The Centre for Internet and Society
http://editors.cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 1 to 9.
World 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 EntrySome Key Words Are Missing
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/outlook-arindam-mukherjee-october-23-2016-some-key-words-are-missing
<b>Google manipulating search results? The Competition Commission is on its case.</b>
<p>The article by Arindam Mukherjee was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/some-key-words-are-missing/295301">published by Outlook</a> on October 23, 2016. Nehaa Chaudhari was quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p><img height="277" src="http://www.outlookindia.com/resizer.php?src=http://photogallery.outlookindia.com/images/gallery/20150911/sundar_pichai_20150921.jpg&w=630" width="416" /></p>
<div class="mainContent">
<div class="soda fontStyle" style="text-align: justify; ">
<p><b>G’s Global Woes</b></p>
<p>Google’s problems aren’t restricted to India. It is facing similar cases around the world.</p>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>Europe:</b> The search giant has been accused of using its dominant position on the web to dominate the market for online product searches. There’s another probe on possible abuse of dominant position with Android.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><b>Brazil:</b> Is being investigated for favouring its own services over others on the internet</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><b>Hong Kong & Argentina:</b> Facing issues about collecting user data</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><b>Spain:</b> Had to shut down Google News over copyright issues.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><b>Germany:</b> Its Google Street View navigation service got into problems over privacy issues</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><b>Mexico:</b> The local regulator has brought up issues similar to those in Europe</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: center; ">***</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There is an uneasy calm at Google’s India offices these days. Spokespersons are giving measured statements, watched over by an army of lawyers who are busy looking at the finer points. A case against Google’s advertising and search practices with the Competition Commission of India (CCI) has the potential to derail the search giant’s operations in India. Why, a nervous Google has even sought to make hearings in this case in-camera to totally shut out the media.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There is a lot at stake. An investigation report of the CCI has found Google squarely guilty of abusing its dominant position to manipulate search results on the internet and online advertising results to its own advantage and to those of companies paying for it. Google was found to “have abused its dominant position in the relevant markets of online general web search service in India and online search advertising in India in violation of the Competition Act 2002”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Indeed, the report (which has been reviewed by <i>Outlook</i>) is blunt on many of the issues: “Google is found to be indulging in practices of search bias and by doing so it causes harm to its competitors as well as users.... Google steers users to its own products and services and produces biased results. This structure offers abundant opportunities for leveraging and has also raised issues of conflict of interest.” It says that through such practices Google was adversely affecting the competitive landscape in the markets for online general web search, search advertising as well as adjacent markets like travel, maps, social networking and e-commerce.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The whole brouhaha started with complaints from two parties—Chennai-based matchmaking portal Bharatmatrimony.com and Jaipur-based consumer rights organisation CUTS International—in 2012. “People who are subscribing to Google’s Adwords and are paying Google or are buying keywords are getting preference in their search results. Many of the search results on Google are either ads or sponsored links and not genuine search results. Google is pushing ads as news items which normal users would be unable to distinguish,” says Sharad Bhansali, managing partner, APJ SLG Law Offices which is representing CUTS.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">CUTS also complained that Google was promoting its own products through search. Says Udai Singh Mehta, CUTS director, “Preference was being given by Google to its products and subsidiaries in search.” This, being a dominant player in search and online advertising, amounts to abusing its position. According to market estimates, Google enjoys a 93 per cent share of the search market and gets about 85 per cent of the revenues of online advertising. Says Nikhil Pahwa, editor-in-chief of Medianama: “In search cases, Google is clearly the dominant player in the market. So when they start integrating content into search, there is a problem and it becomes an issue.”</p>
<p><span class="slig_ins_lft ftleft rtmrg20"><img src="http://www.outlookindia.com/public/uploads/articles/2015/9/21/nikhil_pahwa_thumb.jpg" /></span></p>
<div class="soda fontStyle" style="text-align: justify; "><span class="rtmrg20 ftleft slig_ins_lft">“In search cases, Google is clearly the dominant player. So when they integrate content into search, it’s a problem.” <br /><span class="source">Nikhil Pahwa, Medianama</span></span></div>
<div class="soda fontStyle" style="text-align: justify; "><span class="rtmrg20 ftleft slig_ins_lft"><span class="source"><br /></span></span></div>
<p>In the course of the investigation, the CCI D-G also sought opinion from about 30 companies—most of them gave similar feedback about Google’s practices. The list includes Flipkart, mapmyindia.com, makemytrip.com, Microsoft and Nokia Maps.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Google will now have to appear before the full CCI bench on September 17 for a hearing based on the D-G report. After this, the CCI will take a final call on the issue. Of course, Google can seek an extension of this hearing. According to company insiders, they have not sought an extension yet. Google will have the right to appeal any order the CCI comes out with. The first appeal would be at the court of a competition appellate tribunal headed by a retired SC judge. The final appeal can happen only with the Supreme Court.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As expected, Google denies any wrongdoing and says the abuse of dominant position will need to be proved. Manas Chaudhuri, lawyer with Khaitan & Co which deals with competition cases, told <i>Outlook</i>, “The report says that Google is dominant, which is correct. If it is dominant, there is nothing wrong under the Competition Act. The issue is whether or not it has abused its dominance. The ‘abuse’ is a rule-of-reason argument and as such the CCI will have to assess quite a few international best practices theories eg, ‘objective justification’, ‘analysing the statutory mandate of meeting the competition in the relevant market’, ‘consumer harm’ and ‘counterfactuals’.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In response to queries, a Google spokesperson said, “We’re currently reviewing the report from the CCI’s ongoing investigation. We continue to work closely with the CCI and remain confident that we comply fully with India’s competition laws. Regulators and courts around the world, including in the US, Germany, Taiwan, Egypt and Brazil, have looked into and found no concerns on many of the issues raised in this report.” Actually, Google is facing a similar case in the EU, while similar issues have been raised in Brazil, Hong Kong, Argentina and Mexico (see box).</p>
<p> </p>
<table align="left">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="http://resize.outlookindia.com/images/coverpics/outlookindia/large/big_cover_20131028.jpg" target="_blank"><img height="360" src="http://images.outlookindia.com/images/coverpics/outlookindia/large/big_cover_20131028.jpg" width="275" /></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center; "><i>Outlook</i>’s cover from <a href="http://www.outlookindia.com/content11203.asp" target="_blank">Oct 28, 2013</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div class="soda fontStyle" style="text-align: justify; ">Sure, at first blush, the report appears tilted against Google. What may go in its favour is the CCI’s dismal record in treating such cases. Though it is the final investigation report, experts say it is not sacrosanct: the CCI bench might not agree with it. In the last six years, over 20 such investigation reports have been dismissed by the CCI after the final hearing. And Google will try its best to bring forth the fact that it has been exonerated in similar cases in the US, Germany and Taiwan.</div>
<div class="soda fontStyle" style="text-align: justify; "></div>
<p>But with the D-G’s final investigation report giving a clear verdict against Google’s practices, it might not be so easy for the search giant to come out cleanly from this one. Says Nehaa Chaudhari, lawyer with the Centre for Internet and Society (cis), “Given that India is not the only jurisdiction where Google is using its secret algorithm to promote its own products, there is enough for the CCI to proceed on against it.” What will also help is the testimony of several companies who have said that they have suffered because of Google’s web practices.</p>
<p>The entire world is watching India. Clearly, if the CCI upholds the D-G report and pronounces Google guilty, it could seriously affect the search giant’s growth in India, one of the fastest growing internet markets for Google with over 300 million internet users and an even faster growing Android landscape (where also it is a dominant player). With the final EU verdict on the case yet to come out, will India set a new example for the world to follow?</p>
</div>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/outlook-arindam-mukherjee-october-23-2016-some-key-words-are-missing'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/outlook-arindam-mukherjee-october-23-2016-some-key-words-are-missing</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaGoogleInternet Governance2016-10-23T01:40:12ZNews ItemReading the Fine Script: Service Providers, Terms and Conditions and Consumer Rights
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/reading-between-the-lines-service-providers-terms-and-conditions-and-consumer-rights
<b>This year, an increasing number of incidents, related to consumer rights and service providers, have come to light. This blog illustrates the facts of the cases, and discusses the main issues at stake, namely, the role and responsibilities of providers of platforms for user-created content with regard to consumer rights.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>On 1st July, 2014 the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a complaint against T-Mobile USA,</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn1">[1]</a><span> accusing the service provider of 'cramming' customers bills, with millions of dollars of unauthorized charges. Recently, another service provider, received flak from regulators and users worldwide, after it published a paper, 'Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks'.</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn2">[2]</a><span> The paper described Facebook's experiment on more than 600,000 users, to determine whether manipulating user-generated content, would affect the emotions of its users.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In both incidents the terms that should ensure the protection of their user's legal rights, were used to gain consent for actions on behalf of the service providers, that were not anticipated at the time of agreeing to the terms and conditions (T&Cs) by the consumer. More precisely, both cases point to the underlying issue of how users are bound by T&Cs, and in a mediated online landscape—highlight, the need to pay attention to the regulations that govern the online engagement of users.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>I have read and agree to the terms</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In his statement, Chief Executive Officer, John Legere might have referred to T-Mobile as "the most pro-consumer company in the industry",<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn3">[3]</a> however the FTC investigation revelations, that many customers never authorized the charges, suggest otherwise. The FTC investigation also found that, T-Mobile received 35-40 per cent of the amount charged for subscriptions, that were made largely through innocuous services, that customers had been signed up to, without their knowledge or consent. Last month news broke, that just under 700,000 users 'unknowingly' participated in the Facebook study, and while the legality and ethics of the experiment are being debated, what is clear is that Facebook violated consumer rights by not providing the choice to opt in or out, or even the knowledge of such social or psychological experiments to its users.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Both incidents boil down to the sensitive question of consent. While binding agreements around the world work on the condition of consent, how do we define it and what are the implications of agreeing to the terms?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Terms of Service: Conditions are subject to change </b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A legal necessity, the existing terms of service (TOS)—as they are also known—as an acceptance mechanism are deeply broken. The policies of online service providers are often, too long, and with no shorter or multilingual versions, require substantial effort on part of the user to go through in detail. A 2008 Carnegie Mellon study estimated it would take an average user 244 hours every year to go through the policies they agree to online.<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn4">[4]</a> Based on the study, Atlantic's Alexis C. Madrigal derived that reading all of the privacy policies an average Internet user encounters in a year, would take 76 working days.<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn5">[5]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The costs of time are multiplied by the fact that terms of services change with technology, making it very hard for a user to keep track of all of the changes over time. Moreover, many services providers do not even commit to the obligation of notifying the users of any changes in the TOS. Microsoft, Skype, Amazon, YouTube are examples of some of the service providers that have not committed to any obligations of notification of changes and often, there are no mechanisms in place to ensure that service providers are keeping users updated.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook has said that the recent social experiment is perfectly legal under its TOS,<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn6">[6]</a> the question of fairness of the conditions of users consent remain debatable. Facebook has a broad copyright license that goes beyond its operating requirements, such as the right to 'sublicense'. The copyright also does not end when users stop using the service, unless the content has been deleted by everyone else.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">More importantly, since 2007, Facebook has brought major changes to their lengthy TOS about every year.<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn7">[7]</a> And while many point that Facebook is transparent, as it solicits feedback preceding changes to their terms, the accountability remains questionable, as the results are not binding unless 30% of the actual users vote. Facebook can and does, track users and shares their data across websites, and has no obligation or mechanism to inform users of the takedown requests.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Courts in different jurisdictions under different laws may come to different conclusions regarding these practices, especially about whether changing terms without notifying users is acceptable or not. Living in a society more protective of consumer rights is however, no safeguard, as TOS often include a clause of choice of law which allow companies to select jurisdictions whose laws govern the terms.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The recent experiment bypassed the need for informed user consent due to Facebook's Data Use Policy<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn8">[8]</a>, which states that once an account has been created, user data can be used for 'internal operations, including troubleshooting, data analysis, testing, research and service improvement.' While the users worldwide may be outraged, legally, Facebook acted within its rights as the decision fell within the scope of T&Cs that users consented to. The incident's most positive impact might be in taking the questions of Facebook responsibilities towards protecting users, including informing them of the usage of their data and changes in data privacy terms, to a worldwide audience.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>My right is bigger than yours</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Most TOS agreements, written by lawyers to protect the interests of the companies add to the complexities of privacy, in an increasingly user-generated digital world. Often, intentionally complicated agreements, conflict with existing data and user rights across jurisdictions and chip away at rights like ownership, privacy and even the ability to sue. With conditions that that allow for change in terms at anytime, existing users do not have ownership or control over their data.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In April New York Times, reported of updates to the legal policy of General Mills (GM), the multibillion-dollar food company.<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn9">[9]</a> The update broadly asserted that consumers interacting with the company in a variety of ways and venues no longer can sue GM, but must instead, submit any complaint to “informal negotiation” or arbitration. Since then, GM has backtracked and clarified that “online communities” mentioned in the policy referred only to those online communities hosted by the company on its own websites.<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn10">[10]</a> Clarification aside, as Julia Duncan, Director of Federal programs at American Association for Justice points out, the update in the terms were so broad, that they were open to wide interpretation and anything that consumers purchase from the company could have been held to this clause. <a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn11">[11]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Data and whose rights?</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Following Snowden revelations, data privacy has become a contentious issue in the EU, and TOS, that allow the service providers to unilaterally alter terms of the contract, will face many challenges in the future. In March Edward Snowden sent his testimony to the European Parliament calling for greater accountability and highlighted that in "a global, interconnected world where, when national laws fail like this, our international laws provide for another level of accountability."<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn12">[12]</a> Following the testimony came the European Parliament's vote in favor of new safeguards on the personal data of EU citizens, when it’s transferred to non-EU.<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn13">[13]</a> The new regulations seek to give users more control over their personal data including the right to ask for data from companies that control it and seek to place the burden of proof on the service providers.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The regulation places responsibility on companies, including third-parties involved in data collection, transfer and storing and greater transparency on concerned requests for information. The amendment reinforces data subject right to seek erasure of data and obliges concerned parties to communicate data rectification. Also, earlier this year, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled in favor of the 'right to be forgotten'<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn14">[14]</a>. The ECJ ruling recognised data subject's rights override the interest of internet users, however, with exceptions pertaining to nature of information, its sensitivity for the data subject's private life and the role of the data subject in public life.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In May, the Norwegian Consumer Council filed a complaint with the Norwegian Consumer Ombudsman, “… based on the discrepancies between Norwegian Law and the standard terms and conditions applicable to the Apple iCloud service...”, and, “...in breach of the law regarding control of marketing and standard agreements.”<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn15">[15]</a> The council based its complaint on the results of a study, published earlier this year, that found terms were hazy and varied across services including iCloud, Drop Box, Google Drive, Jotta Cloud, and Microsoft OneDrive. The Norwegian Council study found that Google TOS, allow for users content to be used for other purposes than storage, including by partners and that it has rights of usage even after the service is cancelled. None of the providers provide a guarantee that data is safe from loss, while many, have the ability to terminate an account without notice. All of the service providers can change the terms of service but only Google and Microsoft give an advance notice.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The study also found service providers lacking with respect to European privacy standards, with many allowing for browsing of user content. Tellingly, Google had received a fine in January by the French Data Protection Authority, that stated regarding Google's TOS, "permits itself to combine all the data it collects about its users across all of its services without any legal basis."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>To blame or not to blame</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook is facing a probe by the UK Information Commissioner's Office, to assess if the experiment conducted in 2012 was a violation of data privacy laws.<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn16">[16]</a> The FTC asked the court to order T-Mobile USA, to stop mobile cramming, provide refunds and give up any revenues from the practice. The existing mechanisms of online consent, do not simplify the task of agreeing to multiple documents and services at once, a complexity which manifolds, with the involvement of third parties.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Unsurprisingly, T-Mobile's Legere termed the FTC lawsuit misdirected and blamed the companies providing the text services for the cramming.<a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftn17">[17]</a> He felt those providers should be held accountable, despite allegations that T-Mobile's billing practices made it difficult for consumers to detect that they were being charged for unauthorized services and having shared revenues with third-party providers. Interestingly, this is the first action against a wireless carrier for cramming and the FTC has a precedent of going after smaller companies that provide the services.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The FTC charged T-Mobile USA with deceptive billing practices in putting the crammed charges under a total for 'use charges' and 'premium services' and failure to highlight that portion of the charge was towards third-party charges. Further, the company urged customers to take complaints to vendors and was not forthcoming with refunds. For now, T-Mobile may be able to share the blame, the incident brings to question its accountability, especially as going forward it has entered a pact along with other carriers in USA including Verizon and AT&T, agreeing to stop billing customers for third-party services. Even when practices such as cramming are deemed illegal, it does not necessarily mean that harm has been prevented. Often users bear the burden of claiming refunds and litigation comes at a cost while even after being fined companies could have succeeded in profiting from their actions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Conclusion </b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Unfair terms and conditions may arise when service providers include terms that are difficult to understand or vague in their scope. TOS that prevent users from taking legal action, negate liability for service providers actions despite the companies actions that may have a direct bearing on users, are also considered unfair. More importantly, any term that is hidden till after signing the contract, or a term giving the provider the right to change the contract to their benefit including wider rights for service provider wide in comparison to users such as a term that that makes it very difficult for users to end a contract create an imbalance. These issues get further complicated when the companies control and profiting from data are doing so with user generated data provided free to the platform.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In the knowledge economy, web companies play a decisive role as even though they work for profit, the profit is derived out of the knowledge held by individuals and groups. In their function of aggregating human knowledge, they collect and provide opportunities for feedback of the outcomes of individual choices. The significance of consent becomes a critical part of the equation when harnessing individual information. In France, consent is part of the four conditions necessary to be forming a valid contract (article 1108 of the Code Civil).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The cases highlight the complexities that are inherent in the existing mechanisms of online consent. The question of consent has many underlying layers such as reasonable notice and contractual obligations related to consent such as those explored in the case in Canada, which looked at whether clauses of TOS were communicated reasonably to the user, a topic for another blog. For now, we must remember that by creating and organising social knowledge that further human activity, service providers, serve a powerful function. And as the saying goes, with great power comes great responsibility.</p>
<hr size="1" style="text-align: justify; " width="33%" />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref1">[1]</a> 'FTC Alleges T-Mobile Crammed Bogus Charges onto Customers’ Phone Bills', published 1 July, 2014. See: http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2014/07/ftc-alleges-t-mobile-crammed-bogus-charges-customers-phone-bills</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref2">[2]</a> 'Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks', Adam D. I. Kramera,1, Jamie E. Guilloryb, and Jeffrey T. Hancock, published March 25, 2014. See:http://www.pnas.org/content/111/24/8788.full.pdf+html?sid=2610b655-db67-453d-bcb6-da4efeebf534</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref3">[3]</a> 'U.S. sues T-Mobile USA, alleges bogus charges on phone bills, Reuters published 1st July, 2014 See: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/01/us-tmobile-ftc-idUSKBN0F656E20140701</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref4">[4]</a> 'The Cost of Reading Privacy Policies', Aleecia M. McDonald and Lorrie Faith Cranor, published I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society 2008 Privacy Year in Review issue. See: http://lorrie.cranor.org/pubs/readingPolicyCost-authorDraft.pdf</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref5">[5]</a> 'Reading the Privacy Policies You Encounter in a Year Would Take 76 Work Days', Alexis C. Madrigal, published The Atlantic, March 2012 See: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/reading-the-privacy-policies-you-encounter-in-a-year-would-take-76-work-days/253851/</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref6">[6]</a> Facebook Legal Terms. See: https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref7">[7]</a> 'Facebook's Eroding Privacy Policy: A Timeline', Kurt Opsahl, Published Electronic Frontier Foundation , April 28, 2010 See:https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/facebook-timeline</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref8">[8]</a> Facebook Data Use Policy. See: https://www.facebook.com/about/privacy/</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref9">[9]</a> 'When ‘Liking’ a Brand Online Voids the Right to Sue', Stephanie Strom, published in New York Times on April 16, 2014 See: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/17/business/when-liking-a-brand-online-voids-the-right-to-sue.html?ref=business</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref10">[10]</a> Explaining our website privacy policy and legal terms, published April 17, 2014 See:http://www.blog.generalmills.com/2014/04/explaining-our-website-privacy-policy-and-legal-terms/#sthash.B5URM3et.dpufhttp://www.blog.generalmills.com/2014/04/explaining-our-website-privacy-policy-and-legal-terms/</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref11">[11]</a> General Mills Amends New Legal Policies, Stephanie Strom, published in New York Times on 1http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/18/business/general-mills-amends-new-legal-policies.html?_r=0</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref12">[12]</a> Edward Snowden Statement to European Parliament published March 7, 2014. See: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/201403/20140307ATT80674/20140307ATT80674EN.pdf</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref13">[13]</a> Progress on EU data protection reform now irreversible following European Parliament vote, published 12 March 201 See: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-14-186_en.htm</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref14">[14]</a> European Court of Justice rules Internet Search Engine Operator responsible for Processing Personal Data Published by Third Parties, Jyoti Panday, published on CIS blog on May 14, 2014. See: http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/ecj-rules-internet-search-engine-operator-responsible-for-processing-personal-data-published-by-third-parties</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref15">[15]</a> Complaint regarding Apple iCloud’s terms and conditions , published on 13 May 2014 See:http://www.forbrukerradet.no/_attachment/1175090/binary/29927</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref16">[16]</a> 'Facebook faces UK probe over emotion study' See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28102550</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Reading%20the%20fine%20script%20When%20terms%20and%20conditions%20apply.docx#_ftnref17">[17]</a> Our Reaction to the FTC Lawsuit See: http://newsroom.t-mobile.com/news/our-reaction-to-the-ftc-lawsuit.htm</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/reading-between-the-lines-service-providers-terms-and-conditions-and-consumer-rights'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/reading-between-the-lines-service-providers-terms-and-conditions-and-consumer-rights</a>
</p>
No publisherjyotiSocial MediaConsumer RightsGoogleinternet and societyPrivacyTransparency and AccountabilityIntermediary LiabilityAccountabilityFacebookData ProtectionPoliciesSafety2014-07-04T06:31:37ZBlog EntryMufti Aijaz Arshad Qasmi v. Facebook and Ors (Order dated December 20, 2011)
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/order-2011-12-20-mufti-aijaz-arshad-qasmi-v-facebook-and-ors
<b>This is the order passed on December 20, 2011 by Addl. Civil Judge Mukesh Kumar of the Rohini Courts, New Delhi. All errors of spelling, syntax, logic, and law are present in the original.</b>
<p>Suit No 505/11</p>
<p>Mufti Aijaz Arshad Qasmi<br />
vs.<br />
Facebook etc.</p>
<p>20.12.11</p>
<p>Fresh suit received by assignment. It be checked and registered.</p>
<p>Present: Plaintiff in person with Ld. Counsel.</p>
<p>Ld. Counsel for plaintiff prayed for ex-parte ad-interim injunction. He has filed the present suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against 22 defendants who are running their social networking websites under the name of Facebook, Google India (P) Ltd., Yahoo India (P) Ltd., Microsoft India (P) Ltd., Orkut, Youtube etc as shown in the memo of parties in the plaint. It is submitted that plaintiff is an active citizen of India and residing at the given address and he believes in Secular, Socialist and Democratic India professing Muslim religion. It is further submitted that the contents which are uploaded by some of the miscreants through these social networking websites mentioned above are highly objectionable and unacceptable by any set of the society as the contents being published through the aforesaid websites are derogatory, per-se inflammatory and defamatory which cannot be acceptable by any of the society professing any religion. Even if the same is allowed to be published through these social networking websites and if anybody will take out the print and circulated amongst any of the community whether it is Muslim or Hindu or Sikh, then definitely there would be rioting at mass level which may result into serious law and order problem in the country. Where the miscreants have not even spare any of the religion, even they have created defamatory articles and pictures against the Prophet Mohammad, the Hindu goddess Durga, Laxmi, Lord Ganesha and many other Hindu gods which are being worshiped by the people of Hindu community. It is prayed by the counsel for plaintiff that the defendants may be directed to remove these defamatory and derogatory articles and pictures from their social websites and they should be restrained from publishing the same anywhere through Internet or in any manner. It is further submitted that the social websites are being utilised by the every person of whatever age of he is whether he is 7 years old or 80 years old. These defamatory articles will certainly corrupt not only young minds below the 18 years of age but also corrupt the minds of all age group persons. It is further submitted that even the miscreants have not spared the leaders of any political party whether it is BJP, Congress, Shiv Sena or any other political party doing their political activities in India, which may further vitiate the minds of every individual and may result into political rivalry by raising allegations against each other.</p>
<p>I have gone through the record carefully wherein the plaintiff has also filed a CD containing all the defamatory articles and photographs, plaintiff also wants to file certain defamatory and obscene photographs of the Prophet Mohammad and Hindu Gods and Goddesses. Photographs are returned to the plaintiff, although, the defamatory written articles are taken on record. Same be kept in sealed cover.</p>
<p>In my considered opinion, the photographs shown by the plaintiff having content of defamation and derogation against the sentiments of every community. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the plaintiff has a prima facie case in his favour. Moreover, balance of convenience also lies against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff. Moreover, if the defendants will not be directed to remove the defamatory articles and contents from their social networking websites, then not only the plaintiff but every individual who is having religious sentiments would suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, taking in consideration the facts and circumstances and nature of the suit filed by the plaintiff where every time these social networking websites are being used by the public at large and there is every apprehension of mischief in the public, the defendants are hereby restrained from publishing the defamatory articles shown by the plaintiff and contained in the CD filed by the plaintiff immediately on service of this order and notice. Defendants are further directed to remove the same from their social networking websites.</p>
<p>Application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC stands allowed and disposed of accordingly.</p>
<p>Summons be issued to the defendants on filing of PF/RO/Speed Post. The defendants having their addresses in different places may be served as per the provisions of Order 5 CPC. Reader of this court is directed to keep the documents and CD in a sealed cover. Plaintiff is directed to get served the defendants along with all the documents. Plaintiff is further directed to ensure the compliance of the provisions under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC and file an affidavit in this regard. Copy of this order be given dasti.</p>
<p>Put up for further proceedings on 24.12.11.</p>
<p>Sd/-<br />
(Mukesh Kumar)<br />
ACJ-cum-ARC, N-W<br />
Rohini Courts, Delhi<br /></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/order-2011-12-20-mufti-aijaz-arshad-qasmi-v-facebook-and-ors'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/order-2011-12-20-mufti-aijaz-arshad-qasmi-v-facebook-and-ors</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIT ActGoogleCourt CaseObscenityFreedom of Speech and ExpressionFacebookCensorshipResources2012-02-20T18:02:44ZPageInvisible Censorship: How the Government Censors Without Being Seen
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/invisible-censorship
<b>The Indian government wants to censor the Internet without being seen to be censoring the Internet. This article by Pranesh Prakash shows how the government has been able to achieve this through the Information Technology Act and the Intermediary Guidelines Rules it passed in April 2011. It now wants methods of censorship that leave even fewer traces, which is why Mr. Kapil Sibal, Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology talks of Internet 'self-regulation', and has brought about an amendment of the Copyright Act that requires instant removal of content.</b>
<h2>Power of the Internet and Freedom of Expression</h2>
<p>The Internet, as anyone who has ever experienced the wonder of going online would know, is a very different communications platform from any that has existed before. It is the one medium where anybody can directly share their thoughts with billions of other people in an instant. People who would never have any chance of being published in a newspaper now have the opportunity to have a blog and provide their thoughts to the world. This also means that thoughts that many newspapers would decide not to publish can be published online since the Web does not, and more importantly cannot, have any editors to filter content. For many dictatorships, the right of people to freely express their thoughts is something that must be heavily regulated. Unfortunately, we are now faced with the situation where some democratic countries are also trying to do so by censoring the Internet.</p>
<h2>Intermediary Guidelines Rules</h2>
<p>In India, the new <a class="external-link" href="http://www.mit.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/GSR314E_10511%281%29.pdf">'Intermediary Guidelines' Rules</a> and the <a class="external-link" href="http://mit.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/GSR315E_10511%281%29.pdf">Cyber Cafe Rules</a> that have been in effect since April 2011 give not only the government, but all citizens of India, great powers to censor the Internet. These rules, which were made by the Department of Information Technology and not by the Parliament, require that all intermediaries remove content that is 'disparaging', 'relating to... gambling', 'harm minors in any way', to which the user 'does not have rights'. When was the last time you checked wither you had 'rights' to a joke before forwarding it? Did you share a Twitter message containing the term "#IdiotKapilSibal", as thousands of people did a few days ago? Well, that is 'disparaging', and Twitter is required by the new law to block all such content. The government of Sikkim can run advertisements for its PlayWin lottery in newspapers, but under the new law it cannot do so online. As you can see, through these ridiculous examples, the Intermediary Guidelines are very badly thought-out and their drafting is even worse. Worst of all, they are unconstitutional, as they put limits on freedom of speech that contravene <a class="external-link" href="http://lawmin.nic.in/coi/coiason29july08.pdf">Article 19(1)(a) and 19(2) of the Constitution</a>, and do so in a manner that lacks any semblance of due process and fairness.</p>
<h2>Excessive Censoring by Internet Companies</h2>
<p>We, at the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore, decided to test the censorship powers of the new rules by sending frivolous complaints to a number of intermediaries. Six out of seven intermediaries removed content, including search results listings, on the basis of the most ridiculous complaints. The people whose content was removed were not told, nor was the general public informed that the content was removed. If we hadn't kept track, it would be as though that content never existed. Such censorship existed during Stalin's rule in the Soviet Union. Not even during the Emergency has such censorship ever existed in India. Yet, not only was what the Internet companies did legal under the Intermediary Guideline Rules, but if they had not, they could have been punished for content put up by someone else. That is like punishing the post office for the harmful letters that people may send over post.</p>
<h2>Government Has Powers to Censor and Already Censors<br /></h2>
<p>Currently, the government can either block content by using section 69A of the Information Technology Act (which can be revealed using RTI), or it has to send requests to the Internet companies to get content removed. Google has released statistics of government request for content removal as part of its Transparency Report. While Mr. Sibal uses the examples of communally sensitive material as a reason to force censorship of the Internet, out of the 358 items requested to be removed from January 2011 to June 2011 from Google service by the Indian government (including state governments), only 8 were for hate speech and only 1 was for national security. Instead, 255 items (71 per cent of all requests) were asked to be removed for 'government criticism'. Google, despite the government in India not having the powers to ban government criticism due to the Constitution, complied in 51 per cent of all requests. That means they removed many instances of government criticism as well.</p>
<h2>'Self-Regulation': Undetectable Censorship</h2>
<p>Mr. Sibal's more recent efforts at forcing major Internet companies such as Indiatimes, Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft, to 'self-regulate' reveals a desire to gain ever greater powers to bypass the IT Act when censoring Internet content that is 'objectionable' (to the government). Mr. Sibal also wants to avoid embarrassing statistics such as that revealed by Google's Transparency Report. He wants Internet companies to 'self-regulate' user-uploaded content, so that the government would never have to send these requests for removal in the first place, nor block sites officially using the IT Act. If the government was indeed sincere about its motives, it would not be talking about 'transparency' and 'dialogue' only after it was exposed in the press that the Department of Information Technology was holding secret talks with Internet companies. Given the clandestine manner in which it sought to bring about these new censorship measures, the motives of the government are suspect. Yet, both Mr. Sibal and Mr. Sachin Pilot have been insisting that the government has no plans of Internet censorship, and Mr. Pilot has made that statement officially in the Lok Sabha. This, thus seems to be an instance of censoring without censorship.</p>
<h2>Backdoor Censorship through Copyright Act</h2>
<p>Further, since the government cannot bring about censorship laws in a straightforward manner, they are trying to do so surreptitiously, through the back door. Mr. Sibal's latest proposed amendment to the Copyright Act, which is before the Rajya Sabha right now, has a provision called section 52(1)(c) by which anyone can send a notice complaining about infringement of his copyright. The Internet company will have to remove the content immediately without question, even if the notice is false or malicious. The sender of false or malicious notices is not penalized. But the Internet company will be penalized if it doesn't remove the content that has been complained about. The complaint need not even be shown to be true before the content is removed. Indeed, anyone can complain about any content, without even having to show that they own the rights to that content. The government seems to be keen to have the power to remove content from the Internet without following any 'due process' or fair procedure. Indeed, it not only wants to give itself this power, but it is keen on giving all individuals this power. <br /><br />It's ultimate effect will be the death of the Internet as we know it. Bid adieu to it while there is still time.</p>
<p><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/invisible-censorship.pdf" class="internal-link" title="Invisible Censorship (Marathi version)">The article was translated to Marathi and featured in Lokmat</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/invisible-censorship'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/invisible-censorship</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIT ActGoogleAccess to KnowledgeSocial mediaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionIntellectual Property RightsIntermediary LiabilityFeaturedInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-01-04T08:59:14ZBlog EntryGovernment gives free publicity worth 40k to Twitter and Facebook
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/government-giving-free-publicity-worth-40-k-to-twitter-and-facebook
<b>We conducted a 2 week survey of newspapers for links between government advertisement to social media giants. As citizens, we should be worried about the close nexus between the Indian government and digital behemoths such as Facebook, Google and Twitter. It has become apparent to us after a 2 week print media analysis that our Government has been providing free publicity worth Rs 40,000 to these entities. There are multiple issues with this as this article attempts at pointing out.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/TotalAdvertisementExpenditure.jpg" alt="null" class="image-inline" title="Total Advertisement Expenditure" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">We analyzed 5 English language newspapers daily for 2 weeks from March 12<sup>th</sup> to 26<sup>th</sup>, one week of the newspapers in Lucknow and the second week in Bangalore. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Alphabet backed services such as Youtube and Google Plus were part of our survey. Of a total of 33 advertisements (14 in Lucknow+19 in Bangalore), Twitter stands out as the most prominent advertising platform used by government agencies with 30 ads but Facebook at 29 was more expensive. In order to ascertain the rates of publicity, current advertisement rates for Times of India as our purpose was to solely give a rough estimation of how much the government is spending.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Advertising of this nature is not merely an inherent problem of favoring some social media companies over others but also symptomatic of a bigger problem, the lack of our native e-governance mechanisms which cause the Government to rely and promote others. Where we do have guidelines they are not being followed. By outsourcing their e-governance platforms to Twitter such as TwitterSeva, a feature created by the Twitter India team to help citizens connect better with government services, there is less of an impetus to construct better <a class="external-link" href="https://factordaily.com/twitter-helping-india-reboot-public-services-publicly/">websites of their own</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">If this is so because we currently do not have the capacity to build them ourselves then it is imperative that this changes. We should either be executing government functions on digital infrastructure owned by them or on open and interoperable systems. If anything, the surveyed social media platforms can be used to enhance pre-existing facilities. However, currently the converse is true with these platforms overshadowing the presence of e-governance websites. Officials have started responding to complaints on Twitter, diluting the significance of such complaint mechanisms on their respective department’s portal. Often enough such features are not available on the relevant government website. This sets a dangerous precedent for a citizen management system as the records of such interactions are then in the hands of these companies who may not exist in the future. As a result, they can control the access to such records or worse tamper with them. Posterity and reliability of such data can be ensured only if they are stored within the Government’s reach or if they are open and public with a first copy stored on Government records which ensures transparency as well. Data portability is an important facet to this issue as well as being a right consumers should possess. It provides for support of many devices, transition to alternative technologies and lastly, makes sure that all the data like other public records will be available upon request through the Right to Information procedure. The last is vital to uphold the spirit of transparency envisioned through the RTI process since interactions of government with citizens are then under its ambit and available for disclosure for whomsoever concerned.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Secondly, such practices by the Government are enhancing the monopoly of the companies in the market effectively discouraging competition and eventually, innovation. While a certain elite strata of the population might opt for Twitter or Facebook as their mode of conveying grievance, this may not hold true for the rest of the online India population.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Picking players in a free market is in violation of technology and vendor neutrality, a practice essential in e-governance to provide a level playing field for all and competing technologies. Projecting only a few platforms as de facto mediums of communication with the government inhibits the freedom of choice of citizens to air their grievances through a vendor or technology they are comfortable with. At the same time it makes the Government a mouthpiece for such companies who are gaining free publicity and consolidating their popularity. Government apps such as the SwachBharat one which is an e-governance platform do not offer much more in terms of functionality but either reflect the website or are a less mature version of the same. This leads to the problem of fracturing with many avenues of complaining such as the website, app, Twitter etc. Consequently, the priority of the people dealing with the complaints in terms of platform of response is unsure. Will I be responded to sooner if I tweet a complaint as opposed to putting it up on the app? Having an interoperable system can solve this where the Government can have a dashboard of their various complaints and responses are then made out evenly. Twitter itself could implement this by having complaints from Facebook for example and then the Twitter Seva would be an equal platform as opposed to the current issue where only they are favored.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Recent events have illustrated how detrimental the storage of data by these giants can be in terms of privacy. Data security concerns are also a consequence of such leaks. Not only is this a long overdue call for a better data protection law but at the same time also for the Government to realize that these platforms cannot be trusted. The hiring of Cambridge Analytica to influence voters in the US elections, based on their Facebook profiles and ancillary data, effectively put the governance of the country on sale by exploiting these privacy and security issues. By basing e-governance on their backbone, India is not far from inviting trouble as well. It is unnecessary and dangerous to have a go-between for matters that pertain between an individual and state.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">As this article was being written, it was confirmed by the Election Commission that they are partnering with Facebook for the Karnataka Assemby Elections to promote activities such as encourage enrollment of Voter ID and voter participation. Initiatives like these tying the government even closer to these companies are of concern and cementing the latter’s stronghold.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>Note: Our survey data and results are attached to this post. All research was collected by Shradha Nigam, a Vth year student at NLSIU, Bangalore.</em></p>
<hr />
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">Survey Data and Results</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify;">This report is based on a survey of government advertisements in English language newspapers in relation to their use of social media platforms and dedicated websites (“<strong>Survey</strong>”). For the purpose of this report, the ambit of the social media platforms has been limited to the use of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Google Plus and Instagram. The report was prepared by Shradha Nigam, a student from National Law School of India University, Bangalore. <a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/cis-report-on-social-media">Read the full report here</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/government-giving-free-publicity-worth-40-k-to-twitter-and-facebook'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/government-giving-free-publicity-worth-40-k-to-twitter-and-facebook</a>
</p>
No publisherAkriti BopannaGoogleInstagramPrivacyTwitterYouTubeInternet GovernanceFeaturedGoogle PlusFacebookHomepage2018-04-27T09:52:26ZBlog EntryFB & Google have already monopolised Indian cyberspace
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/catch-news-asad-ali-july-3-2016-fb-and-google-have-already-monopolised-indian-cyberspace
<b>In an interview with Catch, Sunil Abraham, executive director of Center for Internet & Society, puts the recent US-India cyber relationship framework into perspective. Abraham also talks about how Indian surveillance policies are outdated and why the country has failed to check the hegemonic tendencies of companies like Facebook and Google.</b>
<p>The <a class="external-link" href="http://www.catchnews.com/science-technology/fb-google-have-already-monopolised-indian-cyberspace-1467505123.html/fullview">interview was published by Catch News</a> on July 3, 2016.</p>
<hr />
<h3 style="text-align: center; "><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/copy6_of_Sunil.png/@@images/d7f757de-b4fc-46a2-a9b3-cca0e46e32e7.png" alt="Sunil Abraham" class="image-inline" title="Sunil Abraham" /></h3>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><span class="quick_pill_news_description">US-India signed a cyber relationship framework earlier this month. Could you explain some of the takeouts that may have important implications in the near future?</span></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In the framework, both sides have made a "commitment to the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance" - in immediate practical terms that means India will accept the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) transition proposed for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). Unfortunately, as my colleague Pranesh Prakash points out "U.S. state control over the core of the internet's domain name system is not being removed by the transition that is currently underway."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India along with Brazil and other emerging powers should have insisted that the question of jurisdiction be addressed before the transition. We must remember, that the multi-stakeholder model is just a fancy name for open and participatory self-regulation by the private sector. While the multi-stakeholder model is useful as a complement to traditional state-led regulation, it cannot be used to protect human rights or ensure the security of a nation state.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[That is precisely why - the very next sentence in the announcement for the the framework for the US-India Cyber Relationship says "a recognition of the leading role for governments in cyber security matters relating to national security". This is because ICANN-style multistakeholderism requires all stakeholders to be on "equal footing" without "distinct roles and responsibilities". In other words, the governments are saying that the multistakeholder model is fine for all Internet Governance areas with the exception of Cyber Security. Given the limits of the multistakeholder model this is indeed the wise thing to do. Since American corporations dominate the Internet, US foreign policy has historically pushed for the multistakeholder model as fig leaf for forbearance and reduced foreign regulatory burden American corporations operating in other jurisdictions. Therefore India must not drink the multistakeholder cool-aid whole sale. It cannot afford a laissez-faire approach where it waits for corporations to self-regulate - it must regulate whenever public interest or human rights are harmed. In other words, it must go beyond the multistakeholder model and produce appropriate regulation where necessary. Needless to add - it must also deregulate in areas where harms don't exist. Apart from this many of the details of the announcement are positive steps that will increase security in India and the USA, and indeed the also across the world.]</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><span class="quick_pill_news_description">What are some aspects of Intellectual Property Rights that should be looked at, in the context of the framework?</span></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There is some language around Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) that should be examined carefully too. The US corporations benefit from a maximalist IP regime. But Make in India, Digital India and Startup India all depend on flexibilities to the IP regime and therefore India should refuse signing. Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) obligations like the "Digital 2 Dozen" which the US is actively proselytizing across the Pacific. If we make that mistake, we will make zero progress in indigenous security research and product development and also many other areas of our economy, health sector and education sector will be severely compromised. Therefore it would be best to keep IP rights expansion and enforcement out of the framework for the US-India Cyber Relationship.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><span class="quick_pill_news_description">The PIL seeking a ban on WhatsApp was refused by the SC recently. Encrypted messaging services like Telegram however, have been used in the past by terror groups. What's your take on such end-to-end encryption services?</span></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Privacy and security are two sides of the same coin. You cannot have one without the other. End-to-end encryption is the basis for online privacy. End-to-end encryption is a pre-requisite for many legitimate actions of law abiding citizens online such as commerce, banking, tele-medicine, protection of intellectual property, witness/source protection, client confidentiality etc. Therefore, banning end-to-end encryption would mean the death of individual privacy and national security.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">If the government wants to promote cyber security it should promote the use of end-to-end encryption amongst law abiding citizens.<br /><br />Terrorist have to be stopped through targeted profiling, surveillance and interception. Big data analytics may be useful to watch for patterns in the meta data but there is no replacement for good old fashioned police work.<br /><br />Once suspects have been identified the encrypted channels can be compromised by:</p>
<ol>
<li>Placing trojans on the end-user devices</li>
<li>Performing man-in-the-middle attacks and</li>
<li>Using brute force attacks with super computers.</li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><br />Snowden's revelations have made it very clear that blanket and mass surveillance does not help foil terror attacks or stop organised crime. So far, research and government reports from across the world indicate that only a minority of terrorists use encryption. However, this situation may change.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">We don't have any proper encryption policy under the IT Act yet. What's taking so long and what are the key points that any policy in this matter must include in future?</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">We need many different types of encryption policies. We need a policy that mandates encryption and digital signature for all government personnel and also for all government transactions. We need policies that promote research and development in cryptography and mathematics. We need to update our criminal procedure code so that encrypted communications and data can be targeted by law enforcement and used effectively in the criminal justice process.</p>
<p>However, we should not have any broad encryption policy that tries to regulate encryption as a technology. That would be a highly regressive move and will be impossible to enforce. That would breed contempt for rule of law.</p>
<h3>Surveillance and the tech around it has been contentious for various governments. Where do we stand vis-a-vis regulating surveillance measures by the state?</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Our surveillance and interception laws are outdated. They need to be modernized to deal with advancements in technology and also global developments when it comes to data protection and privacy law.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In fact, our organisation was part of a global effort called Necessary and Proportionate which identified 13 principles to modernise surveillance which are connected to various aspects such as Legality, Legitimate aim, Competent judicial authority, Integrity of communications and systems and more. Some of these principles may have to be customised for the Indian context. [For example, given the load on courts perhaps India should stay with executive authorization of interceptions and data access requests. However, getting the law correct is only half the job. For the law cannot fix what the technology has broken. Some surveillance projects are well designed. For ex. the NATGRID - from what I understand it is a standard and platform that which will allow 12 security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies to temporarily make unions of sub-sets of 21 data sources. These automated temporary databases will be created under existing data access provisions of the law. I also hope the NATGRID is also using cryptography to ensure the maintenance of a non-repudiable log that will identify all officers involved in authorizing the each request and accessing the resultant data. Unfortunately, other surveillance projects are unmitigated disasters. For example, UID or Aadhaar. Many Indians don't realize that Aadhaar is a surveillance project. Biometrics is just a fancy name for remote, covert and non-consensual identification technology. Using the UID database the government can identify every single Indian without their consent. The so called "consent layer" in the India Stack is being developed by volunteers outside the UIDAI to avoid transparency under the Right to Information Act. Nothing in the current layer of the "consent layer" allows citizens to revoke consent. There is no facility in the UID Act to delete yourself from the database. Identity information aka the UID number and authentication information aka your biometrics for about a billion Indians have been collected and stored in a centralized location. It is as if our parliamentarians have written an open letter to criminals and foreign governments says "here is the information you need to wreck whole sale damage - come and get it". Hopefully the Supreme Court will save us from this impending disaster.]</p>
<h3>With a sluggish US market, India has the biggest potential for companies like FB & Google, next only to China. Do you feel that in the quest to take over the Indian market, FB & Google are going to monopolise cyberspace in India?</h3>
<p>I have news for you - they have already monopolised Indian cyberspace. They have completely wiped out competition in certain domains.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">One of the many reasons they have done this is because we don't have laws and regulations to temper their hegemonic tendencies. For example, we could use data portability and interoperability mandates for social media to spark competition in markets where there are entrenched monopolies.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Competition law can be used to protect other firms from abuse of market power. Consumer protection law and privacy law could be used to ensure that user's rights are not compromised in the race for market share. In addition, a modern privacy law compliant with the best practices in the European Data Protection Regulation 2016, would allow emerging Indian companies to compete with giants like Facebook and Google on a level playing field. [Speaking of level playing field - only recently has the government introduced the "equalization levy". This was long overdue. Imagine the amount of tax that could have been collected so far and damage that has been done to competition. Regardless the current NDA government deserves our kudos for ensuring that Facebook and Google contribute their fair share of taxes. The new IPR Policy was also an opportunity to address the monopoly of Google and Facebook. There should have been a concerted attempt to use free/open source software, open standard and open content to bolster Indic language technologies. A billion dollars from every spectrum auction should be used to create incentives for Indian private sector, research and academic organisation who can contribute openly to the Indic cyberspace. This is the market where we can still build a highly competitive market. Today, given government inaction - millions of Indians are training Google's language platforms every time they use machine translation or speech to text technologies. This corpus of information will not be available for public interest research. Ideally we should also have Indians contributing to commons-based peer production projects like Wikipedia for their Indic language needs. Unfortunately the government totally missed this opportunity.]</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/catch-news-asad-ali-july-3-2016-fb-and-google-have-already-monopolised-indian-cyberspace'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/catch-news-asad-ali-july-3-2016-fb-and-google-have-already-monopolised-indian-cyberspace</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial MediaGoogleFacebookInternet Governance2016-07-08T15:59:46ZNews ItemDigital India: Did Modi get it wrong in Silicon Valley?
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bbc-october-16-2015-digital-india-did-modi-get-it-wrong-in-silicon-valley
<b>A bear hug, a photo filter and a new debate on net neutrality - Ayeshea Perera examines the domestic fallout of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Facebook townhall in US.</b>
<p>This was published by <a class="external-link" href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-34513257">BBC News</a> on October 16, 2015. Sunil Abraham was quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It was supposed to be a moment that rocked the virtual world. Mr Modi, widely acknowledged as one of the world's most influential politicians on social media, enveloped a slightly stunned Mark Zuckerberg in a bear hug.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">But what was it that really happened in Menlo Park? Why did some people think Mr Modi wasn't acting in India's best digital interests when he hugged Mr Zuckerberg?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India with an internet population of 354 million - which has already <a class="story-body__link-external" href="ttp://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-09-03/news/66178659_1_user-base-iamai-internet-and-mobile-association">grown by 17%</a> in the first six months of 2015 - is an obvious target for not only Facebook, but other Silicon Valley giants. And they have all been more than happy to pledge their support for <a class="story-body__link-external" href="http://www.digitalindia.gov.in/">digital India</a> - a recently launched government initiative aimed at reinvigorating an $18bn (£11.6bn) campaign to strengthen India's digital infrastructure.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a class="story-body__link-external" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/Free-Wi-Fi-at-500-railway-stations-with-Googles-help-PM-says/articleshow/49123998.cms">Google offered</a> to provide 500 railway stations with free WiFi and Microsoft <a class="story-body__link-external" href="http://thenextweb.com/microsoft/2015/09/28/microsoft-wants-to-bring-cheap-broadband-to-500000-indian-villages/">pledged to connect</a> 500,000 Indian villages with cheap broadband access.</p>
<h2 class="story-body__crosshead" style="text-align: justify; ">Digitally colonised?</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">But this huge show of support and the increased interest in India has caused some concern within the country.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"Is Digital India going to only make India a consumer of services offered by global tech companies in lieu of data? Personal data is the currency of the digital world. Are we going to give that away simply to become a giant market for a Facebook or a Google? Look at the way the tech world is skewed. Only China has been able to come up with companies that can take on these MNCs" Prabir Purkayasta, chairman of the Society for Knowledge Commons in India, told the BBC.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"The British ruled the world because they controlled the seas," he said. "Is India going to be content to just be a digital consumer? To being colonised once again?"</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/Modi.jpg" alt="Narendra Modi" class="image-inline" title="Narendra Modi" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">And in the aftermath of the Facebook townhall in particular, some talk has begun to surface about what Mr Zuckerberg's real India ambitions are.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Soon after the townhall ended, both Mr Modi and Mr Zuckerberg declared their support for digital India by using a special Facebook filter to tint their profile pictures in the tri-colour of the Indian flag.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Multitudes of Indians followed suit and timelines were awash with snazzy tinted profile pictures, all in support of "Digital India".</p>
<h2 class="story-body__crosshead" style="text-align: justify; ">'Innocent mistake'</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">But then <a class="story-body__link-external" href="http://www.nextbigwhat.com/facebook-tricolor-profile-297">a tech website</a> released what it claimed to be a portion of Facebook's source code, which allegedly "proved" that the "Support Digital India" filter was actually a "Support Internet.Org" filter.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook <a class="story-body__link-external" href="http://indianexpress.com/article/technology/tech-news-technology/digital-india-profile-pic-tool-not-linked-to-support-for-internet-org-says-facebook/">quickly issued a denial</a>, blaming the text in the code on an "engineer mistake" in choosing a shorthand name he used for part of the code.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">But the "mistake" which has been coupled with a huge advertising blitz for Internet.Org <a class="story-body__link-external" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1&v=JdUovve48No">across television channels</a> and newspapers has raised suspicion about Facebook's motives. A Facebook poll on Internet.Org that frequently appears on Indian user timelines has also been ridiculed for not giving users an option to say no.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Instead the answer options to the poll question "Do you want India to have free basic services?" are "Yes" and "Not now".</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/Internet.png" alt="Internet" class="image-inline" title="Internet" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Internet.org (now called free basics), aims to extend internet services to the developing world by offering a selection of apps and websites free to consumers.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook's vice-president of infrastructure engineering, Jay Parikh has described the initiative as an "attempt to connect the two-thirds of the world who do not have access to the Internet" by trying to solve issues pertaining to affordability, infrastructure and access.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">When Facebook launched the initiative in India in February, it was criticised by Indian activists who expressed concerns that the project threatened freedom of expression, privacy and the principle of <a class="story-body__link" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32592204">net neutrality</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On the other end of the debate, Indian columnist Manu Joseph <a class="story-body__link-external" href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/columns/net-neutrality-war-is-not-just-facebook-versus-internet-mullahs/story-s9eZpZnomaaiz4De8fYfaK.html">wrote in the Hindustan Times newspaper</a>, hitting out at the "selfish" stand on net neutrality. He said concerns over the issue should be "subordinate to the fact that the poor have a right to some Internet".</p>
<h2 class="story-body__crosshead" style="text-align: justify; ">Wrong signal</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A massive campaign by India's Save the Internet Coalition exhorting Indians to speak out against initiatives threatening net neutrality caught public imagination and saw <a class="story-body__link-external" href="http://tech.firstpost.com/news-analysis/net-neutrality-deadline-trai-receives-over-million-emails-from-netizens-asking-to-save-the-internet-264548.html">more than a million emails</a> to India's regulator, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), demanding a free and fair internet in the country. Internet.Org was one of the initiatives immediately affected.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">TRAI since released a draft policy <a class="story-body__link" href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-33605253">on net neutrality</a>, but a question that has been asked is whether it was appropriate for Mr Modi to visit Facebook given that the policy was still under consideration.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/Modi1.png" alt="Narendra" class="image-inline" title="Narendra" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mr Purkayasta is of the opinion that it could have been avoided. "It was not the time or the place to go. Even if it was simply a publicity gimmick, it still sends a signal to officials involved in drafting the policy," he said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, Sunil Abraham from the Centre for Internet and Society told the BBC he believed that while Facebook's intentions were suspect, Mr Modi's visit had the potential to safeguard net neutrality in India.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"India is a hugely important market for Facebook, and the prime minister has the power to force positive changes to its policies," he said. "We gain nothing by shutting them out."</p>
<h2 class="share__title--lightweight share__title" style="text-align: justify; "></h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p> </p>
<p><figure class="full-width has-caption media-landscape"> </figure></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bbc-october-16-2015-digital-india-did-modi-get-it-wrong-in-silicon-valley'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bbc-october-16-2015-digital-india-did-modi-get-it-wrong-in-silicon-valley</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial MediaGoogleFacebookInternet Governance2015-10-18T04:44:52ZNews ItemChange has come to all of us
http://editors.cis-india.org/digital-natives/blog/change-has-come
<b>The general focus on a digital generational divide makes us believe that generations are separated by the digital axis, and that the gap is widening. There is a growing anxiety voiced by an older generation that the digital natives they encounter — in their homes, schools and universities and at workplaces — are a new breed with an entirely different set of vocabularies and lifestyles which are unintelligible and inaccessible. It is time we started pushing the boundaries of what it means to be a digital native. </b>
<p><strong>In this connected world, the geek is everyone — from a grandma on Skype to a teen on Second Life.</strong></p>
<p>Two self-proclaimed digital natives,
on a cold autumn morning in Amsterdam, decided to leave the comforts of
their familiar virtual worlds and venture into the brave new territories
of real-life shopping. Though slightly confused by the lack of
click-and-try options and perplexed by the limitations of the physical
spaces of shopping, we plodded along, shop after shop, thinking how much
easier it is to chat on IM while flying through Second Life as opposed
to face-to-face interactions while walking on crowded streets. After we
had run out of shops (and patience), we decided that it was time to rely
on better resources than our own wits. The Dutch girl fished out her
Android smartphone and with the single press of a button, opened up
channels of information. She called her mother. She asked for the
location of the store that was eluding us. And then she looked at me in
silence before bursting into laughter. Her 64-year-old mother, in
response to our question, had said, “Why don’t you just Google it?” <br /></p>
<p>We spent five minutes in stunned
laughter when we realised that we should have instinctively done that
and that we were being asked by somebody from Generation U to “get with
it”. Funny (and slightly embarrassing) as it is, it brings into focus,
the question, “Who is a digital native?” For those of you who have been
reading this column, it has been defined in terms of age and usage. A
digital native is generally somebody young, somebody who is tech-savvy,
somebody who can perform complicated calisthenics with digital
technologies — throwing virtual sheep, having instant relationships,
writing complex stories and pirating their favourite movies — in one
nonchalant click of the mouse. However, these kinds of digital natives
are only stereotypes.
</p>
<p>If we move away from
these descriptions of novelty, of excitement and of youth, a different
kind of digital native emerges for us. A digital native is somebody
whose way of thinking (about himself and the world around) is
significantly informed because of the presence of and familiarity with
the internet and digital technologies. In other words, a digital native
is a person who has experienced (and is often led to) change because of
their interactions with new technologies.
</p>
<p>It can be a
middle-aged man whose business changed when he started tracking his
supplies using complex and sophisticated databases. It can be a mother
of two, finding support and help raising her children on online
communities like Bing. It can be a senior teacher re-discovering
pedagogy through distributed knowledge systems on Wikipedia. It can be
grandparents who interact with their grandchildren over Skype and text
messaging, across international borders and lifestyles. It can be a
mother telling her digital native daughter to “just Google it!” over the
cellphone.
</p>
<p>And as things might
be, Shamini, my 15-year-old bonafide digital native correspondent from
Ahmedabad, recently wrote that she got off Facebook and deleted her
account. “It felt like I had retired from a job,” she said. But she was
away from Facebook only for four months, dissociated from all the “time,
energy and drama that it caused” and was quite enjoying it. After four
months of self-imposed exile, she, however, resurfaced on Facebook. And
it was to stay in touch with her aunt and uncle, who live in faraway
lands, and cannot keep in touch with her unless she is on Facebook.
Shamini was surprised at this. After spending much time convincing them
about trying to use email and phones to keep connected, she finally gave
in and started a new account that nobody knows of. And she asked me the
important question: Who is the digital native now?
</p>
<p>The general focus on
a digital generational divide makes us believe that generations are
separated by the digital axis, and that the gap is widening. There is a
growing anxiety voiced by an older generation that the digital natives
they encounter — in their homes, schools and universities and at
workplaces — are a new breed with an entirely different set of
vocabularies and lifestyles which are unintelligible and inaccessible.
It is time we started pushing the boundaries of what it means to be a
digital native.
</p>
<p>My grandmother used
to tell us, “Nobody is born knowing a language.” I think it is time to
start applying the same logic here. Nobody is born with technologies.
But there are people — perhaps not yet a generation, but still a
population — who are changing their lives and significantly transforming
the world by turning Google and Facebook and Twitter into verbs and a
way of doing things. So the next time, somebody asks you if you know a
digital native, don’t look for somebody out there — it might just be
you! <br /></p>
<p>The original column can be read in <a class="external-link" href="http://http://www.indianexpress.com/news/change-has-come-to-all-of-us/701505/0">The Indian Express</a><br /></p>
<p> </p>
<strong></strong>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/digital-natives/blog/change-has-come'>http://editors.cis-india.org/digital-natives/blog/change-has-come</a>
</p>
No publishernishantGoogleDigital NativesCyberculturesFacebookDigital subjectivities2012-03-13T10:43:38ZBlog Entry