The Centre for Internet and Society
http://editors.cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 101 to 115.
India internet: clean-up or censorship?
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/clean-up-or-censorship
<b>Is India going the way of China? Not when it comes to development indicators. Or enhanced infrastructure. Or economic power. But in another category at which Beijing excels: web censorship.</b>
<p>That was the implication of a ruling on Thursday from Justice Suresh Kait, of the Delhi High Court, who told lawyers for Facebook India and Google India that unless they develop mechanisms to regulate “offensive and objectionable” material on their web sites, India is prepared to take drastic measures,<a class="external-link" href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/Chunk-HT-UI-Technology-Update-SocialMedia/We-ll-do-a-China-HC-warns-Facebook-Google/Article1-796243.aspx"> according to the Hindustan Times</a>. “Like China, we will block all such websites,” Kalit declared.</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://ibnlive.in.com/news/sanction-to-prosecute-fb-google-likely/220554-3.html">According to the IBN news channel</a>, the government seems to be moving to make good on those threats:</p>
<p>Government sources said on Friday that the Delhi High Court was likely to issue sanctions to prosecute social networking sites Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo India in the ongoing spat between the companies and the Government of India over content regulation.</p>
<p>“Prosecution for some of the non-bailable offences requires prior sanction of the government, which has been sought and it is likely to be granted,” the sources said.</p>
<p>[…]</p>
<p>Summons are to be sent to the companies through the Ministry of External Affairs directing their heads to appear before court on March 13, which is when the next hearing will take place. The Ministry of Communication and Information Technology will file its affidavit by this evening.</p>
<p>Clearly there’s trouble in “the world’s largest democracy”.</p>
<p>Kalit’s pronouncement is the latest turn in a story that broke last month, when the New York Times reported that telecoms minister Kapil Sibal had met with executives from Google, Facebook, Yahoo and Microsoft to discuss the pre-emptive removal of “offensive material” – including, it seems, web pages that had criticized the leader of his party, Sonia Gandhi.</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2011/12/06/indias-dreams-of-web-censorship/#axzz1ixRB6VOO">As beyondbrics reported</a>, Sibal then gave a combative press conference where he said: “I believe that no reasonable person aware of the sensibilities of large sections of communities in this country and aware of community standards as they are applicable in India would wish to see this content in the public domain,” referring to “offensive material” he had shown some reporters prior to the conference.</p>
<p>He added, repeatedly, that the government did not believe in censorship.</p>
<p>Apparently, Kalit didn’t get the memo.</p>
<p>Lawyers for the internet giants appeared before the judge to request the dismissal of a criminal complaint filed by a private citizen in a lower court under sections of the Indian law that cover “sale of obscene books etc”, “sale of obscene objects to young person etc” and “criminal conspiracy”. The judge declined.</p>
<p>“The magistrate of the trial court had observed that the material submitted by the complainant contained obscene pictures and derogatory articles pertaining to various Hindu gods, Prophet Muhammad and Jesus Christ”, IBN reported.</p>
<p>According to the Hindustan Times:</p>
<p>On behalf of Google India, senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi said it was humanly not possible to filter or monitor the postings of obscene, objectionable and defamatory material. “Billions of people across the globe, post their articles on the website. Yes, they may be defamatory, obscene but cannot be checked,” he said.</p>
<p>A Google spokesperson issued a statement last night, saying, “We did file a petition before the Delhi High Court. The Court has now issued a notice to the petitioner. We can’t comment at this stage.”</p>
<p>Today, the company issued a clarification:</p>
<p>Today the Court has merely directed the petitioner to serve the Court order to the overseas entities at their respective addresses and has adjourned the matter to March 13th.</p>
<p>Last month, a lower court had ordered the sites to remove all “anti-social” or “anti-relgious” content by February 6.</p>
<p>As Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet & Society, told beyondbrics last month, it’s difficult to establish exactly what is anti-religious: for example, the Hindu profession of belief in multiple gods is blasphemous to Muslims, Christians and Jews.</p>
<p>A lower court had directed the central government to take “immediate appropriate steps” and file a report by January 13.</p>
<p>It has not been released yet, but later on Friday you can Google it. Take the opportunity – if India goes the way of China, it might prove more difficult in future.</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2012/01/13/india-internet-clean-up-or-censorship/#axzz1jc78a2Dx">This blog post by Neil Munshi was published in beyondbrics on 13 January 2012</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/clean-up-or-censorship'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/clean-up-or-censorship</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet Governance2012-01-16T11:17:11ZNews ItemUS Clampdown Worse than the Great Firewall
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/us-clampdown
<b>If you thought China’s Internet censorship was evil, think again. American moves to clean up the Web could hurt global surfers, writes Sunil Abraham in this article published in Tehelka, Volume 8, Issue 50, 17 December 2011.</b>
<p>TWO PARTICULARLY terrible pieces of legislation — the PROTECT-IP Act and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) — have been introduced in the US Senate and House of Representatives. If passed, the US administration will be empowered to shut down specific websites using the same four measures it employed in its failed attempt to shut down WikiLeaks — domain name system (DNS) filtering, blocking financial transfers via financial intermediaries, revoking hosting and sanitising search engine results. SOPA represents the perfect policy interest overlap between a State clamping down on freedom of expression and IPR-holders protecting their obsolete business models. After all it was Bono who publicly articulated the unspoken desire of many right-holders: “We know from China’s ignoble effort to suppress online dissent that it’s perfectly possible to track content.”</p>
<p>China fortunately only censors the Internet for its own citizens, the Great Firewall does not, for example, prevent access to knowledge by Indian netizens. SOPA will enable the US to censor the global Internet unilaterally. The Great Firewall can be circumvented using tools like Tor, but SOPA will in many ways make its targets disappear for the average user. DNS filtering, even when implemented in a single country, has global consequences. DNS, one of the foundational mechanisms of the Internet, is an address look-up service that allows users to translate domain names (e.g. cisindia.org — easier for humans to remember) into IP addresses (e.g. 202.190.125.69 — easier for machines). The most critical servers in the global DNS hierarchy are the root servers, or today’s server clusters. Mandated DNS filtering would result in some DNS servers returning different IP addresses than other DNS servers for certain domain names. With PROTECT-IP and SOPA, these global consequences would be at unprecedented levels given that seven of the 13 server clusters that constitute the DNS root fall within US jurisdiction. We already have some indication where this is headed. The US Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency announced recently that it has seized 150 domain names for alleged IPR infringement.</p>
<p>We must remember that IPR policy in some countries has been configured in public interest to take advantage of the exceptions and limitations afforded by the TRIPS (trade-related aspects of IPR) agreement. In others, even though the letter of the law goes beyond TRIPS requirements, access by ordinary citizens is protected because of poor enforcement of these maximalist policies. E-commerce platforms that sell Micromax, Karbonn, Spice and Lava mobile phones that are manufactured in China may be taken offline because an American court is convinced of patent infringement. An online publisher of George Orwell’s books, which are public domain in Russia, India and South Africa but still under copyright in the US and Europe, may have its Paypal account blocked.</p>
<div class="pullquote">After the witch-hunt against WikiLeaks, policymakers have realised the extent of American hypocrisy</div>
<p>In the recent past, activists in authoritarian regimes and democracies with draconian Internet laws have leveraged US Internet freedom rhetoric. This was first deployed by Hillary Clinton in early 2010 after Google’s melodramatic withdrawal from China. Even then, many observers were convinced that this was just selective tokenism and the real agenda was domination of global markets by US-based MNCs. Today, after the witch-hunts against WikiLeaks and Anonymous, global policymakers have realised the extent of American hypocrisy.</p>
<p>Fortunately, opposition for SOPA has cut across traditional political and ideological divides — libertarians, liberal human rights organisations and political conservatives who believe in small government and also modern- day capitalists like Google, Facebook and Twitter. Let us pray that Kapil Sibal registers his protest with the Obama administration to protect the online aspirations of millions of Indian citizens and entrepreneurs.</p>
<p>Read the original published in Tehelka <a class="external-link" href="http://www.tehelka.com/story_main51.asp?filename=Op171211proscons.asp">here</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/us-clampdown'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/us-clampdown</a>
</p>
No publishersunilFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet Governance2012-01-26T20:42:14ZBlog EntrySpy in the Web
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/spy-in-web
<b>The government’s proposed pre-censorship rules undermine the intelligence of an online user and endanger democracy.</b>
<p>Kapil Sibal’s recent remarks demanding that private social media companies like Google, Microsoft and Facebook remove "objectionable" content from their social networks has created a lot of furore. It should not come as a surprise to us that just like any other platform of publication and content creation, several rules and regulations already regulate online content while still respecting our constitutional right for freedom of speech and expression in India.</p>
<p>From terms of services of the different web 2.0 products that seek to moderate "offensive" or "harmful" material to strictly defined punishable offences as defined in the Information Technologies Act, framed by the Government of India, there are various ways by which material that might incite violence, hatred or pain is systemically removed from the digital space. </p>
<p>Largely, this happens silently. Unless you are particularly keen on certain spurious websites, you wouldn’t even realise that there is a list of blacklisted websites that remain inaccessible to us in India. Once in a while, we realise the regulatory nature of state censorship when certain actions come to light. In 2006, the Indian government blocked Blogspot, the popular blogging platform, because they had detected "anti-national" activities by certain groups using the blog.</p>
<p>More recently, India’s first home-grown erotic comic series Savita Bhabhi was banned and taken off its Indian servers, without realising that in the era of cloud-computing, the comic still remains available through different containers and spaces. In both these cases, while one might be able to provide a critique of the Indian government’s attempts at censoring and regulating information, there is reasonable sympathy to the idea that some control on information is possibly a good thing. </p>
<p>It is in the very nature of information to be filtered. I am sure everybody will agree that censoring, controlling and regulating information of certain kinds — involving child pornography, calls for violence and vandalism aimed at insulting and offending vulnerable sections of the society — is probably in the interest of a healthier information society. And hence, one nods one’s head, rather grudgingly at some of the censorship laws (print, TV, internet, et al) and accepts that we need them, at least in principle, if not in execution.</p>
<p>However, what Sibal is asking for is not in the same vein. Censorship laws have always been very cautious of what constitutes "offensive" content and have relied both on the larger opinions of the community as well as the informed expertise of legal bodies to censor information. More often than not, an act of censorship is implemented when certain sections of the society, in their interaction with certain information, find it offensive or insulting and ask for a block. Pre-emptive censorship, the kinds performed by the Central Board of Film Certification, is in service of existing legal infrastructure around production and distribution of information.</p>
<p>Protective guidelines for censoring information, as was recently seen in the Broadcast Editors’ Association’s mandate around not intruding into the privacy of the Bachchan baby and the mother, during the birth of the child, are demonstrably for the protection of a person’s private life.</p>
<p>Sibal’s new calls for censorship against material “that would offend any human being” is separate from all these instances in three ways. First, while Sibal is an important political figure in this country, he is not the lord of information production. Using the power of his office to call for taking down of content that he found offensive (fortunately it did not incite him to violence and moral decrepitude) is undemocratic and possibly extra-legal (as in not within the boundaries of law, but who will bell the cat?). </p>
<p>To ask private companies and use his influence to bully them into curtailing the constitutionally provided freedom of speech and expression is in bad taste. There is enough regulation that could be invoked to seek arbitration between Sibal’s opinion and somebody else’s about how Sonia Gandhi should be represented online.</p>
<p>Second, Sibal might pretend that he is only asking for censorship of online content the way in which we have for other media, but that is a fallacy. What he is advocating is an ethos of pre-censorship, where, even before the material becomes public, it is screened through human agents who, through some divine right would know the right from wrong — read as what the powers to be want and don’t. To override existing regulation and ask for this extra layer of human scrutiny of all information being produced online is the equivalent of certain unnamed people in Mumbai, who, when Mani Ratnam was about to release his film Bombay, asked for a private screening of the film and then recommended some friendly cuts in it.</p>
<p>Third, is perhaps, and I write this with regret, Sibal has undermined the critical intelligence and engagement of the social media’s ardent users. He has fallen into the trap of suggesting that impressionable minds will be easily corrupted if they are introduced to "undesirable" information online, the same information that will apparently not drive human pre-screeners to prurient activities because they will be protected by the mantle of government sanction. Instead of drawing upon the wisdom of crowds, which invites communities and people to flag information that they find offensive and asks for independent arbitration, he has asked for an undemocratic and unconstitutional call for censorship which threatens the very structures of political protest, resistance and dialogue in the country.</p>
<p>If such draconian measures are going to be carried through, we might soon regress to a dystopia where all information is censored, filtered and reshaped only to suit the interests of those in power.</p>
<p>Nishant Shah, Director-Research wrote this article for the Indian Express. It was published on December 18, 2011. The original can be read <a class="external-link" href="http://www.indianexpress.com/news/spy-in-the-web/888509/1">here</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/spy-in-web'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/spy-in-web</a>
</p>
No publishernishantFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet Governance2012-03-26T06:38:51ZBlog EntryIndia's Techies Angered Over Internet Censorship Plan
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/techies-angered-over-censorship
<b>India has the world's largest democracy, and one of the most rambunctious. Millions of its young people are cutting edge when it comes to high-tech. Yet the country is still very conservative by Western standards, and a government minister recently said that offensive material on the web should be removed.</b>
<p>The way it was reported in India, Communications Minister Kapil Sibal started the whole row by assembling the heads of social networking sites at a meeting in his office in New Delhi.</p>
<p>At the time, he was reported to have asked companies, like Google and Facebook, to devise a system to filter through and edit out objectionable material before it could make its way online.</p>
<p>In an interview with the Indian cable channel CNN-IBN, Sibal pointed to
offensive religious content that could cause ethnic or inter-communal
conflict.</p>
<p>"We will defend any citizens' right to freedom of speech until our last
breath. But we don't want this kind of content to be on the social
media," Sibal said in the interview.</p>
<p>India's civil society, and more particularly its very active blogosphere, was outraged.</p>
<p>Pranesh Prakash from the Center for Internet and Society in Bangalore
says even the suggestion of censorship is a dangerous idea. Particularly
if it's done before the content is posted online.</p>
<div class="pullquote"><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/sibal.jpg/image_preview" alt="sibal" class="image-inline image-inline" title="sibal" />Indian Telecommunications Minister Kapil Sibal has said that Internet
giants such as Facebook and Google have ignored his demands screen
derogatory material from their sites, so the government would have to take action on its own.</div>
<p>"Pre-censorship is a very dangerous idea and is also something that actually doesn't happen in countries that are known for censoring the internet," Prakash says. "It will be charting a new path in Internet censorship."</p>
<p>Prakash says the proposal would be impractical, as well as undemocratic. Even with an army of censors, it would impossible to filter through content before it's uploaded, he says.</p>
<p>Stung by the criticism, Kapil Sibal now says he was misunderstood and that it "would be madness" to ask for pre-screening of content on electronic media and social media.</p>
<p>But in that fateful meeting, the Communications Minister also reportedly objected to unflattering portrayals of India's political leaders on the Internet and in Twitter messages. And that idea reinforced concerns that the government was overreaching and muffling dissent.</p>
<p>Censoring hate speech is one thing, but leaving it to the likes of Google to monitor political speech is problematic, says Apar Gupta, an Internet lawyer in New Delhi.</p>
<p>"It may offend you today, it may not cater to your taste, but at the end of the day: is it legal?" says Gupta. "The new proposals are quite a dramatic change, not only in terms of enforcement, but also in terms of what kind of speech it will prohibit."</p>
<p>Up till now, there has been some legal room for the government to censor inflammatory speech. For example, movies in India are subjected to a government censor board that monitors their content before they can be released to the general public. This year, a controversial movie about India's social caste system, was banned in some parts of the country.</p>
<p>But the Internet is less restrictive, says Apar Gupta.</p>
<p>"You can voice your opinion without any social sanctions for your opinions," he says. "So it's been a pressure valve which has allowed a lot of people to let off steam."</p>
<p>But even so, when debate online boils over in India it's the website or search engine that's held responsible. So critics of the proposed restrictions don't see the need for further action.</p>
<p>All this has left Communications Minister Kapil Sibal as something of a hate figure among Internet-savvy Indians. Although he says he's going to be pressing for tighter controls, he has agreed to meet with the Internet companies again.</p>
<p>This article by Elliot Hannon was published in NPR on 20 December 2011. Read the original <a class="external-link" href="http://www.npr.org/2011/12/12/143600310/indias-techies-angered-over-internet-censorship-plan">here</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/techies-angered-over-censorship'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/techies-angered-over-censorship</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet Governance2011-12-22T05:30:09ZNews ItemFree Speech Online in India under Attack?
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/free-speech-online-in-india-under-attack
<b>When the Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology, Mr. Kapil Sibal suggested pre-censorship for a range of popular online platforms and social networking sites, the suggestion was met by a barrage of criticism, which soon forced him to back down. Yet Sibal’s suggestion is not the only threat to free speech on the Internet in India today. Legislation such as the Intermediary Due Diligence Rules and Cyber Café Rules (also jointly known as the IT Rules) issued in April 2011 is equally dangerous for free speech online.</b>
<p>Achal Prabhala, Anja Kovacs and Lawrence Liang will join Sunil Abraham to discuss in more detail some of the direct threats to freedom of expression online in India today including the larger legal and social context of freedom of expression and censorship, control and resistance in which they have to be understood and the steps that can be taken to ensure that substantive protections for freedom of expression online will be put into place.</p>
<h2>The Speakers</h2>
<h3>Achal Prabhala</h3>
<p>Achal is based in Bangalore, Karnataka. He is a researcher, activist and writer in the areas of access to knowledge and access to medicine besides being a member of the Advisory board of the Wikimedia Foundation.</p>
<h3>Anja Kovacs<br /></h3>
<p>Anja works with the Internet Democracy Project, which engages in research and advocacy on the promises and challenges that the Internet poses for democracy and social justice in the developing world.</p>
<h3>Lawrence Liang</h3>
<p>Lawrence is a researcher and lawyer based in Bangalore, who is known for his legal campaigns on issues of public concern. He is a co-founder of the Alternative Law Forum and works on the intersection of law, technology and culture. He has worked closely with filmmakers and artists in a number of anti-censorship campaigns.</p>
<h2>The Moderator</h2>
<h3>Sunil Abraham</h3>
<p>Sunil is the Executive Director of the Centre for Internet and Society, a Bangalore-based non-profit organization. He is also a social entrepreneur and Free Software advocate. He founded Mahiti in 1998 which aims to reduce the cost and complexity of Information and Communication Technology for the Voluntary Sector by using Free Software. <br /><br /><em>This event is jointly organised by the Internet Democracy Project and the Centre for Internet and Society. Join us at the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore, on Wednesday 21 December, at 5.30 pm.</em></p>
<p><em><strong>VIDEOS</strong><br /></em></p>
<iframe src="http://blip.tv/play/AYLkvTIA.html?p=1" frameborder="0" height="250" width="250"></iframe><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://a.blip.tv/api.swf#AYLkvTIA" style="display:none"></embed>
<iframe src="http://blip.tv/play/AYLkvV8A.html?p=1" frameborder="0" height="250" width="250"></iframe><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://a.blip.tv/api.swf#AYLkvV8A" style="display:none"></embed>
<iframe src="http://blip.tv/play/AYLkvh4A.html?p=1" frameborder="0" height="250" width="250"></iframe><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://a.blip.tv/api.swf#AYLkvh4A" style="display:none"></embed>
<iframe src="http://blip.tv/play/AYLkwCUA.html?p=1" frameborder="0" height="250" width="250"></iframe><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://a.blip.tv/api.swf#AYLkwCUA" style="display:none"></embed>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/free-speech-online-in-india-under-attack'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/free-speech-online-in-india-under-attack</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceLectureEvent Type2012-03-02T03:03:24ZEventOnline Pre-Censorship is Harmful and Impractical
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/online-pre-censorship-harmful-impractical
<b>The Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology, Mr. Kapil Sibal wants Internet intermediaries to pre-censor content uploaded by their users. Pranesh Prakash takes issue with this and explains why this is a problem, even if the government's heart is in the right place. Further, he points out that now is the time to take action on the draconian IT Rules which are before the Parliament.</b>
<p>Mr. Sibal is a knowledgeable lawyer, and according to a senior lawyer friend of his with whom I spoke yesterday, greatly committed to ideals of freedom of speech. He would not lightly propose regulations that contravene Article 19(1)(a) [freedom of speech and expression] of our Constitution. Yet his recent proposals regarding controlling online speech seem unreasonable. My conclusion is that the minister has not properly grasped the way the Web works, is frustrated because of the arrogance of companies like Facebook, Google, Yahoo and Microsoft. And while he has his heart in the right place, his lack of knowledge of the Internet is leading him astray. The more important concern is the<a class="external-link" href="http://www.mit.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/RNUS_CyberLaw_15411.pdf"> IT Rules</a> that have been in force since April 2011.</p>
<h3>Background <br /></h3>
<p>The New York Times scooped a story on Monday revealing that Mr. Sibal and the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.mit.gov.in/">MCIT</a> had been <a class="external-link" href="http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/india-asks-google-facebook-others-to-screen-user-content/?scp=2&sq=kapil%20sibal&st=cse">in touch with Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft</a>, asking them to set up a system whereby they would manually filter user-generated content before it is published, to ensure that objectionable speech does not get published. Specifically, he mentioned content that hurt people's religious sentiments and content that Member of Parliament Shashi Tharoor described as <a class="external-link" href="http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/i-am-against-web-censorship-shashi-tharoor_745587.html">'vile' and capable of inciting riots as being problems</a>. Lastly, Mr. Sibal defended this as not being "censorship" by the government, but "supervision" of user-generated content by the companies themselves.</p>
<h3>Concerns <br /></h3>
<p>One need not give lectures on the benefits of free speech, and Mr. Sibal is clear that he does not wish to impinge upon it. So one need not point out that freedom of speech means nothing if not the freedom to offend (as long as no harm is caused). There can, of course, be reasonable limitations on freedom of speech as provided in Article 19 of the <a class="external-link" href="http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm">ICCPR</a> and in Article 19(2) of our Constitution. My problem lies elsewhere.</p>
<h3>Secrecy <br /></h3>
<p>It is unfortunate that the New York Times has to be given credit for Mr. Sibal addressing a press conference on this issue (and he admitted as much). What he is proposing is not enforcement of existing rules and regulations, but of a new restriction on online speech. This should have, in a democracy, been put out for wide-ranging public consultations first.</p>
<h3>Making intermediaries responsible <br /></h3>
<p>The more fundamental disagreement is that over how the question of what should not be published should be decided, and how that decision should be and how that should be carried out, and who can be held liable for unlawful speech. I believe that "to make the intermediary liable for the user violating that code would, I think, not serve the larger interests of the market." Mr. Sibal said that in May this year <a class="external-link" href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304563104576355223687825048.html">in an interview with the Wall Street Journal</a>. The intermediaries (that is, all persons and companies who transmit or host content on behalf of a third party), are but messengers just like a post office and do not exercise editorial control, unlike a newspaper. (By all means prosecute Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft whenever they have created unlawful content, have exercised editorial control over unlawful content, have incited and encouraged unlawful activities, or know after a court order or the like that they are hosting illegal content and still do not remove it.)
Newspapers have editors who can take responsibility for content published in the newspaper. They can afford to, because the number of articles in a newspaper is limited. YouTube, which has 48 hours of videos uploaded every minutes, cannot. One wag suggested that Mr. Sibal was not suggesting a means of censorship, but of employment generation and social welfare for censors and editors. To try and extend editorial duties to these 'intermediaries' by executive order or through 'forceful suggestions' to these companies cannot happen without amending s.79 of the Information Technology Act which ensures they are not to be held liable for their user's content: the users are.
Internet speech has, to my knowledge, and to date, has never caused a riot in India. It is when it is translated into inflammatory speeches on the ground with megaphones that offensive speech, whether in books or on the Internet, actually become harmful, and those should be targeted instead. And the same laws that apply to offline speech already apply online. If such speech is inciting violence then the police can be contacted and a magistrate can take action. Indeed, Internet companies like Facebook, Google, etc., exercise self-regulation already (excessively and wrongly, I feel sometimes). Any person can flag any content on YouTube or Facebook as violating the site's terms of use. Indeed, even images of breast-feeding mothers have been removed from Facebook on the basis of such complaints. So it is mistaken to think that there is no self-regulation. In two recent cases, the High Courts of Bombay (<a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/janhit-manch-v-union-of-india" class="internal-link" title="Janhit Manch & Ors. v. The Union of India"><em>Janhit Manch v. Union of India</em></a>) and Madras (<em>R. Karthikeyan v. Union of India</em>) refused to direct the government and intermediaries to police online content, saying that places an excessive burden on freedom of speech.</p>
<h3>IT Rules, 2011 <br /></h3>
<p>In this regard, the IT Rules published in April 2011 are great offenders. While speech that is 'disparaging' (while not being defamatory) is not prohibited by any statute, yet intermediaries are required not to carry 'disparaging' speech, or speech to which the user has no right (how is this to be judged? do you have rights to the last joke that you forwarded?), or speech that promotes gambling (as the government of Sikkim does through the PlayWin lottery), and a myriad other kinds of speech that are not prohibited in print or on TV. Who is to judge whether something is 'disparaging'? The intermediary itself, on pain of being liable for prosecution if it is found have made the wrong decision. And any person may send a notice to an intermediary to 'disable' content, which has to be done within 36 hours if the intermediary doesn't want to be held liable. Worst of all, there is no requirement to inform the user whose content it is, nor to inform the public that the content is being removed. It just disappears, into a memory hole. It does not require a paranoid conspiracy theorist to see this as a grave threat to freedom of speech.
Many human rights activists and lawyers have made a very strong case that the IT Rules on Intermediary Due Diligence are unconstitutional. Parliament still has an opportunity to reject these rules until the end of the 2012 budget session. Parliamentarians must act now to uphold their oaths to the Constitution.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/online-pre-censorship-harmful-impractical'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/online-pre-censorship-harmful-impractical</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIT ActObscenityFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityYouTubeSocial mediaInternet GovernanceFeaturedIntermediary LiabilityCensorshipSocial Networking2011-12-12T17:00:50ZBlog EntryOpening Government: A Guide to Best Practice in Transparency, Accountability and Civic Engagement across the Public Sector
http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/opening-government-best-practice-guide
<b>The Transparency & Accountability Initiative has published a book called “Opening Government: A Guide to Best Practice in Transparency, Accountability and Civic Engagement across the Public Sector”. We at the Centre for Internet & Society contributed the section on Open Government Data.</b>
<p>Cross-posted from the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.transparency-initiative.org/reports/opening-government">Transparency & Accountability Initiative blog</a>.</p>
<p>Download <a class="external-link" href="http://www.transparency-initiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Opening-Government3.pdf">the full report</a> (PDF, 440 Kb)</p>
<h3>Open Government Partnership</h3>
<p>In January 2011, a small group of government and civil society leaders from around the world gathered in Washington, DC to brainstorm on how to build upon growing global momentum around transparency, accountability and civic participation in governance. The result was the creation of the Open Government Partnership (OGP), a new multi-stakeholder coalition of governments, civil society and private sector actors working to advance open government around the world — with the goals of increasing public sector responsiveness to citizens, countering corruption, promoting economic efficiencies, harnessing innovation, and improving the delivery of services.</p>
<p>In September 2011, these founding OGP governments will gather in New York on the margins of the UN General Assembly to embrace a set of high-level open government principles, announce country-specific commitments for putting these principles into practice and invite civil society to assess their performance going forward. Also in September, a diverse coalition of governments will stand up and announce their intention to join a six-month process culminating in the announcement of their own OGP commitments and signing of the declaration of principles in January 2012.</p>
<h3>'Opening Government' report</h3>
<p>To help inform governments, civil society and the private sector in developing their OGP commitments, the Transparency and Accountability Initiative (T/A Initiative) reached out to leading experts across a wide range of open government fields to gather their input on current best practice and the practical steps that OGP participants and other governments can take to achieve it.</p>
<p>The result is the first document of its kind to compile the state of the art in transparency, accountability and citizen participation across 15 areas of governance, ranging from broad categories such as access to information, service delivery and budgeting to more specific sectors such as forestry, procurement and climate finance.</p>
<p>Each expert’s contribution is organized according to three tiers of potential commitments around open government for any given sector — minimal steps for countries starting from a relatively low baseline, more substantial steps for countries that have already made moderate progress, and most ambitious steps for countries that are advanced performers on open government.</p>
<h3>Chapters and Contributing Authors</h3>
<ol>
<li>Aid – <a href="http://www.publishwhatyoufund.org/" target="_blank" title="Publish What You Fund">Publish What You Fund</a></li>
<li>Asset disclosure - <a href="http://www.globalintegrity.org/" target="_blank" title="Global Integrity">Global Integrity</a></li>
<li>Budgets – <a href="http://www.internationalbudget.org/" target="_blank" title="IBP">The International Budget Project</a></li>
<li>Campaign finance – <a href="http://www.transparency-usa.org/" target="_blank" title="TI USA">Transparency International - USA</a></li>
<li>Climate finance – <a href="http://www.wri.org/" target="_blank" title="WRI">World Resources Institute</a></li>
<li>Fisheries – <a href="http://transparentsea.co/" target="_blank" title="TransparentSea">TransparentSea</a></li>
<li>Financial sector reform <a href="http://www.gfip.org/" target="_blank" title="Global Financial Integrity">Global Financial Integrity</a></li>
<li>Forestry – <a href="http://www.globalwitness.org/" target="_blank" title="Global Witness">Global Witness</a></li>
<li>Electricity – <a href="http://electricitygovernance.wri.org/" target="_blank" title="Electricity Governance Initiative">Electricity Governance Initiative</a></li>
<li>Environment – <a href="http://www.accessinitiative.org/" target="_blank" title="The Access Initiative">The Access Initiative</a></li>
<li>Extractive industries – <a href="http://www.revenuewatch.org/" target="_blank" title="RWI">The Revenue Watch Institute</a></li>
<li>Open government data – <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/" target="_blank" title="CIS India">The Centre for Internet and Society - India</a></li>
<li>Procurement – <a href="http://www.transparency-usa.org/" target="_blank" title="TI USA">Transparency International-USA</a></li>
<li>Right to information – <a href="http://www.access-info.org/" target="_blank" title="Access Info">Access Info</a> and the <a href="http://www.law-democracy.org/" target="_blank" title="Center for Law and Democracy">Center for Law and Democracy</a></li>
<li>Service delivery – <a href="http://www.twaweza.org/" target="_blank" title="Twaweza">Twaweza</a></li>
</ol>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/opening-government-best-practice-guide'>http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/opening-government-best-practice-guide</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshDigital GovernanceOpen DataPublic AccountabilityOpennesse-governance2012-12-14T10:26:42ZBlog EntryRTI Applications on Blocking of Websites
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/rtis-on-website-blocking
<b>In recent weeks, an increasing number of incidents have come to light on government-ordered blocking of websites. In one case involving Zone-H.org, it is clear who has ordered the block (a Delhi district court judge, as an interim order), even though the block itself is open to constitutional challenge. In all others cases, including the TypePad case, it is unclear who has ordered the block and why. We at CIS have sent in two right to information requests to find out.</b>
<p>While under the law (i.e., s.69A of the Information Technology Act), the Department of Information Technology (DIT) has the power to order blocks (via the 'Designated Officer'), in some cases it has been noted that the ISPs have noted that the order to block access to the websites have come from the Department of Telecom (DoT). Due to this, we have sent in RTI applications to both the DIT and the DoT.</p>
<h2>RTI Application to Department of Information Technology<br /></h2>
<p align="JUSTIFY">To</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Shri
B.B.Bahl,<br />Joint
Director and PIO (RTI)<br />Office
of PIO (RTI)<br />Room
No 1016, Electronics Niketan<br />Department
of Information Technology (DIT)<br />Ministry
of Communications and Information Technology<br />6,
CGO Complex, New Delhi</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"> </p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Dear
Sir, </p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Subject:
Information on Website Blocking Requested under the Right to
Information Act, 2005 </strong></p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>1.
Full Name of the Applicant:</strong><br />Pranesh
Prakash </p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>2.
Address of the Applicant:</strong><br />E-mail
Address:<br />pranesh[at]cis-india.org
</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Mailing
Address:<br />Centre
for Internet and Society<br />194,
2-C Cross,<br />Domlur
Stage II,<br />Bangalore
– 560071 </p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>3.
Details of the information required</strong>:</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">It
has come to our attention that Airtel Broadband Services (“Airtel”)
has recently blocked access to a blog host called TypePad
(http://www.typepad.com) (“TypePad”) for all its users across the
country. In this regard, we request information on the following
queries under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005:</p>
<ol type="i"><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Did
the Department order Airtel to block TypePad under s.69A of the
Information Technology Act (“IT Act”), 2000 read with the
Information Technology (Procedures and Safeguards for Blocking
Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 (“Rules”) or any
other law for the time being in force? If so, please provide a copy
of such order or orders. If not, what action, if at all, has been
taken by the Department against Airtel for blocking of websites in
contravention of s.69A of the IT Act?</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Has
the Department ever ordered a block under s.69A of the IT Act? If
so, what was the information that was ordered to be blocked?</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY">How
many requests for blocking of information has the Designated Officer
received, and how many of those requests have been accepted and how
many rejected? How many of those requests were for emergency
blocking under Rule 9 of the Rules?</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Please
provide use the present composition of the Committee for Examination
of Requests constituted under Rule 7 of the Rules.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Please
provide us the dates and copies of the minutes of all meetings held
by the Committee for Examination of Requests under Rule 8(4) of the
Rules, and copies of their recommendations.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Please
provide us the present composition of the Review Committee
constituted under rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Please
provide us the dates and copies of the minutes of all meetings held
by the Review Committee under Rule 14 of the Rules, and copies of
all orders issued by the Review Committee.</p>
</li></ol>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>4.
Years to which the above requests pertain:</strong><br />2008-2011</p>
<strong>5.
Designation and Address of the PIO from whom the information is
required: </strong>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Shri
B.B.Bahl,<br />Joint
Director and PIO (RTI)<br />Office
of PIO (RTI)<br />Room
No 1016, Electronics Niketan<br />Department
of Information Technology (DIT)<br />Ministry
of Communications and Information Technology<br />6,
CGO Complex, New Delhi</p>
<p>To
the best of my belief, the details sought for fall within your
authority. Further, as provided under section 6(3) of the Right to
Information Act (“RTI Act”), in case this application does not
fall within your authority, I request you to transfer the same in the
designated time (5 days) to the concerned authority and inform me of
the same immediately.</p>
<p>To
the best of my knowledge the information sought does not fall within
the restrictions contained in section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act, and any
provision protecting such information in any other law for the time
being in force is inapplicable due to section 22 of the RTI Act.<br /></p>
<p>Please
provide me this information in electronic form, via the e-mail
address provided above.</p>
<p>This
to certify that I, Pranesh Prakash, am a citizen of India.</p>
<p>A
fee of Rs. 10/- (Rupees Ten Only) has been made out in the form of a
demand draft drawn in favour of “Pay and Accounts Officer,
Department of Information Technology” payable at New Delhi.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Date:
Monday, February 28, 2011<br />Place:
Bengaluru, Karnataka</p>
<br />(Pranesh
Prakash)
<p align="JUSTIFY"> </p>
<h2>RTI Application to Department of Telecom</h2>
<p align="JUSTIFY">To</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Shri
Subodh Saxena<br />Central
Public Information Officer (RTI)<br />Director
(DS-II)<br />Room
No 1006, Sanchar Bhawan<br />Department
of Telecommunications (DoT)<br />Ministry
of Communications and Information Technology<br />20,
Ashoka Road, New Delhi — 110001</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"> </p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Dear
Sir, </p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Subject:
Information on Website Blocking Requested under the Right to
Information Act, 2005 </strong></p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>1.
Full Name of the Applicant:</strong><br />Pranesh
Prakash </p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>2.
Address of the Applicant:</strong><br />E-mail
Address:<br />pranesh[at]cis-india.org
</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Mailing
Address:<br />Centre
for Internet and Society<br />194,
2-C Cross,<br />Domlur
Stage II,<br />Bangalore
– 560071 </p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>3.
Details of the information required</strong>:</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">It
has come to our attention that Airtel Broadband Services (“Airtel”)
has recently blocked access to a blog host called TypePad
(http://www.typepad.com) (“TypePad”) for all its users across the
country. Airtel subscribers trying to access this website receive a
message noting “This site has been blocked as per request by
Department of Telecom”. In this regard, we request information on
the following queries under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information
Act, 2005:</p>
<ol type="i"><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Does
the Department have powers to require an Internet Service Provider
to block a website? If so, please provide a citation of the statute
under which power is granted to the Department, as well as the the
safeguards prescribed to be in accordance with Article 19(1)(a) of
the Constitution of India.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Did
the Department order Airtel to block TypePad or any blog hosted by
TypePad? If so, please provide a copy of such order or orders. If
not, what action, if at all, has been taken by the Department
against Airtel for blocking of websites?</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Has
the Department ever ordered the blocking of any website? If so,
please provide a list of addresses of all the websites that have
been ordered to be blocked.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Please
provide use the present composition of the Committee constituted
under rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951. </p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Please
provide us the dates and copies of the minutes of all meetings held
by the Committee constituted under rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph
Rules, 1951, and copies of all their recommendations.</p>
</li></ol>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>4.
Years to which the above requests pertain:</strong><br />2005-2011</p>
<p><strong>5.
Designation and Address of the PIO from whom the information is
required:</strong><br />Shri
Subodh Saxena<br />Central
Public Information Officer (RTI)<br />Director
(DS-II)<br />Room
No 1006, Sanchar Bhawan<br />Department
of Telecommunications (DoT)<br />Ministry
of Communications and Information Technology<br />20,
Ashoka Road, New Delhi — 110001</p>
<div style="text-align: justify;" class="visualClear"> </div>
<p>To
the best of my belief, the details sought for fall within your
authority. Further, as provided under section 6(3) of the Right to
Information Act (“RTI Act”), in case this application does not
fall within your authority, I request you to transfer the same in the
designated time (5 days) to the concerned authority and inform me of
the same immediately. </p>
<p>To
the best of my knowledge the information sought does not fall within
the restrictions contained in section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act, and any
provision protecting such information in any other law for the time
being in force is inapplicable due to section 22 of the RTI Act.</p>
<p>Please
provide me this information in electronic form, via the e-mail
address provided above.</p>
<p>This
to certify that I, Pranesh Prakash, am a citizen of India. </p>
<p>A
fee of Rs. 10/- (Rupees Ten Only) has been made out in the form of a
demand draft drawn in favour of “Pay and Accounts Officer (HQ),
Department of Telecom” payable at New Delhi.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"> </p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Date:
Monday, February 28, 2011<br />Place:
Bengaluru, Karnataka</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"> <br />(Pranesh
Prakash)</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/rtis-on-website-blocking'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/rtis-on-website-blocking</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshFreedom of Speech and ExpressionIT ActRTIPublic Accountability2012-12-21T06:34:27ZBlog EntryAnalysis of the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/copyright-bill-analysis
<b>CIS analyses the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010, from a public interest perspective to sift the good from the bad, and importantly to point out what crucial amendments should be considered but have not been so far.</b>
<p>
The full submission that CIS and 21 other civil society organizations made to the Rajya Sabha Standing Committee on HRD (which is studying the Bill) is <a title="Copyright Bill Analysis" class="internal-link" href="http://www.cis-india.org/advocacy/ipr/upload/copyright-bill-submission">available here</a>. Given below is the summary of our submissions:</p>
<h2 class="western">Existing Copyright Act</h2>
<p align="JUSTIFY">The Indian Copyright
Act, 1957 has been designed from the perspective of a developing
country. It has always attempted a balance between various kinds of
interests. It has always sought to ensure that rights of authors of
creative works is carefully promoted alongside the public interest
served by wide availability and usability of that material. For
instance, our Copyright Act has provisions for: </p>
<ul><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY">compulsory and
statutory licensing: recognizing its importance in making works
available, especially making them available at an affordable rate.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY">cover versions:
recognizing that more players lead to a more vibrant music industry.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY">widely-worded
right of fair dealing for private use: recognizing that individual
use and large-scale commercial misuse are different.</p>
</li></ul>
<p align="JUSTIFY">These provisions of
our Act <a class="external-link" href="http://a2knetwork.org/watchlist/report/india">have been lauded</a>,<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote1anc" href="#sdfootnote1sym"></a></sup>
and India has been rated as <a class="external-link" href="http://a2knetwork.org/summary-report-2010">the most balanced copyright system in a
global survey</a><sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote2anc" href="#sdfootnote2sym"></a></sup>
conducted of over 34 countries by <a class="external-link" href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/">Consumers International</a><sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote3anc" href="#sdfootnote3sym"></a></sup>.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">The Indian Parliament
has always sought to be responsive to changing technologies by paying
heed to both the democratisation of access as well as the securing of
the interests of copyright holders. This approach needs to be lauded,
and importantly, needs to be maintained.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p>
<h2 class="western">Proposed Amendments</h2>
<h3 class="western">Some positive amendments</h3>
<ul><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Fair
Dealings, Parallel Importation, Non-commercial Rental</strong>: All works
(including sound recordings and cinematograph films) are now covered
the fair dealings clause (except computer programmes), and a few
other exceptions; parallel importation is now clearly allowed; and
non-commercial rental has become a limitation in some cases.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Persons with
disabilities</strong>: There is finally an attempt at addressing the
concerns of persons with disabilities. But the provisions are
completely useless the way they are currently worded.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Public
Libraries</strong>: They can now make electronic copies of works they
own, and some other beneficial changes relating to public libraries.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Education</strong>:
Some exceptions related to education have been broadened (scope of
works, & scope of use).</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Statutory and
compulsory licensing</strong>: Some new statutory licensing provisions
(including for radio broadcasting) and some streamlining of existing
compulsory licensing provisions.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Copyright
societies</strong>: These are now responsible to authors and not owners
of works.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Open
licences</strong>: Free and Open Source Software and Open Content
licensing is now simpler.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Partial
exemption of online intermediaries</strong>:
Transient and incidental storage of copyrighted works has
been excepted, mostly for the benefit of online intermediaries.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Performer’s
rights</strong>: The general, and confusing, exclusive right that
performers had to communicate their performance to the public has
been removed, and instead only the exclusive right to communicate
sound/video recordings remains.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Enforcement</strong>:
Provisions on border measures have been made better, and less prone
to abuse and prevention of legitimate trade.</p>
</li></ul>
<h3 class="western"><br /></h3>
<h3 class="western">Some negative amendments</h3>
<ul><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>WCT and WPPT
compliance</strong>: India has not signed either of these two treaties,
which impose TRIPS-plus copyright protection, but without any
corresponding increase in fair dealing / fair use rights.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Increase in
duration of copyright</strong>: This will significantly reduce the public
domain, which India has been arguing for internationally.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Technological
Protection Measures</strong>: TPMs, which have been shown to be
anti-consumer in all countries in which they have been introduced,
are sought to be brought into Indian law.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Version
recordings</strong>: The amendments make cover version much more
difficult to produce.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Moral rights</strong>:
Changes have been made to author’s moral rights (and performer’s
moral rights have been introduced) but these have been made without
requisite safeguards.</p>
</li></ul>
<h3 class="western"><br /></h3>
<h3 class="western">Missed opportunities</h3>
<ul><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Government-funded
works</strong>: Taxpayers are still not free to use works that were paid
for by them. This goes against the direction that India has elected
to march towards with the Right to Information Act.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Copyright
terms</strong>: The duration of all copyrights are above the minimum
required by our international obligations, thus decreasing the
public domain which is crucial for all scientific and cultural
progress.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Criminal
provisions</strong>: Our law still criminalises individual,
non-commercial copyright infringement.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Libraries and
archives</strong>: The exceptions for ‘public libraries’ are still
too narrow in what they perceive as ‘public libraries’.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Educational
exceptions</strong>: The exceptions for education still do not fully
embrace distance and digital education.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Communication
to the public</strong>: No clear definition is given of what constitute a
‘public’, and no distinction is drawn between commercial and
non-commercial ‘public’ communication.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Internet
intermediaries</strong>: More protections are required to be granted to
Internet intermediaries to ensure that non-market based
peer-production projects such as Wikipedia, and other forms of
social media and grassroots innovation are not stifled.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Fair dealing
and fair use</strong>: We would benefit greatly if, apart from the
specific exceptions provided for in the Act, more general guidelines
were also provided as to what do not constitute infringement. This
would not take away from the existing exceptions.</p>
</li></ul>
<p align="JUSTIFY"> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/copyright-bill-analysis'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/copyright-bill-analysis</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshAccess to KnowledgeConsumer RightsCopyrightFair DealingsPublic AccountabilityIntellectual Property RightsRTIFeaturedBroadcastingPublicationsSubmissionsTechnological Protection Measures2011-09-21T06:01:54ZBlog EntryCPOV : Wikipedia Research Initiative
http://editors.cis-india.org/research/conferences/conference-blogs/cpov
<b>The Second event, towards building the Critical Point of View Reader on Wikipedia, brings a range of scholars, practitioners, theorists and activists to critically reflect on the state of Wikipedia in our contemporary Information Societies. Organised in Amsterdam, Netherlands, by the Institute of Network Cultures, in collaboration with the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, the event builds on the debates and discussions initiated at the WikiWars that launched off the knowledge network in Bangalore in January 2010. Follow the Live Tweets at #CPOV</b>
<p>Second international conference of the <em>CPOV Wikipedia Research
Initiative</em> :: March 26-27, 2010 :: OBA (Public Library Amsterdam,
next to Amsterdam central station), Oosterdokskade 143, Amsterdam.</p>
<p>Wikipedia is at the brink of becoming the de facto global reference
of dynamic knowledge. The heated debates over its accuracy, anonymity,
trust, vandalism and expertise only seem to fuel further growth of
Wikipedia and its user base. Apart from leaving its modern counterparts
Britannica and Encarta in the dust, such scale and breadth places
Wikipedia on par with such historical milestones as Pliny the Elder’s
Naturalis Historia, the Ming Dynasty’s Wen-hsien ta- ch’ eng, and the
key work of French Enlightenment, the Encyclopedie. <span id="more-10604"></span>The multilingual Wikipedia as digital
collaborative and fluid knowledge production platform might be said to
be the most visible and successful example of the migration of FLOSS
(Free/ Libre/ Open Source Software) principles into mainstream culture.
However, such celebration should contain critical insights, informed by
the changing realities of the Internet at large and the Wikipedia
project in particular.</p>
<p>The CPOV Research Initiative was founded from the urge to stimulate
critical Wikipedia research: quantitative and qualitative research that
could benefit both the wide user-base and the active Wikipedia community
itself. On top of this, Wikipedia offers critical insights into the
contemporary status of knowledge, its organizing principles, function,
and impact; its production styles, mechanisms for conflict resolution
and power (re-)constitution. The overarching research agenda is at once a
philosophical, epistemological and theoretical investigation of
knowledge artifacts, cultural production and social relations, and an
empirical investigation of the specific phenomenon of the Wikipedia.</p>
<p>Conference Themes: Wiki Theory, Encyclopedia Histories, Wiki Art,
Wikipedia Analytics, Designing Debate and Global Issues and Outlooks.</p>
<p>Follow the live tweets on http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23CPOV</p>
<p>Confirmed speakers: Florian Cramer (DE/NL), Andrew Famiglietti (UK),
Stuart Geiger (USA), Hendrik-Jan Grievink (NL), Charles van den Heuvel
(NL), Jeanette Hofmann (DE), Athina Karatzogianni (UK), Scott Kildall
(USA), Patrick Lichty (USA), Hans Varghese Mathews (IN), Teemu Mikkonen
(FI), Mayo Fuster Morell (IT), Mathieu O’Neil (AU), Felipe Ortega (ES),
Dan O’Sullivan (UK), Joseph Reagle (USA), Ramón Reichert (AU), Richard
Rogers (USA/NL), Alan Shapiro (USA/DE), Maja van der Velden (NL/NO),
Gérard Wormser (FR).</p>
<p>Editorial team: Sabine Niederer and Geert Lovink (Amsterdam), Nishant
Shah and Sunil Abraham (Bangalore), Johanna Niesyto (Siegen), Nathaniel
Tkacz (Melbourne). Project manager CPOV Amsterdam: Margreet Riphagen.
Research intern: Juliana Brunello. Production intern: Serena Westra.</p>
<p>The CPOV conference in Amsterdam will be the second conference of the
CPOV Wikipedia Research Initiative. The launch of the initiative took
place in Bangalore India, with the conference WikiWars in January 2010.
After the first two events, the CPOV organization will work on
producing a reader, to be launched early 2011. For more information or
submitting a <a href="http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/cpov/reader">reader</a>
contribution.</p>
<p>Buy your ticket <a href="http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/cpov/practical-info/tickets/">online</a>
(with iDeal), or register by sending an email to: info (at)
networkcultures.org. One day ticket: €25, students and OBA members:
€12,50. Full conference pass (2 days): €40, students and OBA members:
25.</p>
<p>Organized by the Institute of Network Cultures Amsterdam, in
cooperation with the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore,
India.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/research/conferences/conference-blogs/cpov'>http://editors.cis-india.org/research/conferences/conference-blogs/cpov</a>
</p>
No publishernishantConferenceOpen StandardsDigital ActivismDigital GovernanceDigital AccessPublic AccountabilityResearchFeatured2011-08-23T02:52:25ZBlog EntryA provisional definition for the Cultural Last Mile
http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/blogs/the-last-cultural-mile/definiton
<b>In the first of his entries, Ashish Rajadhyaksha gives his own spin on the 'Last Mile' problem that has been at the crux of all public technologies. Shifting the terms of debate away from broadcast problems of distance and access, he re-purposes the 'last mile' which is a communications problem, to make a cultural argument about the role and imagination of technology in India, and the specific ways in which this problem features in talking about Internet Technologies in contemporary India.</b>
<div class="main">
<div class="snap_preview">
<p>In its classical
form, the ‘last mile’ is a communications term defining the final stage
of providing connectivity from a communications provider to a customer,
and has been used as such most commonly by telecommunications and cable
television industries. There has however been a a specific Indian
variant, seen in its most classical avatar in scientist Vikram
Sarabhai’s contention that overcoming the last mile could solve the two
major challenges India has faced, of <strong>linguistic diversity </strong>and <strong>geographical distance</strong>,
and mounted as the primary argument for terrestrial television in the
early 1980s. (I will try and attach the Sarabhai paper a little later
to this posting).</p>
<p>This specifically Indian variation, where technology was mapped onto
developmentalist-democratic priorities, has been the dominant
characteristic of communications technology since at least the
invention of the radio in the 1940s. For at least 50 years now, that
means, the last mile has become a mode of a techno-democracy, where
connectivity has been directly translated into democratic citizenship.
It has continuously provided the major rationale for successive
technological developments, from the 1960s wave of portable
transistors, the terrestrial transponders of the first televisual
revolution it the early 1980s (the Special Plan for the Expansion of
Television), the capacity of satellite since SITE and the INSAT series,
and from the 1990s the arrival of wired networks (LANs, Cable,
fibre-optic) followed by wireless (WLAN, WiMAX, W-CDMA). At each point
the assumption has been consistently made that the final frontier was
just around the corner; that the next technology in the chain would
breach a major barrier, once and for all.</p>
<p><strong>What I hope to do is to provide a historical account to
argue that the theory of the ‘last mile’ has been founded on
fundamental (mis)apprehensions around just what this bridge
constitutes. </strong>Further, that these apprehensions may have been
derived from a misconstruction of democractic theory, to assume, first,
an evolutionary rather than distributive model for connectivity, and
second, to introduce a major bias for broadcast (or one-to-many) modes
as against many-to-many peer-to-peer formats. The book, whenever I
succeed in writing it, will hope to argue the following:</p>
<p>1. It has been difficult to include <strong>human resource</strong>
as an integral component to the last mile. Contrary to the relentlessly
technologized definition of the last mile, it may perhaps be best seen
historically as <em>also</em>, and even perhaps <em>primarily</em>, a
human resource issue. This is not a new realization, but it is one that
keeps reproducing itself with every new technological generation<a href="http://culturallastmile.wordpress.com/#_ftn1">[1]</a>,
with ever newer difficulties. The endemic assumption, derived from the
broadcasting origins of the definition is that it is primarily the <em>sender</em>’s responsibility to bridge the divide, that <em>technology </em>can
aid him to do so on its own, and that such technology can negate the
need to define connectivity as a multiple-way partnership as it reduces
the recipient into no more than an intelligent recipient of what is
sent (the citizen model). On the other hand, it is possible to show how
previous successful experiments bridging the last mile have been ones
where <em>recipients have been successfully integrated into the communications model </em>both as peers and, even more significantly, as <em>originators </em>as well as <em>enhancers </em>of
data. Importantly, this paper will show, this has been evidenced even
in one-way ‘broadcast’ modes such as film, television and radio (in the
movie fan, community radio and the television citizen-journalist).</p>
<p>2. The one-way broadcast versus peer-to-peer versus two/multiple-way
debate needs to he historically revisited. The need to redefine the
beneficiary of a connectivity cycle as a full-fledged partner tends to
come up against a bias written into standard communications models –
and therefore several standard revenue models – that consistently tend
to underplay what this paper will call the <em>significant sender/recipient</em>.
While both terrestrial and satellite systems require some level of
peer-to-peer transmission systems to facilitate last-mile
communications, it has been a common problem that unless <em>either</em> a clear focus exists on geographic areas <em>or</em>
significant peer-to-peer participation exists, broadcast models
inevitably find themselves delivering large amounts of S/N at low
frequencies without sufficient spectrum to support large information
capacity. While it is technically possible to ‘flood’ a region in
broadcasting terms, this inevitably leads to extremely high wastage as
much of the radiated ICE never reaches any user at all. As information
requirements increase, broadcast ‘wireless mesh’ systems small enough
to provide adequate information distribution to and from a relatively
small number of local users, require a prohibitively large number of
broadcast locations along with a large amount of excess capacity to
make up for the wasted energy.</p>
<p>This problem, importantly, springs as much from a built-in <em>ideological </em>commitment
to one-way broadcasting formats, as from technological limitations. The
technology itself poses further problems given the bias of different
systems to different kinds of connectivity, and with it different types
of peer-to-peer possibilities. Rather than attempting a
one-size-fits-all model for all models to follow, we need to work out
different <em>synergies </em>between broadcast-dependent and peer-to-peer-enabled platforms.</p>
<p>This book will eventually hope to study the history of peer-to-peer
and multiple-way structures as systems where sending has become a
component part of receiving. Key technological precedents to the
present definition of the sender-communication ‘partner’ would be <strong>community radio</strong>, <strong>low-power transmission-reception systems </strong>(most famously the Pij experiment in Gujarat conducted by ISRO), and various <strong>internet-based networking models</strong>.</p>
<p>3. The need to revisit the technological community is therefore
critical. The key question is one of how technological communities have
been produced, and how they may be sustained. In January 2007, the
attack by V.S. Ailawadi, former Chairman, Haryana Electricty Regulatory
Commission, on India’s public sector telecom giants BSNL and MTNL for
keeping their ‘huge infrastructure’ of ‘copper wire and optic fibre’ to
themselves, when these could be used by private operators as cheaper
alternatives to WiMAX, W-CDMA and broadband over power lines, shows the
uneasy relationship between new players and state agencies. Mr.
Ailawadi’s contention that the ‘unbundling’ of the last mile would
bring in competition for various types of wireless applications and
broadband services not just for 45 million landlines but also for 135
million mobile users of various service providers, also therefore needs
to be revisited from the perspective of community formation. How would
the new 135 million mobile users be effectively tapped for their
capacity to become what we are calling significant senders?</p>
<p>In defining the last mile as to do with the recipient-as-sender, and thus the <strong>community</strong>, this paper will focus on a history of community action along specific models of connectivity. These are: cinema’s <strong>movie fan</strong>, internet’s <strong>blogger</strong> and <strong>networker</strong>, solar energy’s <strong>barefoot engineer</strong>, software’s <strong>media pusher</strong> and television’s <strong>citizen-journalist. </strong>A specific focus for study will be the models of <strong>participatory learning</strong> in the classroom, using <strong>film</strong>, the <strong>vinyl disc</strong>, the <strong>audio cassette</strong>, the <strong>radio</strong>, the <strong>television</strong>, the <strong>web </strong>and now the <strong>mobile phone</strong>.</p>
</div>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/blogs/the-last-cultural-mile/definiton'>http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/blogs/the-last-cultural-mile/definiton</a>
</p>
No publishernishantA copy of this post is also available on the author's personal blog at http://culturallastmile.wordpress.com/2009/10/25/1-what-is-the-cultural-last-mile/ICT4DDigital GovernancePublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceCyberculturesDigital subjectivities2011-08-02T08:57:07ZBlog EntryResources
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/publications/pupfip/resources
<b>A collection of resources that will help one navigate through the arguments and evidence for and against the Indian "Bayh-Dole" bill.</b>
<p><u><strong><br /></strong></u></p>
<h2><strong>PUPFIP</strong></h2>
<h3>News-related/General Coverage</h3>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.financialexpress.com/news/relook-at-publicfunded-r&d-bill-to-address-red-tape/376844/0">Relook at public-funded R&D Bill to
address red tape</a> (The Financial Express)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/2008/12/01144901/CSIR-looks-at-commercializing.html">CSIR looks at commercializing, leasing
out patent</a> (Live Mint)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.com/2008/02/exporting-bayh-dole-to-india-whither_21.html">Exporting Bayh-Dole to India: Whither Transparency Part II</a><span class="post-author"> (Shamnad Basheer)</span></p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://ww.scidev.net/es/science-and-innovation-policy/intellectual-property/news/proyecto-de-ley-de-patentes-suscita-debate-en-la-i.html">Indian Patent Bill stirs debate among scientists</a> (Science and Development Network)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.knowledgecommission.gov.in/recommendations/legal.asp">Letter from the Knowledge Commission</a> (GoI)</p>
<h3>Scientific
Culture</h3>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://blogs.thehindu.com/delhi/?p=16251">Does Patenting research change the Culture of Science?</a> (The Hindu)</p>
<h3>Analytical Pieces<strong> </strong></h3>
<p>
<a class="external-link" href="http://www.scidev.net/en/opinions/indian-patent-bill-let-s-not-be-too-hasty.html">Indian Patent Bill: Lets not be too Hasty</a>(Shamnad Basheer)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/2008/11/01001052/Not-in-public-interest.html">Not in public interest</a>(Live Mint)<a class="external-link" href="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3867/is_6_128/ai_n32062853/"><br /></a></p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3867/is_6_128/ai_n32062853/">The Indian Public Funded IP Bill: Are we Ready?</a>(K. Satyanarayana)</p>
<p> </p>
<h2><strong>Bayh-Dole</strong></h2>
<h3>Technology
Transfer</h3>
<p>
<a class="external-link" href="http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1476653">Innovation's Golden Goose </a>(The Economist)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?STORY_ID=10787664">Improving Innovation</a>(The Economist)</p>
<h3><strong>Scientific
Culture</strong></h3>
<p>
<a class="external-link" href="http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-129366990.html">Patents and America's Universities</a>(The Economist)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/technology/07unbox.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print">When Academia Puts Profits Ahead of Wonder</a>(The New York Times)</p>
<p>
<a class="external-link" href="http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=E1_VPNSGGT">Bayhing for blood or Doling out cash?</a>(The Economist)</p>
<h3>Evaluative
Pieces</h3>
<p>
<a class="external-link" href="http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/Thursby.pdf">University Licensing under Bayh-Dole: What are the Issues and
Evidence?</a>(Thursby and Thursby)</p>
<p>
<a class="external-link" href="http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060262">Is Bayh-Dole Good for Developing Countries? Lessons from the US
Experience</a>(So et al.)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2005/09/19/8272884/index.htm">The Law of Unintended Consequences</a>(Fortune Magazine)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V77-41NCXY8-6/2/fa828bbd7705f51ffd8fcf60338daf16">The Growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities and the Bayh-Dole Act</a> (Mowery et al.)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.researchoninnovation.org/tiip/archive/2003_5g.htm">Overall Assessment of the Bayh-Dole Act</a> (Nelson, Mowery, et al.)</p>
<p> </p>
<h2><strong>General Resources</strong></h2>
<p> <a class="external-link" href="http://www.researchoninnovation.org/tiip/archive/2003_5b.htm">Joint Ventures and Intellectual Property</a>(Andreas Panagopoulos)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.researchoninnovation.org/tiip/archive/2003_5c.htm">Patents vs. Other Knowledge Transfer</a>(Agrawal and Henderson)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.researchoninnovation.org/tiip/archive/2003_5f.htm">Incentives Structure and Licensing Success</a>(Dan Elfenbein)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.researchoninnovation.org/tiip/archive/2003_5e.htm">University Licensing and Research Behavior</a>(Lach and Schankerman)</p>
<a class="external-link" href="http://www.researchoninnovation.org/tiip/archive/2003_5b.htm">Open Science and Private Property</a>(Paul David)
<p> <strong><br /></strong></p>
<h2><strong>IP Alternatives</strong><br /></h2>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0040293">New Approaches to Filling the Gap in TB Drug Discovery </a>(Casenghi, Cole and Nathan)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://keionline.org/misc-docs/Prizes/prize_tb_msf_expert_meeting.pdf">The Role of Prizes in Developing Low-Cost Point-of-Care Rapid Diagnostic Tests and Better Drugs for TB</a>(James Love)</p>
<p>How to boost R&D for essential drugs and diagnostics</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://bmj.com/cgi/reprint/333/7582/1279.pdf">Scrooge and intellectual property rights</a> (BMJ January 2006)</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<div id="refHTML"> </div>
<div id="refHTML"> </div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/publications/pupfip/resources'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/publications/pupfip/resources</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshBayh-DoleAccess to KnowledgeAccess to MedicineOpen AccessPublic AccountabilityOpen Innovation2009-10-20T03:29:16ZPageThe ICANN-US DOC 'Affirmation of Commitments' - A Step Forward?
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-icann-us-doc-affirmation-of-commitments-a-step-forward
<b>On 30 September 2009, ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) signed an Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) with the US Government's Department of Commerce. For those of us who are concerned that the Internet should serve the global public good, is the new arrangement a step forward? An assessment. </b>
<p>On 30 September 2009, ICANN signed an Affirmation of
Commitments (AoC) with the US Government's Department of Commerce.
ICANN is the not-for-profit public-benefit corporation that
coordinates the Internet's naming system. The Affirmation has been
widely hailed for the loosening of US-ICANN ties that it implies.
The unilateral control that the US exercised over the organisation
had for long been criticised in various quarters as inappropriate for
a – by now - global resource such as the Internet. A central
instrument of this control was constituted by the reviews that the
US's NTIA (National Telecommunications and Information
Administration) would conduct of the organisation, based on which the
country's Department of Commerce would rework and renew its contract
with ICANN. With the signing of the AoC, reviews will henceforth be conducted by panels to
be appointed by the Chair of ICANN's Board of Directors, as well as
the Chair of the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) in consultation
with the other members of the GAC. Since the Affirmation of
Commitments is of long standing – unlike earlier Memoranda of
Understanding, which had a limited validity – and since the US has
demanded for itself a permanent seat on only one of the four panels
that the AoC institutes, the US has indeed given up significant
amounts of the control that it wielded over the organisation so far.</p>
<p>A clear step forward? Well, not
necessarily – and in many ways it is too early to tell. Because
while the denationalisation of ICANN was high on many stakeholders'
agenda, so was the strengthening of ICANN as an accountable tool for
global governance. And where the latter is concerned, the AoC falls
sorely short. Although ICANN likes to posit itself as an
organisation rooted in communities, where policy is developed from
the bottom up, this wonderfully democratic discourse stands in rather
ugly contrast to the quite questionable practices that are all too
frequently reported from the organisation (the rather stepsisterly
treatment meted out to noncommercial users in ICANN in recent times,
for example, immediately comes to mind [1]<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote1anc" href="#sdfootnote1sym"></a>).
At the root of this contradiction seems to lie the fact that, while
ICANN may be a public interest organisation on paper, in practice it
is heavily dominated by large businesses, in particular those
US-based, who seem to be willing to go to considerable lengths to
defend their interests. The AoC has done nothing to check these
tendencies. The review panels suggested are an internal affair,
where those who develop policy will get to appoint the people who
will assess the policy development processes, and most of those
appointed, too, will come from within the organisation. While the
suggested wider involvement of ICANN communities, including
governments, in reviewing the organisation is a welcome move, it
remains to be seen, then, to what extent these review panels will
have teeth – in any case their recommendations are not binding.
But some go even further and argue that the AoC has effectively
removed the one democratic control that existed over ICANN's Board:
that of the US Government. As the communities that supposedly make
up ICANN do not have the power to unseat the Board, the Board now is
effectively accountable... to none.</p>
<p>Since it does not directly address
accountability problems within ICANN, the AoC is not so much an
improvement, then, as simply a change: it has closed a few old doors,
and opened some new ones. Whether this is for good or for bad
remains to be seen: in the absence of clear structures of control and
oversight, the shape of things to come is never fixed.
For those within ICANN who genuinely want to work towards an
Internet in the service of the public good, rather than of big
business, there is, therefore, a tough task ahead of trying to ensure
that the most will be made of the opportunities that the new
arrangement does provide. Considering ICANN's institutional culture,
this will undoubtedly mean that much of their energy will need to be
invested in simply trying to shape new procedures and frameworks of
governance in more democratic and accountable directions, eating into
valuable time that could and should have been devoted to policy
development instead. Indeed, irrespective of the final
outcome of the AoC, the spectre of ICANN's lack of accountability and
its glaring democratic deficit, for now, remains. And for a forum
such as ICANN, that is unbecoming to say the least.</p>
<p>1] For
more information, please see
<a href="http://ncdnhc.org/profiles/blogs/ncuc-letter-to-icann-board-of">http://ncdnhc.org/profiles/blogs/ncuc-letter-to-icann-board-of</a>,
<a href="http://ncdnhc.org/profiles/blogs/top-10-myths-about-civil">http://ncdnhc.org/profiles/blogs/top-10-myths-about-civil</a>,
and
<a href="http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2009/10/2/4338930.html">http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2009/10/2/4338930.html</a>.</p>
<div id="sdfootnote1">
<p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote1sym" href="#sdfootnote1anc"></a></p>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-icann-us-doc-affirmation-of-commitments-a-step-forward'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-icann-us-doc-affirmation-of-commitments-a-step-forward</a>
</p>
No publisheranjaPublic AccountabilityICANNinternet governance2011-08-02T07:16:09ZBlog EntryPrimer on the New IT Act
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/primer-it-act
<b>With this draft information bulletin, we briefly discuss some of the problems with the Information Technology Act, and invite your comments.</b>
<p align="justify">The latest amendments to
the Information Technology Act 2000, passed in December 2008 by the
Lok Sabha, and the draft rules framed under it contain several provisions
that can be abused and misused to infringe seriously on citizens'
fundamental rights and basic civil liberties. We have already <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/it-act/short-note-on-amendment-act-2008" class="internal-link" title="Short note on IT Amendment Act, 2008">written about some of the problems</a> with this Act earlier. With this information bulletin, drafted by Chennai-based advocate Ananth Padmanabhan, we wish to extend that analysis into the form of a citizens' dialogue highlighting ways in which the Act and the rules under it fail. Thus, we invite your comments, suggestions, and queries, as this is very much a work in progress. We will eventually consolidate this dialogue and follow up with the government on the concerns of its citizens.</p>
<h3 align="justify">Intermediaries
beware</h3>
<p align="justify">Internet service
providers, webhosting service providers, search engines, online
payment sites, online auction sites, online market places, and cyber
cafes are all examples of “intermediaries” under this Act. The
Government can force any of these intermediaries to cooperate with
any interception, monitoring or decryption of data by stating broad
and ambiguous reasons such as the “interest of the sovereignty or
integrity of India”, “defence of India”, “security of the
State”, “friendly relations with foreign States”, “public
order” or for “preventing incitement to” or “investigating”
the commission of offences related to those. This power can be abused
to infringe on the privacy of intermediaries as well as to hamper
their constitutional right to conduct their business without interference.</p>
<p align="justify">If a Google search on
“Osama Bin Laden” throws up an article that claims to have
discovered his place of hiding, the Government of India can issue a
direction authorizing the police to monitor Google’s servers to
find the source of this information. While Google can, of course,
establish that this information cannot be attributed directly to the
organization, making the search unwarranted, that would not help it
much. While section 69 grants the government these wide-ranging
powers, it does not provide for adequate safeguards in the form of having to show due cause or having an in-built right of appeal against a decision by the government. If Google refused
to cooperate under such circumstances, its directors would be liable
to imprisonment of up to seven years.</p>
<h3 align="justify">Pre-censorship<br /></h3>
<p align="justify">The State has been given
unbridled power to block access to websites as long as such blocking
is deemed to be in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of
India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations
with foreign States, and other such matters.</p>
<p align="justify">Thus, if a web portal or
blog carries or expresses views critical of the Indo-US nuclear deal,
the government can block access to the website and thus muzzle criticism
of its policies. While some may find that suggestion outlandish, it is very much possible under the Act. Since there is no right to be heard before your website is taken down nor is there an in-built mechanism for the website owner to appeal, the decisions made by the government cannot be questioned unless you are prepared to undertake a costly legal battle. </p>
<p align="justify">Again, if an intermediary (like Blogspot or an ISP like Airtel) refuses to cooperate, its directors may be personally liable to imprisonment for up to a period of seven years. Thus, being personally liable, the intermediaries are rid of any incentive to stand up for the freedom of speech and expression.</p>
<h3 align="justify">We need to monitor your computer: you have a virus<br /></h3>
<p align="justify">The government has been
vested with the power to authorize the monitoring and collection of
traffic data and information generated, transmitted, received or
stored in any computer resource. This provision is much too
widely-worded. </p>
<p align="justify">For instance, if the
government feels that there is a virus on your computer that can
spread to another computer, it can demand access to monitor your
e-mails on the ground that such monitoring enhances “cyber
security” and prevents “the spread of computer contaminants”.</p>
<h3 align="justify">Think before you click "Send"<br /></h3>
<p align="justify">If out of anger you send
an e-mail for the purpose of causing “annoyance” or
“inconvenience”, you may be liable for imprisonment up to three
years along with a fine. While that provision (section 66A(c)) was
meant to combat spam and phishing attacks, it criminalizes much more
than it should.</p>
<h3 align="justify">A new brand of "cyber terrorists" <br /></h3>
<p align="justify">The new offence of “cyber
terrorism” has been introduced, which is so badly worded that it
borders on the ludicrous. If a journalist gains
unauthorized access to a computer where information regarding
corruption by certain members of the judiciary is stored, she becomes
a “cyber terrorist” as the information may be used to cause
contempt of court. There is no precedent for any such definition of cyberterrorism. It is unclear what definition of terrorism the government is going by when even unauthorized access to defamatory material is considered cyberterrorism.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/primer-it-act'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/primer-it-act</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIT ActDigital GovernancePublic AccountabilityIntermediary LiabilityCensorship2011-08-02T07:41:54ZBlog EntryLetter to ICANN on NCSG
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/letter-to-icann-on-ncsg
<b>The Centre for Internet and Society sent the following mail to ICANN regarding their attempt to impose their own charter for a Noncommercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG), instead of accepting the one drafted by the Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC).</b>
<p>Dear Sir or Madam,</p>
<p>Greetings from the Centre for Internet and Society - Bangalore. We are a Bangalore based research and advocacy organisation promoting consumer and citizen rights on the Internet. We currently focus on IPR reform, IPR alternatives and electronic accessibility by the disabled. Please see our website <http://cis-india.org> for more information about us and our activities.</p>
<p>It has come to our attention that ICANN is imposing the ICANN staff-drafted charter for a Noncommercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) and ignoring the version drafted by civil society. As you know, the civil society version was drafted using a consensus process and more than 80 international noncommercial organizations, including mine, support it.</p>
<p>This is an unacceptable situation since the governance structures contained within the NCSG charter determine how effectively noncommercial users can influence policy decisions at ICANN in years to come. On behalf of Internet users in India - I would strongly urge you to reject the staff drafted version of the charter and adopt the version drafted and endorsed by civil society.</p>
<p>Best wishes,</p>
<p>Sunil Abraham<br />Executive Director<br />Centre for Internet and Society</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/letter-to-icann-on-ncsg'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/letter-to-icann-on-ncsg</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshPublic AccountabilityDigital PluralismDigital Governance2011-08-02T07:41:11ZBlog Entry