://www.cdt.org/files/file/CDT%20N&A%20supplement.pdf.

[6] The United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Representative on Freedom of the Media, the Organization of American States (OAS) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information, Article 19, Global Campaign for Free Expression, and the Centre for Law and Democracy, JOINT DECLARATION ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND THE INTERNET at 2 (2011), available at http://www.osce.org/fom/78309 (Hereinafter “Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression).

[7] Center for Democracy and Technology, Additional Responses Regarding Notice and Action, Available at https://www.cdt.org/files/file/CDT%20N&A%20supplement.pdf.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] UNESCO Report at 113-14.

[11] ‘Chilling Effects’ is a website that allows recipients of ‘cease and desist’ notices to submit the notice to the site and receive information about their legal rights. For more information about ‘Chilling Effects’ see: http://www.chillingeffects.org.

[12] Id. at 73. You can see an example of a complaint published on Chilling Effects at the following location. “DtecNet DMCA (Copyright) Complaint to Google,” Chilling Effects Clearinghouse, March 12, 2013, www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=841442.

[13] UNESCO Report at 73.

[14] Article 19, Internet Intermediaries: Dilemma of Liability (2013), available at http://www.article19.org/data/files/Intermediaries_ENGLISH.pdf.

[15] UNESCO Report at 120.

[16] Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and the Internet at 2.

[17] Id.

[18] Id.

[19] Id. at 121.

[20] Id. at 104.

[21] Id. at 122.

[22] Center for Democracy and Technology, Shielding the Messengers: Protecting Platforms for Expression and Innovation at 12 (Version 2, 2012), available at https://www.cdt.org/files/pdfs/CDT-Intermediary-Liability-2012.pdf.

[23] Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression at 2-3.

[24] Geist, Michael, Rogers Provides New Evidence on Effectiveness of Notice-and-Notice System (2011), available at http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2011/03/effectiveness-of-notice-and-notice/

[25] Center for Democracy and Technology, Chile’s Notice-and-Takedown System for Copyright Protection: An Alternative Approach (2012), available at https://www.cdt.org/files/pdfs/Chile-notice-takedown.pdf

[26] UNESCO Report at 54.

[27] “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue (A/HRC/23/40),” United Nations Human Rights, 17 April 2013, http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf, § 24, p. 7.

[28] UNESCO Report at 118.

[29] UNESCO Report at 122.

[30] Id.

[31] UNESCO Report at 120.

[32] Id. at 119.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/zero-draft-of-content-removal-best-practices-white-paper

Youths come forward to augment Assamese Wikisource project

NE NOW NEWS — 2019-05-21T16:03:43Z

Assamese Wikisource is a sister-project of Assamese Wikipedia, where Assamese books with expired copyrights are available.

The blog post was published in NE NOW NEWS on May 17, 2019.

In order to take the Assamese Wikisource project forward, few young men and women of the state involving in different fields, recently gathered in Guwahati to attend a workshop.

Assamese Wikisource is a sister-project of Assamese Wikipedia, where Assamese books with expired copyrights are available. The project owned by Wikimedia Foundation was launched in 2013.

A total of 14 volunteers from across the state participated in the workshop hosted by Centre for Internet and Society-Access to knowledge (CIS-A2K) in a city hotel.

Two experts–Jayanta Nath from Kolkata and Tito Dutta from Bangalore–were present as trainers for the workshop, say organisers.

The two-day event was coordinated by Gitartha Bordoloi, a physician based in Silchar and the administrator of Assamese Wikipedia and Wikisource.

“Wikisource sources hosts books, plays, lyrics, letters etc which are available in open source,” says an organiser.

PDF or similar files are added to Wikisource which are then converted to unicode form so that every information becomes searchable on the internet.

In addition to books that are hitherto copyright free, new books can also be donated by authors and can be added to the field.

Everyone can access and contribute to this collaborative project. Presently, Assamese Wikisource stands at ninth position out of eleven Indic languages. This can be due to less Wikisource projects and also lack of contributors.

In addition to the basic navigation on Wikisource, the participants learnt searching and uploading public domain works, using OCR to get the texts, correcting errors and creating final product for the readers, he says.

As a part of the workshop, the participants fully digitised three old Assamese books within a few hours. They also discussed the future aims, perspectives and goals of Assamese Wikipedia and Wikisource.

As a result of their persistent efforts, works of Srimanta Sankardev and Madhabdev, Lakshminath Bezbaroa, Jyotiprasad Agarwala, Rajanikanta Bordoloi, Hiteshwar Barbarua and some others are now available on Assamese Wikisource.

With the target of digitizing the books by an author in every one or two months, the volunteers have mulled to digitize the works of Padmanath Gohain Baruah, a luminary of Assamese literature.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/news/northeast-now-may-17-2019-youths-come-forward-to-augment-assamese-wikisource-project

Your cyber space is a hackers paradise

praskrishna — 2011-08-23T00:58:21Z

It Looks like hackers are having a ball targeting all kinds of websites — gaming, news, government, personal email and even those run by terror networks, writes Shayan Ghosh. The article was published in Mail Today on June 6, 2011.

After Sony PlayStation Network and Gmail breaches this week, the latest is an attack on Sony Pictures.

The hackers who broke into the Sony Pictures website have collected private information such as passwords and email identities.

"A group of criminal hackers known as LulzSec claimed to have breached some of our websites," CEO of Sony Pictures Entertainment Michael Lynton said.

LulzSec, involved in the hacking of several leading US media firms last month, however, has another story to tell. The group blamed Sony Pictures for carelessness.

"Every bit of data we took wasnt encrypted. Sony stored over 10 lakh passwords of its customers in plaintext, which means it is just a matter of taking it." "We broke into SonyPictures. com and compromised over 10 lakh users personal information, including passwords, email addresses, home addresses, dates of birth, and all Sony data associated with their accounts.

Among other things, we also compromised all administration details of Sony Pictures ( including passwords) along with 75,000 music codes and 3.5 million coupons", the group said in a post on Pastebin. com . Google mail, too, was breached this week and the hackers gained access to email accounts of hundreds of people, including senior US government officials and journalists. Google confirmed that Gmail accounts were hacked." We recently uncovered a campaign to collect user passwords, likely through phishing,” the search, cloud and net tech giant said on its blog.

Asked about reports that Gmail accounts of some Indian diplomats based in China had been hacked, Google declined to comment, saying it had no data of any specific people whose accounts have been hacked.

But the company pointed fingers at China.

"This campaign, which appears to originate from Jinan in China, affected what seem to be the personal Gmail accounts of hundreds of users, including senior US government officials, Chinese political activists, officials in several Asian countries ( predominantly South Korea), military personnel and journalists, among others," a posting on the companys official blog said.

Indian experts, too, blame Chinese hackers. "China poses a serious threat to our national security as these hacking issues dont just seem to stop," Ahmedabadbased cybercrime consultant Sunny Vaghela said.

The hackers probably targeted Gmail because of the number of users they have, Vaghela added.

All regimes have now started implementing surveillance mechanisms on the Internet. This is a disturbing trend all over the world.

China has supremacy on it mainly because they are an early adopter of Internet surveillance and content filtering mechanisms,” a software consultant based in Bangalore, Anivar Aravind, said.

"Its become more about proving a point. Hackers want to tell people that I can hack into your system and show its vulnerability," Center for Internet and Society director of research in Bangalore Nishant Shah said.

But LulzSec has its own logic: "Our goal here is not to come across as master hackers… Why do you put such faith in a company that allows itself to become open to these simple attacks?"

Online Safety Measures

Secure your Email:

Change passwords often
Use the Gmail feature to check your “ last account activity”. It shows the IP address ( denoting a specific computer) used to access your email
Do not open unknown email attachments
Do not store sensitive and personal data in email accounts

Things to Avoid

Do not visit unknown sites; Use different passwords for different accounts
Do not divulge credit card numbers over emails or on social networks
Keep track of your credit/ debit card account
For online transactions use encrypted websites. Look for SSL certificate or padlock icon

Read the original published by Mail Today here

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/cyber-space-hackers-paradise

Yogyakarta Meeting on Open Culture and Critical Making

praskrishna — 2014-07-03T08:57:07Z

Sharath Chandra Ram will be part of the ASIA LABS theme panel and will also be doing community FOSS/FOSH workshops at the Maker events at the event organized by HONF Foundation, Catec, and r0g from June 12 to 15, 2014.

Venues : Langgeng Art Foundation (LAF) , Ndalem Mangkubumen, Widya Mataram University

side event:
03.00pm – 05.30pm (FABLAB_OD24h):
Opening Workshop at HONFablab (Fablab Yogyakarta)
DrawDio Workshop by Helmi Hardian (WAFT, SBY)

OPENING | 12 June 2014
07.00 PM at Langgeng Art Foundation (LAF) Yogyakarta

07.00pm – 07.15pm :
Opening Performance, by Dream Orchestra

07.15pm – 07.45pm: Welcome Speech and Outline:
- Ilham Habibie (The Habibie Center, CATEC)
- Stephen Kovats (r0g_)
- Venzha Christ (HONF Foundation) and presents:
- Bapak Muchsan. (Rector of Widya Mataram Univ.)
- Bapak. J. Eka Prijatma (Rector of Sanata Dharma Univ.)
- Gregorius Subanar (Sanata Dharma University)

08.00pm – 08.30pm:
Screening Movie “DO TIMI MAKE SINDI”
Speech: Gentur Suria (Movie Director)

Opening Exhibition “DO! MAKE!”
Speech: Irene Agrivina (Exhibition Curator)

08.30pm – 10.00pm:
Collaborative Visual and Sound Performance by:
- Felix Deufel and Friends (DE)
- DJ Wok The Rock (YK)
- DJ Haman & DJ Ones (YK)

Welcoming Dinner

10.00pm – 12.00pm:
Critical Cocktail Session 1.0
Introduction-get together

———————–
Side Event:
(FABLAB_OD24h):
12 June 2014 | 11.00pm – 12.00pm
Midnight Workshop at HONFablab (Fablab Yogyakarta)
Intelligent Furniture Workshop by DORXLab
———————–

CONFERENCE DAY#01 | 13 June 2014
at Ndalem Mangkubumen, Widya Mataram University

Side Event:
(FABLAB_OD24h):
13 June 2014 | 09.00am – 11.00am
Morning Workshop at HONFablab (Fablab Yogyakarta)
Edible Book Workshop by Saad Chinoy
———————–

09.00am – 09.15am:
15 mins Body and Mind Excercise
short meditation by Craig Warren Smith

09.30am – 10.00am:
[proto:type] A
Opening Speech
Introduction to [proto:type] Y2014 Yogyakarta Meeting of Open Culture and Critical Making
Technology and Society
by Ilham Habibie (The Habibie Center, CATEC)

10.00am – 11.30:
[proto:type] B Session I
“Open System and Critical ICT4D”
Moderator: Gregorius Subanar
Panelist:
- Craig Warren Smith
- Etiene Turpin
- Eku Wand
- Sanata Dharma ICT4D
- Yantisa Akhadi

11.45am – 12.30pm:
Break | Friday Prayer

12.30pm – 01.15pm:
Open Cultures/P2P Intro & Lunch

side event:
10.00am – 01.30pm:
Open Workshop at Makers Booth, Limasan Ndalem Mangkubumen, Widya Mataram University
Sticthing on Plywood session I by Maken Living Indonesia

01.30pm – 03.00pm:
[proto:type] B Session II
“Open Design and Critical Making”
Moderator: Bertha Bintari
Panelist:
- Deanna Herst
- Steve McCoy
- Jean Nöel Montagne
- Stefania Druga
- Yoyok Wahyudi Subroto
- Enda Nasution
- Matt Rato (live stream)

side event:
02.00pm – 04.00pm:
Open Workshop at Makers Booth, Limasan Ndalem Mangkubumen, Widya Mataram University
Fun with Arduino Workshop by Yudianto Asmoro 03.00pm – 05.30pm:
(FABLAB_OD24h):
Afternoon Workshop at HONFablab (Fablab Yogyakarta)
Noise2Noise Workshop by Felix Deufel

03.00pm – 03.30pm:
Critical Cocktail Break

04.00pm – 05.00pm:
[proto:type] C Session III
“Asia Labs”
Moderator: Argha Mahendra
Panelist:
- Tommy Surya (Fablab Asia Network)
- Jay Fajardo (Launch Garage – SEA Labs)
- Irene Agrivina (HONF)

———————–
side event:
04.00pm – 05.30pm:
Open Workshop at Makers Booth, Limasan Ndalem Mangkubumen, Widya Mataram University
Make! with 3D Printer workshop by Weissa Adhiprasetya
———————–

05.00pm – 05.30pm:
[proto:type] D Session IV
“Community Development Forum”
05.00pm – 05.30pm: Session 4.1 “Open Ecology and Sustainable”
10 mins presentation for each presenter:
- Performance Klub
- Rumah Kardus
- DORXLab

05.30pm: Break | Maghrib | Dawn Pray

06.00pm – 06.30pm: Session 4.2 “(H)acktivism as an open solution
10 mins presentation for each presenter:
- XXLab
- WAFT
- LPTI Pelataran Mataram

06.30pm – 07.00pm: Session 4.3: Citizen participation for social change
10 mins presentation for each presenter:
- Hysteria
- C2O
- Explainer Maker

07.00pm – 07.45pm: Session 4.4: Development at the Entrepreneurial & Grassroots Level
10 mins presentation for each presenter:
- House The House
- Klub Makan Siang
- Jalan Emas
- Technonatura

07.45pm: Jalan Emas Documentation

08.00pm – 09.30pm:
[proto:type] DINNER: MEET & GREET
Venue: Ndalem Kaneman, Widya Mataram University
Gamelan and performance by Among Bekso Dance

———————–
09.00pm – 11.30pm:
(FABLAB_OD24h):
Midnight Workshop at HONFablab (Fablab Yogyakarta)
Fun with Electronics Workshop by Satya Anindita
———————–

10.00pm – 12.00pm:
FAB BAR
venue: HONFablab (Fablab Yogyakarta)

CONFERENCE DAY#02 | 14 June 2014
at Ndalem Mangkubumen, Widya Mataram University

09.00am – 09.15am:
15 mins Body and Mind Excercise
short meditation by Craig Warren Smith

———————–
side event:
09.00am – 10.30am:
(FABLAB_OD24h):
Morning Workshop at HONFablab (Fablab Yogyakarta)
Explainer Maker by Andre Takdare
10.00am – 01.30pm:
Open Workshop at Makers Booth, Limasan Ndalem Mangkubumen, Widya Mataram University
Sticthing on Plywood session II by Maken Living Indonesia
———————–

09.30am – 10.30am:
[proto:type] E Session V
“Y2014 to Y2015 Summit of Critical Making 2015″
Introduction to [proto:type] Y2014 and toward Y2015 by Stephen Kovats

09.30am – 10.30am:
[proto:type] F Session VI
“Open Knowledge as a Platform of Sharing”
Moderator: Wan Zaleha Radzi
Panelist:
- Elisa Anggraeni
- Yuka Narendra
- Saad Chinoy
- Edin Khoo
- Tia Pamungkas
- Inasanti Susanto

12.00pm – 01.00pm:
Lunch

———————–
side event:
12.00pm – 02.30:
(FABLAB_OD24h):
Closing FABLAB_OD24h Workshop at HONFablab (Fablab Yogyakarta)
Introduction to Raspberry Pi by Tommy Surya
————————

01.30pm – 03.00pm
[proto:type] F Session VII
”Maker Culture: Of Fields and Labs”
Moderator: Venzha Christ
Panelist:
- Jeong ok Jeon
- Amrin Hakim
- Marton Kocsev
- Gustaff Hariman Iskandar
- Diyanto Imam

———————–

side event:
02.00pm – 03.30pm:
Open Workshop at Makers Booth, Limasan Ndalem Mangkubumen, Widya Mataram University
DIY BioPlastic Workshop by Irene Agrivina

———————–

03.30pm:
[proto:type] G Session VIII
Closing speech by Venzha Christ

–move to Makers Camp–

MAKERS CAMP DAY#01
Venue: Tembi Village Yogyakarta
02.00pm – 03.30pm:
Workshop#01
Hackidemia Workshop by Stefania Druga

04.00pm – 05.00pm:
Break
Traditional Music Performance
by Tembi Village

06.00pm – 08.00pm:
Workshop#02
DIY Organic Subs Workshop by Blah!

08.00pm – 10.00pm:
Workshop#03
How to Make Ceramics Workshop by Tembi Village

———————–
side event:
03.00pm – 01.00am +1
cellsDISCO!
DJ Session
DJ Line-up:
DJ Hamam (JKT). DJ Ones (YK). DJ Navis (YK). DJ Latex (YK). DJ Noor (YK). DJ TIM (YK). DJ Metzdub (YK). DJ Lintang Egha (YK). DJ Felix (DE). DJ Adit (YK). DJ NDA (YK).
———————–

09.00pm – 10.00pm:
Makers Dinner
Dinner is served in traditional way of Tembi Village

MAKERS CAMP DAY#02
Venue: Tembi Village Yogyakarta

07.00am – 09.00am:
Breakfast
Breakfast is served in traditional way of Tembi

11.00am – 01.00pm:
Workshops:
Workshop#03: DIY Batik by Tembi Village

Workshop#04: Open Source Hardware by Yudianto Asmoro

Workshop#05: Body Hacking by Iwan Wijono

*workshops are happening on the same time in different spot/space. Participants registration are required

01.00pm – 02.00pm:
Lunch Break

02.00pm – 04.00pm:
Workshops:
Workshop#06: OS Wash Workshop by Jean Nöel Montagne

Workshop#07: DIY Greenhouse with Automatic Light by Irene Agrivina

Workshop#08: DIY Holographic Microscope by Irene Agrivina

*workshops are happening on the same time in different spot/space. Participants registration are required

07.00pm – 08.00pm:
Makers Dinner
Dinner is served in traditional way of Tembi Village

———————–
side event:
02.00pm – 02.00am +1
cellSONIC!
Bands Performance & DJ Session
Bands Line-up:
- - Seek Six Sick – Belkastrelka – Cangkang Serigala – Skandal – Talking Coasty – Summer in Vienna – Luise Najib - Chika and The Pistol Air – Distorsi Liar – AHAA – Dinosaur Youth – Fashion Statement (YK)
DJ Line-up:
DJ Hamam (JKT). DJ Ones (YK). DJ Navis (YK). DJ Latex (YK). DJ Noor (YK). DJ TIM (YK). DJ Metzdub (YK). DJ Lintang Egha (YK). DJ Felix (DE). DJ Adit (YK). DJ NDA (YK).
———————–

02.00am – the next morning:
please, have a rest!

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/yogyakarta-meeting-on-open-culture-and-critical-making

Year Ahead Copyright 2010: Between An Enforcement “Gold Standard” And Stronger Limitations

praskrishna — 2011-04-02T13:43:24Z

Whereas copyright is increasingly being exchanged for contractual relationships why all the debate and new efforts in national and international copyright legislation. Monika Ernet's article in the Intellectual Property Watch examines this in the wake of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement and the international treaty on access to online books for the visually impaired. The article also carries Pranesh Prakash's views on introduction of technical protection measures and the protection of them by law.

The secretly negotiated Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is now in centre stage in the global debates around copyright, as is a prospective new international treaty on access to online books for the visually impaired which comes as part of a broader push to clarify limitations and exceptions to copyright. But some are asking, why all the debate and new efforts in national and international copyright legislation when copyright is increasing being exchanged for contractual relationships?

ACTA may bring with it the punishment of internet denial for infringement that has been fiercely discussed in several European countries and adopted in France, New Zealand, South Korea, and Taiwan. ACTA is seen by critics as another push by governments backing their rights holders in the eternal wars over copyright.

But on the other side, there is much hope that a new treaty for the visually impaired will be negotiated at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Open-ended consultations on outstanding issues were promised to be finalised over the early months of 2010 by the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights.

ACTA and Enforcement

The seventh round of negotiations for ACTA ended after four days of talks in Guadalajara on 29 January. Round eight is expected for April in Wellington, New Zealand. If you ask the negotiators, they will tell you that they expect to get this done in 2010.

There seems to be a sense of urgency to complete ACTA just at the moment when a growing list of members of national parliaments from the United States (Congress), the United Kingdom and Germany are asking for access to the ACTA documents and while the first small street protest was organised outside the meeting place in Guadalajara, Mexico. “Are the commitments of negotiators to transparency real or a strategic move?” asked New Zealand’s Labour Party politician Clare Curran before the meeting in Guadalajara.

“We will have a hearing on ACTA presumably in March,” said EU Member of Parliament Alexander Alvaro, who has questioned the European Commission on the transparency, timeline and scope of the agreement. The Commissioner Designate for International Trade, Karel de Gucht, said clearly: “If there is confidentiality, I will respect it and I have to respect it.” It is impossible, he said, to change the terms during the negotiations.

While he promised that he would make sure Parliament - which has now to agree to ACTA under the newly in effect Lisbon Treaty - would be “duly informed,” the Parliament which just engaged in its first fights over its new competencies with the European Council and Commission might not take that bite, said Alvaro.

The Commission, meanwhile, is for 2010 preparing to put forward a follow-up to the IP enforcement directive (IPRED), as a draft text on IPRED II for criminal sanctions is expected to be put forward in May or June, immediately after the evaluation report on IPRED due in April.

Rethinking Limitations and Exceptions

While there is a big push for ACTA - which International Trademark Association President Richard Heath from Unilever said should be set as “gold standard” - there are growing concerns in academic circles. Annette Kur, IP law expert at the Max Planck Institute of Intellectual Property and Tax Law, said there is a feeling in the expert community that “we cannot go on and on tightening the screw.”

Talks at WIPO about a treaty to grant exemptions for blind and visually impaired people have shown promise, but might also slow down other initiatives for a re-balancing of copyright that academics were hoping for. The implementation of other elements of the WIPO Development Agenda would be a good counterpoint against the current wave of maximal demands in rights protection, according to Kur.

But proponents say there is gathering momentum for the visually impaired exception now - including a draft treaty text, which does not exist for any other issue in the committee - and to wait risks losing the chance and gambling on an uncertain and potentially very lengthy process.

National Copyright Reforms and FTAs

Some ongoing national copyright legislative reforms echo the demand for the re-balancing, with Brazil’s copyright reform the most far-reaching of these, as copyright law expert Volker Grassmuck recently wrote. The Brazilian law could be the first copyright law “balancing copyright with access and usage rights and consumer protection its declared goal,” Grassmuck wrote, but also said that the reform work might be stopped by the Brazilian election campaign in 2010. For several months, a final draft has been announced, Grassmuck told Intellectual Property Watch, yet every time publication has been postponed. “There certainly are concerns that the delay results from industry lobbying against the reform at the highest levels,” Grassmuck said.

Indian copyright reform (that like the Brazilian effort started in 2005) also has made a reference to amendments to secure limitations and exceptions for the visually impaired, but is more conservative when it comes to other issues. It more closely follows the line of harmonising its regulation to the international treaties, namely the WIPO Copyright Treaty and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty.

The reform effort just got a new push when the Indian Copyright office published a final draft on 24 December. Pranesh Prakash, programme manager at the Center for Internet and Society in Delhi, said that the introduction of technical protection measures and the protection of these by law would bring a big change in India.

Prakash said he is afraid that intermediary liability is on the political agenda of the Indian Copyright Office. This would make sense if one considers the negotiations for a free trade agreement between India and the EU that can be expected to include a lengthy section covering intellectual property, copyright and online service provider liability similar to the one in the EU-Korea FTA. The EU-Korea FTA was to be voted on by EU Parliament this week; the EU-India FTA is expected to be finalised in 2010.

Copyright reforms are also under way in Canada, Hong Kong, Serbia, and in the United Kingdom the digital economy bill is under heavy discussion because of far-reaching regulatory power planned for UK communications regulator OFCOM. In Germany, a third round of copyright law reform is on the agenda with private broadcasting companies, publishers and the music industry asking for better copyright protection.

Contracts Instead of Copyright?

But while these reforms and treaty and FTA negotiations are ongoing, there is also another trend seen by experts and users of copyright, said Jeanette Hofmann, an internet governance expert. “Copyright, this moral beacon, more and more ceases to play a role in practical terms. As an author I have to live with a complete buy-out and as a copyright customer, let’s say in the library, I am often dependent on the contracts that the library has with private companies, too.”

Benjamin White, head of the intellectual property at the British Library, has asked the question of whether copyright is still relevant in the digital age. “What I deal with is contracts,” he said, warning that “in most EU member states contracts effectively trump copyright laws. Limitations and exemptions are irrelevant, if there is a contract that says otherwise.” Libraries are contracting with private companies that could help them to fund digitisation projects, but would then regulate access to these objects.

White said while he credits Google for getting the discussion started on how digitisation could be funded, he also wants to see a debate on whether people are comfortable with one private company having access to million of books. The Google book settlement and contracts with libraries in the US and other countries in effect could be seen as a monopoly being created around orphan works and a way to control access to millions of works for years. The EU Commissioner Designate for the Digital Agenda Neelie Kroes, when asked what she thought of Google’s book project, said she liked competition. Regulation for orphan works is on the EU Commission’s work agenda.

Competition and more business offers were also said by Swiss IP lawyer Rolf Auf der Maur to be the focus of the music industry instead of enforcement. Auf der Maur, regular panellist at Midem (the largest annual conference of the music industry), said acknowledgement was trickling down in the music industry that collective licence models, for example licensing music to internet service providers, or even thoughts about flat-rates might be better than only focussing on enforcement.

The major labels are interested in ventures like streaming service Spotify. Paul Brindley, co-Founder of digital music expert consultant Music Alley, said government funding for digital music service models could be expected from the British Technology Strategy Board.

Yet this message could sound overly optimistic given that the music industry is the party heavily promoting a ‘three strikes and you’re out’ approach against copyright infringers.

Or might there be rights owners that think what Joe McNamee, political expert for European Digital Rights (EDRI), predicts: “you can forget about enforcement of copyright, if you focus on copyright and do not get the right content in the right formats available to consumers then you will not solve the problem.“ Innovation would be blocked, he warned, and ever stronger enforcement regulation would finally lead to a lot of collateral damages in civil rights.

For librarian White there also is an urgent need for a change. He said regulators need to create clear rules on access in the digital world like are set out in the Brazilian copyright reform proposal. White said he was hoping that WIPO, whose secretary general, Francis Gurry, had acknowledged the challenge of solving the relationship between private contracts and copyright, would act on the issue of access. Will that happen in 2010?

Monika Ermert may be reached at info@ip-watch.ch

For original article on IP Watch, click here.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/year-ahead-copyright-2010

WSIS+10 High Level Event: A Bird's Eye Report

geetha — 2014-06-20T15:57:32Z

The WSIS+10 High Level was organised by the ITU and collaborative UN entities on June 9-13, 2014. It aimed to evaluate the progress on implementation of WSIS Outcomes from Geneva 2003 and Tunis 2005, and to envision a post-2015 Development Agenda. Geetha Hariharan attended the event on CIS' behalf.

The World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) +10 High Level Event (HLE) was hosted at the ITU Headquarters in Geneva, from June 9-13, 2014. The HLE aimed to review the implementation and progress made on information and communication technology (ICT) across the globe, in light of WSIS outcomes (Geneva 2003 and Tunis 2005). Organised in three parallel tracks, the HLE sought to take stock of progress in ICTs in the last decade (High Level track), initiate High Level Dialogues to formulate the post-2015 development agenda, as well as host thematic workshops for participants (Forum track).

The High Level Track:

Opening Ceremony, WSIS+10 High Level Event (Source)

The High Level track opened officially on June 10, 2014, and culminated with the endorsement by acclamation (as is ITU tradition) of two Outcome Documents. These were: (1) WSIS+10 Statement on the Implementation of WSIS Outcomes, taking stock of ICT developments since the WSIS summits, (2) WSIS+10 Vision for WSIS Beyond 2015, aiming to develop a vision for the post-2015 global information society. These documents were the result of the WSIS+10 Multi-stakeholder Preparatory Platform (MPP), which involved WSIS stakeholders (governments, private sector, civil society, international organizations and relevant regional organizations).

The MPP met in six phases, convened as an open, inclusive consultation among WSIS stakeholders. It was not without its misadventures. While ITU Secretary General Dr. Hamadoun I. Touré consistently lauded the multi-stakeholder process, and Ambassador Janis Karklins urged all parties, especially governments, to “let the UN General Assembly know that the multi-stakeholder model works for Internet governance at all levels”, participants in the process shared stories of discomfort, disagreement and discord amongst stakeholders on various IG issues, not least human rights on the Internet, surveillance and privacy, and multi-stakeholderism. Richard Hill of the Association for Proper Internet Governance (APIG) and the Just Net Coalition writes that like NETmundial, the MPP was rich in a diversity of views and knowledge exchange, but stakeholders failed to reach consensus on crucial issues. Indeed, Prof. Vlamidir Minkin, Chairman of the MPP, expressed his dismay at the lack of consensus over action line C9. A compromise was agreed upon in relation to C9 later.

Some members of civil society expressed their satisfaction with the extensive references to human rights and rights-centred development in the Outcome Documents. While governmental opposition was seen as frustrating, they felt that the MPP had sought and achieved a common understanding, a sentiment echoed by the ITU Secretary General. Indeed, even Iran, a state that had expressed major reservations during the MPP and felt itself unable to agree with the text, agreed that the MPP had worked hard to draft a document beneficial to all.

Concerns around the MPP did not affect the review of ICT developments over the last decade. High Level Panels with Ministers of ICT from states such as Uganda, Bangladesh, Sweden, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and others, heads of the UN Development Programme, UNCTAD, Food and Agriculture Organisation, UN-WOMEN and others spoke at length of rapid advances in ICTs. The focus was largely on ICT access and affordability in developing states. John E. Davies of Intel repeatedly drew attention to innovative uses of ICTs in Africa and Asia, which have helped bridge divides of affordability, gender, education and capacity-building. Public-private partnerships were the best solution, he said, to affordability and access. At a ceremony evaluating implementation of WSIS action-lines, the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC), India, won an award for its e-health application MOTHER.

The Outcome Documents themselves shall be analysed in a separate post. But in sum, the dialogue around Internet governance at the HLE centred around the success of the MPP. Most participants on panels and in the audience felt this was a crucial achievement within the realm of the UN, where the Tunis Summit had delineated strict roles for stakeholders in paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda. Indeed, there was palpable relief in Conference Room 1 at the CICG, Geneva, when on June 11, Dr. Touré announced that the Outcome Documents would be adopted without a vote, in keeping with ITU tradition, even if consensus was achieved by compromise.

The High Level Dialogues:

Prof. Vladimir Minkin delivers a statement. (Source)

The High Level Dialogues on developing a post-2015 Development Agenda, based on WSIS action lines, were active on June 12. Introducing the Dialogue, Dr. Touré lamented the Millennium Development Goals as a “lost opportunity”, emphasizing the need to alert the UN General Assembly and its committees as to the importance of ICTs for development.

As on previous panels, there was intense focus on access, affordability and reach in developing countries, with Rwanda and Bangladesh expounding upon their successes in implementing ICT innovations domestically. The world is more connected than it was in 2005, and the ITU in 2014 is no longer what it was in 2003, said speakers. But we lack data on ICT deployment across the globe, said Minister Knutssen of Sweden, recalling the gathering to the need to engage all stakeholders in this task. Speakers on multiple panels, including the Rwandan Minister for CIT, Marilyn Cade of ICANN and Petra Lantz of the UNDP, emphasized the need for ‘smart engagement’ and capacity-building for ICT development and deployment.

A crucial session on cybersecurity saw Dr. Touré envision a global peace treaty accommodating multiple stakeholders. On the panel were Minister Omobola Johnson of Nigeria, Prof. Udo Helmbrecht of the European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA), Prof. A.A. Wahab of Cybersecurity Malaysia and Simon Muller of Facebook. The focus was primarily on building laws and regulations for secure communication and business, while child protection was equally considered.

The lack of laws/regulations for cybersecurity (child pornography and jurisdictional issues, for instance), or other legal protections (privacy, data protection, freedom of speech) in rapidly connecting developing states was noted. But the question of cross-border surveillance and wanton violations of privacy went unaddressed except for the customary, unavoidable mention. This was expected. Debates in Internet governance have, in the past year, been silently and invisibly driven by the Snowden revelations. So too, at WSIS+10 Cybersecurity, speakers emphasized open data, information exchange, data ownership and control (the right to be forgotten), but did not openly address surveillance. Indeed, Simon Muller of Facebook called upon governments to publish their own transparency reports: A laudable suggestion, even accounting for Facebook’s own undetailed and truncated reports.

In a nutshell, the post-2015 Development Agenda dialogues repeatedly emphasized the importance of ICTs in global connectivity, and their impact on GDP growth and socio-cultural change and progress. The focus was on taking this message to the UN General Assembly, engaging all stakeholders and creating an achievable set of action lines post-2015.

The Forum Track:

Participants at the UNESCO session on its Comprehensive Study on Internet-related Issues (Source)

The HLE was organized as an extended version of the WSIS Forum, which hosts thematic workshops and networking opportunities, much like any other conference. Running in parallel sessions over 5 days, the WSIS Forum hosted sessions by the ITU, UNESCO, UNDP, ICANN, ISOC, APIG, etc., on issues as diverse as the WSIS Action Lines, the future of Internet governance, the successes and failures of WCIT-2012, UNESCO’s Comprehensive Study on Internet-related Issues, spam and a taxonomy of Internet governance.

Detailed explanation of each session I attended is beyond the scope of this report, so I will limit myself to the interesting issues raised.

At ICANN’s session on its own future (June 9), Ms. Marilyn Cade emphasized the importance of national and regional IGFs for both issue-awareness and capacity-building. Mr. Nigel Hickson spoke of engagement at multiple Internet governance fora: “Internet governance is not shaped by individual events”. In light of criticism of ICANN’s apparent monopoly over IANA stewardship transition, this has been ICANN’s continual response (often repeated at the HLE itself). Also widely discussed was the role of stakeholders in Internet governance, given the delineation of roles and responsibilities in the Tunis Agenda, and governments’ preference for policy-monopoly (At WSIS+10, Indian Ambassador Dilip Sinha seemed wistful that multilateralism is a “distant dream”).

This discussion bore greater fruit in a session on Internet governance ‘taxonomy’. The session saw Mr. George Sadowsky, Dr. Jovan Kurbalija, Mr. William Drake and Mr. Eliot Lear (there is surprisingly no official profile-page on Mr. Lear) expound on dense structures of Internet governance, involving multiple methods of classification of Internet infrastructure, CIRs, public policy issues, etc. across a spectrum of ‘baskets’ – socio-cultural, economic, legal, technical. Such studies, though each attempting clarity in Internet governance studies, indicate that the closer you get to IG, the more diverse and interconnected the eco-system gets. David Souter’s diagrams almost capture the flux of dynamic debate in this area (please see pages 9 and 22 of this ISOC study).

There were, for most part, insightful interventions from session participants. Mr. Sadowsky questioned the effectiveness of the Tunis Agenda delineation of stakeholder-roles, while Mr. Lear pleaded that techies be let to do their jobs without interference. Ms. Anja Kovacs raised pertinent concerns about including voiceless minorities in a ‘rough consensus’ model. Across sessions, questions of mass surveillance, privacy and data ownership rose from participants. The protection of human rights on the Internet – especially freedom of expression and privacy – made continual appearance, across issues like spam (Question 22-1/1 of ITU-D Study Group 1) and cybersecurity.

Conclusion:

The HLE was widely attended by participants across WSIS stakeholder-groups. At the event, a great many relevant questions such as the future of ICTs, inclusions in the post-2015 Development Agenda, the value of muti-stakeholder models, and human rights such as free speech and privacy were raised across the board. Not only were these raised, but cognizance was taken of them by Ministers, members of the ITU and other collaborative UN bodies, private sector entities such as ICANN, technical community such as the ISOC and IETF, as well as (obviously) civil society.

Substantively, the HLE did not address mass surveillance and privacy, nor of expanding roles of WSIS stakeholders and beyond. Processually, the MPP failed to reach consensus on several issues comfortably, and a compromise had to be brokered.

But perhaps a big change at the HLE was the positive attitude to multi-stakeholder models from many quarters, not least the ITU Secretary General Dr. Hamadoun Touré. His repeated calls for acceptance of multi-stakeholderism left many members of civil society surprised and tentatively pleased. Going forward, it will be interesting to track the ITU and the rest of UN’s (and of course, member states’) stances on multi-stakeholderism at the ITU Plenipot, the WSIS+10 Review and the UN General Assembly session, at the least.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/wsis-10-high-level-event-a-birds-eye-report

WSIS +10 High Level Event: Open Consultation Process Multistakeholder Preparatory Platform: Phase Six: Fifth Physical Meeting

jyoti — 2014-10-12T05:31:48Z

The fifth physical meeting of the Multistakeholder Preparatory Platform (MPP-WSIS+10), was held from 28-31 May 2014 in Geneva as part as part of the sixth phase of the WSIS +10 High Level Event Open Consultation process. The meeting was aimed at developing draft agreed texts for the WSIS+10 Statement on Implementation on WSIS Outcomes and the Vision Beyond 2015.

Stakeholders including governments, private sector, civil society and international organizations participated in the meeting, which was chaired by Prof. Dr. V.Minkin (Russian Federation), Chairman of the Council Working Group on WSIS and the Vice Chairs of the meeting were Egypt, Switzerland and Saudi Arabia.

ITU Deputy Secretary General, Mr Houlin Zhao highlighted that WSIS+10 High Level Event as a joint effort of the UN family and re-emphasized on the commitment and hard work from all UN Agencies and the Secretariat that has processed up to 500 contributions till date. He further reiterated that this preparatory process builds upon several inputs including deliberations at WSIS Forums (2012 and 2013), WSIS+10 Visioning Challenge Initiative, 2013 WSIS+10 Multistakeholder Meeting in Paris, as well as outcomes of ITU Regional Development Forums held in six regions and led by BDT. Almost 500 multistakeholder contributions were processed by secretariat up to now.

Mr. C.Wachholz representing UNESCO and Ms. M. Kultamaa representing the CSTD Secretariat underlined the importance of the process being an important effort leading towards the Overall Review of the implementation of the WSIS outcomes by 2015. Ms. Kultamaa informed the meeting on the status of the discussions taking place at the UN General Assembly regarding the modalities of the Overall Review. She underlined that for the time being there is no consensus and discussions on this subject will continue.It is important to note that all UN organizations serve as secretariat to the preparatory process which is being coordinated by the ITU. All the Action Line Facilitators including, ITU, UNESCO, UNCTAD, UNDP, UNDESA, WMO, UNEP, WHO, UPU, ITC, ILO, FAO, and UN Regional Commissions,as well as WIPO, UN Women contributed towards the development of the Action line documents in the Vision, within their respective mandates. The meeting concluded with final agreed drafts for the WSIS+10 Statement and final agreed draft for WSIS+10 Vision Chapter A and B, with some pending issues in C.

Jyoti Panday representing CIS, participated in the meeting and intervened in the negotiations over the final agreed text. CIS made interventions on text related to increasing women's participation, freedom of expression, media rights, data privacy, network security and human rights. CIS also endorsed text on action line 'Media' which reaffirmed commitment to freedom of expression, data privacy and media rights offline and online including protection of sources, publishers and journalists.

WSIS+10 Statement on the Implementation of WSIS Outcomes

Ø Preamble, Chapter A (Agreed)

Ø Overview of the implementation of Action Lines, Chapter B (Agreed)

Ø Challenges-during implementation of Action Lines and new challenges that have emerged, Chapter C (Agreed)

WSIS+10 Vision for WSIS beyond 2015

Ø Preamble, Chapter A (Agreed)

Ø Priority areas to be addressed in the implementation of WSIS Beyond 2015, Chapter B (Agreed)

Ø Action Lines, Chapter C

С1. The role of public governance authorities and all stakeholders in the promotion of ICTs for development (Agreed)

С2. Information and communication infrastructure (Agreed)

C3. Access to information and knowledge (Agreed)

C4. Capacity building (Agreed)

C5. Building confidence and security in the use of ICTs (pending para g)

g) Continue to promote greater cooperation [among the governments and all other stakeholders,] at the United Nations and~~with all stakeholders at~~ all other appropriate ~~fora~~fora, respectively at ~~the~~ national, regional and international levels to enhance user confidence, build trust,and protect both data and network integrity as well as consider existing and potential threats to ICTs ; and address other information security and network security issues.]

Alt 1 : [ Continue to promote cooperation [among the governments [at the United Nations ]and with all other stakeholders at the United Nations and other appropriate ~~fora~~for a] to enhance user confidence, build trust, ~~and~~ protect ~~both~~ data, ~~and~~ network integrity and critical infrastructures; consider existing and potential threats to ICTs; security in the use of ICTs and address other information security and network security issues, while stressing the need to address [cybercrime and]cybersecurity issues. ~~at appropriate forums, together with all stakeholdersncluding cybersecurity, [and cybercrime]~~]

Alt 2 : [Continue to promote cooperation among the governments at the United Nations and other international organizations and with all other stakeholders at all appropriate fora to enhance user confidence, build trust, protect data, network integrity and critical infrastructures; consider existing and potential threats to ICTs; security in the use of ICTs [and address other information security ]and network security issues, while stressing the need to address cybersecurity issues. ]

Alt 3: [Continue to promote cooperation among the[ governments ~~[at the United Nations]]~~ and ~~with~~ all other stakeholders at ~~other~~ the United Nations and other appropriate fora to enhance user confidence, build trust, and protect both data and network integrity and critical infrastructure; consider existing and potential threats to ICTs; security in the use of ICTs and address other [information security] and network security issues, while stressing the need to address ~~cybercrime and~~ cybersecurity issues. ~~[at appropriate forums, together with all stakeholders], including cybersecurity, [and cybercrime]~~]

[including cybercrime] [including cybercrime and cybersecurity .][ including ICT aspects of cybercrime and cybersecurity]

[Cybercrime [and cybersecurity] should continue to be dealt with,[at the United Nations and other appropriate fora] [in appropriate forums , ]

C6. Enabling environment (Agreed)

C7. ICT Applications: (Agreed)

E-government

E-business

E-learning

E-health

E-employment

E-environment

E-agriculture

E-science

C8. Cultural diversity and identity, linguistic diversity and local content (agreed but pending para f)

f) [Reinforce [and [enhance] implement at the national level] the recommendations concerning the promotion and use of multilingualism [and universal access to cyberspace]].

C9. Media (meeting has developed three proposals that were requested to be reflected in the documents in a table format)

Discussion at the MPP Plenary meeting:	UK proposal, discussed with and supported by: Sweden, Australia, Spain, Germany, UNESCO, European Broadcasting Union, Switzerland, APIG, Centre for Internet and Society (India), Austria, Tunisia, IDEA, Cisco Systems, Mexico, United States, Japan, Canada, ICC BASIS, Intel, Internet Society, Health and Environment Program (HEP), Netherlands, and Microsoft. It was later supported by The Center for Democracy & Technology, Hungary, Czech Republic. International Federation of Library Associations, Portugal, Association for Progressive Communications, auDA (the ccTLD manager for Australia), Finland, Internet Democracy Project (India)	Proposal: Rwanda and Russia
Media will benefit from the broader and expanded role of ICTs that can enhance media’s contribution to the development goals of the post-2015 Sustainable Development Agenda. [The principles of freedom of expression and the free flow of information, ideas and knowledge are essential for the information and knowledge societies and beneficial to development with recognizing that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, including the right to privacy.]	Media will benefit from the broader and expanded role of ICTs that can enhance media's contribution to the development goals of the post-2015 Sustainable Development Agenda. The right to freedom of expression and the free flow of information, ideas and knowledge, and the protection of privacy, are essential for the information and knowledge societies and beneficial to development. The same rights that people have offline must also be protected online.	We reaffirm the continued relevance of all issues highlighted under action line C9 on Media (Geneva 2003) and the need for continued implementation of this action line.
1. 1. [Develop and update national ICT-Media legislation that guarantees the independence, objectivity, social responsibility, neutrality and plurality of the media according to international standards as well as the domestic needs.]	1. Develop and update national ICT-Media legislation that guarantees the independence, diversity and plurality of the media according to international standards.
2. [Continue to take appropriate measures — consistent with [international law][freedom of expression]— to combat illegal [content and to protect vulnerable groups , in particular children, from harmful content in media content] and harmful media content.]	2. Continue to take appropriate measures, consistent with international human rights law, to combat illegal media content.
3. Ensure that women and men equally access, participate and contribute to the media sector, including to decision-making processes. Alt: Work towards ensuring that women and men equally access, participate and contribute to the media sector, including to decision-making processes. Alt: Encourage that women and men access, participate and contribute on equal basis to the media sector, including to decision-making processes. [Alt: [Encourage][Ensure] [Strive] [ to leverage the potential of ICTs] to provide full and effective [equal ]opportunities to women and men to access, participate and contribute to the media sector, [including to decision-making processes]]	3. Encourage equal opportunities and the active participation of women in the media sector.
4. [Continue to encourage [independent] tradition [neutral, objective, responsible] nal media to bridge the knowledge divide and to facilitate [the freedom of expression] the flow of cultural content, particularly in rural and remote areas.]	4. Continue to encourage traditional media to bridge the knowledge divide and to facilitate the flow of cultural content, particularly in rural areas.
	5. Encourage online and offline mass media to play a more substantial role in capacity building for the information society.
5. Ensure the [safety[ and responsibility] of all journalists and media workers [and their accountability], [taking into account the provisions of article 19 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)]. ,[ including [bloggers] social media producers, and their sources and facilitate the implementation of the UN Plan of action on the safety of journalists and the issue of impunity.] [To ensure the safety of journalists and address the issue of impunity in accordance to UNGA Resolution (A/RES/68/163)]	6. Ensure the safety of all journalists and media workers, including social media producers and bloggers, and their sources and facilitate the implementation of the UN Plan of Action on the safety of journalists and address the issue of impunity
6. We reaffirm our commitment to the principles of freedom of the press and freedom of information, as well as those of the independence, pluralism and diversity of media, which are essential to the Information Society. Freedom to seek, receive, impart and use information for the creation, accumulation and dissemination of knowledge is important to the Information Society. We call for the responsible use and treatment of information by the media in accordance with the highest ethical and professional standards. Traditional media in all their forms have an important role in the Information Society and ICTs should play a supportive role in this regard. Diversity of media ownership should be encouraged, in conformity with national law, and taking into account relevant international conventions. We reaffirm the necessity of reducing international imbalances affecting the media, particularly as regards infrastructure, technical resources and the development of human skills.

C10. Ethical dimensions of the Information Society (Agreed)

C11. International and regional cooperation (Agreed)

The Chapter C, Part III: The paras highlighted in yellow below did not receive consensus.

III [Action Lines beyond 2015: Looking to the Future

[We reaffirm that effective cooperation among governments, private sector, civil society and the United Nations and other international organizations, according to their different roles and responsibilities and leveraging on their expertise, is essential, taking into account the multifaceted nature of building the Information Society.]

[We emphasize great importance of continuation of the multistakeholder implementation at the international level, following the themes and action lines in the Geneva Plan of Action, and moderated/facilitated by UN agencies. The coordination of multistakeholder implementation activities would help to avoid duplication of activities. This should include, inter alia, information exchange, creation of knowledge, sharing of best practices, and assistance in developing multi-stakeholder and public-private partnerships.]

[We reaffirm importance of the United Nations Group on the Information Society (UNGIS) created by the UN-Chief Executives Board (CEB) upon guidance by Tunis Agenda (Para 103), as an efficient and effective inter-agency mechanism with the main objective to coordinate substantive and policy issues facing the United Nations’ implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS).](HEP – delete)

We welcome holding of the annual WSIS Forum, which has become a key forum for multi-stakeholder debate on pertinent issues related to the Geneva Plan of Action and note that the Forum’s inclusiveness, openness, and thematic focus have strengthened responsiveness to stakeholders and contributed to increased physical and remote participation. [agreed]

We encourage all stakeholders to contribute to and closely collaborate with the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development as an international, multi-stakeholder initiative to improve the availability and quality of ICT data and indicators, particularly in developing countries. [agreed]

[We emphasize/ recognize that the commitments to advance gender equality perspectives and undertake the necessary actions throughout the WSIS outcomes, as called for in Para 3 of Preamble under this document, should also be implemented, reviewed and monitored, consistent with other Action Lines, by UN Women in cooperation with other Action Line Facilitators.](HEP – delete)

We encourage all WSIS stakeholders to continue to contribute information on their activities to the public WSIS stocktaking database maintained by ITU. In this regard, we invite all countries to gather information at the national level with the involvement of all stakeholders, to contribute to the stocktaking. [agreed]

We also welcome continuation of the WSIS Project Prizes initiative that has been launched by ITU with involvement of all Action line facilitators as a competition that recognizes excellence in the implementation of projects and initiatives which further the WSIS goals of improving connectivity to ICTs), particularly within underserved communities, and provide a high-profile, international platform for recognizing and showcasing success stories and models that could be easily replicated. In this regard, the WSIS Stocktaking Database is of utmost importance in sharing best practices amongst WSIS Stakeholders. [agreed]

We emphasize on the importance of 17 May as World Information Society Day to help to raise awareness, on an annual basis, of the importance of this global facility, on the issues dealt with in the WSIS especially the possibilities that the use of ICTs can bring for societies and economies, as well as of ways to bridge the digital divide. [agreed]]

Vision Beyond 2015 Document

1. During the meeting, the participants agreed to replace Chapter E with the following three paragraphs and include them in Chapter B of the Vision:

34. Developing agreed goals and time-based measurable targets data and indicators along with enhanced monitoring and reporting. [agreed]

35. Encourage the ongoing assessment of progress towards the information society, as envisaged in the WSIS Outcomes, including through efforts such as the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development which has been essential for evaluating the implementation of WSIS Action Lines. [agreed]

36. In this respect, it is necessary to continue to develop appropriate ways and means to make such measurements. [agreed]

2. A long discussion was held on the way forward. Some of the delegates expressed views that if text on WSIS Action Line C9 is not agreed, all Chapter C should not be considered as agreed, and refused to consider other items without reaching agreement on WSIS Action Line C9, while others were open to discuss further with the understanding that Chapter C is essential for the outcomes of the WSIS+10 High Level Event.

3. Some of the delegates requested for reflecting their statements in the Chairman’s Report (See Annex).

4. In conclusion the Chairman informed the meeting that the full text with all brackets will be reflected on the website and possibly forwarded to the consideration of the WSIS+10 High Level Event. He offered his availability on 9^th June 2014 for the meeting, if needed, with the aim of finalization of the text. He encouraged all stakeholders to conduct consultations to reach consensus for pending items prior to the Event.

Link to Documentation:

· Results of the pre-agreed Chapters during the Fifth Physical meeting: http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/mpp/pages/consolidated-texts.html

Background Documents: http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/mpp/#background

Annex

Statement by the Association for Proper Internet Governance
Regarding the 28-31 May Multistakeholder Preparatory Platform meeting
3 June 2014

The Association for Proper Internet Governance (APIG)[1] requests that this statement be annexed to the Chairman’s report of the Multistakeholder Preparatory Platform (MPP).

Introduction

APIG has attended all of the preparatory meetings and made numerous written and verbal submissions. Its representative has actively made constructive suggestions in order to help achieve consensus and APIG has withdrawn various proposals that it considered important when they were challenged by other participants, and this in order to find consensus. Some examples of such compromises made by APIG are presented below.

APIG is pleased that full consensus was reached regarding the Statement and parts A and B of the Vision, and that consensus was reached regarding most of part C of the Vision. However, APIG is disappointed that the rigid positions taken by some participants prevented full consensus from being reached regarding Action Lines C5 (Building confidence and security in the use of ICTs) and C9 (Media) in part C.

It must be recalled that the purpose of the discussions regarding part C was to identify action line items that would supplement the agreed action line items of the 2003 Geneva Plan of Action. The world has changed since 2003 and indeed the action lines need to be revisited and supplemented.

Agreement was reached on many supplements to the action lines. Action line C9 is related to the media, which has undergone dramatic changes since 2003. Many supplements to this action line are surely needed, but, given the complexity of the discussions, in particular regarding freedom of speech, it was not possible to reach consensus. Some participants took the view that, absent consensus on C9, none of the other supplements to the action lines could be considered to have been approved by consensus.

This is correct from a procedural point of view: nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. However, APIG is of the view that the supplements to all action lines except C9 and one item in C5 are acceptable as agreed and can be considered independently of C9 and the unresolved item in C5, while recognizing that important issues regarding C5 and C9 remain open and must continue to be discussed.

We present here the following:

1. Considerations on the multi-stakeholder process used during these preparatory meeting

2. Compromises made by APIG

3. Proposals for C5 and C9

3. Considerations on the multi-stakeholder process used during MPP meetings

The Multistakeholder Preparatory Platform (MPP) meetings were conducted on the basis of equal rights for all stakeholder and no restrictions on participation (except for registration). This allowed a wide variety of views to be heard and resulted in many valuable and diverse proposals being presented for consideration.

The leadership team (chairman and vice-chairmen) was very experienced and skilled, as was the secretariat.

Given the volume and diversity of the submitted inputs, it was APIG’s view that the leadership team should have been requested, already after the first MPP meeting, to propose compromise text. APIG regrets that many participants objected to this, and that the leadership team was tasked with proposing compromise text only at a very late state. This is particularly to be regretted because all participants agreed that the compromise text that was presented by the leadership at the end was excellent and formed an appropriate basis for further discussion and refinement. It is likely that progress would have been more rapid, and that full consensus might have been achieved, if the compromise proposals prepared by the leaderhsip had been presented at the earlier meetings of the MPP.

The meeting was conducted on the basis of unanimity. That is, no text was considered to have achieved consensus unless no participant objected to it. While this appears appealing at first sight, it can result in a small minority blocking progress towards a compromise text. And indeed this happened for some portions of the text of part C of the Vision.

If meetings are fully open, and all stakeholders have equal decision-making rights, then any stakeholder can block any proposal that, in its view, threatens its interests. Thus it will be difficult or impossible to reach consensus on delicate issues at such meetings, and this is indeed what happened at the MPP. Allowing private companies (which are stakeholders) to have the same power as other stakeholders with respect to public policy issues is problematic, see the Preamble of our submission[2] to the open consultation conducted by the ITU Council Working Group on International Internet-related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet). It is also problematic to allow a small number of participants, even if they are governments, to block progress.

Thus, it should be recognized that multi-stakeholder meetings in which public policy decisions are made by unanimity are not appropriate if the goal is to reach consensus on difficult issues.

An alternative would be to apply “rough consensus” rather than unanimity. But this gives a great deal of power to the leadership team, and thus makes the selection of the leadership team a very delicate matter. Such “rough consensus” cannot be held to be democratic.

APIG is of the view that multi-stakeholder process must be democratic, again, see the Preamble of our cited submission to CWG-Internet.

2. Compromises made by APIG

3. APIG would have preferred that paragaph 2 of the Preambles of both the Statement and the Vision read as follows in order to recognize recent UN Resolutions that highlight the relevance of specific human rights in the context of the evolution of ICTs since 2005, recognizing the well-known legal principle that offline rights apply equally online (our additions are shown as revision marks):

We reaffirm the human rights and fundamental freedoms enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and relevant international human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; and we also reaffirm paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 18 of the Geneva Declaration ; and we reaffirm the human rights mentioned in relevant UN Resolutions, including, but not limited to:

A/RES/68/147 . Rights of the child
A/RES/68/163. The safety of journalists and the issue of impunity
A/RES/68/167. The right to privacy in the digital age
A/RES/68/227 . Women in development
A/HRC/20/8. The promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet
A/HRC/RES/21/24. Human rights and indigenous People
A/HRC/RES/22/6 . Protecting human rights defenders
A/HRC/RES/ 23/2 . The role of freedom of opinion and expression in women’s empowerment
A/HRC/RES/23/3. Enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights
A/HRC/RES /23/10. Cultural rights and cultural diversity
A/HRC/RES/24/5 . The rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association
A/HRC/RES/25/11. Question of the realization in all countries of economic, social and cultural rights

APIG is disappointed that one participant (representing business) objected to inclusion in Action Line C2 (Information and Communication Infrastructure) of the following item, which is based on text agreed at the G20 St. Petersburg meeting[3]:

e) There is a need to identify the main difficulties that the digital economy poses for the application of existing international tax rules and develop detailed options to address these difficulties.

APIG would have preferred that the WSIS+10 recognize the dysfunctional nature of the current copyright regime for what concerns online issues and that an explicit call be included to reform that unworkable regime[4]. In particular, APIG would have preferred that item (f) of action line C6 (Enabling Environment) read as follows (changes with respect to the agreed version are shown as revision marks):

f) Foster an intellectual property rights framework that balances the interests of creators, implementers and users , by drastically reducing the length of copyright, by legalizing non-commercial downloads of copyright material, and by restricting what can be patented .

APIG would have preferred that the WSIS+10 explicitly call for the globalization of the IANA fundtion, by adding the following:

In section B (Priority areas) of the Vision, adding 37:

37) Accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA functions.

In action line C1 of the Vision, adding (f):

(f) Agree a formal framework that provides for all governments to participate, on an equal footing, in the governance and supervision of the ICANN and IANA functions, and that provides for effective supervision and accountability of these functions in accordance with paragraphs 29, 35, 36, 61 and 69 of the Tunis Agenda.

APIG would have preferred that (b) and (d) of C10 (Ethical Dimensions of the Information Society) read as follows (changes with respect to the agreed version are shown as revision marks):

(b) Promote respect of the fundamental ethical values in the use of ICTs and prevent their abusive usage , and in particular prevent mass surveillance.

(d) Continue to enhance the protection of privacy and personal data. Recognize that, i n the absence of the right to privacy, there can be no true freedom of expression and opinion, and therefore no effective democracy. Any violations of privacy and any restrictions on the protection of personal data must be held to be necessary and proportionate by an independent and impartial judge.

See 11 of our submission[5] to the open consultation conducted by the ITU Council Working Group on International Internet-related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet) and recall that, as stated by the President of Brazil, DilmaRousseff, in her speech at the UN General Assembly on 24 September 2013:

“In the absence of the right to privacy, there can be no true freedom of expression and opinion, and therefore no effective democracy.”

3. Proposals for C5 and C9

APIG would prefer the following texts for (a) of C5 and for C9.

С5. Building confidence and security in the use of ICTs

a) Continue to promote cooperation among governments at the United Nations and other appropriate intergovernmental forums, and with all stakeholders at other appropriate forums, to enhance user confidence, build trust, and protect both data and network integrity; consider existing and potential threats to ICTs, in particular threats created by weakening or compromising encryption standards; and address other information security (this being understood as defending information from unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification, perusal, inspection, recording or destruction) and network security issues, in particular mass surveillance.

a^bis) Address cybersecurity and cybercrime in appropriate forums.

In the interests of compromise, APIG could accept deletion of the parts highlighted in yellow above. It should be noted that the text in parenthesis after “information security” was not present in the 2003 version of this text, found in 12(a) of the Geneva Plan of Action. It has been added in order to make it clear that the term “information security” is used in its ordinary sense[6], and not in other senses.

C9. Media

Media will benefit from the broader and expanded role of ICTs that can enhance media’s contribution to the development goals of the post-2015 Sustainable Development Agenda.

The principles of freedom of expression and the free flow of information, ideas and knowledge, and the protection of privacy, are essential for the information and knowledge societies and beneficial to development, recognizing that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online.

1. Develop and update national ICT-Media legislation that guarantees the independence, and plurality of the media according to international standards as well as the domestic needs.

2. Continue to take appropriate measures — consistent with freedom of expression— to combat media content that is both illegal and harmful. Any such measures must be held to be necessary and proportionate by an independent and impartial judge.

3. Continue to encourage traditional media to bridge the knowledge divide and to facilitate the flow of cultural content, particularly in rural areas.

4. Ensure the safety of all journalists and media workers, including social media producers and bloggers, and their sources (in particular whistle-blowers) and facilitate the implementation of the UN Plan of action on the safety of journalists and the issue of impunity.

5. Ensure the privacy of all media and the secrecy all communications, including E-Mail. Any violations of privacy or secrecy shall take place only if they are held to be necessary and proportionate by an independent and impartial judge. The privacy of all media and the secrecy of all communications shall be respected in accordance with the national laws of all concerned parties.

In the interests of compromise, APIG could accept deletion of the parts highlighted in yellow above. The first part, “recognizing that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online”, is not necessary, since it affirms a well-known legal principle and since human rights are individible.

It should be noted that the text proposed for 2 clarifies the text of 24 (c)) of the Geneva Plan of Action. That text could be misunderstood to imply that one could combat content that is harmful but not illegal. But such is not the case, since content can only be restricted if it is illegal, pursuant to article 29(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 19(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. That is, the Geneva Plan of Action already enshrined the principle that there should be fewer restrictions on online freedom of speech than on offline freedom of speech, because the online content can be restricted only if it is “illegal and harmful”. In this respect, see 7.1 of our submission [7] to the open consultation conducted by the ITU Council Working Group on International Internet-related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet).

Regarding 4 above, whistle-blowers are sources for journalists, so they are already included and their explicit mention can be omitted.

Regarding 5 above, see 11 of our cited submission to CWG-Internet.

We have omitted an action line regarding gender equality in media because we believe that a strong statement regarding gender equality should apply to all action lines and thus should appear as a chapeau before action line C1. We propose the following for this chapeau (the language is that proposed by UN Women for a potential new action line, slightly modified since it is not proposed here as an action line):

We commit to promote progress in implementing gender commitments enshrined in the WSIS outcome documents and forward-looking recommendations by pursuing practical and joint measures to advance women’s empowerment within the Information Society. The goal is to realize women’s meaningful access to ICTs and full integration of women’s needs and perspectives, and their equal participation as active agents, innovators and decision-makers. Also critical are connecting and heightening understanding of online and offline realities and addressing underlying factors that hinder women’s engagement in the Information society. Finally, we seek to develop more coherent approaches, as well as increase investments, attention and accountability measures.

1. Gender Analysis: Promote the use of “gender analysis” and associated tools and methodologies in the development of national, regional and related global frameworks, strategies and policies and their implementation, as well as better connect with women’s empowerment communities and frameworks.

2. Holistic Approaches and Structural Issues: Address underlying women’s empowerment issues in the information society, such as gender stereotypes, specific or pronounced threats to women, such as online violence, as well as provide analysis and actionable recommendations on gender issues that cut across action lines.

3. Support to Action Lines and Stakeholders: Work with and across Action Lines and specific stakeholder groups (e.g. private sector) to accelerate integration of gender equality within their remits through identification of overarching issues, programmatic opportunities, requisite investments, policy interventions, case studies and learning, and promote participation of women and gender equality stakeholders.

4. Data and Monitoring Progress: Prepare scorecards on Action Line and National level reporting on women’s empowerment. Support and promote the work of the Partnership on the Measurement of the Information Society Working Group on Gender.

[1] http://www.apig.ch

[2] http://www.itu.int/en/Lists/CWGContributionmar2014/Attachments/25//CWG-March.pdf

[3] G20 Leaders, “Tax Annex to the St. Petersburg Declaration”, G20 (6 September 2013), Annex, Action 1 http://www.g20.org/news/20130906/782776427.html

[4] In this context, see 7.3 of http://www.itu.int/en/Lists/CWGContributionmar2014/Attachments/25//CWG-March.pdf and its references.

[5] http://www.itu.int/en/Lists/CWGContributionmar2014/Attachments/25//CWG-March.pdf

[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_security

[7] http://www.itu.int/en/Lists/CWGContributionmar2014/Attachments/25//CWG-March.pdf

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/wsis-10-high-level-event-open-consultation-process-multistakeholder-preparatory-platform-phase-six

WORLD WIDE PLAYGROUND

praskrishna — 2013-06-05T09:47:33Z

The Delhi High Court recently asked the central government to explain why minors are allowed to create online accounts on social networking sites such as Facebook or Orkut. The High Court’s question stems from a petition filed by former senior BJP leader K.N. Govindacharya last year.

The Op-ed was published in the Telegraph on May 15, 2013. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

Govindacharya argued that by allowing minors to open accounts on social media sites, the companies of these sites were violating the Indian Majority Act, 1875, the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and the Information Technology Act, 2000.

One of Govindacharya’s main concerns is that when minors give false information to open an account on an online portal, they are liable to be held guilty for a criminal offence.

“Providing false information about oneself is more of a crime than a civil wrong,” explains Debsankar Chowdhury, a Calcutta-based cyber law expert. “However, if it is provided with an intention to enter into a contract which otherwise is not allowed, it is tantamount to fraud under Section 17 of the Contract Act of 1872.”

For minors, though, Chowdhury points out that the Juvenile Justice Act, 2005, will be brought into play, and they will face lighter sentences.

As for the social networking companies themselves, according to the law of the land they can be held accountable if a user provides them with false information. As Pavan Duggal, a Supreme Court advocate and expert on cyber law, points out, “All social networking sites are intermediaries under Section 2(1)(w) of the amended Information Technology Act, 2000. They are made responsible for all third party data or information made available by them under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.” As such, social networking sites would be held accountable for allowing people, especially minors, to create fake profiles on their networks under Section 79 and 85 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, he adds.

The other problem here is that while a social networking site like Facebook allows anyone over 13 to open an account, according to Indian law, anyone under 18 years of age is a minor; and a minor cannot enter into a contract with any entity. “The issue raised in Govindacharya’s petition is of a fundamental nature,” opines Duggal. “Section 3 of the Indian Majority Act, 1875, clearly states that every person domiciled in India shall attain the age of majority on his completing the age of 18 years. However, Facebook allows 13-year-olds to become its members. Since children lack the inherent capacity to contract under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the contract entered into between Indian children below the age of 18 years and Facebook is null and void.”

But though the nitty gritty of the law seems to be weighted against children below 18 — or even 13 — joining social networking sites, not everyone believes that kids should be prevented from having a presence online. Six months ago, 10-year-old Shruti (name changed) met with an accident, and was bedridden for some time. She was bored and miserable. To cheer her up, her father signed her on to Facebook — yes, by providing false information about her age.

Other parents may not take a similar view of their young children joining Facebook under false pretexts. But Ashok Agarwal, a Delhi-based lawyer and child rights activist, believes that Govindacharya’s petition demonstrates an outdated way of thinking. “We are letting children speak at the UN and in Parliament, but we don’t want to let them speak online,” he says. “Allowing children to use sites like Facebook doesn’t hurt them, and if anything, denying them access to it would be denying them their universal Right to Participate. This right is part of Unicef’s Convention on the Rights of the Child.” And also it’s denying them access to a tool and medium that is, and will be, an integral part of their lives, adds Agarwal.

Leaving aside the debate on whether or not children below a certain age should be allowed on social networking sites, Chowdhury points out that right now there is no means of checking the age of those who are signing in to these online portals.

In fact, Section D of Govindacharya’s petition does point out the need for some kind of verification process when people create an online account, much like what phone service providers do when someone applies for a new connection.

But experts point out that this is not feasible in the case of social networking sites. Says Chowdhury, “Mobile companies operate their network in specific locations, whereas sites like Facebook exist worldwide. Moreover, these portals don’t take a single penny from their users. So do you really think it is possible to make offline verification?”

Indeed, verification of user data — ostensibly to cut out underage persons from logging on to social networking sites — has much wider ramifications. Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore, points out that it could start a downward spiral towards loss of online privacy. “If anyone wants to create an account on a website, but has to provide some sort of verifiable data, you’re going to remove a person’s ability to post anonymously on the Internet. Then what happens to freedom of speech? People like to post online anonymously, but if everyone’s identity is known, that privacy is revoked.”

The effect of social networking sites on children will be debated for a long time. But clearly, it would be tough to enforce laws to prevent children from logging on to these sites.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/the-telegraph-op-ed-may-15-2013-world-wide-playground

World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development

pranesh — 2016-02-17T16:41:28Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/world-trends-in-freedom-of-expression-and-media-development

World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development

pranesh — 2016-02-17T17:03:42Z

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) had published a book in 2014 that examines free speech, expression and media development. The chapter contains a Foreword by Irina Bokova, Director General, UNESCO. Pranesh Prakash contributed to Independence: Introduction - Global Media Chapter. The book was edited by Courtney C. Radsch.

Foreword

Tectonic shifts in technology and economic models have vastly expanded the opportunities for press freedom and the safety of journalists, opening new avenues for freedom of expression for women and men across the world. Today, more and more people are able to produce, update and share information widely, within and across national borders. All of this is a blessing for creativity, exchange and dialogue.

At the same time, new threats are arising. In a context of rapid change, these are combining with older forms of restriction to pose challenges to freedom of expression, in the shape of controls not aligned with international standards for protection of freedom of expression and rising threats against journalists.

These developments raise issues that go to the heart of UNESCO’s mandate “to promote the flow of ideas by word and image” between all peoples, across the world. For UNESCO, freedom of expression is a fundamental human right that underpins all other civil liberties, that is vital for the rule of law and good governance, and that is a foundation for inclusive and open societies. Freedom of expression stands at the heart of media freedom and the practice of journalism as a form of expression aspiring to be in the public interest.

At the 36^th session of the General Conference (November 2011), Member States mandated UNESCO to explore the impact of change on press freedom and the safety of journalists. For this purpose, the Report has adopted four angles of analysis, drawing on the 1991 Windhoek Declaration, to review emerging trends through the conditions of media freedom, pluralism and independence, as well as the safety of journalists. At each level, the Report has also examined trends through the lens of gender equality.

The result is the portrait of change -- across the world, at all levels, featuring as much opportunity as challenge. The business of media is undergoing a revolution with the rise of digital networks, online platforms, internet intermediaries and social media. New actors are emerging, including citizen journalists, who are redrawing the boundaries of the media. At the same time, the Report shows that the traditional news institutions continue to be agenda-setters for media and public communications in general – even as they are also engaging with the digital revolution. The Report highlights also the mix of old and new challenges to media freedom, including increasing cases of threats against the safety of journalists.

The pace of change raises questions about how to foster freedom of expression across print, broadcast and internet media and how to ensure the safety of journalists. The Report draws on a rich array of research and is not prescriptive -- but it sends a clear message on the importance of freedom of expression and press freedom on all platforms.

To these ends, UNESCO is working across the board, across the world. This starts with global awareness raising and advocacy, including through World Press Freedom Day. It entails supporting countries in strengthening their legal and regulatory frameworks and in building capacity. It means standing up to call for justice every time a journalist is killed, to eliminate impunity. This is the importance of the United Nations Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity, spearheaded by UNESCO and endorsed by the UN Chief Executives Board in April 2012. UNESCO is working with countries to take this plan forward on the ground. We also seek to better understand the challenges that are arising – most recently, through a Global Survey on Violence against Female Journalists, with the International News Safety Institute, the International Women’s Media Foundation, and the Austrian Government.

Respecting freedom of expression and media freedom is essential today, as we seek to build inclusive, knowledge societies and a more just and peaceful century ahead. I am confident that this Report will find a wide audience, in Member States, international and regional organizations, civil society and academia, as well as with the media and journalists, and I wish to thank Sweden for its support to this initiative. This is an important contribution to understanding a world in change, at a time when the international community is defining a new global sustainable development agenda, which must be underpinned and driven by human rights, with particular attention to freedom of expression.

Executive Summary

Freedom of expression in general, and media development in particular, are core to UNESCO’s constitutional mandate to advance ‘the mutual knowledge and understanding of peoples, through all means of mass communication’ and promoting ‘the free flow of ideas by word and image.’ For UNESCO, press freedom is a corollary of the general right to freedom of expression. Since 1991, the year of the seminal Windhoek Declaration, which was endorsed by the UN General Assembly, UNESCO has understood press freedom as designating the conditions of media freedom, pluralism and independence, as well as the safety of journalists. It is within this framework that this report examines progress as regards press freedom, including in regard to gender equality, and makes sense of the evolution of media actors, news media institutions and journalistic roles over time.

This report has been prepared on the basis of a summary report on the global state of press freedom and the safety of journalists, presented to the General Conference of UNESCO Member States in November 2013, on the mandate of the decision by Member States taken at the 36th session of the General Conference of the Organization.[*]

The overarching global trend with respect to media freedom, pluralism, independence and the safety of journalists over the past several years is that of disruption and change brought on by technology, and to a lesser extent, the global financial crisis. These trends have impacted traditional economic and organizational structures in the news media, legal and regulatory frameworks, journalism practices, and media consumption and production habits. Technological convergence has expanded the number of and access to media platforms as well as the potential for expression. It has enabled the emergence of citizen journalism and spaces for independent media, while at the same time fundamentally reconfiguring journalistic practices and the business of news.

The broad global patterns identified in this report are accompanied by extensive unevenness within the whole. The trends summarized above, therefore, go hand in hand with substantial variations between and within regions as well as countries.

Download the PDF

[*]. 37 C/INF.4 16 September 2013 “Information regarding the implementation of decisions of the governing bodies”. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002230/223097e.pdf; http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002230/223097f.pdf

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/unesco-world-trends-in-freedom-of-expression-and-media-development

World Library and Information Congress 2018

Admin — 2018-08-31T02:23:29Z

Swaraj Paul Barooah was a speaker at two panels during the World Library and Information Congress 2018 (WLIC2018), organised by the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) in Kuala Lumpur on August 26 and 27, 2018.

Swaraj's first panel, titled "Intellectual Freedom in a Polarised World" was selected as one of 9 sessions to be live-streamed and recorded, out of 249 sessions in total. The recording can be accessed on YouTube.

Session 123 Intellectual Freedom in a Polarised World - Freedom of Access to Information and Freedom of Expression (FAIFE) Advisory Committee (SI)

Chair: Martyn Wade, United Kingdom

In many national contexts, citizens are seen to be either “with the government or against it,” leaving little opportunity to freely and safely express more nuanced views of current social, political or economic issues. While notable authoritarian regimes quite transparently monitor and limit societal discussion, others, ostensibly democratic, may work in practice to blunt potentially unfavourable social commentary on the pretence of defending political stability or public morality. IFLA’s Freedom of Access to Information and Freedom of Expression (FAIFE) Advisory Committee explores this phenomenon--and the potential role of civil society and information professionals in advancing freedom of expression--through the experience and insights of an NGO leader, an academic public intellectual, and an officer of UNESCO.

Presentations

Internet and the freedom of expression in Indonesia: opportunity and challenges - Indriaswati Dyah Saptaningrum, University of New South Wales; former Executive Director of the ELSAM human rights organization (Indonesia), Australia
Freedom of Expression in Malaysia - Azmi Bin Sharom, Faculty of Law, University of Malaysia, Malaysia
What's up with WhatsApp - polarisation and lynchings in India - Swaraj Paul Barooah, The Centre for Internet and Society, India
How to align national laws with international standards on freedom of expression? - Ming-Kuok Lim, Programme Specialist for Communication and Information, UNESCO, Indonesia

Session 140 To Have and not to Hold: The End of Ownership - CLM and FAIFE

The shift from buying physical library media to licensing digital content has profound impacts on the way libraries acquire and give access to content. From e-books that can disappear at the whim (or the mistake) of the owners of a server far away, to the limits on sharing and archiving imposed by some contracts. From the potential monitoring of reader behaviour, to the criminalisation of those who simply want to improve user experience. The dominance of digital media in information provision has both broadened the field of information to which we have access, but potentially made it shallower in terms of the use that libraries, and their users, can make of it. The joint CLM-FAIFE session will look at the question of the end of ownership from a legal and an ethical point of view, drawing on the experience and knowledge of the two communities.

Tomas A. Lipinski, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, USA – The Limits of Licensing.
Ann Okerson, Centre for Research Libraries, Chicago, USA – The Possibilities of Licensing.
Swaraj Paul Barooah, Centre for Internet and Society – The Balance among Licenses and Exceptions and Limitations to Copyright.
Brent Roe - Laurentian University, Sudbury, Canada – Privacy Concerns and Other Side Effects of Licensing.
Jonathan Hernandez-Perez, Researcher, Instituto de Investigaciones Bibilotecologicas, UNAM, Mexico City, Mexico (Invited) – Special Issues in the Developing World; Open Access as a Recapturing of Ownership.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/world-library-and-information-congress-2018

World Intellectual Property Organisation

Anirudh Sridhar and Snehashish Ghosh — 2013-12-03T06:56:10Z

The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) is a specialized agency of the United Nations which deals with issues related to intellectual property rights throughout the world.

Under Article 3 of the convention establishing WIPO, the United Nation agency seeks to "promote the protection of intellectual property throughout the world through cooperation among states..."[1]

With the proliferation of the internet, issues related to copyright have become more and more prominent. Internet has made sharing of content easy and efficient. It has also opened up avenues for e-commerce, sale and purchase of music, movies, e-books and other related content. In India, special music services and video services are made available to mobile users by the telecom service providers as value added services through internet technologies such as wireless access protocol (WAP) and general packet radio service (GPRS). Moreover, business models such as iTunes and Flyte allow consumers to download MP3 music for a fee. In this context, digital copyright has become an important topic of discussion.

Copyright law has faced difficulties coping up with digital technologies, especially the Internet. Enforcing copyright has been a tough task, given that protected works can be easily shared and transferred through the internet. In order to adjust the legal system to be in consonance with the latest technological developments the WIPO has laid down two treaties which are known as internet treaties. They are the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT). These two treaties are considered to be the updates and supplements to the Berne Convention for the protection of the literary and artistic material.

"The WIPO Internet Treaties are designed to update and supplement the existing international treaties on copyright and related rights, namely, the Berne Convention and the Rome Convention. They respond to the challenges posed by the digital technologies and, in particular, the dissemination of protected material over the global networks that make up the Internet. The contents of the Internet Treaties can be divided into three parts: (1) incorporation of certain provisions of the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS) not previously included explicitly in WIPO treaties (e.g., protection of computer programs and original databases as literary works under copyright law); (2) updates not specific to digital technologies (e.g., the generalized right of communication to the public); and (3) provisions that specifically address the impact of digital technologies." [2]

Treaties

Berne Convention

The Berne Convention [3] was first accepted in 1986. It was an international agreement that sought to govern copyrights. Its basic purpose was to make the signatories recognize the copyrights of the works of authors of other signatory countries at the same level as copyrights in their own countries. The Three Step Test is a test contained in different forms in a few international treaties on copyright law. It provides a limit on the exceptions and limitations that a treaty member can provide under its domestic law. However, the Three Step Test was first laid down in Article 9 of the Berne Convention and it states:

It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to permit the reproduction of such works in certain special cases, provided that such reproduction does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author.

There are two divergent views on the limitations to copyright. Civil law sees copyright as a natural law right, meaning that an author already has the right to his work, and the law merely recognises it. Hence, civil law limitations to rights tend to be narrow. Common law adopts a utilitarian approach and advocates use of common law principles to spur creation of socially valuable works. In pursuance of such socially beneficial measures, Common law limitations are open ended.

When the Three Step Test was first conceived, it was to reconcile these divergent views of copyright limitations. So, at its core was the aim to allow national legislations sufficient latitude with regard to limitations. The effects of this treaty are enormous in that it affects the accessibility of almost every book or movie online for the average internet user.

The Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) was set up in 1998-1999 in order to examine issues of substantive law or harmonization in the field of copyright and rights related to copyright. The committee is comprised of all the member states of WIPO. However, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations only have observer status.[4]

WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT), 1996

The WPPT [5] benefits primarily two different kinds of people:

Performers (actors, singers, musicians, etc.), and
Producers of phonograms (the persons or legal entities who or which take the initiative and have the responsibility for the fixation of the sounds).

The purpose of the Treaty was to protect the rights of performers and producers of phonograms in the most effective and uniform manner possible without making void contractual obligations that pre-date the treaty. The Treaty grants performers four different kinds of economic rights in their performances fixed in phonograms:

The right of reproduction,
The right of distribution,
The right of rental, and
The right of making available.

The term of protection has been agreed for at least 50 years. The Treaty also constituted an Assembly that has the power to decide whether intergovernmental organizations can become party to the treaty.

WIPO Copyright Treaty

The WCT was adopted in 1996 by 89 countries.[6] After many advances were made in information technology since the formation of previous copyright treaties, this treaty attempted to add protections for copyrights. Mainly it ensures that computer programs were protected as literary works (Article 4) and also that the arrangement and selection of material in databases is protected (Article 5). It bolsters the protection further by providing authors with control over the rental and distribution of their work according to Article 6 to 8 which wasn’t directly prevalent in the Berne Convention. Many theorists feel that it is far too broad and offers too much protection to the copyright holder. For example, the circumvention of technical protection measures in pursuit of legal and fair use rights can be prevented because it is prohibited in this treaty. It also applies a uniform standard to all the signatory countries even though they are all at different stages of economic development and knowledge industry.

Protection of Broadcasts and Broadcasting Organizations Treaty

In 2006, the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) made a basic proposal to develop protection rights for all broadcasting organizations. This treaty would allow broadcasting organizations like media broadcasters to protect the content of their transmissions. They basically will have the right to protect their transmissions from reproduction, retransmission and even from public communication and will retain the copyright protection for 50 years. The problem with this treaty is that it adds a layer protection to the copyright that already exists on the material that is being broadcasted. This would allow broadcasters to restrict access to works that are currently available in the creative commons just because they happened to transmit it. This means that the citizens were unable to access works that they could previously access. The easier and fair way of solving the problem that broadcasters face, which the piracy of broadcast signals would have been to criminalize the piracy at an international level, many NGO’s are currently arguing.

Treaty Proposal on Copyright Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives

The International Federation of Library Association (IFLA) is currently working closely with the member states of WIPO in order to draft a binding international instrument for copyright limitations and exceptions. These exceptions and limitations are necessary for the libraries to preserve their collection, lend materials and facilitate/ support education and research. This treaty proposal is mainly being drafted by NGO’s and civil society actors in partnership with librarians and intellectual property experts. IFLA has collaborated with the International Council on Archives (ICA), Electronic Information for Libraries (EIFL) and Corporación Innovarte to produce the Treaty Proposal on Copyright Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives.[7]

Some of the things that the treaty proposes are:

Parallel importation (i.e. buying books from abroad)
Cross-border uses of works and materials reproduced under a limitation and exception
Library lending
Library document supply
Preservation of library and archival materials
Use of works and other material under related rights for the benefit of persons with disabilities
Use of works for education, research and private study
Use of works for personal and private purposes
Access to retracted and withdrawn works
Orphan works[8]

Education

There is another treaty being discussed currently on copyright exceptions for education and research. The main issue is deciding the order in which these treaties will be negotiated and which matter is most pressing or urgent to address presently. Developing countries are in favour of both exceptions for libraries and archives as well as for education while developed countries are of the mind that exceptions for these things already exist in the current framework of international treaties and conventions. The US is expressly opposed to more discussions on more copyright exceptions and wants to move forward on the broadcast treaty discussions.[9]

Electronic Frontier Foundation, Knowledge Ecology International, Public Knowledge along with other civil society groups formed a joint statement for the copyright exceptions for education in the digital age:

"(...) Education should be accessible for all without barriers of space, time, or cost. Digital technologies, from the portable computer to mobile phones to tablets, are being introduced as crucial educational tools in countries ranging from South Korea to Nigeria, from Brazil to the USA. Educational materials and, therefore, its market, is increasingly becoming digital and policymakers must consider this trend when drafting copyright exceptions and limitations in a way that is appropriate for future generations and the digital age.

The increasing adoption of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) in the classroom and in libraries and archives has proven that teachers, learners, researchers, librarians and archivists need rights to access, use, remix, text-mine, exchange, and collaborate on educational materials. Similar rights must be ensured beyond the classroom and library or archive, taking into account the growing importance of e-learning, online communication, and the increasing practice of exchanging educational and other information content across geographical and institutional borders.

The international copyright system has recognized the need for exceptions and limitations from its earliest days. Without these, the copyright system would not be able to achieve its fundamental purpose of encouraging creation and innovation for the benefit of all humankind. (...)"[10]

WIPO Case Study

In June 2013, 186 member states of the WIPO adopted a landmark treaty known as the Treaty for the Visually Impaired (Formally known as: “Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled.”) [11] The purpose of the treaty was to increase the access to books for blind, visually impaired and print disabled people across the globe.

Aspects of the Treaty:

It required an exception in domestic copyright law for people with print disabilities and the visually impaired.
It allowed for the import and export of accessible versions of books without the permission of the copyright holder.
However, only “authorised entities” such as blind people’s organizations can avail this provision under the treaty’s terms.
Article 2 of the Treaty states that accessible books changing hands under its provisions should be solely for the use of “beneficiary persons”. It also states that “authorised entities” take “due care” when handling these books, and that they discourage the reproduction and distribution of copies that are unauthorized.

This treaty has the potential to change the way in which access to information is experienced by the visually impaired. This shows that civil society actors can take an active part in the drafting of important legislation as such a landmark treaty was originally proposed by the World Blind Union and Knowledge Ecology International after a meeting that was convened in 2008.[12] There was input sought from NGO’s throughout the process as well.

After the adoption of the treaty, however, the function of NGOs just increases. There are many steps required in order to ensure the effective implementation of the provisions of the treaty on the ground. Saksham Trust is one such NGO that works towards empowering marginalized sections of society by working on things like this. The following is an interview with Dipendra Manocha of Saksham Trust.

What kind of work in accessibility does your organization do?
Daisy Forum of India is a network of organisations that produce and distribute books in accessible formats to persons with print disabilities. These organisations produce digital e-text and digital talking books. The organisation works in the area of policy, capacity building, awareness, technology and mainstreaming accessibility in the area of books for persons with print disabilities.

What are the main impediments to ensuring accessibility on the ground?

Our policies and laws do not make it mandatory to use standards for digital content. Standards such as Unicode, accessible digital formats, etc., are not followed in production of digital content. Due to this we are forced to re-publish everything that gets published in India.
Books that are available as accessible content in other countries cannot be brought in India. We also cannot send books in accessible formats to other countries with common languages.
Enough resources are not allocated to produce accessible books for persons with print disabilities.
There are several technology gaps such as non-availability of text-to-speech (TTS) or OCR in Indian languages due to which production and reading options of accessible books is very expensive. The only option of reading in many languages is hard copy Braille or human voice recorded talking books. Both these are much more expensive than reading of digital e-text with the help of TTS technology.
Organisations and individuals in large parts of the country are not aware of the latest developments and methods of getting accessible content from common catalogue or online libraries, etc.
Reading technology has not reached the end users of the country in a large scale.
Main stream publishing industry is producing digital books but these are produced in a way that they are not usable by persons with print disabilities.

How important do you think treaties are?
These are extremely important as it takes best practice model of accessible books all over the world. Various stakeholders came together thinking and working together to find the best possible solution that takes care of the interests of all stakeholders.

Not even 2% of the blind individuals worldwide have sufficient access now. Countries like Namibia don’t even have a basic infrastructure to implement what the Treaty for the Visually Impaired offers. Therefore, in these places, what are the subsequent steps that an organization like yours has to do after the treaty enables?

Allocate resources to establish infrastructure for distribution providing sufficient protection to content to enable developing countries to participate in international exchange programme.
Develop mechanisms for international exchange of content.
Address technology gaps so that local language content can be produced and read by persons with print disabilities.

The developed world will act according to its commercial interests. Most of the knowledge is produced in the developed countries and most of the disabled are in developing countries. What are ways to make this equation seem more lucrative?

South-south cooperation
Even relatively smaller subscriptions and remunerations for already developed content will be additional resource of funds even for companies or organisations of developed countries if they begin distribution of their content in developing countries.

Technological Protection Measures and Rights Management Information (TPMs/RMI)

In order to ensure that unauthorized copying of a protected material can be prevented or detected, the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) included new provisions dealing with TPMs and RMI.

TPMs are technological safeguards which are put in place which prevents the copying of a protected work in digital format to be copied multiple times. This includes limiting the number of devices on which a song can be copied, using software which does not allow the consumer to copy the protected works from an optical disc.

RMI are generally put on the protected work to ensure that the label of the owner of the work is always embedded in the work. For example, in case of a movie, the film studio may use an RMI which would be positioned as the logo in the movie. It can be also stored as metadata along the video or the protected work.

Article 11 of the WCT and Article 18 of the Wipo Performances and Phonograms Treaty, 1996, (WPPT) states that the states must provide legal protection for TPMs and RMI apart from making provisions for legal remedy in case of circumvention of the technological protection measures. It is interesting to note that India is not a signatory to both the treaties that is WPPT and WCT. This could be because of the strict copyright provisions in the treaties which undermine many goals of accessibility currently being pursued by India.

[1]. Article 3 – Objectives of the Organization, Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization available at http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/convention/trtdocs_wo029.html

[2]. www.wipo.int/copyright/en/ecommerce/ip_survey/chap3.html#3a

[3]. See more at http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html

[4]. See more at http://www.wipo.int/policy/en/sccr/

[5]. See more at http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wppt/summary_wppt.html

[6]. See more at http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wct/trtdocs_wo033.html

[7]. See more at http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/hq/topics/exceptions-limitations/documents/TLIB_v4.3_050712.pdf

[8]. See more at http://www.ifla.org/node/5856

[9]. See more at https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/07/wipo-possible-international-treaty-copyright-exceptions-limitations

[10]. See full document at https://www.eff.org/file/35218#page/1/mode/1up

[11]. See more at http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=245323

[12]. See more at http://keionline.org/content/view/210/1

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/telecom/knowledge-repository-on-internet-access/wipo

World Day Against Software Patents

pranesh — 2013-01-16T07:15:16Z

A global coalition of more than 80 software companies, associations and developers has declared the 24th of September to be the "World Day Against Software Patents". The Hindu, a national daily dedicated one page of its Bangalore edition to software patents and software freedom. Deepa Kurup contributed written two articles titled "Will patenting take the byte out of IT here?" and "How would it be if you read only one type of book?" which reflects some of the concerns of the Free/Libre/Open Source Software community.

Will patenting take the byte out of IT here? [link]

Deepa Kurup

There has been little debate on patent laws and the software industry. Today is World Day Against Software Patents.

IT software, services and outsourcing industry has been rooting for software patenting
Delhi Patent Office receives around 50 applications for software patents every month

BANGALORE: Picture this. Indian mathematicians came up with the concept of the “zero” — often touted as India’s greatest contribution to civilisation — and got a patent for it. By now they would have raked in inestimable amounts in royalty. Seems preposterous? Members of the Free Software community say that patenting every other algorithm would be somewhat in the same league.

While there has been substantial discussion on how patents will affect the pharmaceutical sector, there has been little debate about its implications on the software industry. To the layman, software patenting sounds like an abstract issue applicable to an even more abstract domain. However, with a growing software industry which is trying to spread its indigenous roots, the issue becomes an important one.

Traditionally, software comes under the Copyright Law (just like any literary work) and anyone who writes a program owns it. After Indian Parliament in 2005 scrapped an ordinance which declared “software in combination with hardware” patentable, the controversial and ambiguous clause — “software per se” — has now resurfaced in a recently formulated Patent Manual.

And how will the common man be affected by this proposed change in the patent manual? For example, when Global Patent Holdings patented usage of images on websites, a bunch of small and big companies had to cough up to $50 million each. And where does this cost reflect? “The consumer will find that products will get a lot more expensive. Take a DVD player which has about 2,000 patents (many of them software-related). Every time a local company makes a DVD player, they have to pay royalties and the costs will naturally be reflected on the sale price,” says Sunil Abraham of Centre for Internet and Society, a research and advocacy organisation.
Backdoor entry

The Free Software community feels that patents will make a backdoor entry, courtesy this manual and that ongoing public consultation (by the Patent Office) does not take their voices into account. Mr. Abraham says: “We feel that the powerful software lobbies around are pushing for this clause. If allowed, it will affect the basis of innovation, and will in turn affect the industry.” While the Bangalore consultation was “postponed indefinitely,” the Patent Office in its Delhi meeting said this issue called for an “exclusive meeting with the software industry.”

The powerful IT software, services and outsourcing industry has been rooting for software patenting. Under the guile of the seemingly innocuous clause in the Indian Patent Bill 2005, software companies and the MNC lobby is trying to carve out a slice for the specific “software embedded with hardware” industry saying that it will increase the value of indigenous home-grown software, pump up software exports and thereby rake in greater revenue.

However, the other side of the story is worth telling. Software, per se, is simply a set of instructions to carry out a certain process. Software experts put forth the argument that big corporations — with money, muscle and hired talent — will seek to impose patents along the software value chain, starting from source code to the recent demand for “embedded software.”

Sources in the Delhi Patent Office say that they receive around 50 applications for software patents every month. In the U.S. 25,000 patents are granted every year. In a software-driven world, blurring the lines between software and software “per se” could be risky. “Patenting is an expensive and tedious process. The challenge for every programmer would be to verify each time, to see if any two lines of his code would infringe upon a patent. In the U.S., a single verification can cost as much as $5,000. The fundamental issue is that if I arrive at anything independently, should I not use it only because someone had got it patented before me?” asks a senior official at Red Hat, an open source service provider.

A paper written by members of the Alternative Law Forum (ALF), the case against software patenting is presented as a very basic one. “Software evolves much faster than other industries, even with its own hardware industry. Microprocessors double in speed every two years. So, a patent that lasts up to 17 years (minimum period -15) is alarming. In this field, the idea underlying may remain the same but a product has to be replaced on an average of every two years,” it states. The paper also points out that in software “research costs are little because ideas are as abundant as air.”

Prashant Iyengar of ALF feels that patent laws will effectively curtail innovation, like it has done in the U.S. “Software, unlike other industries in India, is end-driven but is also on a “body shopping” model. Given that, a strong start-up company will be either be shut down or bought over if patent laws come in,” he explains.

How would it be if you read only one type of book? [link]

Deepa Kurup

Little or no attention is paid to what is being taught in schools and colleges

BANGALORE: A computer literacy programme in a public sector organisation teaches the following modules: MS Office, MS Power Point, MS Excelsheet and Internet Explorer. A glance through the “computer syllabus” in most schools, and the list is similar. All items on this checklist have one thing in common: proprietary software. So, if every computer user is being taught exclusively on proprietary platforms, would they ever be comfortable switching to the easier, cheaper and readily available alternatives?

Advocates of Free Software — software which can be used, studied and distributed without restriction — say that this is a ploy by proprietors to turn learners into potential customers. They allege that educational systems and the State are in cahoots with these large corporations which insist that children and learning adults be taught to only follow their system.

In a recent meeting with a State Government official about the use of Free Software on e-governance platforms, the official complained that none of his officials knew how to use it or repair it if things went wrong.

“This takes you to the root of the problem,” says Sunil Abraham of Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore. “Students are taught to use only proprietary software. The Government is subsidising training in proprietary technology and little or no attention is paid to what is being taught in schools and colleges,” he explains.

The “back-office” tag that our IT industry has learnt to live with is also a product of this malaise, experts point out. “When students learn only proprietary software, they will qualify only as computer operators and never learn about using the nuts and bolts of the profession. This is one of the reasons why there are no innovative products that come out of this country,” says Mr. Abraham.
Simple analogy

A simple analogy would be that of a child taking up reading as a habit. If a child reads a lot of books, they say, they learn to write and express better. Academics feel that in the absence of any familiarity with Free Software, where the source is easily available, engineering students and computer graduates never get to read any code and are thus hardly familiar with the languages.

FOSS supporters have written to the Ministry of Human Resource Development and several universities to point this out. Anivar Aravind, a member of Free Software Users Group, says that the progress so far has been staggered. Recently, CDAC and Anna Univeristy (KB Chandrashekar Research Centre) came up with a Free Software syllabus and offers trained to teachers in engineering colleges.
Cost factor

A study by International Open Source Network (an UNDP initiative) study on FOSS and education states that using open source software could reduce the costs involved in ICT education significantly. In a country like ours, this fact that Open Source Software usually involves low or no cost would be perceived as an important step towards reducing the digital divide. With no licensing fee, they can be made available on CD or downloaded.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/world-day-against-software-patents

Workshop Report - UIDAI and Welfare Services: Exclusion and Countermeasures

vanya — 2019-03-16T04:34:11Z

This report presents summarised notes from a workshop organised by the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) on Saturday, August 27, 2016, to discuss, raise awareness of, and devise countermeasures to exclusion due to implementation of UID-based verification for and distribution of welfare services.

Introduction

The Centre for Internet and Society organised a workshop on "UIDAI and Welfare Services: Exclusion and Countermeasures" at the Institution of Agricultural on Technologists on August 27 in Bangalore to discuss, raise awareness of, and devise countermeasures to exclusion due to implementation of UID-based verification for and distribution of welfare services [1]. This was a follow-up to the workshop held in Delhi on “Understanding Aadhaar and its New Challenges” at the Centre for Studies in Science Policy, JNU on May 26th and 27th 2016 [2]. In this report we summarise the key concerns raised and the case studies presented by the participants at the workshop held on August 27, 2016.

Implementation of the UID Project

Question of Consent: The Aadhaar Act [3] states that the consent of the individual must be taken at the time of enrollment and authentication and it must be informed to him/her the purpose for which the data would be used. However, the Act does not provide for an opt-out mechanism and an individual is compelled to give consent to continue with the enrollment process or to complete an authentication.

Lack of Adherence to Court Orders: Despite of several orders by Supreme Court stating that use of Aadhaar cannot be made mandatory for the purpose of availing benefits and services, multiple state governments and departments have made it mandatory for a wide range of purposes like booking railway tickets [4], linking below the poverty line ration cards with Aadhaar [5], school examinations [6], food security, pension and scholarship [7], to name a few.

Misleading Advertisements: A concern was raised that individuals are being mislead in the necessity and purpose for enrollment into the project. For example, people have been asked to enrol by telling them that they might get excluded from the system and cannot get services like passports, banks, NREGA, salaries for government employees, denial of vaccinations, etc. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has ordered Aadhaar not be mandatory, yet people are being told that documentation or record keeping cannot be done without UID number.

Hybrid Governance: The participants pointed out that with the Aadhaar (Targeted delivery of financial and other subsidies, benefits and services) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as Aadhaar Act, 2016 ) being partially enforced, multiple examples of exclusion as reported in the news are demonstrating how the Aadhaar project is creating a case of hybrid governance i.e private corporations playing a significant role in Governance. This can be seen in case of Aadhaar where we see many entities from private sector being involved in its implementation, as well as many software and hardware companies.

Lack of Transparency around Sharing of Biometric Data: The fact how and why the Government is relying on biometrics for welfare schemes is unclear and not known. Also, there is no information on how biometric data that is collected through the project is being used and its ability as an authenticating device. Along with that, there is very little information on companies that have been enlisted to hold and manage data and perform authentication.

Possibility of Surveillance: Multiple petitions and ongoing cases have raised concerns regarding the possibility of surveillance, tracking, profiling, convergence of data, and the opaque involvement of private companies involved in the project.

Denial of Information: In an RTI filed by one of the participant requesting to share the key contract for the project, it was refused on the grounds under section 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act, 2005. However, it was claimed that the provision would not be applicable since the contract was already awarded and any information disclosed to the Parliament should be disclosed to the citizens. The Central Information Commission issued a letter stating that the contractual obligation is over and a copy of the said agreement can be duly shared. However, it was discovered by the said participant that certain pages of the same were missing , which contained confidential information. When this issue went before appeal before the Information Commissioner, the IC gave an order to the IC in Delhi to comply with the previous order. However, it was communicated that limited financial information may be given, but not missing pages. Also, it was revealed that the UIDAI was supposed to share biometric data with NPR (by way of a MoU), but it has refused to give information since the intention was to discontinue NPR and wanted only UIDAI to collect data.

Concerns Arising from the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) on Implementation of PAHAL (DBTL) Scheme

A presentation on the CAG compliance audit report of PAHAL on LPG [8] revealed how the society was made to believe that UID will help deal with the issue of duplication and collection as well as use of biometric data will help. The report also revealed that multiple LPG connections have the same Aadhaar number or same bank account number in the consumer database maintained by the OMCs, the bank account number of consumers were also not accurately recorded, scrutiny of the database revealed improper capture of Aadhaar numbers, and there was incorrect seeding of IFSC codes in consumer database. The participants felt that this was an example of how schemes that are being introduced for social welfare do not necessarily benefit the society, and on the contrary, has led to exclusion by design. For example, in the year 2011, by was of the The Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Amendment Order, 2011 [9], the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas made the Unique Identification Number (UID) under the Aadhaar project a must for availing LPG refills. This received a lot of public pushback, which led to non-implementation of the order. In October 2012, despite the UIDAI stating that the number was voluntary, a number of services began requiring the provision of an Aadhaar number for accessing benefits. In September 2013, when the first order on Aadhaar was passed by court [10], oil marketing companies and UIDAI approached the Supreme Court to change the same and allow them to make it mandatory, which was refused by the Court. Later in the year 2014, use of Aadhaar for subsidies was made mandatory. The participants further criticised the CAG report for revealing the manner in which linking Aadhaar with welfare schemes has allowed duplication and led to ghost beneficiaries where there is no information about who these people are who are receiving the benefits of the subsidies. For example, in Rajasthan, people are being denied their pension as they are being declared dead due to absence of information from the Aadhaar database.

It was said that the statistics of duplication mentioned in the report show how UIDAI (as it claims to ensure de-duplication of beneficiaries) is not required for this purpose and can be done without Aadhaar as well. Also, due to incorrect seeding of Aadhaar number many are being denied subsidy where there is no information regarding the number of people who have been denied the subsidy because of this. Considering these important facts from the audit report, the discussants concluded how the statistics reflect inflated claims by UIDAI and how the problems which are said to be addressed by using Aadhaar can be dealt without it. In this context, it is important to understand how the data in the aadhaar database maybe wrong and in case of e-governance the citizens suffer. Also, the fact that loss of subsidy-not in cash, but in use of LPG cylinder - only for cooking, is ignored. In addition to that, there is no data or way to check if the cylinder is being used for commercial purposes or not as RTI from oil companies says that no ghost identities have been detected.

UID-linked Welfare Delivery in Rajasthan

One speaker presented findings on people's experiences with UID-linked welfare services in Rajasthan, collected through a 100 days trip organised to speak to people across the state on problems related to welfare governance. This visit revealed that people who need the benefits and access to subsidies most are often excluded from actual services. It was highlighted that the paperless system is proving to be highly dangerous. Some of the cases discussed included that of a disabled labourer, who was asked to get an aadhaar card, but during enrollment asked the person standing next to him to put all his 5 fingers for biometric data collection. Due to this incorrect data, he is devoid of all subsidies since the authentication fails every time he goes to avail it. He stopped receiving his entitlements. Though problems were anticipated, the misery of the people revealed the extent of the problems arising from the project. In another case, an elderly woman living alone, since she could not go for Aadhaar authentication, had not been receiving the ration she is entitled to receive for the past 8 months. When the ration shop was approached to represent her case, the dealers said that they cannot provide her ration since they would require her thumb print for authentication. Later, they found out that on persuading the dealer to provide her with ration since Aadhaar is not mandatory, they found out that in their records they had actually mentioned that she was being given the ration, which was not the case. So the lack of awareness and the fact that people are entitled to receive the benefits irrespective of Aadhaar is something that is being misused by dealers. This shows how this system has become a barrier for the people, where they are also unaware about the grievance redressal mechanism.

Aadhaar and e-KYC

In this session, the use of Aadhaar for e-KYC verification was discussed The UID strategy document describes how the idea is to link UIDAI with money enabled Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) to the beneficiaries without any reason or justification for the same. It was highlighted by one of the participants how the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) believed that making Aadhaar compulsory for e-KYC and several other banking services was a violation of the Money Laundering Act as well as its own rules and standards, however, later relaxed the rules to link Aadhaar with bank accounts and accepted its for e-KyC with great reluctance as the Department of Revenue thought otherwise. It was mentioned how allowing opening of bank accounts remotely using Aadhaar, without physically being present, was touted as a dangerous idea. However, the restrictions placed by RBI were suddenly done away with and opening bank accounts remotely was enabled via e-KYC.

A speaker emphasised that with emerging FinTech services in India being tied with Aadhaar via India Stack, the following concerns are becoming critical:

With RBI enabling creation of bank accounts remotely, it becomes difficult to to track who did e-KYC and which bank did it and hold the same accountable.
The Aadhaar Act 2016 states that UIDAI will not track the queries made and will only keep a record of Yes/No for authentication. For example, the e-KYC to open a bank account can now be done with the help of an Aadhaar number and biometric authentication. However, this request does not get recorded and at the time of authentication, an individual is simply told whether the request has been matched or not by way of a Yes/No [11]. Though UIDAI will maintain the authentication record, this may act as an obstacle since in case the information from the aadhaar database does not match, the person would not be able to open a bank account and would only receive a yes/no as a response to the request.
Further, there is a concern that the Aadhaar Enabled Payment System being implemented by the National Payment Corporation of India (NCPI) would allow effectively hiding of source and destination of money flow, leading to money laundering and cases of bribery. This possible as NCPI maintains a mapper where each bank account is linked (only the latest one). However, Aadhaar number can be linked with multiple bank accounts of an individual. So when a transaction is made, the mapper records the transaction only from that 1 account. But if another transaction takes place with another bank account, that record is not maintained by the mapper at NCPI since it records only transactions of the latest account seeded in that. This makes money laundering easy as the money moves from aadhaar number to aadhaar number now rather than bank account to bank account.

Endnotes

[1] See: http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/uidai-and-welfare-services-exclusion-and-countermeasures-aug-27.

[2] See: http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/report-on-understanding-aadhaar-and-its-new-challenges.

[3] See: https://uidai.gov.in/beta/images/the_aadhaar_act_2016.pdf.

[4] See: http://scroll.in/latest/816343/aadhaar-numbers-may-soon-be-compulsory-to-book-railway-tickets.

[5] See: http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/karnataka/linking-bpl-ration-card-with-aadhaar-made-mandatory/article9094935.ece.

[6] See: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/After-scam-Bihar-to-link-exams-to-Aadhaar/articleshow/54000108.cms.

[7] See: http://www.dailypioneer.com/state-editions/cs-calls-for-early-steps-to-link-aadhaar-to-ac.html.

[8] See: http://www.cag.gov.in/sites/default/files/audit_report_files/Union_Commercial_Compliance_Full_Report_25_2016_English.pdf.

[9] See: http://petroleum.nic.in/docs/lpg/LPG%20Control%20Order%20GSR%20718%20dated%2026.09.2011.pdf.

[10] See: http://judis.nic.in/temp/494201232392013p.txt.

[11] Section 8(4) of the Aadhaar Act, 2016 states that "The Authority shall respond to an authentication query with a positive, negative or any other appropriate response sharing such identity information excluding any core biometric information."

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/workshop-report-uidai-and-welfare-services-august-27-2016