The Centre for Internet and Society
http://editors.cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 1 to 15.
Your telco could help spy on you
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/livemint-july-30-2013-joji-thomas-philip-leslie-d-monte-shauvik-ghosh-your-telco-could-help-spy-on-you
<b>Telecom minister gives approval to changes in rules for mobile licences to enable such mass surveillance.</b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Joji Thomas Philip, Leslie D'Monte and Shauvik Ghosh was originally <a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/Politics/rpWFiDJroLgpLQ6yKdR3pJ/Telcos-to-soon-link-with-government-monitoring-system.html">published in Livemint</a> on July 30, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Telecom companies and Internet service providers will soon help the government monitor every call made, every email sent and every website visited, with the Centre deciding to connect their networks to its automated surveillance platform known as the Centralised Monitoring System (CMS).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Communications minister <span class="person"><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Kapil%20Sibal">Kapil Sibal</a></span> has approved changes in existing rules and new clauses to be inserted in mobile licences for enabling such mass surveillance, copies of documents reviewed by <i>Mint</i> reveal.</p>
<table class="invisible">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th><iframe frameborder="0" height="250" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/o1r6OSv-WyI" width="320"></iframe></th>
<td style="text-align: justify; ">
<p>The department of telecommunications (DoT) will shortly send a letter to all telcos asking them to connect their “lawful interception system (LIS)” to the CMS “at a regional monitoring centre through an interception, store and forward (ISF) server placed in the licensee’s premises”, according to the documents.</p>
<p>Telcos including <span class="company"><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Bharat%20Sanchar%20Nigam%20Ltd">Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd</a></span> (<span class="brand"><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/BSNL">BSNL</a></span>), <span class="company"><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Mahanagar%20Telephone%20Nigam%20Ltd">Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd </a></span>(MTNL), <span class="company"><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Reliance%20Communications%20Ltd">Reliance Communications Ltd</a></span>, <span class="company"><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Bharti%20Airtel%20Ltd">Bharti Airtel Ltd</a></span>, <span class="company"><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Vodafone%20India%20Ltd">Vodafone India Ltd</a></span> and <span class="company"><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Tata%20TeleServices%20Ltd">Tata TeleServices Ltd</a></span> declined to comment on questions emailed in this regard.</p>
<p> </p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“The automated process of the CMS will be subjected to the same regulatory scrutiny as is available in the present manual system under Section 5(2) of Indian Telegraph Act and Rules 419-A thereunder, with the added advantage of having a safeguard against any illegal provisioning by the telecom service providers in the present system, however, remote it may be,” DoT said in an email reply to a questionnaire with a brief on CMS.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“Safeguard has also been built against any unauthorized provisioning by having a different interception provisioning agency than the interception requisitioning and monitoring agencies thus having an inbuilt system of checks and balances. Further, a non-erasable command log will be maintained by the system, which can be examined anytime for misuse, thus having an additional safeguard,” DoT said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The CMS was approved by the cabinet committee on security (CCS) on 16 June 2011, with government funding of Rs.400 crore. It is expected to enable the government to monitor all forms of communication, from emails to online activity to phone calls, text messages and faxes by automating the existing process of interception and monitoring. The government completed a pilot project in September 2011 under which the Centre for Development of Telematics (C-DoT) installed two ISF servers, one of them for MTNL.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“The interception services have been integrated and tested successfully for these two telecom services providers (TSPs),” the note said, referring to MTNL and Tata Communications Ltd. MTNL officials declined to comment. There was no response to queries by Tata Communications.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It added that training had been imparted to six law enforcement agencies—the Intelligence Bureau, the Central Bureau of Investigation, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, the Research and Analysis Wing, the Delhi Police and the National Investigation Agency.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, the documents also reveal that the CMS project is getting delayed over technical issues such as lawful interception systems sending the intercept-related information (IRI) in “their own proprietary format”; difficulty in tracing the movement of “the target from the home network to the roaming network”; and how to independently provision voice and data interception of mobile users.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The government is simultaneously devising a strategy to counter criticism from the media and privacy lobby groups that this surveillance platform has no privacy safeguards. Mint reported on 13 July that fresh questions were raised on the CMS infringing on the rights of individuals, especially in the wake of the US government’s PRISM surveillance project.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In an internal note on 16 July to help Sibal brief the media, DoT said even as the CMS will automate the existing process of interception and monitoring “... all safeguards that are currently in place in the manual mode of interception will continue”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The note argued that implementation of the CMS “will rather enhance the privacy of the citizens” since it will not be necessary to take the authorization (for tapping) to the nodal officer of the telecom service providers “who comes to know whose or which phone is being intercepted”. The note added that after the CMS is implemented, provisioning of interception will be done by a CMS authority, who would be different from the law enforcement agency authorities.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“The law enforcement agency (LEA) cannot provision for interception and monitoring and the CMS authority cannot see the content but would be able to provision the request from the LEA.Hence, complete check and balance will be ensured. Further, a non-erasable command log will be maintained by the system, which can be examined anytime for misuse, thus having an additional safeguard,” added the department’s note briefing the minister.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Also, acknowledging that “questions were being asked about the practices of Indian agencies and the privacy and rights of its citizens”, national security adviser <a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Shivshankar%20Menon">Shivshankar Menon</a> in a 23 June note to the ministries of home, external affairs and telecom, the department of electronics and information technology, and the cabinet secretary said: “Only home secretaries of the Centre and states can authorize such monitoring; orders are valid for two months, are not extendable beyond six months; records are to be maintained, use of storage is limited and a review committee of cabinet secretary, law secretary and secretary of the telecom department regularly screens all cases.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Menon also admitted that when it came to individual privacy rights, there were “larger issues that needed serious consideration and wider consultation with industry, advocacy groups and NGOs (non-governmental organizations) as has been the case so far in the draft privacy Bill... For data protection and retention in India, however, there may be a need to consider legislation or strengthening existing legislation, as the march of technology has made most present laws irrelevant.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Privacy experts are convinced that safeguards are needed, especially since India does not have a privacy law.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“To safeguard public interest, the government should also draft a law that will make it a criminal offence if a CMS authority is found in possession of any personal information culled through the CMS. That will prove to be a deterrent,” said <span class="person"><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Sunil%20Abraham">Sunil Abraham</a></span>, executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society, a privacy lobby body. “Also, the government must build an audit trail using PKI (public key encryption) and people as an additional safeguard.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“As I understand it, there is also no clear statutory backing for the CMS,” said <span class="person"><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Apar%20Gupta">Apar Gupta</a></span>, a partner at law firm Advani and Co. that specializes in information technology (IT) law. “What is important is that every tapping order should be backed by a reason. This was the case with the manual process. Will this be possible in an automated surveillance system such as the CMS?”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“What is disturbing is that there is no transparency with regard to the CMS. Everything is happening under the radar with media reports periodically giving us glimpses into the project,” he said. “A state should protect its interests but should do so in a manner that safeguards privacy and limits abuse.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">According to the <i>Freedom on the Net 2012</i> report by Freedom House, an independent privacy watchdog body, of the 47 countries analysed, 19 had introduced new laws or other directives since January 2011 that could affect free speech online, violate users’ privacy, or punish individuals who post certain types of content. India, which scored 39 points out of 100 (score achieved out of 100 for censoring the Internet), was termed partly free by the report, which was released on 24 September.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Globally, 79% of the respondents in another study said they were concerned about their privacy online, with India (94%), Brazil (90%) and Spain (90%) showing the highest level of concern, according to a June survey undertaken by research firm ComRes, and commissioned by Big Brother Watch, an online privacy campaign.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/livemint-july-30-2013-joji-thomas-philip-leslie-d-monte-shauvik-ghosh-your-telco-could-help-spy-on-you'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/livemint-july-30-2013-joji-thomas-philip-leslie-d-monte-shauvik-ghosh-your-telco-could-help-spy-on-you</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaTelecomInternet GovernanceCensorshipPrivacy2013-07-30T06:13:07ZNews ItemYou will need a license to create a WhatsApp group in Kashmir
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/governance-now-april-19-2016-you-will-need-a-license-to-create-whatsapp-group-in-kashmir
<b>The internet rights activists have criticised the move stating it as unconstitutional.</b>
<p>The article was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.governancenow.com/news/regular-story/you-may-need-a-license-in-kashmir-run-a-whatsapp-group">published by Governance Now</a> on April 19, 2016. Pranesh Prakash tweeted on this.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Moving beyond internet ban, Kashmir’s Kupwara district issued a notice asking all admins of WhatsApp news groups to register their groups with the district authority within ten days.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">With this move, the authorities are taking power in their hands to monitor WhatsApp news groups owned by private individuals. However, internet rights activists criticised it saying the move is unconstitutional as it breaches freedom of speech.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The circular is issued under the subject of ‘registering of WhatsApp news group and restrictions for spreading rumours thereof’. The district magistrate said that any spread of information by these WhatsApp news groups, “leading to untoward incidents will be dealt under the law”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">You may need a license in Kashmir to run a WhatsApp group</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/WhatsApp.jpg" alt="WhatsApp" class="image-inline" title="WhatsApp" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The valley witnessed five-day internet shutdown following the Handwara firing incident. Internet ban is a common phenomenon in Kashmir. <br /><br /> “For how long will the government decide whether we can communicate with each other or not? Actually, the authorities do not want us to spread the truth about the army’s atrocities far and wide,” said a resident of Handwara as quoted in Kashmir Reader.<br /><br /> Earlier, parts of Haryan and Gujarat also witnessed internet ban during Jat and Patidar agitation, respectively.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="http://www.governancenow.com/gov-next/egov/hard-broad-ban-internet-haryana-jat-agitation" target="_blank"><span>Blocking all internet access </span></a>is clearly an unnecessary and disproportionate measure that cannot be countenanced as a ‘reasonable restriction’ on freedom of expression and the right to seek and receive information, which is an integral part of the freedom of expression,” said Pranesh Prakash.<br /><br /> For instance, he adds, a riot-affected woman seeking to find out the address of the nearest hospital cannot do so on her phone. “Instead of blocking access to the internet, the government should seek to quell rumours by using social networks to spread the truth, and by using social networks to warn potential rioters of the consequences,” he said. <br /><br /> Former Mumbai police commissioner Rakesh Maria used WhatsApp to counter rumours spread after circulation of a fake photo in January 2015. <br /><br /> “The way in which the ban is imposed is unreasonable. Problem is in the method that is being used in absence of guidelines, defining circumstances under which they can impose a restriction on internet sites,” says Arun Kumar, head of cyber initiatives at Observer Research Foundation (ORF). <br /><br /> If government formulates these rules or guidelines it will set a threshold for state or central authorities, which will define the urgency of imposing ban on internet services.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/governance-now-april-19-2016-you-will-need-a-license-to-create-whatsapp-group-in-kashmir'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/governance-now-april-19-2016-you-will-need-a-license-to-create-whatsapp-group-in-kashmir</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial MediaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceCensorshipWhatsApp2016-04-21T02:34:46ZNews ItemYou Have the Right to Remain Silent
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/your-right-to-remain-silent
<b>India has a long history of censorship that it justifies in the name of national security. But new laws governing the Internet are unreasonable and — given the multitude of online voices — poorly thought out, argues Anja Kovacs in this article published in the Sunday Guardian on 17 April 2011.</b>
<p>In March 2011, Indian media - both social and traditional - was ablaze
with fears that a new set of rules, proposed to complement the IT
(Amendment) Act 2008, would thwart the freedom of expression of India's
bloggers: contrary to standard international practice, the Intermediary
Due Dilligence Rules seemed intent on making bloggers responsible for
comments made by readers on their site. Only a few weeks earlier, the
threat of online censorship had manifested itself in a different form:
although the block was implemented unevenly, mobile applications market
space Mobango, bulk SMS provider Clickatell, hacking-related portal
Zone-H.com and blogs hosted on Typepad were suddenly no longer
accessible for most Indian netizens, without warning or explanation.</p>
<p>Censorship in India is nothing new. At the time of Independence,
there was widespread fear among its lawmakers that unrestricted freedom
of expression could become a barrier to the social reforms necessary to
put the country on Nehru's path to development – particularly as the
memory of Partition continued to be vivid. Although freedom of
expression is guaranteed by the Constitution, it is therefore subject to
a fairly extensive list of so-called "reasonable" restrictions: the
sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly
relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in
relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.
But while this long list might have made sense at the time of Partition,
in the mature democracy that India has now become, its existence, and
the numerous opportunities for censorship and surveillance that it has
enabled or justified, seems out of place. Indeed, though all these
restrictions in themselves are considered acceptable internationally,
there are few other democratic states that include all of them in the
basic laws of their land.</p>
<p>An appetite for censorship does not only exist among India's
legislature and judiciary, however. Especially since the early nineties,
instances of vigilante groups destroying art, preventing film
screenings, or even attacking offending artists, writers and editors
have become noteworthy for their regularity. But it is worth noting that
even more progressive sections of society have not been averse to
censorship: for example, section of the Indian feminist movement have
voiced strong support for the Indecent Representation of Women Act that
seeks to censor images of women which are derogatory, denigrating or
likely to corrupt public morality.</p>
<p>What connects all these efforts? A belief that suppressing speech and
opinions makes it possible to contain the conflicts that emanate from
India's tremendous diversity, while simultaneously ensuring its
homogenous moral as much as political development. But if the advent of
satellite television already revealed the vulnerabilities of this
strategy, the Internet has made clear that in the long term, it is
simply untenable. It is not just that the authors of a speech act may
not be residents of India; it is that everybody can now become an
author, infinitely multiplying the number of expressions that are
produced each year and that thus could come within the Law's ambit. In
this context, even if it may still have a role, suppression clearly can
no longer be the preferred or even dominant technology of choice to
manage disagreements. What is urgently needed is the building of a much
stronger culture of respectful disagreement and debate within and across
the country's many social groups. If more and more people are now
getting an opportunity to speak, what we need to make sure is that they
end up having a conversation.</p>
<p>Yet the government of India so far has mostly continued on the beaten
track, putting into place a range of legislations and policies to
meticulously monitor and police the freedom of expression of netizens
within its borders. Thus, for example, section 66F(1)(B) of the IT
(Amendment) Act 2008 defines "cyberterrorism" so broadly as to include
the unauthorised access to information on a computer with a belief that
that information may be used to cause injury to...decency or morality.
The suggested sentence may extend to imprisonment for life. The proposed
Intermediary Due Dilligence Rules 2011 privatise the responsibility for
censorship by making intermediaries responsible for all content that
they host or store, putting unprecedented power over our acts of speech
into the hands of private bodies. The proposed Cyber Cafe Rules 2011
order that children who do not possess a photo identity card need to be
accompanied by an adult who does, constraining the Internet access of
crores of young people among the less advantaged sections of society in
particular. And while the US and other Western countries continue to
debate the desireability of an Internet Kill Switch, the Indian
government obtained this prerogative through section 69A of the IT
(Amendment Act) 2008 years ago.</p>
<p>Such measures are given extra teeth by being paired with unprecedented
systems of surveillance. For example, there are proposals on the table
that make it obligatory for telecommunication carriers and manufacturers
of telecommunications equipment to ensure their equipment and services
have built-in surveillance capabilities. While at present, records are
only kept if there is a specific requirement by intelligence or security
agencies, the Intelligence Bureau has proposed that ISPs keep a record
of all online activities of all customers for at least six months. The
IB has also suggested putting into place a unique identification system
for all Internet users, whereby they would be required to submit some
form of online identification every time they go online.</p>
<p>Proponents of such legislation often point to the new threats to
safety and security that the Internet poses to defend these measures,
and it is indeed a core obligation of any state to ensure the safety of
its citizens. But the hallmark of a democracy is that it carefully
balances any measures to do so with the continued guarantee of its
citizens' fundamental rights. Despite the enormous changes and
challenges that the Internet brings for freedom of expression
everywhere, such an exercise seems to sadly not yet have been
systematically undertaken in India so far.</p>
<p>The recent blocking of websites with which we started this article
reflects the urgent need to do so. In response to RTI applications by
the Centre for Internet and Society and Medianama, the Department of
Information Technology, which is authorised to order such blocks,
admitted to blocking Zone-H, but not any of the other websites affected
earlier this year. In an interview with The Hindu, the Department of
Telecommunication too had denied ordering the blocking of access,
despite the fact that some users trying to access Typepad had reported
seeing the message "this site has been blocked as per request by
Department of Telecom" on their screen. In the mean time, Clickatell and
Mobango remain inaccessible for this author at the time of writing.
That we continue to be in the dark as to why this is so in the world's
largest democracy deserves to urgently become a rallying point.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/your-right-to-remain-silent'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/your-right-to-remain-silent</a>
</p>
No publisheranjaFreedom of Speech and Expressionhuman rightsInternet GovernanceCensorship2011-08-02T07:55:22ZBlog EntryYou can still get into trouble for online posts: Digital law experts
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/times-of-india-march-30-2015-kim-arora-you-can-still-get-into-trouble-for-online-posts
<b>The internet in India is freer now, but individuals could still to get into trouble for online posts, say digital media and law experts. Hailing the Supreme Court judgment on Tuesday as a landmark verdict for free speech in India, experts who have closely read the judgment say there is much to be careful about too. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Kim Arora was <a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/You-can-still-get-into-trouble-for-online-posts-Digital-law-experts/articleshow/46741580.cms">published in the Times of India</a> on March 30, 2015. Sunil Abraham is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The scrapping of the contentious section doesn't mean that one has a free run, cautions Sunil Abraham, executive director, Centre for Internet and Society. An online comment can still land you in jail, he says.<br /><br />"The judgement in no way means that speech on online platforms will be unregulated now. You can still be charged for pornography or voyeurism under the IT Act. There are many provisions in the Constitution and Indian Penal Code that the government can use to target people it wants to go after. You can be still charged for hate speech or defamation - which is a criminal offence in India - for an online comment," says Abraham.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While lawyer Apar Gupta found the judgment to be forward-looking, he pointed to Para 98 of the 120 page judgment, which addresses Article 14 of the Constitution regarding "discrimination" and talks of the distinction between online and other media.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"We make it clear that there is an intelligible differentia between speech on the internet and other mediums of communication for which separate offences can certainly be created by legislation," says the judgment. "The court has indicated that special offences can be created for the internet. Constant vigilance is the price of liberty. We need to constantly engage with these issues to keep the internet free," says Gupta.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The judgment has been praised for making a distinction between online posts and messages that pertain to advocacy, discussion and incitement. "This is an excellent decision. The SC is saying that no matter what the medium, we stand for constitutional rights. The judges were ready to listen, and ready to share their experience of using the internet also," says Mishi Choudhary, legal director at Software Freedom Law Center, adding, "It was a lost opportunity for the Modi government. They should have gotten rid of section 66 A themselves."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Section 69A of the Act, which stands as is, allows non-transparent blocking of online content in the interest of "sovereignty and integrity of India, defense of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above." However, Choudhary says that since it is a narrowly-drawn provision, it ensures more safeguards.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"It will be noticed that Section 69A unlike Section 66A is a narrowly drawn provision with several safeguards. First and foremost, blocking can only be resorted to where the Central Government is satisfied that it is necessary so to do. Secondly, such necessity is relatable only to some of the subjects set out in Article 19(2). Thirdly, reasons have to be recorded in writing in such blocking order so that they may be assailed in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution," she says.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Going forward, the government plan of action should focus on balancing safety and freedom on the internet, says Rajya Sabha MP Rajeev Chandrasekhar, who himself was one of the petitioners. "The final endgame has to be one where we have a new law or even a new IT Act which meets the twin objectives of a safe and free internet. The two need not be mutually exclusive," he says.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>(With inputs from Anand J in Bengaluru) </i></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/times-of-india-march-30-2015-kim-arora-you-can-still-get-into-trouble-for-online-posts'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/times-of-india-march-30-2015-kim-arora-you-can-still-get-into-trouble-for-online-posts</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIT ActCensorshipFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceChilling Effect2015-04-02T01:44:32ZNews ItemYes, You Can Get Arrested for a Facebook Status Update Now
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/the-atlantic-wire-november-29-2012-david-wagner-you-can-get-arrested-for-facebook-status-update-now
<b>A 21-year-old Indian woman thought Mumbai shouldn't have been shutdown for the funeral of an Islamophobic leader. Broadcasting such opinions on Facebook was apparently grounds for arrest. </b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by David Wagner was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/11/yes-you-can-get-arrested-facebook-status-update-now/59450/">published in the Atlantic Wire</a> on November 29, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span>A Muslim graduate student, Shaheen Dhada posted a note (<a href="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=300712513362810&set=a.299963443437717.55180.299958060104922&type=1">of her iPhone message</a>) on her timeline November 18th, writing, "Every day thousands of people die, but still the world moves on ... Today, Mumbai shuts down out of fear, not out of respect." Her status was written in reference to the death of Bal Thackeray, the late leader of Hindu extremist group Shiv Sena, responsible for repeated waves violence against Muslims in the Maharashtra state, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-20383401">according to the BBC</a>. Another 21-year-old woman, Rinu Shrinivasan, was also arrested by Indian police for stoking "religious enmity." She'd simply clicked "like" on Dhada's post. </span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span>A mob of angry Thackeray supporters thronged around the police station Dhada's house. Others vandalized her uncle's clinic two days after her arrest. Mumbai newspaper </span></span><i><span><span>The Hindu </span></span></i><span><span><a href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/facebook-row-police-to-drop-case-against-girls/article4146343.ece">reports today</a> that charges have been dropped against the two arrested women, but those observing the case are worried about the precedent this sets for free speech in India. "I have 3,500 followers on Twitter, and I'm pretty sure I annoy 100 of them on a daily basis," says Centre for Internet and Society director Pranesh Prakash. But should that mean he and others in India should picture themselves in handcuffs every time they type a potentially controversial status update? Retired Supreme Court Justice Markandey Katju tells NPR's Julie McCarthy that, at least in this case, the arrest was totally inappropriate: </span></span></p>
<table class="listing">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>You can mourn a death in whichever way you want, but you can't bring a whole city to a stoppage. So what this girl wrote was in consonance with the verdict of the Supreme Court—nothing illegal.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/the-atlantic-wire-november-29-2012-david-wagner-you-can-get-arrested-for-facebook-status-update-now'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/the-atlantic-wire-november-29-2012-david-wagner-you-can-get-arrested-for-facebook-status-update-now</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-11-30T08:16:20ZNews ItemWorld Narrow Web
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/world-narrow-web
<b>Censorship and how govt reacts to it may push us to country-specific networks, writes Pranesh Prakash in an article published in the Indian Express on 4 February 2012. </b>
<p>Twitter, a popular micro-blogging service, recently announced that “[today] we give ourselves the ability to reactively withhold content from users in a specific country — while keeping it available in the rest of the world”. In a move a few weeks ago, Blogger, Google’s blogging service, in effect announced something similar, by saying that default they would redirect Blogger users trying to get to Blogspot.com addresses (like <a class="external-link" href="http://example.blogspot.com">http://example.blogspot.com</a>) to their respective country sites (like <a class="external-link" href="http://example.blogspot.in">http://example.blogspot.in</a>). Twitter’s announcement was greeted with much disapproval by many Twitter users, as a move towards censorship, with some talking (on Twitter) about a boycott. Blogger’s move was hidden away, deep within a help page, and is being noticed now, and is causing quite a stir as caving in to censorship. Are these concerns justified? Before answering that question, let’s look at what the platforms’ announcements really say.</p>
<p>Twitter has given itself the ability to withhold specific tweets and users in particular countries where that content is legally required to be removed (generally with a court order). Their earlier option, they inform us, was to block the offending tweets and users in all countries. Apart from this, they will publish a notice for each tweet/ user that is blocked in a country. They will also be proactively publishing every removal request they receive at ChillingEffects.org, which allows us to hold them to account and question their decision to remove tweets.</p>
<p>Google, by redirecting you to the country-specific Blogger, is allowing for country-level removal of both blogs and individual blog posts. However, they also note that you can circumvent this by using a special “no redirect” address. Google currently forwards all search-related removals, but does not do so for Blogger-related requests, and all copyright-related complaints to ChillingEffects.org. Google does publish aggregate data relating to censorship of Blogger, on which free-speech advocates have been asking them to provide more granular information.</p>
<p>There are three problems. First, while Twitter was just as open to repressive governments’ requests last week, by making this change, they are advertising this fact to such governments. Thailand has noted it, and has congratulated Twitter.</p>
<p>Second, as Rob Beschizza, managing editor of the website Boing Boing, pointed out, there have been no instances of political content having been removed by Twitter. Even British courts’ super-injunctions (injunctions on speech, that prevent you from mentioning the fact that there is an injunction) were defeated by Twitter users, which only showed that attempts to censor material results in even more attention being drawn to it (which is popularly known as the “Streisand Effect”). So, does this now mean that Twitter will start applying local laws to judge “valid and applicable legal requests”, instead of American laws? What if the law is as bad as that which exists in India, where they are required to remove content within 36 hours based on any affected person’s complaint — without a court order? Will they still act on it? If they don’t, will the government or courts order Twitter.com to be blocked in India, finding it liable for illegal omissions?</p>
<p>Third, this trend points increasingly to the fact that we are witnessing a Balkanisation of the Web as more countries start asserting their sovereignty online. As Chinese dissident journalist Michael Anti pointed out recently, it seems we now need visas (read “circumvention techniques”) to visit the international Web. But even then, there is no longer a singular “international” Web, but an Indian Web and a Guatemalan Web, and an Angolan Web. And the government’s recent proposal of requiring companies to locate their servers in India is a move towards this (apart from being a move towards killing cloud computing).<br /><br />That having been said, the reality is that the CEOs of Google, Google India, and Microsoft have been summoned to appear in Indian courts for allowing their users to publish material which they don’t know about, which is in a sealed envelope (and most of the accused companies haven’t been shown yet), and which they weren’t even asked once to remove.<br /><br />The Intermediary Guidelines Rules passed by the Department of Information Technology in April 2011 do not require the user, whose content it is, to be told that there is a complaint, nor to be given a chance to defend themselves. It does not even require public notice that the content has been removed.</p>
<p>The truth is, the transparency around censorship that Google and Twitter are providing is far better than what most other companies are providing. For instance, Big Rock, an Indian DNS provider, suspended the CartoonsAgainstCorruption.com web address on the basis of a seemingly not legal request by the Cyber Cell of the Mumbai Crime Branch, and did so without any public notice and without even informing the cartoonist whose web address it was. At least Google and Twitter are pushing back against non-legal requests, and refusing to remove content that doesn’t violate local laws. Single-mindedly criticising them will only put off other companies from following in their footsteps.<br /><br />Instead of criticising those who are actually working towards transparency in censorship, we should encourage them and others, push intermediaries not to cave in to unreasonable censorship requests, prevent them from over-censoring on their own, and push hard for the government to incorporate their best practices as part of the Intermediary Guidelines Rules.</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.indianexpress.com/news/world-narrow-web/907579/1">The original article was published in the Indian Express</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/world-narrow-web'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/world-narrow-web</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshGoogleFreedom of Speech and ExpressionTwitterInternet GovernanceFeaturedCensorship2012-03-27T16:00:24ZBlog EntryWomen Arrested in Mumbai for Complaining on Facebook
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/india-blogs-nytimes-nov-19-2012-neha-thirani-hari-kumar-women-arrested-in-mumbai-for-complaining-on-facebook
<b>For over 30 hours following the death of the Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray on Saturday, stores throughout Mumbai closed their shutters and taxis and autorickshaws stayed off the streets.</b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This article by Neha Thirani and Hari Kumar was <a class="external-link" href="http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/19/women-arrested-in-mumbai-for-complaining-on-facebook/">published in New York Times</a> on November 19, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While analysts throughout Mumbai debated whether the citywide shutdown following the death of Mr. Thackeray was inspired by fear or respect, one 21-year-old woman and her friend were arrested for raising a similar question.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On Sunday, the police in Palghar, in Thane district, on the outskirts of Mumbai, arrested Shaheen Dhadha after she posted a status update on Facebook that questioned the shutdown, also known as a bandh. A local daily, the Mumbai Mirror, <a href="http://www.mumbaimirror.com/article/2/2012111920121119043152921e12f57e1/In-Palghar-cops-book-21yearold-for-FB-post.html" target="_blank">reported</a> that Ms. Dhadha, 21, had written, "People like Thackeray are born and die daily and one should not observe a bandh for that." The police also arrested her friend who "liked" the post, whom NDTV <a href="http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/two-women-arrested-for-facebook-post-on-mumbai-shutdown-294239" target="_blank">identified </a>by her first name, Renu.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The women were arrested under Section 505 of the Indian Penal Code for “statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill will between classes.” Srikant Pingle, station house in charge of the Palghar police, told India Ink that the local Shiv Sena chief, whom he identified as “Mr. Bhushan,” filed the complaint against Ms. Dhadha because her comment on Facebook hurt Shiv Sena’s sentiments. Mr. Pingle declined to comment further on the details of the arrests.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sudhir Gupta, the defense counsel for the two women, told NDTV, “Their posts don’t incite violence. It can’t be said they have made any derogatory remarks. They don’t belong to any political ideology.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In a phone conversation with India Ink, a police officer of the Palghar station, who identified himself only as Gavali, said that the arrest took place on Sunday night and that the pair had been taken to court on Monday.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The two women, who were sentenced to 14 days in jail by the court, received bail after a bond of 15,000 rupees ($270) was paid, <a href="http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/two-women-arrested-for-facebook-post-on-mumbai-shutdown-294239" target="_blank">reported NDTV</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Times of India <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/21-year-old-girl-arrested-for-Facebook-post-slamming-Bal-Thackeray/articleshow/17276979.cms" target="_blank">reported</a> that a mob of 2,000 Shiv Sena workers vandalized her uncle’s orthopedic clinic in Palghar. Repeated calls made to the Dhada orthopedic hospital in Thane went unanswered, while Harshal Pradhan, a Shiv Sena spokesman, said that he was unaware of the incident.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A police officer at the Palghar Police Station, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that no one has been arrested in the attack on the clinic.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Pranesh Prakash, program manager with the Center for Internet and Society, said the arrests of the two women were a violation of free speech and the misapplication of the law. “There were thousands of people on Facebook, Twitter and in person who were saying the exact same kinds of things that this girl is alleged to have said,” said Mr. Prakash. “And the fact that only she and one other person who liked that comment have been arrested shows a clear arbitrariness in the application of the law.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In <a href="http://justicekatju.blogspot.in/2012/11/a-letter-to-maharashtra-cm.html?m=1" target="_blank">an open letter</a> addressed to the chief minister of Maharashtra, the former Supreme Court Judge Markandey Katju defended the two women, saying, “To my mind it is absurd to say that protesting against a bandh hurts religious sentiments.” He further said that the arrest appears to be a criminal act as it is a crime to wrongfully arrest or wrongfully confine someone who has committed no crime.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On social networking sites, people came out in support of Ms. Dhadha and her friend. The Facebook group “<a href="http://www.facebook.com/pages/BAN-Shiv-Sena/296699900777?fref=ts" target="_blank">Ban Shiv Sena</a>” had about 36,400 "likes" as of Monday afternoon, while <a href="http://www.facebook.com/shivsena.official?fref=ts" target="_blank">the party’s official Facebook page</a> had just under 2,700. On Twitter, several commenters expressed solidarity with the two women, including <a href="https://twitter.com/milinddeora" target="_blank">Milind Deora</a>, the government minister of state, communications and information technology, who <a href="https://twitter.com/milinddeora/status/270431926022701057" target="_blank">said</a>, "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize ~ Voltaire."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In Maharashtra, Shiv Sena has a history of banning books, movies and other popular culture that are critical of the political party. In 2010, Rohinton Mistry’s book, "Such a Long Journey," was <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/19/mumbai-university-removes-mistry-book" target="_blank">withdrawn from the syllabus</a> of Mumbai University after Shiv Sena officials complained that the book insulted Bal Thackeray. Ironically, in <a href="http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/walk-the-talk/walk-the-talk-with-bal-thackeray-aired-on-january-28-2007/253252" target="_blank">a January 2007 interview</a> with Shekhar Gupta, the editor in chief of The Indian Express, Mr. Thackeray said that what differentiated him from the mafia is that journalists and others were free to disagree with him and criticize him.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/india-blogs-nytimes-nov-19-2012-neha-thirani-hari-kumar-women-arrested-in-mumbai-for-complaining-on-facebook'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/india-blogs-nytimes-nov-19-2012-neha-thirani-hari-kumar-women-arrested-in-mumbai-for-complaining-on-facebook</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial mediaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-11-21T11:32:04ZNews Item Women arrested for Facebook post: Did cops act under Sena pressure?
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/ndtv-video-ndtv-special-ndtv-24x7
<b>After Bal Thackeray's death, during the Mumbai Bandh, a 21-year-old criticised the shutdown on her Facebook page — her friend approved of it — next thing they know, they are facing a case, and this morning they were arrested. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">YP Singh, Alyque Padamsee, Rohan Joshi, Karuna Nundy and Pranesh Prakash took part in a discussion about the arrest of two girls over a Facebook comment. The discussion was aired in NDTV on November 19, 2012.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The anchor asked Pranesh Prakash:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Who are these people scrolling through people's Facebook posts and Twitter accounts, finding these comments and taking action?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Pranesh Prakash said that it could be anyone. The reality is doesn't really matter because the laws are written in such a way that if it is public and stuff that is on Facebook for different purposes can either be public or private, if it is public these laws can very often apply and that is a problem. We haven't quite figured out to what extent these laws apply. The IT Act section 66A for instance, is unconstitutional, section 295 A which has been applied, and section 505 which also seems to have been applied in this case make it a clear case of misappropriation of those provisions. These kind of arrests will happen. It doesn't quite matter if we have right laws at one level and it clearly doesn't help if we have bad laws. What we need to do at least in part to remedy the situation is to amend the IT Act to make it consonant and consistent with civil and political rights and to do so in multi-stakeholder fashion involving civil society, industry and government. Right now it doesn't protect privacy and freedom of speech as much as it should.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a class="external-link" href="http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/ndtv-special-ndtv-24x7/women-arrested-for-facebook-post-did-cops-act-under-sena-pressure/255407?hp&video-featured">Watch the full video aired on NDTV</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/ndtv-video-ndtv-special-ndtv-24x7'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/ndtv-video-ndtv-special-ndtv-24x7</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIT ActFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceVideoCensorship2012-11-21T11:17:37ZNews ItemWhy was the Gwalior court in such a hurry to block IIPM URLs?
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/first-post-feb-19-2013-danish-raza-why-was-the-gwalior-court-in-such-a-hurry-to-block-iipm-urls
<b>Is it really that easy to get courts to block online content as it appears from the latest case of the blocking of 73 URLs related to IIPM? Legally speaking, yes.
</b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Danish Raza was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.firstpost.com/india/why-was-the-gwalior-court-in-such-a-hurry-to-block-iipm-urls-630650.html">published in FirstPost on February 19, 2013</a>. Snehashish Ghosh's analysis on blocked sites is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p>In cases of defamation, violations of copyright and trademark law and threats to national security, courts can direct the government agency (CERT-in or Computer Emergency Response Team- India) to take down the offending content. And these can be ex-parte orders. Meaning the person or organisation posting the content online is not intimated every time the material is blocked.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Legality aside however, advocates of free speech say that such court orders should be exceptions and not the rule. There is a perception that the process in its current form – right from the filing of court case to the content being taken offline- is opaque.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Traditionally the Internet has been viewed as a more liberal, open and democratic platform as compared to traditional media. Through such orders, says Delhi based advocate and expert on cyber law Apar Gupta, courts seem to give out a warning that online content is not outside the purview of the law.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The problem in this case however, is not the ‘warning’ itself. It is the way that the warning is being given that is setting the wrong precedent.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The blocks on IIPM related URLs is based on an interim order passed by a Gwalior court. The head of the institute, Arindam Chaudhuri <a href="http://www.firstpost.com/tech/glad-defamatory-links-with-malicious-interests-removed-arindam-chaudhuri-627714.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">in an exclusive interview with </a><i><a href="http://www.firstpost.com/tech/glad-defamatory-links-with-malicious-interests-removed-arindam-chaudhuri-627714.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Firstpost</a>, </i>said that the case was filed last year by one his ‘channel partners’. He added that the court had made him a party in the case only in January and he would soon respond to court orders.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Three of the affected parties (<i>Careers 360, Caravan</i> and <i>Kafila),</i> however, said that they were never informed about the blocks, <a href="http://www.livemint.com/Politics/roausYEth9b0TvZv4r0whN/Govt-orders-blocking-of-IIPMrelated-URLs.html" target="_blank">reported </a><i><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Politics/roausYEth9b0TvZv4r0whN/Govt-orders-blocking-of-IIPMrelated-URLs.html" target="_blank">Mint</a>.</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">After the block orders, Shivam Vij, founder of the blog, <i>Kafila,</i> <a href="http://www.firstpost.com/tech/glad-defamatory-links-with-malicious-interests-removed-arindam-chaudhuri-627714.html" target="_blank">told </a><i><a href="http://www.firstpost.com/tech/glad-defamatory-links-with-malicious-interests-removed-arindam-chaudhuri-627714.html" target="_blank">Firstpost</a>,</i> “This is against the principle of natural justice. The court blocked the URL of my blog without giving me a chance to defend myself.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While there are occasions warranting the urgent removal of content, experts say similar exigency need not be shown in cases of defamatory content.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In his analysis of blocked URLs related to IIPM, Snehashish Ghosh from the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), a Bangalore based organisation, <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/analyzing-latest-list-of-blocked-urls-by-dot" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">notes that according to the Bonnard Rule</a>, in a defamation case, interim injunction should not be awarded unless a defence of justification by the defendant was certain to fail at trial level. “Therefore, it appears that the (Gwalior) Court order has moved away from the settled principles of law while awarding an interim injunction for blocking of content related to IIPM”, says the report.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Commenting on court ordered blocks, Parminder Jeet Singh, executive director of IT for change, a Bangalore based organisation which works on internet governance issues, says, “When there is clear imminent danger or threat to the society, as in case of possible rioting, immediate removal of content without notifying and hearing the other party is understandable. But defamatory content does not fall in this category. Decisions on such largely civil matter should be taken with due deep consideration, after listening to all parties. And by far the considerations of free speech should have overwhelming weight in making decisions.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Singh adds that “Even if it is considered necessary to remove any content, a fully transparent process has to be followed.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The most common reason cited for not sending notices before removing the content is the tiresome process of zeroing in on the one person or authority responsible for posting the content, says Prabir Purkayastha of Knowledge Commons, an organisation which promotes open source information. “If you approach intermediaries such as Google or Yahoo, they will rightly say that they can provide details only if they are allowed to do as per international treaties,” says Purkayastha. But when there is clarity on who put the content online, like in the IIPM case, he says, “DoT cannot absolve itself from the responsibility of writing at least an email to these entities.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In the case of Tata Sons Ltd. vs Green Peace International, cited by Ghosh of CIS, the Delhi High Court addressed the question whether posting or publishing of libelous material on the Internet calls for a different standard. Ghosh writes, “The court decided that there cannot be a separate standard for the Internet while awarding temporary injunction in defamation cases. The wider viewership or accessibility compared to other medium does not alter the fact that it is a medium.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Purkayastha agrees. “Freedom of speech and expression and the restraints on it, as enshrined in the constitution, should not depend on the medium of expression. But due to the haste shown by courts in blocking online content, it appears that courts seem be applying two sets of standards with respect to Internet and traditional media,” he says.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/first-post-feb-19-2013-danish-raza-why-was-the-gwalior-court-in-such-a-hurry-to-block-iipm-urls'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/first-post-feb-19-2013-danish-raza-why-was-the-gwalior-court-in-such-a-hurry-to-block-iipm-urls</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceCensorship2013-02-19T11:51:43ZNews ItemWhy this blocking di?
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/why-this-blocking
<b>In a bid to curb piracy, film producers are now approaching courts to block websites that host pirated content. But the court orders are so vaguely worded that users lose access to even legitimate content. R Krishna reports.</b>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.dnaindia.com/lifestyle/report_why-this-blocking-di_1694228">The article by R Krishna was published in Daily News & Analysis on May 27, 2012</a>. Pranesh Prakash is quoted in it.</p>
<p>The film 3 owes its popularity to thousands of netizens who watched the song ‘Why this kolaveri di’ on YouTube, and then recommended it to their friends on social networking sites. It is rather ironic that the same netizens were denied access to legitimate content — such as other independent films, free software, etc — on the internet, by the producers of the film.</p>
<p>Last week, the producers, via Copyright Labs, obtained an order from the Madras High Court against 15 internet service providers (ISPs) and five ‘Ashok Kumars’, directing them to not infringe on the film’s copyright. The result: many popular torrent sites as well as video sharing websites like Vimeo and Dailymotion were blocked by some ISPs.</p>
<p>The ‘Ashok Kumar’ in the order refers to unknown people who may infringe on the film’s copyright. It is the desi version of what is known as a John Doe order, used by courts in the US, UK, Canada and Australia.</p>
<h3>Acting against unknown offenders</h3>
<p>According to Delhi-based advocate Apar Gupta, John Doe orders came into practice in India in the early 2000s to help producers counter cable operators airing pirated versions of recently released films on their local channels. Films normally release on Friday, and if someone had pirated the movie, producers would have to wait till Monday to file a plea in court against the offenders.</p>
<p>By the time the court issued the order, the pirated film would have done its damage. That’s why courts started granting producers temporary injunctions against unknown people — John Doe — who were likely to infringe on the film’s copyright. This way, producers could serve court notices without any delay.</p>
<p>“The internet is now being included within the scope of such orders,” says Gupta. As a result, a film producer armed with a John Doe order can ask ISPs to block access to any website that is likely to infringe upon his copyright.</p>
<p>“In the digital age, it takes seconds to spread pirated copies with good prints across the world. A John Doe order makes it convenient for us to serve a notice. Of course, we have to prove that (the website) has infringed copyright,” says Sanjay Tandon, vice president, music and anti-piracy, Reliance Entertainment, which started the trend by blocking torrent websites during the release of their film Singham.</p>
<h3>Carpet blocking websites</h3>
<p>But according to Pranesh Prakash, programme manager, Centre for Internet & Societies, “Unlike the Calcutta High Court order in March this year, which specified the 104 websites that should be blocked, a John Doe order doesn’t mention any specific website. In some cases, the websites are being blocked without any evidence (of copyright infringement). Courts need to be informed of what people with John Doe orders are doing. We need to be specific about what can be blocked and what can’t be.”</p>
<p>A case in point is Vimeo, a website similar to YouTube, which has been blocked by certain ISPs. There is no information about which particular video on Vimeo infringes upon copyright. And even if there is some such video, experts are perplexed why the entire website was blocked.</p>
<p>“The injunctions being granted in India are very generalised and broad. For instance, all it states is that the court is preventing defendants from transmitting copyrighted content. It doesn’t set any limitations, such as requiring the plaintiff to identify specific URLs to be blocked, instead of the whole website,” says Gupta.</p>
<p>However, Tandon points out, Reliance Entertainment has not been asking ISPs to block entire websites. “We are asking ISPs and websites to not allow our content to be streamed via their service. I don’t know why ISPs choose to block entire websites,” he says.</p>
<p>ISPs are not forthcoming in explaining why entire websites are being blocked. “Access to certain sites has been blocked by Airtel pursuant to and in compliance with court orders,” is all an Airtel spokesperson is willing to reveal.</p>
<p>According to Gupta, entire websites are being blocked either because copyright owners demand this, or because ISPs are trying to avoid potential liability. “The fault lies with the legislative procedure. If the ISP is afraid and blocks the entire website, it shows that our laws are not good enough to protect its interests,” says Gupta.</p>
<p>In either case, the present system of functioning is too ham-handed and is like using a butcher’s knife where a surgeon’s scalpel is needed. “Courts should be strict in monitoring how the plaintiff is using the John Doe order. But for things to change, we need one of those unnamed defendants to come before the court and express how the order was used against him,” adds Gupta. Will a John Doe please stand up?</p>
<h3>What is happening internationally</h3>
<p>John Doe orders are used by courts in the US, UK, Canada and Australia. However, there are few instances abroad where they have been used to block websites. According to Apar Gupta, advocate, there is only instance in the UK where a court ordered the blocking of Pirate Bay. “But even that order was specific to Pirate Bay. In the US, they have the Digital Millennium Copyright Act wherein the copyright holder can write to the website asking them to take down content. It clearly specifies that only specific torrent files can be taken down, not the entire website. Indian laws do not go into such detail,” says Gupta.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/why-this-blocking'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/why-this-blocking</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-05-28T05:47:20ZNews ItemWhy India snubbed Facebook's free Internet offer
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/why-india-snubbed-facebooks-free-internet-offer
<b>The social media giant wanted to give the people of India free access to a chunk of the Internet, but the people weren't interested.</b>
<p>The blog post by Daniel Van Boom was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.cnet.com/news/why-india-doesnt-want-free-basics/">published by Cnet</a> on February 26, 2016. Sunil Abraham was quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mark Zuckerberg's ambitious mission to provide free Internet access to rural India was rejected by the people it was intended to help long before the country's regulators banned it earlier this month.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Around the country, farmers, labourers and office workers scorned Facebook's offer. Called Free Basics, it provided only limited access to the Internet through a suite of websites and services that, unsurprisingly, included Facebook. They felt the limited service didn't follow the open nature of the Internet, where all sites and online destinations should be equally accessible, so they organized real-world protests and an online Save The Internet campaign, with the message that Zuckerberg's efforts weren't welcome.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">You might think people would jump at the opportunity to access Facebook for free, especially since more than a billion people use the social network every day. But it's that hitch -- that they can't access everything else -- which is precisely the problem, said Sunil Abraham, the executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society India. "Even if somebody spends 90 percent of their time on Facebook, that 10 percent is equally as important."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Indian regulators sided with popular opinion and <a href="http://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-free-basics-gets-blocked-in-india/"><span>cut off Free Basics</span></a> in the world's second-most populous country on February 8. The ruling by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) forbids all zero-rating plans, meaning anyone offering customers free access to only a limited set of services of sites are banned. It was championed as a victory for Net neutrality, the principle that everyone should have equal access to all content on the Internet.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The decision was undoubtedly a blow for Facebook, which says it wants to connect the billions of have-nots around the world to the Internet through the program. While more than half the world's online population uses Facebook each month, the company's efforts to connect with the developing world -- with Free Basics also being available in over 30 other countries, such as Kenya and Iraq -- could be a boon for business.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"[The Internet] must remain neutral for everyone, individuals and businesses alike. Everyone must have equal access to it," said Rajesh Sawhney, a Mumbai-based tech entrepreneur, in support of TRAI's decision to reject Free Basics. He believes the zero-rating scheme can be misused by telcos and other companies to create divisive ecosystems, where certain brands or companies are included and others aren't.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The package wasn't without its supporters though, with some being disappointed with the government's intervention in the marketplace.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"It is generally assumed that there is something sinister behind violations of Net neutrality...but that is not always true," says software engineer Shashank Mehra. "ISPs trying to match consumer demand isn't something sinister, it is a market process."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The social media giant further defends itself by pointing out that Free Basics is <a href="https://info.internet.org/en/2015/11/19/internet-org-myths-and-facts/" target="_blank"><span>open to any and all developers</span></a>, including competitors Twitter and Google, as long as they meet the program's <a href="https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/platform-technical-guidelines" target="_blank"><span>technical standards.</span></a> This evidently wasn't enough to convince much of India.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">The problem persists</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook disputes claims that its interest in India is commercial, saying its efforts are humanitarian. In speeches over the past few months, Zuckerberg has painted Internet access as a tool for global good. "The research has shown on this that for every 10 people who get access to the internet, about one person gets a new job, and about one person gets lifted out of poverty," <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqkKiGhIyXs#t=4m03s" target="_blank"><span>he said at a Townhall Q&A</span></a> in Delhi last October. "Connecting things in India is one of the most important things we can do in the world."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Zuckerberg appears to have taken the loss in stride. <a href="http://www.cnet.com/news/mark-zuckerberg-internet-org-telecoms-project-mobile-world-congress-2016/"><span>During a keynote address at the Mobile World Conference in Barcelona</span></a> earlier this week, he admitted to being disappointed by the ruling, but added, "We are going to focus on different programs [in India]...we want to work with all the operators there." A Facebook spokesperson said the company "will continue our efforts to eliminate barriers and give the unconnected an easier path to the Internet and the opportunity it brings."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Those ideals could certainly help in India, where around <a href="http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.RUR.TOTL.ZS" target="_blank"><span>68 percent</span></a> of its population -- about 880 million people -- live in rural conditions or poverty. The promise of free access to health, education, local and national news through an Internet connection could potentially improve quality of live. So what's the problem?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The service providers would also be granting free Facebook.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Peggy Wolff, a volunteer coordinator at education NGO Isha Vidhya, says Facebook is just the latest in a long line of international companies hoping to crack rural India, where the bulk of the country's poor live.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While admitting that low cost or free Internet is imperative in rural areas, that "smart villages" are needed to help ease the human burden on India's increasingly overcrowded cities, she says, "Free basics is just a bit suspicious to most people. There's just too much vested interest."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"The big question." Sawhney says, "is how do we give fast and free Internet to a large section of society in India?"</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There are alternatives. United States-based Jana, for instance, developed an Android app called mCent that allows its growing userbase of 30 million to earn data by downloading and using certain apps or watching advertisements from sponsors. Unlike Free Basics, that data can be expended on any online destination.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Jana's CEO Nathan Eagle, like Zuckerberg, says his mission is to bring Internet connectivity to the next billion people. "Today, Internet connectivity in emerging markets is much more an issue of affordability, rather than access," he explains. "1.3 billion people in emerging markets now have Android phones...it's the cost of data that is prohibitive."</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/why-india-snubbed-facebooks-free-internet-offer'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/why-india-snubbed-facebooks-free-internet-offer</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFree BasicsFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceCensorship2016-02-27T07:49:08ZNews ItemWhy Geospatial Bill is draconian and how it will hurt startups
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/financial-express-prabhu-mallikarjunan-june-13-2016-why-geospatial-bill-is-draconian-and-how-it-will-hurt-startups
<b>Last week, the Indian government rejected Google’s plans to map Indian cities, tourist spots and mountain ranges, using the 360-degree panoramic Google Street View feature.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.financialexpress.com/article/economy/why-geospatial-bill-is-draconian-and-how-it-will-hurt-startups/282623/">published in Indian Express</a> on June 13, 2016</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Last week, the Indian government rejected <a href="http://www.financialexpress.com/tag/google/">Google</a>’s plans to map Indian cities, tourist spots and mountain ranges, using the 360-degree panoramic Google Street View feature. The government officials cited “national security” as a reason for not granting permission to Google. It is expected that the Google’s Street View permission would be relooked at, once the draft Geospatial Information Regulation Bill, 2016, is enforced as law. Many however feel that this draft bill is draconian and will have serious repercussions on the startup ecosystem.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Geospatial Bill seeks to make creating, accessing and distribution or sharing of map related information, illegal and that every company will have to take prior permission and license from the government for the same. Wayback in 2011, Google had announced the introduction of Street View for Bangalore, on Google Maps. But the project ran into trouble with Bangalore Police stopping Street View cars from plying in the city, citing security reasons.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Google Street View, launched in 2007, is popular in San Francisco, Las Vegas, Denver, New York and Miami, which allows users to navigate virtual streets from photographs gathered from directional cameras on special vehicles. While the service has been hugely successful it has caused problems of privacy in some countries.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In 2010 almost 250,000 Germans told Google to blur pictures of their homes on the Street View service, while Czech government also banned Google from taking any new photos for the service. In Switzerland, the matter went to the court and it was accepted that Google would be obliged to pixelate 99% of images to blur faces, vehicle registrations and that it would not be filming certain sensitive places such as schools, prisons and shelter homes.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This adds to the list of recent controversies on Google Earth, and the draft Geospatial Information Regulation Bill, on adoption of mapping technology in India. Commenting on the development, Sumandro Chattapadhyay, research director at the Centre for Internet and Society said, the key country where the Google Street View faced legal challenge, and was fined too, is Germany. This legal challenge, however, was not based on the concern for national security but on that for the privacy of the citizens. However, it was eventually allowed to roll out Street View in Germany provided that it asks for consent from the house owners before images of any house.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“One of the crucial concerns with the draft Geospatial Information Regulation Bill remains its vast scope of application. Not only initiatives like Google Street View may be regulated under it (for capturing geo-referenced imagery from the street level) but absolutely any mobile application that requires the user’s geo-location (either automatically detected, or manually entered by the user) would be within the purview of this Bill. This evidently creates a great pressure upon the entire ICT-enable product and service sector in India,” Chattapadhyay added.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This would mean that, any company, particularly the new age startups, those in the food tech, fintech and e-commerce space, which uses geo-location to identify the customer location to either deliver goods, food products, or the likes of Ola and Uber which uses maps to pickup and drop customers, will have to obtain license from the government.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Raman Shukla, director—strategy and product, Medikoe, said, “At Medikoe we are helping users to locate the nearest healthcare service provider with the available technologies. Google Maps is one of key feature our company banks on. Though we understand the country’s security concerns, the draft bill, if implemented, would be a violation of independent internet. We believe that a much better solution can be identified to solve security concerns.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Venu Kondur, founder of LOBB, the online truck booking platform said, “Geostatial data is a very important data for our business. Customers booking truck through LOBB platform get real-time track & trace facility. Our customers rely heavily on this data for their day-day activity. Startups like us depend largely on maps data for real-time tracking of consignment. Lot of our business intelligence data is drawn out of it.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In case, if the draft gets implemented, many startups will be forced to change the business model and while it will also increase the product delivery time. A group of 15 volunteers created a SaveTheMap.in portal to educate the readers about the draft bill and also give complete information on how the bill have an impact on the citizen and users of certain application. Sajjad Anwar one of the volunteer, said, through the portal about 1700 mails have been sent to the ministry of home affairs airing their view on why they do not support the draft Bill.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Comparing with other countries, Chattapadhyay further said, “At first, other countries deal with the question of display of security establishments in publicly available maps through direct interactions with large mapping companies, and does not turn this into a financial and political burden for the entire economy. Secondly, it is the concern about privacy of the citizens that should frame the Indian government’s response to products and services like Google Street View, and not concerns regarding national security.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>What the draft bill says</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">No person shall, in any manner, make use of, disseminate, publish or distribute any geospatial information of India, outside India, without prior permission from the security vetting authority under the Central government.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Penalty</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Whoever acquires any geospatial information of India in contravention to the rules, shall be punished with a fine ranging from Rs 1 crore to Rs 100 crore and /or imprisonment for a period upto seven years.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Application for license</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Every person who has already acquired any geospatial imagery or data of any part of India either through space or aerial platforms such as satellite, aircrafts, airships, balloons, unmanned aerial vehicles or terrestrial vehicles shall within one year from the commencement of this Act, make an application along with requisite fees to the security vetting authority.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/financial-express-prabhu-mallikarjunan-june-13-2016-why-geospatial-bill-is-draconian-and-how-it-will-hurt-startups'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/financial-express-prabhu-mallikarjunan-june-13-2016-why-geospatial-bill-is-draconian-and-how-it-will-hurt-startups</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceCensorship2016-07-02T04:57:35ZNews ItemWhen #GOIBlocks, twitterati fly off their ‘handles’
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/www-hindustan-times-aug-26-2012-when-goi-blocks-twitterati-fly-off-their-handles
<b>Ever since the news broke mid-week that some genuine Twitter accounts and six spoof accounts were blocked, the social networking platform has been in a tizzy.</b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a class="external-link" href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/technology/SocialMedia-Updates/When-GOIBlocks-twitterati-fly-off-their-handles/SP-Article1-919446.aspx">Published</a> in the Hindustan Times on August 26, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Hashtags like #GOIblocks and variations on the same theme began “trending” and the twitterati, functioning like a virtual democracy, have been bombarding the world in real time with posts about the issue. 16 accounts of the 15 million twitter users in India, among them those of a few journalists, spoof accounts like @PM0India, a right-wing parody of @PMOIndia, the official twitter account of the Prime Minister’s office, and a few anonymous accounts like Barbarian Indian (@barbarindian) and Dosabandit (@dosabandit) were blocked.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While Narendra Modi turned his twitter display picture black in solidarity with the idea of freedom of speech (and was promptly termed a hypocrite with many like @JagPaws, who has 641 followers, tweeting, “Whoa!! Is he supporting Jihadi sites?”), Pankaj Pachauri, (49,827 followers) Communications Adviser to the Prime Minister’s office, has put up twitter rules and the National Security Advisor Shivshankar Menon’s ominously pro-surveillance keynote address at the release of the IDSA report on “India’s Cyber Security Challenge”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Many like Nitin Pai @acorn, with 16,988 followers, founder of Takshashila Institute, a public policy think tank, tweeted that “under extraordinary circumstances, the govt must do whatever it can under the constitution to prevent loss of life” and added that targeted and temporary blocks of sites, facebook pages and twitter handles that spewed hate were acceptable. Others like film maker Harini Calamur (@calamur) (11,277 followers) who says she is against censorship tweeted that “Blocking internet handles & sites is silly” and “the Govt’s job is to uphold the constitution & protect our fundamental rights. Not make value judgements.” Much of the debate has led to a genuine exchange, sometimes making comrades of people from opposing camps. Kanchan Gupta, a journalist known for his pro-Hindutva views, whose twitter handle @KanchanGupta (26,424 followers) was among those blocked, accepted on TV that scores of “people from all communities” many of whom “disagreed violently” with him had extended their support on twitter.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Others like writer Shivam Vij (@Dilidurast), who has 3,296 followers, whom Hindutvawadis has often branded ‘pseudo sickular’, surprised baiters by speaking against the ban.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Many were strident in their criticism of the arbitrary nature of the blocks and tweeted that it was indicative of authoritarianism. “Internet blocks in India have been increasing in frequency&intensity. I wouldn't put this down to knee-jerk/foolishness.There is *intent*,” tweeted Nikhil Pahwa (@nixxin), founder and editor of @medianama. Others like business journalist Samidha Sharma @samidhas worried that the government’s frequent attacks on freedom of expression shows that it is “following china in all the wrong things”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While Pranesh Prakash (@pranesh_prakash) of the Centre for Internet and Society tweeted, “They've blocked sites from all parts of the spectrum: Muslim right-wing, Hindu right-wing, neutral news sites, etc. No politics”, many others saw the move as a “self-serving” one. “Dear GoI: why not be honest enough to say that this web censorship has NOTHING to do with security+ all to do with your own arrogance” tweeted Sunny Singh (@sunnysingh_nw3).</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/www-hindustan-times-aug-26-2012-when-goi-blocks-twitterati-fly-off-their-handles'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/www-hindustan-times-aug-26-2012-when-goi-blocks-twitterati-fly-off-their-handles</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-08-26T05:56:19ZNews ItemWhat the experts said on live chat
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-march-25-2015-what-the-experts-said-on-live-chat
<b>Three eminent panellists shared their views and answered questions from readers on the Supreme Court verdict striking down Section 66 A of the IT Act that allowed the arrest of people posting “offensive content” on the Internet, in a live chat hosted by The Hindu. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article was published in the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/what-the-experts-said-on-live-chat/article7029320.ece">Hindu</a> on March 25, 2015. Geetha Hariharan was one of the panelists.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Does this now mean anything goes on the Internet, asked one reader.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“No, the standard penal laws — against defamation, hate speech (S. 153A), religious incitement (S. 295A) — continue to apply,” said Gautam Bhatia, a practicing lawyer and author of forthcoming book “Offend, shock or disturb: Free Speech under the Constitution.” The argument that the Internet needed separate rules when it came to the content of speech was what was rejected by the Court, he said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">What was the rationale for the Court upholding Section 69 A, allowing the blocking of websites, asked another.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“One wishes that the court had paid as much attention to the blocking orders as they did to 66A,” said Lawrence Liang, lawyer and researcher at Alternative Law Forum working on free speech.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Geetha Hariharan, a Programme Officer at Centre for Internet and Society, focusing on Internet governance and freedom of expression, was the third expert on the panel.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Click <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/live-chat-hope-for-free-speech/article7028037.ece?homepage=true&theme=true">here</a> to read the full transcript of the chat</i></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-march-25-2015-what-the-experts-said-on-live-chat'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-march-25-2015-what-the-experts-said-on-live-chat</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIT ActCensorshipFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceChilling Effect2015-03-26T02:35:49ZNews ItemWhat lurks beneath the Network
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/down-to-earth-org-nishant-shah-aug-24-2012-what-lurks-beneath-the-network
<b>There is a series of buzzwords that have become a naturalised part of discussions around digital social media—participation, collaboration, peer-2-peer, mobilisation, etc. Especially in the post Arab Spring world (and our own home-grown Anna Hazare spectacles), there is this increasing belief in the innate possibilities of social media as providing ways by which the world as we know it shall change for the better. Young people are getting on to the streets and demanding their rights to the future. </b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nishant Shah's column on the North East exodus and digital networks was published in <a class="external-link" href="http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/what-lurks-beneath-network">Down to Earth</a> magazine on August 24, 2012</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Citizens are mobilising themselves to overthrow authoritarian governments. Socio-economically disadvantaged people, who have always been an alternative to the mainstream, are finding ways of expressing themselves through collaborative practices. Older boundaries of nation, region and body are quickly collapsing as we all become avatars of our biological selves, occupying futures that were once available only to science fiction heroes.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">To this list of very diverse phenomena, I want to add the recent tragic and alarming exodus of people from the north eastern states, from the city of Bengaluru, where I live. There might not be many connections between this state of fear which instigated thousands of people, fearing their safety and security, to leave Bengaluru and return home and the global spectacles of political change that I listed earlier. And yet, there is something about the digital networks, the social web and the ways in which they shape our information societies, that needs to be thought through. In the Arab Spring like events, which are events of global spectacle, there is a certain imagination of digital technologies and its circuits that gets overturned.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">These events challenge the idea that digital networks are always outward looking—connecting us to somebody and someplace ‘out there’ in a world that is quickly getting flat—and show how these networks actually create new local and specific communities around information production, consumption and sharing. These networks that connect people in their information practices, often make themselves simultaneously ubiquitous and invisible. So that the interfaces that we operate through—laptops, cellphones and other portable computing devices—become such a part of our everyday life, that we stop noticing them. They are a natural element of our everyday mechanics of urban survival, and in their omnipresence, become invisible.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This invisibility or naturalisation of the digital technologies, often make us forget the intricate and inextricable way in which they are woven into our basic survival strategies. Especially with the younger generation that has ‘grown up digital’, the interface, the gadget and the network is the default space that they turn to for their everyday needs. We develop intimate relationships with these technologised circuits, making them such a part of our quotidian existence that we often forget that these technologies are external to us. Which is why we come across articulations like, “I love my computer because my friends live in it,” or “I feel amputated when you take away my cell-phone”. These are ways in which we naturalise and internalise the digital technologies that we live in and live with. However, in times of crises, we suddenly realise the separation, as the technologies make themselves present, unable to sustain the new conditions of crises. It would be fruitful to see then that the eruption in our seamless connection with the digital technologies is a sign of an external crisis –something that we have seen in the Arab Spring or the Anna Hazare campaign, where these networks became visible to signal towards an external crisis. The emergence of networks into public view is a symptom that there is something that has gone wrong and so we see the separation of the digital ecosystem from its external reality and context.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The unexpected visibility of the network indicates that the regular information ecologies have been disrupted, the contexts which support community interaction at the local level have been changed, and those changes need to be accounted for and addressed in order for the network to become the transparent infrastructure of new urban communities again. In many ways, it resonates with the science fiction logic of the Matrix Trilogy where, if you can see the matrix, it means that something has gone wrong in the fabric of reality and it needs to be fixed.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The exodus of the north eastern people also needs to be examined in this context. In an immigrant city like Bengaluru, the sense of belonging and community is often deeply mediated by the digital ecologies of information sharing. Beneath the veneer of a global city that is to connect with the external world, there is also a huge network of local, specific and invisible practices that do not become a part of the global spectacle of digital technologies, and operate in a condition of relative invisibility. However, when the logic of a migrant city gets disrupted because the conditions of its work force get threatened, these networks go into an overdrive. They become gossip and rumour mills. They become visible and suddenly create conditions of fear, danger and crisis that were unexpected. And so, without a warning, over-night, a huge number of people, who were a part of these networks, decided to abandon their lives and head home, because the larger social, cultural and political threats transmitted through these local networks before they could become global spectacles that we could consume.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A large part of the people fleeing the city had already crowded the trains and left their lives behind, before any attempt at regulation or control could be made. All kinds of post-facto theories about the real or perceived nature of the threat, the actual cases of violence, and the conditions of life in the IT City have emerged since then. However, in all these theories is a recognition that the crisis which led to this phenomenon lingers on and cannot be addressed. There is no particular person to hold responsible. The few scattered incidents of attacks, violence or intimidation have been recognised as strategic and opportunistic interventions by local regressive groups. All in all, we have a condition where something drastic and dramatic has happened and there is no real or material person or group of people who can be blamed for it. And so, instead of addressing the crisis and the conditions which led to the exodus, we have committed an ellipsis, where we have made technology the scape-goat of our problems.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">And we have done this repeatedly in the history of technology and crises in India. In the early days, when the notorious Delhi Public School MMS clip that captured two under-age students in sexual activity, became hugely visible, instead of addressing the problem at hand, we eventually set up a committee to regulate the conditions of cultural production and distribution online. During the horrifying bomb-attacks in the trains in Mumbai, we tried to block Blogspot and curtail information online as if technology was the reason that these acts were made possible. Last year, Dr. Sibal’s attempts at establishing a pre-censorship regime on information on the social web, because he encountered material that was disrespectful to the Congress party leader Mrs. Gandhi, sought to regulate the web rather than look at the political discontent and dissent that was being established through those articulations. Because there was no way by which the local situation could be controlled or contained, technology became the only site of regulation, inspiring draconian measures that limit the volume of text messaging and try and censor the web for lingering traces of the information mill that catalysed and facilitated this exodus.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This is a remarkable ellipsis where the actual problem – the conditions of life and safety in our global cities – is hidden under a perceived problem, which is the sudden visibility of a digital information ecosystem which was not apparent to us hitherto. And while there is no denying that at the level of tactics, for immediate fire-fighting this kind of regulation is important, nay, necessary, we also need to realise that at the level of strategy, these kinds of knee-jerk regulatory mechanisms are not a resolution of the problem. These laws and attempts at censorship are neither going to correct what has happened, nor are they going to be potent enough to curb such networked information sharing in the future. They are symbolic tactics that are trying to correct the crisis – the feeling of fear and danger – and in that, they do their job well in establishing some sense of control over the quickly collapsing world. However, we need to look beyond the visibility of this network, and realise that the crisis is not its emergence or its functioning but at something else that lurks behind the facade of the network.</p>
<p>Nishant Shah is director (research), Centre for Internet and Society, Bengaluru</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/down-to-earth-org-nishant-shah-aug-24-2012-what-lurks-beneath-the-network'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/down-to-earth-org-nishant-shah-aug-24-2012-what-lurks-beneath-the-network</a>
</p>
No publishernishantFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-08-25T07:10:38ZBlog Entry