The Centre for Internet and Society
http://editors.cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 31 to 40.
WSIS+10 High Level Event: A Bird's Eye Report
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/wsis-10-high-level-event-a-birds-eye-report
<b>The WSIS+10 High Level was organised by the ITU and collaborative UN entities on June 9-13, 2014. It aimed to evaluate the progress on implementation of WSIS Outcomes from Geneva 2003 and Tunis 2005, and to envision a post-2015 Development Agenda. Geetha Hariharan attended the event on CIS' behalf.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>The World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) +10 </span><a href="http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2014/forum/">High Level Event</a><span> (HLE) was hosted at the ITU Headquarters in Geneva, from June 9-13, 2014. The HLE aimed to review the implementation and progress made on information and communication technology (ICT) across the globe, in light of WSIS outcomes (</span><a href="http://www.itu.int/wsis/index-p1.html">Geneva 2003</a><span> and </span><a href="http://www.itu.int/wsis/index-p2.html">Tunis 2005</a><span>). Organised in three parallel tracks, the HLE sought to take stock of progress in ICTs in the last decade (High Level track), initiate High Level Dialogues to formulate the post-2015 development agenda, as well as host thematic workshops for participants (Forum track).</span><span> </span></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">The High Level Track:</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/copy2_of_HighLevelTrack.jpg/@@images/be5f993c-3553-4d63-bb66-7cd16f8407dc.jpeg" alt="High Level Track" class="image-inline" title="High Level Track" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Opening Ceremony, WSIS+10 High Level Event </i>(<a class="external-link" href="https://twitter.com/ITU/status/334587247556960256/photo/1">Source</a>)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The High Level track opened officially on June 10, 2014, and culminated with the endorsement by acclamation (as is ITU tradition) of two <a href="http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2014/forum/inc/doc/outcome/362828V2E.pdf">Outcome Documents</a>. These were: (1) WSIS+10 Statement on the Implementation of WSIS Outcomes, taking stock of ICT developments since the WSIS summits, (2) WSIS+10 Vision for WSIS Beyond 2015, aiming to develop a vision for the post-2015 global information society. These documents were the result of the WSIS+10 <a href="http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/mpp/">Multi-stakeholder Preparatory Platform</a> (MPP), which involved WSIS stakeholders (governments, private sector, civil society, international organizations and relevant regional organizations).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The <strong>MPP</strong> met in six phases, convened as an open, inclusive consultation among WSIS stakeholders. It was not without its misadventures. While ITU Secretary General Dr. Hamadoun I. Touré consistently lauded the multi-stakeholder process, and Ambassador Janis Karklins urged all parties, especially governments, to “<i>let the UN General Assembly know that the multi-stakeholder model works for Internet governance at all levels</i>”, participants in the process shared stories of discomfort, disagreement and discord amongst stakeholders on various IG issues, not least human rights on the Internet, surveillance and privacy, and multi-stakeholderism. Richard Hill of the Association for Proper Internet Governance (<a href="http://www.apig.ch/">APIG</a>) and the Just Net Coalition writes that like NETmundial, the MPP was rich in a diversity of views and knowledge exchange, but stakeholders <a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/2014/06/16/what-questions-did-the-wsis10-high-level-event-answer/">failed to reach consensus</a> on crucial issues. Indeed, Prof. Vlamidir Minkin, Chairman of the MPP, expressed his dismay at the lack of consensus over action line C9. A compromise was agreed upon in relation to C9 later.<span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Some members of civil society expressed their satisfaction with the extensive references to human rights and rights-centred development in the Outcome Documents. While governmental opposition was seen as frustrating, they felt that the <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">MPP had sought and achieved a common understanding</span></strong>, a sentiment <a href="https://twitter.com/covertlight/status/476748168051580928">echoed</a> by the ITU Secretary General. Indeed, even Iran, a state that had expressed major reservations during the MPP and felt itself unable to agree with the text, <a href="https://twitter.com/covertlight/status/476748723750711297">agreed</a> that the MPP had worked hard to draft a document beneficial to all.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Concerns around the MPP did not affect the <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">review of ICT developments</span></strong> over the last decade. High Level Panels with Ministers of ICT from states such as Uganda, Bangladesh, Sweden, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and others, heads of the UN Development Programme, UNCTAD, Food and Agriculture Organisation, UN-WOMEN and others spoke at length of rapid advances in ICTs. The focus was largely on ICT access and affordability in developing states. John E. Davies of Intel repeatedly drew attention to innovative uses of ICTs in Africa and Asia, which have helped bridge divides of affordability, gender, education and capacity-building. Public-private partnerships were the best solution, he said, to affordability and access. At a ceremony evaluating implementation of WSIS action-lines, the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC), India, <a href="https://twitter.com/covertlight/status/476748723750711297">won an award</a> for its e-health application MOTHER.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>The Outcome Documents themselves shall be analysed in a separate post. But in sum, the dialogue around Internet governance at the HLE centred around the success of the MPP. Most participants on panels and in the audience felt this was a crucial achievement within the realm of the UN, where the Tunis Summit had delineated strict roles for stakeholders in paragraph 35 of the </span><a href="http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html">Tunis Agenda</a><span>. Indeed, there was palpable relief in Conference Room 1 at the </span><a href="http://www.cicg.ch/en/">CICG</a><span>, Geneva, when on June 11, Dr. Touré announced that the Outcome Documents would be adopted without a vote, in keeping with ITU tradition, even if consensus was achieved by compromise.</span></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">The High Level Dialogues:</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/HighLevelDialogues.jpg/@@images/3c30d94f-7a65-4912-bb42-2ccd3b85a18d.jpeg" alt="High Level Dialogues" class="image-inline" title="High Level Dialogues" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Prof. Vladimir Minkin delivers a statement.</i> (<a class="external-link" href="https://twitter.com/JaroslawPONDER/status/476288845013843968/photo/1">Source</a>)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The High Level Dialogues on developing a post-2015 Development Agenda, based on WSIS action lines, were active on June 12. Introducing the Dialogue, Dr. Touré lamented the Millennium Development Goals as a “<i>lost opportunity</i>”, emphasizing the need to alert the UN General Assembly and its committees as to the importance of ICTs for development.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As on previous panels, there was <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">intense focus on access, affordability and reach in developing countries</span></strong>, with Rwanda and Bangladesh expounding upon their successes in implementing ICT innovations domestically. The world is more connected than it was in 2005, and the ITU in 2014 is no longer what it was in 2003, said speakers. But we lack data on ICT deployment across the globe, said Minister Knutssen of Sweden, recalling the gathering to the need to engage all stakeholders in this task. Speakers on multiple panels, including the Rwandan Minister for CIT, Marilyn Cade of ICANN and Petra Lantz of the UNDP, emphasized the need for ‘smart engagement’ and capacity-building for ICT development and deployment.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A crucial session on cybersecurity saw Dr. Touré envision a global peace treaty accommodating multiple stakeholders. On the panel were Minister Omobola Johnson of Nigeria, Prof. Udo Helmbrecht of the European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA), Prof. A.A. Wahab of Cybersecurity Malaysia and Simon Muller of Facebook. The focus was primarily on building laws and regulations for secure communication and business, while child protection was equally considered.<span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The lack of laws/regulations for cybersecurity (child pornography and jurisdictional issues, for instance), or other legal protections (privacy, data protection, freedom of speech) in rapidly connecting developing states was noted. But the <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">question of cross-border surveillance and wanton violations of privacy went unaddressed</span></strong> except for the customary, unavoidable mention. This was expected. Debates in Internet governance have, in the past year, been silently and invisibly driven by the Snowden revelations. So too, at WSIS+10 Cybersecurity, speakers emphasized open data, information exchange, data ownership and control (the <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/ecj-rules-internet-search-engine-operator-responsible-for-processing-personal-data-published-by-third-parties">right to be forgotten</a>), but did not openly address surveillance. Indeed, Simon Muller of Facebook called upon governments to publish their own transparency reports: A laudable suggestion, even accounting for Facebook’s own undetailed and truncated reports.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In a nutshell, the post-2015 Development Agenda dialogues repeatedly emphasized the importance of ICTs in global connectivity, and their impact on GDP growth and socio-cultural change and progress. The focus was on taking this message to the UN General Assembly, engaging all stakeholders and creating an achievable set of action lines post-2015.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">The Forum Track:</h3>
<p><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/copy_of_ForumTrack.jpg/@@images/dfcce68a-18d7-4f1e-897b-7208bb60abc9.jpeg" alt="Forum Track" class="image-inline" title="Forum Track" /></p>
<p><i>Participants at the UNESCO session on its Comprehensive Study on Internet-related Issues</i> (<a class="external-link" href="https://twitter.com/leakaspar/status/476690921644646400/photo/1">Source</a>)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The HLE was organized as an extended version of the WSIS Forum, which hosts thematic workshops and networking opportunities, much like any other conference. Running in parallel sessions over 5 days, the WSIS Forum hosted sessions by the ITU, UNESCO, UNDP, ICANN, ISOC, APIG, etc., on issues as diverse as the WSIS Action Lines, the future of Internet governance, the successes and failures of <a href="http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/12/18/itu-phobia-why-wcit-was-derailed/">WCIT-2012</a>, UNESCO’s <a href="http://www.unesco.org/new/internetstudy">Comprehensive Study on Internet-related Issues</a>, spam and a taxonomy of Internet governance.<span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Detailed explanation of each session I attended is beyond the scope of this report, so I will limit myself to the interesting issues raised.<span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">At ICANN’s session on its own future (June 9), Ms. Marilyn Cade emphasized the <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">importance of national and regional IGFs</span></strong> for both issue-awareness and capacity-building. Mr. Nigel Hickson spoke of engagement at multiple Internet governance fora: “<i>Internet governance is not shaped by individual events</i>”. In light of <a href="http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/04/16/icann-anything-that-doesnt-give-iana-to-me-is-out-of-scope/">criticism</a> of ICANN’s apparent monopoly over IANA stewardship transition, this has been ICANN’s continual <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014-06-06-en">response</a> (often repeated at the HLE itself). Also widely discussed was the <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">role of stakeholders in Internet governance</span></strong>, given the delineation of roles and responsibilities in the Tunis Agenda, and governments’ preference for policy-monopoly (At WSIS+10, Indian Ambassador Dilip Sinha seemed wistful that multilateralism is a “<i>distant dream</i>”).<span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This discussion bore greater fruit in a session on Internet governance ‘taxonomy’. The session saw <a href="https://www.icann.org/profiles/george-sadowsky">Mr. George Sadowsky</a>, <a href="http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/faculty/kurbalija">Dr. Jovan Kurbalija</a>, <a href="http://www.williamdrake.org/">Mr. William Drake</a> and <a href="http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2014/forum/agenda/session_docs/170/ThoughtsOnIG.pdf">Mr. Eliot Lear</a> (there is surprisingly no official profile-page on Mr. Lear) expound on dense structures of Internet governance, involving multiple methods of classification of Internet infrastructure, CIRs, public policy issues, etc. across a spectrum of ‘baskets’ – socio-cultural, economic, legal, technical. Such studies, though each attempting clarity in Internet governance studies, indicate that the closer you get to IG, the more diverse and interconnected the eco-system gets. David Souter’s diagrams almost capture the flux of dynamic debate in this area (please see pages 9 and 22 of <a href="http://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/ISOC%20framework%20for%20IG%20assessments%20-%20D%20Souter%20-%20final_0.pdf">this ISOC study</a>).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There were, for most part, insightful interventions from session participants. Mr. Sadowsky questioned the effectiveness of the Tunis Agenda delineation of stakeholder-roles, while Mr. Lear pleaded that techies be let to do their jobs without interference. <a href="http://internetdemocracy.in/">Ms. Anja Kovacs</a> raised pertinent concerns about <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">including voiceless minorities in a ‘rough consensus’ model</span></strong>. Across sessions, <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">questions of mass surveillance, privacy and data ownership rose</span></strong> from participants. The protection of human rights on the Internet – especially freedom of expression and privacy – made continual appearance, across issues like spam (<a href="http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/CDS/sg/rgqlist.asp?lg=1&sp=2010&rgq=D10-RGQ22.1.1&stg=1">Question 22-1/1</a> of ITU-D Study Group 1) and cybersecurity.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Conclusion:</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The HLE was widely attended by participants across WSIS stakeholder-groups. At the event, a great many relevant questions such as the future of ICTs, inclusions in the post-2015 Development Agenda, the value of muti-stakeholder models, and human rights such as free speech and privacy were raised across the board. Not only were these raised, but cognizance was taken of them by Ministers, members of the ITU and other collaborative UN bodies, private sector entities such as ICANN, technical community such as the ISOC and IETF, as well as (obviously) civil society.<span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Substantively, the HLE did not address mass surveillance and privacy, nor of expanding roles of WSIS stakeholders and beyond. Processually, the MPP failed to reach consensus on several issues comfortably, and a compromise had to be brokered.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>But perhaps a big change at the HLE was the positive attitude to multi-stakeholder models from many quarters, not least the ITU Secretary General Dr. Hamadoun Touré. His repeated calls for acceptance of multi-stakeholderism left many members of civil society surprised and tentatively pleased. Going forward, it will be interesting to track the ITU and the rest of UN’s (and of course, member states’) stances on multi-stakeholderism at the ITU Plenipot, the WSIS+10 Review and the UN General Assembly session, at the least.</span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/wsis-10-high-level-event-a-birds-eye-report'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/wsis-10-high-level-event-a-birds-eye-report</a>
</p>
No publishergeethaWSIS+10PrivacyCybersecurityHuman Rights OnlineSurveillanceFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceFacebookData ProtectionMulti-stakeholderICANNInternet AccessITUInternet StudiesE-GovernanceICT2014-06-20T15:57:32ZBlog EntryContent Removal on Facebook — A Case of Privatised Censorship?
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/content-removal-on-facebook
<b>Any activity on Facebook, be it creating an account, posting a picture or status update or creating a group or page, is bound by Facebook’s Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. These contain a list of content that is prohibited from being published on Facebook which ranges from hate speech to pornography to violation of privacy. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook removes content largely on the basis of requests either by the government or by other users. The <a href="https://www.facebook.com/help/365194763546571/">Help section</a> of Facebook deals with warnings and blocking of content. It says that Facebook only removes content that violates Community Guidelines and not everything that has been reported.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">I conducted an experiment to primarily look at Facebook’s process of content removal and also to analyse what kind of content they actually remove.</p>
<ol> </ol><ol>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">I put up a status which contained personal information of a person on my Friend List (the information was false). I then asked several people (including the person about whom the status was made) to report the status — that of being harassed or for violation of privacy rights. Seven people reported the status. Within half an hour of the reports being made, I received the following notification:<br />"Someone reported your <a href="https://www.facebook.com/sugarquill/posts/10152265929599232" target="_blank">post</a> for containing harassment and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/settings?tab=support&item_id=10152265934819232&notif_t=content_reported">1 other reason</a>."<br /><br />The notification also contained the option to delete my post and said that Facebook would look into whether it violated their Community Guidelines.<br /><br />A day later, all those who had reported the status received notifications stating the following:<br /><br />"We reviewed the post you reported for harassment and found it doesn't violate our <a href="https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>." <br /><br />I received a similar notification as well.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">I, along with around thirteen others, reported a Facebook page which contained pictures of my friend and a few other women with lewd captions in various regional languages. We reported the group for harassment and bullying and also for humiliating someone we knew. The report was made on 24 March, 2014. On 30 April, 2014, I received a notification stating the following:<br /><br />"We reviewed the page you reported for harassment and found it doesn't violate our <a href="https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.<br /><br />Note: If you have an issue with something on the Page, make sure you report the content (e.g. a photo), not the entire Page. That way, your report will be more accurately reviewed."<br /><br />I then reported each picture on the page for harassment and received a series of notifications on 5 May, 2014 which stated the following:<br /><br />"We reviewed the photo you reported for harassment and found it doesn't violate our <a href="https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>."</li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">These incidents are in stark contrast with repeated attempts by Facebook to remove content which it finds objectionable. In 2013, a homosexual man’s picture protesting against the Supreme Court judgment in December was <a href="http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/heated-debate-after-facebook-allegedly-deletes-photograph-of-gay-sikh-kissing-a-man-460219">taken down</a>. In 2012, Facebook <a href="http://www.blouinartinfo.com/news/story/816583/facebook-censors-pompidous-gerhard-richter-nude-fueling-fight">removed artwork</a> by a French artist which featured a nude woman. In the same year, Facebook <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2146588/Heather-Patrick-Walker-Facebook-ban-pictures-baby-son-died.html">removed photographs</a> of a child who was born with defect and banned the mother from accessing Facebook completely. Facebook also <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/20/facebook-breast-cancer-tattoo-photo-double-mastectomy_n_2726118.html">removed a picture</a> of a breast cancer survivor who posted a picture of a tattoo that she had following her mastectomy. Following this, however, Facebook issued an apology and stated that mastectomy photographs are not in violation of their Content Guidelines. Even in the sphere of political discourse and dissent, Facebook has cowered under government pressure and removed pages and content, as evidenced by the <a href="http://www.firstpost.com/living/facebook-bows-to-pak-pressure-bans-rock-band-laal-anti-taliban-groups-1560009.html">ban</a> on the progressive Pakistani band Laal’s Facebook page and other anti-Taliban pages. Following much social media outrage, Facebook soon <a href="http://www.dawn.com/news/1111174/laals-facebook-page-now-accessible-to-pak-based-internet-users">revoked</a> this ban. These are just a few examples of how harmless content has been taken down by Facebook, in a biased exercise of its powers.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">After incidents of content removal have been made public through news reports and complaints, Facebook often apologises for removing content and issues statements that the removal was an “error.” In some cases, they edit their policies to address specific kinds of content after a takedown (like the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/dec/30/facebook-breastfeeding-ban">reversal of the breastfeeding ban</a>).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On the other hand, however, Facebook is notorious for refusing to take down content that is actually objectionable, partially evidenced by my own experiences listed above. There have been complaints about Facebook’s <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/feb/19/facebook-images-rape-domestic-violence">refusal to remove</a> misogynistic content which glorifies rape and domestic violence through a series of violent images and jokes. One such page was removed finally, not because of the content but because the administrators had used fake profiles. When asked, a spokesperson said that censorship “was not the solution to bad online behaviour or offensive beliefs.” While this may be true, the question that needs answering is why Facebook decides to draw these lines only when it comes to certain kinds of ‘objectionable’ content and not others.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">All of these examples represent a certain kind of arbitrariness on the part of Facebook’s censorship policies. It seems that Facebook is far more concerned with removing content that will cause supposed public or governmental outrage or defy some internal morality code, rather than protecting the rights of those who may be harmed due to such content, as their Statement of Policies so clearly spells out.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There are many aspects of the review and takedown process that are hazy, like who exactly reviews the content that is reported and what standards they are made to employ. In 2012, it was revealed that Facebook <a href="http://gawker.com/5885714/inside-facebooks-outsourced-anti-porn-and-gore-brigade-where-camel-toes-are-more-offensive-than-crushed-heads">outsourced</a> its content reviews to oDesk and provided the reviewers with a 17-page manual which listed what kind of content was appropriate and what was not. A bare reading of the leaked document gives one a sense of Facebook’s aversion to sex and nudity and its neglect of other harm-inducing content like harassment through misuse of content that is posted and what is categorised as hate speech.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In the process of monitoring the acceptability of content, Facebook takes upon itself the role of a private censor with absolutely no accountability or transparency in its working. A <a href="https://fbcdn-dragon-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/t39.2178-6/851563_293317947467769_1320502878_n.png">Reporting Guide</a> was published to increase transparency in its content review procedures. The Guide reveals that Facebook provides for an option where the reportee can appeal the decision to remove content in “some cases.” However, the lack of clarity on what these cases are or what the appeal process is frustrates the existence of this provision as it can be misused. Additionally, Facebook reserves the right to remove content with or without notice depending upon the severity of the violation. There is no mention of how severe is severe enough to warrant uninformed content removal. In most of the above cases, the user was not notified that their content was found offensive and would be liable for takedown. Although Facebook publishes a transparency report, it only contains a record of takedowns following government requests and not those by private users of Facebook. The unbridled nature of the power that Facebook has over our personal content, despite clearly stating that all content posted is the user’s alone, threatens the freedom of expression on the site. A proper implementation of the policies that Facebook claims to employ is required along with a systematic record of the procedure that is used to remove content that is in consonance with natural justice.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/content-removal-on-facebook'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/content-removal-on-facebook</a>
</p>
No publisherjessieFacebookInternet GovernanceCensorshipPrivacy2014-06-16T05:23:09ZBlog EntryArbitrary Arrests for Comment on Bal Thackeray's Death
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/bal-thackeray-comment-arbitrary-arrest-295A-66A
<b>Two girls have been arbitrarily and unlawfully arrested for making comments about the late Shiv Sena supremo Bal Thackeray's death. Pranesh Prakash explores the legal angles to the arrests.</b>
<h2 id="facts-of-the-case">Facts of the case</h2>
<p>This morning, there was <a href="http://www.mumbaimirror.com/article/2/2012111920121119043152921e12f57e1/In-Palghar-cops-book-21yearold-for-FB-post.html">a short report in the Mumbai Mirror</a> about two girls having been arrested for comments one of them made, and the other 'liked', on Facebook about Bal Thackeray:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Police on Sunday arrested a 21-year-old girl for questioning the total shutdown in the city for Bal Thackeray’s funeral on her Facebook account. Another girl who ‘liked’ the comment was also arrested.</p>
<p>The duo were booked under Section 295 (a) of the IPC (for hurting religious sentiments) and Section 64 (a) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Though the girl withdrew her comment and apologised, a mob of some 2,000 Shiv Sena workers attacked and ransacked her uncle’s orthopaedic clinic at Palghar.</p>
<p>“Her comment said people like Thackeray are born and die daily and one should not observe a bandh for that,” said PI Uttam Sonawane.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2 id="what-provisions-of-law-were-used">What provisions of law were used?</h2>
<p>There's a small mistake in Mumbai Mirror's reportage as there is no section "64(a)"<sup><a class="footnoteRef" href="#fn1" id="fnref1">1</a></sup> in the Information Technology (IT) Act, nor a section "295(a)" in the Indian Penal Code (IPC). They must have meant <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/section-295a-indian-penal-code">section 295A of the IPC</a> ("outraging religious feelings of any class") and <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/section-66A-information-technology-act">section 66A of the IT Act</a> ("sending offensive messages through communication service, etc."). (Update: The Wall Street Journal's Shreya Shah has confirmed that the second provision was section 66A of the IT Act.)</p>
<p>Section 295A of the IPC is cognizable and non-bailable, and hence the police have the powers to arrest a person accused of this without a warrant.<sup><a class="footnoteRef" href="#fn2" id="fnref2">2</a></sup> Section 66A of the IT Act is cognizable and bailable.</p>
<p>Update: Some news sources claim that <a href="http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/indianpenalcode/s505.htm">section 505(2) of the IPC</a> ("Statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes") has also been invoked.</p>
<h2 id="was-the-law-misapplied">Was the law misapplied?</h2>
<p>This is clearly a case of misapplication of s.295A of the IPC.<sup><a class="footnoteRef" href="#fn3" id="fnref3">3</a></sup> This provision has been frivolously used numerous times in Maharashtra. Even the banning of James Laine's book <i>Shivaji: Hindu King in Islamic India</i> happened under s.295A, and the ban was subsequently held to have been unlawful by both the Bombay High Court as well as the Supreme Court. Indeed, s.295A has not been applied in cases where it is more apparent, making this seem like a parody news report.</p>
<p>Interestingly, the question arises of the law under which the friend who 'liked' the Facebook status update was arrested. It would take a highly clever lawyer and a highly credulous judge to make 'liking' of a Facebook status update an act capable of being charged with electronically "sending ... any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character" or "causing annoyance or inconvenience", or under any other provision of the IT Act (or, for that matter, the IPC).<sup><a class="footnoteRef" href="#fn4" id="fnref4">4</a></sup> That 'liking' is protected speech under Article 19(1)(a) is not under question in India (unlike in the USA where that issue had to be adjudicated by a court), since unlike the wording present in the American Constitution, the Indian Constitution clearly protects the 'freedom of speech <b>and expression</b>', so even non-verbal expression is protection.</p>
<h2 id="role-of-bad-law-and-the-police">Role of bad law and the police</h2>
<p>In this case the blame has to be shared between bad law (s.66A of the IT Act) and an abuse of powers by police. The police were derelict in their duty, as they failed to provide protection to the Dhada Orthopaedic Hospital, run by the uncle of the girl who made the Facebook posting. Then they added insult to injury by arresting Shaheen Dhada and the friend who 'liked' her post. This should not be written off as a harmless case of the police goofing up. Justice Katju is absolutely correct in <a href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Katju-demands-action-against-Mumbai-cops-for-arresting-woman/Article1-961478.aspx">demanding that such police officers should be punished</a>.</p>
<h2 id="rule-of-law">Rule of law</h2>
<p>Rule of law demands that laws are not applied in an arbitrary manner. When tens of thousands were making similar comments in print (Justice Katju's article in the Hindu, for instance), over the Internet (countless comments on Facebook, Rediff, Orkut, Twitter, etc.), and in person, how did the police single out Shaheen Dhada and her friend for arrest?<sup><a class="footnoteRef" href="#fn5" id="fnref5">5</a></sup></p>
<h2 id="social-media-regulation-vs.-suppression-of-freedom-of-speech-and-expression">Social Media Regulation vs. Suppression of Freedom of Speech and Expression</h2>
<p>This should not be seen merely as "social media regulation", but as a restriction on freedom of speech and expression by both the law and the police. Section 66A makes certain kinds of speech-activities ("causing annoyance") illegal if communicated online, but legal if that same speech-activity is published in a newspaper. Finally, this is similar to the Aseem Trivedi case where the police wrongly decided to press charges and to arrest.</p>
<p>This distinction is important as it being a Facebook status update should not grant Shaheen Dhada any special immunity; the fact of that particular update not being punishable under s.295 or s.66A (or any other law) should.</p>
<div class="footnotes">
<hr />
<ol>
<li id="fn1">
<p>Section 64 of the IT Act is about "recovery of penalty" and the ability to suspend one's digital signature if one doesn't pay up a penalty that's been imposed.<a href="#fnref1">↩</a></p>
</li>
<li id="fn2">
<p>The police generally cannot, without a warrant, arrest a person accused of a bailable offence unless it is a cognizable offence. A non-bailable offence is one for which a judicial magistrate needs to grant bail, and it isn't an automatic right to be enjoyed by paying a bond-surety amount set by the police.<a href="#fnref2">↩</a></p>
</li>
<li id="fn3">
<p>Section 295A of the IPC has been held not to be unconstitutional. The first case to <a href="http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/pil-to-declare-sec-66a-as-unconstitutional-filed/1111666.html">challenge the constitutionality of section 66A of the IT Act</a> was filed recently in front of the Madurai bench the Madras High Court.)<a href="#fnref3">↩</a></p>
</li>
<li id="fn4">
<p>One can imagine an exceptional case where such an act could potentially be defamatory, but that is clearly exceptional.<a href="#fnref4">↩</a></p>
</li>
<li id="fn5">
<p>This is entirely apart from the question of how the Shiv Sena singled in on Shaheen Dhada's Facebook comment.<a href="#fnref5">↩</a></p>
</li>
</ol>
<hr />
<p>This blog entry has been re-posted in the following places</p>
<ul>
<li><a class="external-link" href="http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?283033">Outlook</a> (November 19, 2012).</li>
<li><a class="external-link" href="http://kafila.org/2012/11/19/social-media-regulation-vs-suppression-of-freedom-of-speech-pranesh-prakash/">KAFILA</a> (November 19, 2012).</li>
</ul>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/bal-thackeray-comment-arbitrary-arrest-295A-66A'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/bal-thackeray-comment-arbitrary-arrest-295A-66A</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIPCIT ActFreedom of Speech and ExpressionFeaturedFacebookCensorship2013-01-02T03:42:37ZBlog EntryIndia's Broken Internet Laws Need a Shot of Multi-stakeholderism
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-broken-internet-law-multistakeholderism
<b>Cyber-laws in India are severely flawed, with neither lawyers nor technologists being able to understand them, and the Cyber-Law Group in DEIT being incapable of framing fair, just, and informed laws and policies. Pranesh Prakash suggests they learn from the DEIT's Internet Governance Division, and Brazil, and adopt multi-stakeholderism as a core principle of Internet policy-making.</b>
<p>(An edited version of this article was published in the Indian Express as <a href="http://www.indianexpress.com/story-print/941491/">"Practise what you preach"</a> on Thursday, April 26, 2012.)</p>
<p>The laws in India relating to the Internet are greatly flawed, and the only way to fix them would be to fix the way they are made. The <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/www.mit.gov.in/content/cyber-laws-security">Cyber-Laws & E-Security Group</a> in the <a href="http://www.mit.gov.in">Department of Electronics and Information Technology</a> (DEIT, who refer to themselves as 'DeitY' on their website!) has proven itself incapable of making fair, balanced, just, and informed laws and policies. The Information Technology (IT) Act is filled with provisions that neither lawyers nor technologists understand (not to mention judges). (The definition of <a href="http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/informationtechnologyact/s65.htm">"computer source code" in s.65 of the IT Act</a> is a great example of that.)</p>
<p>The Rules drafted under s.43A of the IT Act (on 'reasonable security practices' to be followed by corporations) were so badly formulated that the government was forced to issue a <a href="http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx??relid=74990">clarification through a press release</a>, even though the clarification was in reality an amendment and amendments cannot be carried out through press releases. Despite the clarification, it is unclear to IT lawyers whether the Rules are mandatory or not, since s.43A (i.e., the parent provision) seems to suggest that it is sufficient if the parties enter into an agreement specifying reasonable security practices and procedures. Similarly, the "Intermediary Guidelines" Rules (better referred to as the Internet Censorship Rules) drafted under s.79 of the Act have been called <a href="http://www.indianexpress.com/story-print/940682/">"arbitrary and unconstitutional" by many, including MP P. Rajeev</a>, who has <a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/statutory-motion-against-intermediary-guidelines-rules">introduced a motion in the Rajya Sabha to repeal the Rules</a> ("Caught in a net", Indian Express, April 24, 2012). These Rules give the power of censorship to every citizen and allow them to remove any kind of material off the Internet within 36 hours without anybody finding out. Last year, we at the Centre for Internet and Society used this law to get thousands of innocuous links removed from four major search engines without any public notice. In none of the cases (including one where an online news website removed more material than the perfectly legal material we had complained about) were the content-owners notified about our complaint, much less given a chance to defend themselves.</p>
<p>Laws framed by the Cyber-Law Group are so poorly drafted that they are misused more often than used. There are too many criminal provisions in the IT Act, and their penalties are greatly more than that of comparable crimes in the IPC. Section 66A of the IT Act, which criminalizes "causing annoyance or inconvenience" electronically, has a penalty of 3 years (greater than that for causing death by negligence), and does not require a warrant for arrest. This section has been used in the Mamata Banerjee cartoon case, for arresting M. Karthik, a Hyderabad-based student who made atheistic statements on Facebook, and against former Karnataka Lokayukta Santosh Hegde. Section 66A, I believe, imperils freedom of speech more than is allowable under Art. 19(2) of the Constitution, and is hence unconstitutional.</p>
<p>While <a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1740460/">s.5 of the Telegraph Act</a> only allows interception of telephone conversations on the occurrence of a public emergency, or in the interest of the public safety, the IT Act does not have any such threshold conditions, and greatly broadens the State's interception abilities. Section 69 allows the government to force a person to decrypt information, and might clash with Art.20(3) of the Constitution, which provides a right against self-incrimination. One can't find any publicly-available governmental which suggests that the constitutionality of provisions such as s.66A or s.69 was examined.</p>
<p>Omissions by the Cyber-Law Group are also numerous. The <a href="http://www.cert-in.org.in">Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In)</a> has been granted <a href="http://www.cert-in.org.in/">very broad functions</a> under the IT Act, but without any clarity on the extent of its powers. Some have been concerned, for instance, that the broad power granted to CERT-In to "give directions" relating to "emergency measures for handling cyber security incidents" includes the powers of an "Internet kill switch" of the kind that Egypt exercised in January 2011. Yet, they have failed to frame Rules for the functioning of CERT-In. The licences that the Department of Telecom enters into with Internet Service Providers requires them to restrict usage of encryption by individuals, groups or organisations to a key length of only 40 bits in symmetric key algorithms (i.e., weak encryption). The RBI mandates a minimum of 128-bit SSL encryption for all bank transactions. Rules framed by the DEIT under s.84A of the IT Act were to resolve this conflict, but those Rules haven't yet been framed.</p>
<p>All of this paints a very sorry picture. Section 88 of the IT Act requires the government, "soon after the commencement of the Act", to form a "Cyber Regulations Advisory Committee" consisting of "the interests principally affected or having special knowledge of the subject-matter" to advise the government on the framing of Rules, or for any other purpose connected with the IT Act. This body still has not been formed, despite the lag of more than two and a half years since the IT Act came into force. Justice Markandey Katju’s recent letter to Ambika Soni about social media and defamation should ideally have been addressed to this body. </p>
<p>The only way out of this quagmire is to practise at home that which we preach abroad on matters of Internet governance: multi-stakeholderism. Multi-stakeholderism refers to the need to recognize that when it comes to Internet governance there are multiple stakeholders: government, industry, academia, and civil society, and not just the governments of the world. This idea has gained prominence since it was placed at the core of the "Declaration of Principles" from the first World Summit on Information Society in Geneva in 2003, and has also been at the heart of India's pronouncements at forums like the Internet Governance Forum. Brazil has an <a href="httphttp://www.cgi.br/english/">"Internet Steering Committee"</a> which is an excellent model that practices multi-stakeholderism as a means of framing and working national Internet-related policies. DEIT's <a href="http://www.mit.gov.in/content/internet-governance">Internet Governance Division</a>, which formulates India's international stance on Internet governance, has long recognized that governance of the Internet must be done in an open and collaborative manner. It is time the DEIT's Cyber-Law and E-Security Group, which formulates our national stance on Internet governance, realizes the same.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-broken-internet-law-multistakeholderism'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-broken-internet-law-multistakeholderism</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIT ActFreedom of Speech and ExpressionEncryptionIntermediary LiabilityFacebookInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-04-26T13:45:25ZBlog EntryMufti Aijaz Arshad Qasmi v. Facebook and Ors (Order dated December 20, 2011)
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/order-2011-12-20-mufti-aijaz-arshad-qasmi-v-facebook-and-ors
<b>This is the order passed on December 20, 2011 by Addl. Civil Judge Mukesh Kumar of the Rohini Courts, New Delhi. All errors of spelling, syntax, logic, and law are present in the original.</b>
<p>Suit No 505/11</p>
<p>Mufti Aijaz Arshad Qasmi<br />
vs.<br />
Facebook etc.</p>
<p>20.12.11</p>
<p>Fresh suit received by assignment. It be checked and registered.</p>
<p>Present: Plaintiff in person with Ld. Counsel.</p>
<p>Ld. Counsel for plaintiff prayed for ex-parte ad-interim injunction. He has filed the present suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against 22 defendants who are running their social networking websites under the name of Facebook, Google India (P) Ltd., Yahoo India (P) Ltd., Microsoft India (P) Ltd., Orkut, Youtube etc as shown in the memo of parties in the plaint. It is submitted that plaintiff is an active citizen of India and residing at the given address and he believes in Secular, Socialist and Democratic India professing Muslim religion. It is further submitted that the contents which are uploaded by some of the miscreants through these social networking websites mentioned above are highly objectionable and unacceptable by any set of the society as the contents being published through the aforesaid websites are derogatory, per-se inflammatory and defamatory which cannot be acceptable by any of the society professing any religion. Even if the same is allowed to be published through these social networking websites and if anybody will take out the print and circulated amongst any of the community whether it is Muslim or Hindu or Sikh, then definitely there would be rioting at mass level which may result into serious law and order problem in the country. Where the miscreants have not even spare any of the religion, even they have created defamatory articles and pictures against the Prophet Mohammad, the Hindu goddess Durga, Laxmi, Lord Ganesha and many other Hindu gods which are being worshiped by the people of Hindu community. It is prayed by the counsel for plaintiff that the defendants may be directed to remove these defamatory and derogatory articles and pictures from their social websites and they should be restrained from publishing the same anywhere through Internet or in any manner. It is further submitted that the social websites are being utilised by the every person of whatever age of he is whether he is 7 years old or 80 years old. These defamatory articles will certainly corrupt not only young minds below the 18 years of age but also corrupt the minds of all age group persons. It is further submitted that even the miscreants have not spared the leaders of any political party whether it is BJP, Congress, Shiv Sena or any other political party doing their political activities in India, which may further vitiate the minds of every individual and may result into political rivalry by raising allegations against each other.</p>
<p>I have gone through the record carefully wherein the plaintiff has also filed a CD containing all the defamatory articles and photographs, plaintiff also wants to file certain defamatory and obscene photographs of the Prophet Mohammad and Hindu Gods and Goddesses. Photographs are returned to the plaintiff, although, the defamatory written articles are taken on record. Same be kept in sealed cover.</p>
<p>In my considered opinion, the photographs shown by the plaintiff having content of defamation and derogation against the sentiments of every community. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the plaintiff has a prima facie case in his favour. Moreover, balance of convenience also lies against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff. Moreover, if the defendants will not be directed to remove the defamatory articles and contents from their social networking websites, then not only the plaintiff but every individual who is having religious sentiments would suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, taking in consideration the facts and circumstances and nature of the suit filed by the plaintiff where every time these social networking websites are being used by the public at large and there is every apprehension of mischief in the public, the defendants are hereby restrained from publishing the defamatory articles shown by the plaintiff and contained in the CD filed by the plaintiff immediately on service of this order and notice. Defendants are further directed to remove the same from their social networking websites.</p>
<p>Application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC stands allowed and disposed of accordingly.</p>
<p>Summons be issued to the defendants on filing of PF/RO/Speed Post. The defendants having their addresses in different places may be served as per the provisions of Order 5 CPC. Reader of this court is directed to keep the documents and CD in a sealed cover. Plaintiff is directed to get served the defendants along with all the documents. Plaintiff is further directed to ensure the compliance of the provisions under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC and file an affidavit in this regard. Copy of this order be given dasti.</p>
<p>Put up for further proceedings on 24.12.11.</p>
<p>Sd/-<br />
(Mukesh Kumar)<br />
ACJ-cum-ARC, N-W<br />
Rohini Courts, Delhi<br /></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/order-2011-12-20-mufti-aijaz-arshad-qasmi-v-facebook-and-ors'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/order-2011-12-20-mufti-aijaz-arshad-qasmi-v-facebook-and-ors</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIT ActGoogleCourt CaseObscenityFreedom of Speech and ExpressionFacebookCensorshipResources2012-02-20T18:02:44ZPagePress Coverage of Online Censorship Row
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/press-coverage-online-censorship
<b>We are maintaining a rolling blog with press references to the row created by the proposal by the Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology to pre-screen user-generated Internet content.</b>
<h2>Monday, December 5, 2011</h2>
<p><a href="http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/india-asks-google-facebook-others-to-screen-user-content/?pagemode=print">India Asks Google, Facebook to Screen Content</a> | Heather Timmons (New York Times, India Ink)</p>
<h2>Tuesday, December 6, 2011</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2690084.ece">Sibal warns social websites over objectionable content</a> | Sandeep Joshi (The Hindu)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2691781.ece">Hate speech must be blocked, says Sibal</a> | Praveen Swami & Sujay Mehdudia (The Hindu)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2692821.ece">Won't remove material just because it's controversial: Google</a> | (Press Trust of India)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/06/any-normal-human-being-would-be-offended/">Any Normal Human Being Would Be Offended </a>| Heather Timmons (New York Times, India Ink)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2692047.ece">After Sibal, Omar too feels some online content inflammatory </a>| (Press Trust of India)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/06/us-india-internet-idUSTRE7B50CV20111206">Online uproar as India seeks social media screening</a> | Devidutta Tripathy and Anurag Kotoky (Reuters)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-12-06/news/30481824_1_kapil-sibal-objectionable-content-twitter">Kapil Sibal for content screening: Facebook, Twitter full of posts against censorship</a> | (IANS)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/245548/india_may_overstep_its_own_laws_in_demanding_content_filtering.html">India May Overstep Its Own Laws in Demanding Content Filtering</a> | John Ribeiro (IDG)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-12-06/internet/30481147_1_shashi-tharoor-objectionable-content-bjp-mp">Kapil Sibal warns websites: Mixed response from MPs</a> | (Press Trust of India)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJp8HOPzc7k">Websites must clean up content, says Sibal </a>| (NewsX)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/news/internet/Kapil-Sibal-warns-websites-Google-says-wont-remove-material-just-because-its-controversial/articleshow/11008985.cms">Kapil Sibal warns websites; Google says won't remove material just because it's controversial </a>| Press Trust of India</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/2011/12/06155955/Views--Censorship-by-any-othe.html?h=A1">Censorship By Any Other Name...</a> | Yamini Lohia (Mint)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-12-06/internet/30481193_1_facebook-and-google-facebook-users-facebook-page">Kapil Sibal: We have to take care of sensibility of our people</a> | Associated Press</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-12-06/india/30481473_1_digvijaya-singh-websites-content">Kapil Sibal gets backing of Digvijaya Singh over social media screening</a> | Press Trust of India</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/newdelhi/Sibal-gets-what-he-set-out-to-censor/Article1-778388.aspx">Sibal Gets What He Set Out To Censor </a>| (Hindustan Times, Agencies)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://newstonight.net/content/objectionable-matter-will-be-removed-censorship-not-picture-yet-kapil-sibal">Objectionable Matter Will Be Removed, Censorship Not in Picture Yet: Kapil Sibal</a> | Amar Kapadia (News Tonight)</p>
<h2>Wednesday, December 7, 2011</h2>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/kapil-sibal-for-monitoring-offensive-content-on-internet/1/163107.html">Kapil Sibal Doesn't Understand the Internet</a> | Shivam Vij (India Today)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/07/chilling-impact-of-indias-april-internet-rules/">'Chilling' Impact of India's April Internet Rules</a> | Heather Timmons (New York Times, India Ink)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/screening-not-censorship-says-sibal/457797/">Screening, not censorship, says Sibal</a> | (Business Standard)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/2011/12/07202955/Chandni-Chowk-to-China.html">Chandni Chowk to China</a> | Salil Tripathi (Mint)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/2011/12/07131308/Views--Kapil-Sibal-vs-the-int.html">Kapil Sibal vs the internet</a> | Sandipan Deb (Mint)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/news/internet/No-need-for-censorship-of-internet-Cyber-law-experts/articleshow/11014990.cms">No Need for Censorship of the Internet: Cyber Law Experts</a> | (Times News Network)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2695832.ece">Protest with flowers for Sibal</a> | (The Hindu)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_kapil-sibal-cannot-screen-this-report_1622435">Kapil Sibal cannot screen this report</a> | Team DNA, Blessy Chettiar & Renuka Rao (Daily News and Analysis)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Kapil-Sibal-warns-websites-but-experts-say-prescreening-of-user-content-not-practical/articleshow/11019481.cms">Kapil Sibal warns websites, but experts say prescreening of user content not practical </a>| (Reuters)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://newstonight.net/content/sibal-s-remarks-brought-disgust">Sibal's Remarks Brought Disgust</a> | Hitesh Mehta (News Tonight)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2695884.ece">BJP backs mechanism to curb objectionable content on websites</a> | (The Hindu)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/move-to-regulate-networking-sites-should-be-discussed-in-parliament-bjp/articleshow/11023284.cms">Move to regulate networking sites should be discussed in Parliament: BJP</a> | (Press Trust of India)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.dailypioneer.com/pioneer-news/top-story/26016-sibal-under-attack-in-cyberspace.html">Sibal under attack in cyberspace</a> | (Press Trust of India)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/news/internet/Google-Govt-wanted-358-items-removed/articleshow/11021470.cms">Kapil Sibal's web censorship: Indian govt wanted 358 items removed, says Google</a> | (Press Trust of India)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Kapil-Sibal-gets-BJP-support-but-with-rider/articleshow/11020128.cms">Kapil Sibal gets BJP support but with rider</a> | (Indo-Asian News Service)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Sibal-s-way-of-regulating-web-not-okay-says-BJP/Article1-779221.aspx">Sibal's way of regulating web not okay, says BJP</a> | (Indo-Asian News Service)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://blogs.hindustantimes.com/just-faith/?p=1034">Censorship in Blasphemy's Clothings</a> | Gautam Chikermane (Hindustan Times, Just Faith)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9222500/India_wants_Google_Facebook_to_screen_content">India wants Google, Facebook to screen content</a> | Sharon Gaudin (Computer World)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.zdnetasia.com/blogs/should-we-be-taming-social-media-62303153.htm">Should we be taming social media?</a> | Swati Prasad (ZDNet, Inside India)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.dnaindia.com/bangalore/report_kapil-sibal-gets-lampooned-for-views-on-web-control_1622491">Kapil Sibal gets lampooned for views on Web control</a> | (Daily News and Analysis)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/people/We-dont-need-no-limitation/articleshow/11020244.cms">'We don't need no limitation'</a> | Asha Prakash (Times of India)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/news/internet/Five-reasons-why-India-cant-censor-the-internet/articleshow/11018172.cms">Five reasons why India can't censor the internet</a> | Prasanto K. Roy (Indo-Asian News Service)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.indianexpress.com/news/we-are-the-web/884753/">We Are the Web</a> | (Indian Express)</p>
<h2>Thursday, December 8, 2011</h2>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Kapil-Sibal-under-attack-in-cyberspace/articleshow/11029319.cms">Kapil Sibal under attack in cyberspace</a>, (Press Trust of India)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.indianexpress.com/news/speak-up-for-freedom/885132/">Speak Up for Freedom </a>| Pranesh Prakash (Indian Express)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/08/newswallah-censorship/">Newswallah: Censorship</a> | Neha Thirani (New York Times, India Ink)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/no-question-of-censoring-internet-says-sachin-pilot-156281">No Question of Censoring the Internet, Says Sachin Pilot </a>| (NDTV)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/12/web-censorship-india">Mind Your Netiquette, or We'll Mind it for You</a> | A.A.K. (The Economist)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Take-Parliaments-view-to-regulate-social-networking-sites-BJP-tells-govt/articleshow/11025858.cms">Take Parliament's view to regulate social networking sites, BJP tells govt</a> | (Times News Network)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2696027.ece">India wanted 358 items removed</a> | Priscilla Jebaraj (The Hindu)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.barandbench.com/brief/2/1891/indian-government-v-social-networking-sites-expert-views">Indian Government v Social Networking sites: Expert Views</a> | (Bar & Bench News Network)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://business-standard.com/india/news/can-government-muzzle-websites/457909/">Can Government Muzzle Websites?</a> | Priyanka Joshi & Piyali Mandal (Business Standard)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international-business/us-concerned-over-internet-curbs-sidesteps-india-move/articleshow/11029532.cms">US concerned over internet curbs, sidesteps India move</a> | (Indo-Asian News Service)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.rediff.com/business/slide-show/slide-show-1-why-internet-companies-are-upset-with-kapil-sibal/20111208.htm">Why Internet Companies Are Upset with Kapil Sibal</a> | (Rediff)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.siliconindia.com/shownews/Why_Censor_Facebook_When_You_Dont_Censor_Sunny_Leone-nid-99931-cid-1.html">Why Censor Facebook When You Don't Censor Sunny Leone?</a> | (Indo-Asian News Service)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2697432.ece">Online content issue: Talks with India on, says U.S.</a> | (Press Trust of India)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h0BfQkpJMZISTc3fjs3VgH7orciw?docId=CNG.8dc3992299cb598cecde0fffb1db8bcd.1c1">US calls for Internet freedom amid India plan</a> | Agence France-Presse</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/press-coverage-online-censorship'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/press-coverage-online-censorship</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIT ActLinksFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceFacebookIntermediary LiabilityCensorship2011-12-08T11:31:30ZBlog EntryDigital AlterNatives with a Cause?
http://editors.cis-india.org/digital-natives/blog/dnbook
<b>Hivos and the Centre for Internet and Society have consolidated their three year knowledge inquiry into the field of youth, technology and change in a four book collective “Digital AlterNatives with a cause?”. This collaboratively produced collective, edited by Nishant Shah and Fieke Jansen, asks critical and pertinent questions about theory and practice around 'digital revolutions' in a post MENA (Middle East - North Africa) world. It works with multiple vocabularies and frameworks and produces dialogues and conversations between digital natives, academic and research scholars, practitioners, development agencies and corporate structures to examine the nature and practice of digital natives in emerging contexts from the Global South. </b>
<p></p>
<p><strong>I</strong><strong>ntroduction</strong></p>
<p>In the 21<sup>st</sup>
Century, we have witnessed the simultaneous growth of internet and digital
technologies on the one hand, and political protests and mobilisation on the
other. Processes of interpersonal relationships, social communication, economic
expansion, political protocols and governmental mediation are undergoing a
significant transition, across in the world, in developed and emerging
Information and Knowledge societies.</p>
<p>The young
are often seen as forerunners of these changes because of the pervasive and
persistent presence of digital and online technologies in their lives. The “
Digital Natives with a Cause?” is a research inquiry that uncovers the ways in
which young people in emerging ICT contexts make strategic use of technologies
to bring about change in their immediate environments. Ranging from personal
stories of transformation to efforts at collective change, it aims to identify
knowledge gaps that existing scholarship, practice and popular discourse around
an increasing usage, adoption and integration of digital technologies in
processes of social and political change.</p>
<p><strong>Methodology</strong></p>
<p>In 2010-11,
three workshops in Taiwan, South Africa and Chile, brought together around 80
people who identified themselves as Digital Natives from Asia, Africa and Latin
America, to explore certain key questions that could provide new insight into
Digital Natives research, policy and practice. The workshops were accompanied
by a ‘Thinkathon’ – a multi-stakeholder summit that initiated conversations
between Digital Natives, academic researchers, scholars, practitioners,
educators, policy makers and corporate representatives to share learnings on
new questions: Is one born digital or does one become a Digital Native? How do
we understand our relationship with the idea of a Digital Native? How do
Digital Natives redefine ‘change’ and how do they see themselves implementing
it? What is the role that technologies play in defining civic action and social
movements? What are the relationships
that these technology based identities and practices have with existing social
movements and political legacies? How do we build new frameworks of sustainable
citizen action outside of institutionalisation?</p>
<strong>
</strong>
<p><strong>Rationale</strong></p>
<p>One of the
knowledge gaps that this book tries to address is the lack of digital natives’
voices in the discourse around them. In the occasions that they are a part of
the discourse, they are generally represented by other actors who define the
frameworks and decide the issues which are important. Hence, more often than
not, most books around digital natives concentrate on similar sounding areas
and topics, which might not always resonate with the concerns that digital
natives and other stake-holders might be engaged with in their material and
discursive practice. The methodology of the workshops was designed keeping this
in mind. Instead of asking the digital natives to give their opinion or recount
a story about what we felt was important, we began by listening to their
articulations about what was at stake for them as e-agents of change. As a
result, the usual topics like piracy, privacy, cyber-bullying, sexting etc.
which automatically map digital natives discourse, are conspicuously absent
from this book. Their absence is not deliberate, but more symptomatic of how
these themes that we presumed as important were not of immediate concerns to
most of the participants in the workshop who are contributing to the book<strong>.</strong></p>
<strong>
</strong>
<p><strong>Structure</strong></p>
<p>The
conversations, research inquiries, reflections, discussions, interviews, and
art practices are consolidated in this four part book which deviates from the
mainstream imagination of the young people involved in processes of change. The
alternative positions, defined by geo-politics, gender, sexuality, class,
education, language, etc. find articulations from people who have been engaged
in the practice and discourse of technology mediated change. Each part
concentrates on one particular theme that helps bring coherence to a wide
spectrum of style and content.</p>
<p><strong>Book 1: To Be: Digital AlterNatives with a Cause? Download <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/digital-natives/dnbook1/at_download/file" class="external-link">here</a></strong></p>
<strong>
</strong>
<p>The first
part, <em>To Be</em>, looks at the questions
of digital native identities. Are digital natives the same everywhere? What
does it mean to call a certain population ‘Digital Natives”? Can we also look
at people who are on the fringes – Digital Outcasts, for example? Is it
possible to imagine technology-change relationships not only through questions
of access and usage but also through personal investments and transformations?
The contributions help chart the history, explain the contemporary and give ideas
about what the future of technology mediated identities is going to be.</p>
<strong>Book 2: To Think: Digital AlterNatives with a Cause? Download <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/digital-natives/dnbook2/at_download/file" class="external-link">here</a></strong><strong>
</strong>
<p>In the
second section, <em>To Think,</em> the
contributors engage with new frameworks of understanding the processes,
logistics, politics and mechanics of digital natives and causes. Giving fresh
perspectives which draw from digital aesthetics, digital natives’ everyday
practices, and their own research into the design and mechanics of technology
mediated change, the contributors help us re-think the concepts, processes and
structures that we have taken for granted. They also nuance the ways in which
new frameworks to think about youth, technology and change can be evolved and
how they provide new ways of sustaining digital natives and their causes.</p>
<p><strong>Book 3: To Act: Digital AlterNatives with a Cause? Download <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/digital-natives/dnbook3/at_download/file" class="external-link">here</a></strong></p>
<p><em>To Act</em> is the third part that concentrates on stories
from the ground. While it is important to conceptually engage with digital
natives, it is also, necessary to connect it with the real life practices that
are reshaping the world. Case-studies, reflections and experiences of people
engaged in processes of change, provide a rich empirical data set which is
further analysed to look at what it means to be a digital native in emerging
information and technology contexts.</p>
<strong>
</strong>
<p><strong>Book 4: To Connect : Digital AlterNatives with a Cause? Download <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/digital-natives/dnbook4/at_download/file" class="external-link">here</a></strong></p>
<p>The last
section, <em>To Connect</em>, recognises the
fact that digital natives do not operate in vacuum. It might be valuable to
maintain the distinction between digital natives and immigrants, but this
distinction does not mean that there are no relationships between them as
actors of change. The section focuses on the digital native ecosystem to look
at the complex assemblage of relationships that support and are amplified by
these new processes of technologised change.</p>
<p>We see this
book as entering into a dialogue with the growing discourse and practice in the
field of youth, technology and change. The ambition is to look at the digital
(alter)natives as located in the Global South and the potentials for social
change and political participation that is embedded in their interactions
through and with digital and internet technologies. We hope that the book
furthers the idea of a context-based digital native identity and practice,
which challenges the otherwise universalist understanding that seems to be the
popular operative right now. We see this as the beginning of a knowledge
inquiry, rather than an end, and hope that the contributions in the book will
incite new discussions, invoke cross-sectorial and disciplinary debates, and
consolidate knowledges about digital (alter)natives and how they work in the
present to change our futures<strong>.</strong></p>
<p><strong><a class="external-link" href="https://www.surveymonkey.com/MyAccount_Login.aspx">Click here</a> to order your copy. We invite readers to contribute reviews of an essay they found particularly interesting. Contact us: nishant@cis-india.org and fjansen@hivos.nl if you want more information, resources, or dialogues</strong></p>
<p>Nishant
Shah</p>
<p>Fieke
Jansen</p>
<p><strong>For media coverage and book reviews,</strong> <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/digital-natives/media-coverage" class="external-link">read here</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/digital-natives/blog/dnbook'>http://editors.cis-india.org/digital-natives/blog/dnbook</a>
</p>
No publishernishantSocial mediaDigital ActivismRAW PublicationsCampaignDigital NativesAgencyBlank Noise ProjectFeaturedCyberculturesFacebookPublicationsBeyond the DigitalDigital subjectivitiesBooksResearchers at Work2015-04-10T09:22:29ZBlog EntryChange has come to all of us
http://editors.cis-india.org/digital-natives/blog/change-has-come
<b>The general focus on a digital generational divide makes us believe that generations are separated by the digital axis, and that the gap is widening. There is a growing anxiety voiced by an older generation that the digital natives they encounter — in their homes, schools and universities and at workplaces — are a new breed with an entirely different set of vocabularies and lifestyles which are unintelligible and inaccessible. It is time we started pushing the boundaries of what it means to be a digital native. </b>
<p><strong>In this connected world, the geek is everyone — from a grandma on Skype to a teen on Second Life.</strong></p>
<p>Two self-proclaimed digital natives,
on a cold autumn morning in Amsterdam, decided to leave the comforts of
their familiar virtual worlds and venture into the brave new territories
of real-life shopping. Though slightly confused by the lack of
click-and-try options and perplexed by the limitations of the physical
spaces of shopping, we plodded along, shop after shop, thinking how much
easier it is to chat on IM while flying through Second Life as opposed
to face-to-face interactions while walking on crowded streets. After we
had run out of shops (and patience), we decided that it was time to rely
on better resources than our own wits. The Dutch girl fished out her
Android smartphone and with the single press of a button, opened up
channels of information. She called her mother. She asked for the
location of the store that was eluding us. And then she looked at me in
silence before bursting into laughter. Her 64-year-old mother, in
response to our question, had said, “Why don’t you just Google it?” <br /></p>
<p>We spent five minutes in stunned
laughter when we realised that we should have instinctively done that
and that we were being asked by somebody from Generation U to “get with
it”. Funny (and slightly embarrassing) as it is, it brings into focus,
the question, “Who is a digital native?” For those of you who have been
reading this column, it has been defined in terms of age and usage. A
digital native is generally somebody young, somebody who is tech-savvy,
somebody who can perform complicated calisthenics with digital
technologies — throwing virtual sheep, having instant relationships,
writing complex stories and pirating their favourite movies — in one
nonchalant click of the mouse. However, these kinds of digital natives
are only stereotypes.
</p>
<p>If we move away from
these descriptions of novelty, of excitement and of youth, a different
kind of digital native emerges for us. A digital native is somebody
whose way of thinking (about himself and the world around) is
significantly informed because of the presence of and familiarity with
the internet and digital technologies. In other words, a digital native
is a person who has experienced (and is often led to) change because of
their interactions with new technologies.
</p>
<p>It can be a
middle-aged man whose business changed when he started tracking his
supplies using complex and sophisticated databases. It can be a mother
of two, finding support and help raising her children on online
communities like Bing. It can be a senior teacher re-discovering
pedagogy through distributed knowledge systems on Wikipedia. It can be
grandparents who interact with their grandchildren over Skype and text
messaging, across international borders and lifestyles. It can be a
mother telling her digital native daughter to “just Google it!” over the
cellphone.
</p>
<p>And as things might
be, Shamini, my 15-year-old bonafide digital native correspondent from
Ahmedabad, recently wrote that she got off Facebook and deleted her
account. “It felt like I had retired from a job,” she said. But she was
away from Facebook only for four months, dissociated from all the “time,
energy and drama that it caused” and was quite enjoying it. After four
months of self-imposed exile, she, however, resurfaced on Facebook. And
it was to stay in touch with her aunt and uncle, who live in faraway
lands, and cannot keep in touch with her unless she is on Facebook.
Shamini was surprised at this. After spending much time convincing them
about trying to use email and phones to keep connected, she finally gave
in and started a new account that nobody knows of. And she asked me the
important question: Who is the digital native now?
</p>
<p>The general focus on
a digital generational divide makes us believe that generations are
separated by the digital axis, and that the gap is widening. There is a
growing anxiety voiced by an older generation that the digital natives
they encounter — in their homes, schools and universities and at
workplaces — are a new breed with an entirely different set of
vocabularies and lifestyles which are unintelligible and inaccessible.
It is time we started pushing the boundaries of what it means to be a
digital native.
</p>
<p>My grandmother used
to tell us, “Nobody is born knowing a language.” I think it is time to
start applying the same logic here. Nobody is born with technologies.
But there are people — perhaps not yet a generation, but still a
population — who are changing their lives and significantly transforming
the world by turning Google and Facebook and Twitter into verbs and a
way of doing things. So the next time, somebody asks you if you know a
digital native, don’t look for somebody out there — it might just be
you! <br /></p>
<p>The original column can be read in <a class="external-link" href="http://http://www.indianexpress.com/news/change-has-come-to-all-of-us/701505/0">The Indian Express</a><br /></p>
<p> </p>
<strong></strong>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/digital-natives/blog/change-has-come'>http://editors.cis-india.org/digital-natives/blog/change-has-come</a>
</p>
No publishernishantGoogleDigital NativesCyberculturesFacebookDigital subjectivities2012-03-13T10:43:38ZBlog EntryDoes the Safe-Harbor Program Adequately Address Third Parties Online?
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/does-the-safe-harbor-program-adequately-address-third-parties-online
<b>While many citizens outside of the US and EU benefit from the data privacy provisions the Safe Harbor Program, it remains unclear how successfully the program can govern privacy practices when third-parties continue to gain more rights over personal data. Using Facebook as a site of analysis, I will attempt to shed light on the deficiencies of the framework for addressing the complexity of data flows in the online ecosystem. </b>
<p>To date, the EU-US Safe Harbor Program leads in governing
the complex and multi-directional flows of personal information online. As commerce began to thrive in the online
context, the European Union was faced with the challenge of ensuring that personal
information exchanged through online services were granted
levels of protect on par with provisions set out in EU privacy law. This was important, notably as the piecemeal
and sectoral approach to privacy legislation in the United states was deemed incompatible
with the EU approach. While the Safe
Harbor program did not aim to protect the privacy of citizens outside of the
European Union per say, the program has in practice set minimum standards for
online data privacy due to the international success of American online
services.</p>
<p>While many citizens outside of the US and EU benefit from
the Safe Harbor Program, it remains unclear how successful the program will be in an
online ecosystem where third-parties are being granted increasingly more rights
over the data they receive from first parties.
Using Facebook as a site of analysis, I will attempt to shed light on
the deficiencies of the framework for addressing the complexity of data flows
in the online ecosystem. First, I will argue
that the safe harbor program does not do enough to ensure that participants are
held reasonably responsible third party privacy practices. Second, I will argue that the information
asymmetries created between first party sites, citizens, and governance bodies
vis-à-vis third parties obscures the application of the Safe Harbor Model.</p>
<p><strong>The EU-US
Safe-Harbor Agreement</strong></p>
<p>In 1995, and based on earlier <a href="http://www.oecd.org/document/18/0,3343,en_2649_34255_1815186_1_1_1_1,00.html">OECD
guidelines</a>, the EU Data Directive on the “protection of individuals with
regard to the processing of personal data and the free movement of such data”
was passed<a name="_ednref1" href="#_edn1"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a> [1]. The original purpose of the EU Privacy
Directive was not only to increase privacy protection within the European
Union, but to also promote trade liberalization and a single integrated market
in the EU. After the Data Directive was
passed, each member state of the EU incorporated the principles of
the directive into national laws accordingly. </p>
<p>While the Directive was successful in harmonizing data
privacy in the European Union, it also embodied extraterritorial
provisions, giving in reach<a name="_ednref2" href="#_edn2"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a> beyond the EU. Article 25 of the Directive states that the
EU commission may ban data transfers to third countries that do not ensure “an
adequate level of protect’ of data privacy rights<a name="_ednref3" href="#_edn3"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a> [2]. Also, Article 26 of the Directive, expanding
on Article 25, states that personal data cannot be <em>transferred </em>to a country that “does not ensure an adequate level of
protection” if the data controller does not enter into a contract that adduces
adequate privacy safeguards<a name="_ednref4" href="#_edn4"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a> [3].
</p>
<p>In light of the increased occurrence of cross-border
information flows, the Data Directive itself was not effective enough to ensure that
privacy principles were enforced outside of the EU. Articles 25 and 26 of the Directive had essentially deemed all cross-border data-flows to the US in contravention of EU privacy law. Therefor, the EU-US Safe-Harbor was established by the
EU Council and the US Department of Commerce as a way of mending the variant
levels of privacy protection set out in these jurisdictions, while also promoting
online commerce. </p>
<p><strong>Social Networking
Sites and the Safe-Harbor Principles</strong></p>
<p>The case of social networking sites exemplifies the ease
with which data is transferred, processed, and stored between jurisdictionas. While many of the top social networking sites
are registered American entities, they continue to attract users not only from
the EU, but also internationally. In agreement
to the EU law, many social networking sites, including LinkedIn, Facebook,
Myspace, and Bebo, now adhere to the principles of the program. The enforcement of the Safe Harbor takes
place in the United States in accordance with U.S. law and relies, to a great
degree, on enforcement by the private sector.
TRUSTe, an independent certification program and dispute mechanism, has become the most popular governance mechanism for the safe harbor program
among social networking sites. </p>
<p>Drawing broadly on the principles embodied within the EU
Data Directive and the OECD Guidelines, the seven principles of the Safe-Harbor
were developed. These principles include
Notice, Choice, Onward Transfer, Access and Accuracy, Security, Data Integrity
and Enforcement. The principle of “Notice”
sets out that organizations must inform individuals about the purposes for
which it collects and uses information about them, how to contact the
organization with any inquiries or complaints, the types of third parties to
which it disclosures the information, and the choices and means the organization
offers individuals for limiting its use and disclosure. </p>
<p>“Choice” ensures that individuals have the opportunity to
choose to opt out whether their personal information is disclosed to a third
party, and to ensure that information is not used for purposes incompatible with the purposes for
which it was originally collected. The
“Onward Transfer” principle ensures that third parties receiving information
subscribes to the Safe Harbor principles, is subject to the Directive, or
enters into a written agreement which requires that the third party provide at
least the same level of privacy protection as is requires by the relevant
principles.</p>
<p>The principles of “Security” and “Data Integrity” seek to
ensure that reasonable precautions are taken to protect the loss or misuse of
data, and that information is not used in a manner which is incompatible with
the purposes for it is has been collected—minimizing the risk that personal
information would be misused or abused.
Individuals are also granted the right, through the access principle, to
view the personal information about them that an organization holds, and to
ensure that it is up-to-date and accurate.
The “Enforcement” principle works to ensure that an effective mechanism
for assuring compliance with the principles, and that there are consequences
for the organization when the principles are not followed.</p>
<p>The principles of the program are rather quite clear and
enforceable in the first party context, despite some prevailing ambiguities. The privacy policies of most social
networking services have become increasingly clear and straightforward since
their inception. Facebook, for example,
has revamped its <a href="http://www.facebook.com/privacy/explanation.php">privacy
regime</a> several times, and gives explicit notice to users how their
information is being used. The privacy
policy also explains the relationship between third parties and your personal information—including
how it may be used by advertisers, search engines, and fellow members. </p>
<p>With respect to third party advertisers, principles of
“choice” are clearly granted by most social networking services. For example, the <a href="http://www.networkadvertising.org/">Network Advertising Initiative</a>, a
self-regulatory initiative of the online advertising industry, clearly lists
its member websites and allows individuals to opt out of any targeted
advertising conducted by its members. In
Facebook’s description of “cookies” in their privacy policy, a direct link to NAI’s
opt out features is given, allowing individuals to make somewhat informed
choices about their participation in such programs. This point is, of course, in light of the
fact that most users do not read or understand the privacy policies provided by
social networking sites<a name="_ednref5" href="#_edn5"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a> [4].
It is also important to note that Google—a major player in the online
advertising business, does not grant users of Buzz and Orkut the same “opt-out”
options as sites such as Facebook and Bebo.</p>
<p>Under the auspices of the US Federal Trade Commission, the
Safe Harbor Program has also successfully investigated and settled several
privacy-related breaches which have taken place on social networking sites. Of the most famous cases is <a href="http://www.beaconclasssettlement.com/">Lane et al. v. Facebook et al.</a>,
which was a class action suit brought against Facebook’s Beacon Advertising
program. The US Federal Trade Commission
was quick to insight an investigation of the program after many privacy groups
and individuals became critical of its questionable advertising practices. The Beacon program was designed to allow
Facebook users to share information with their friends about actions taken on
affiliated, third party sites. This had included,
for example, the movie rentals a user had made through the Blockbuster website. </p>
<p>The Plaintiffs filed a suit, alleging that Facebook and its
affiliates did not give users adequate notice and choice about Beacon and the
collection and use of users’ personal information. The Beacon program was ultimately found to
be in breach of US law, including the <a href="http://epic.org/privacy/vppa/">Video
Privacy Protection Act</a>, which bans the disclosure of personally identifiable
rental information. Facebook has
announced the settlement of the lawsuit, not bringing individual settlements,
but a marked end to the program and the development of a 9.5 million dollar <a href="http://www.p2pnet.net/story/37119">Facebook Privacy Fund</a> dedicated to
privacy and data-related issues. Other privacy
related investigations of social networking sites launched by the FTC under the
Safe Harbor Program include Facebook’s <a href="http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/facebooks-new-privacy-changes-good-bad-and-ugly">privacy
changes</a> in late 2009, and the Google’s recently released <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/032910-lawmakers-ask-for-ftc-investigation.html">Buzz
application</a>.</p>
<p>Despite the headway the Safe Harbor is making, many privacy
related questions remain ambiguous with respect to the responsibilities social networking
sites through the program. For example,
Bebo <a href="http://www.bebo.com/Privacy2.jsp">reserves the right</a> to
supplement a social profile with addition information collected from publicly
available information and information from other companies. Bebo’s does adhere to the “notice principle”—as
it makes know to users how their information will be used through their privacy
policy. However, it remains unclear if appropriate disclosures are given by Bebo
as required by Safe Harbor Framework, notably as the sources of “publicly
available information” as a concept remains broad and obscured in the privacy policy. It is also unclear whether or not Bebo users
are able to, under the “Choice” principle, refuse to having their profiles from
being supplemented by other information sources. Also, under the “access
principle”, do individuals have the right to review all information held about them as “Bebo
users”? The right to review information
held by a social networking site is an important one that should be upheld. This is most notable as supplementary information
from outside social networking services is employed to profile individual users in ways which may
work to categorize individuals in undesirable ways.</p>
<p><strong>The Third Party Problem</strong></p>
<p>Cooperation between social networking sites and the Safe
Harbor has improved, and most of these sites now have privacy policies which
explicitly address the principles of the Program. It should also be noted that public interest
groups, such as Epic, the Center for Digital Democracy, and The Electronic
Frontier Foundation, have played a key role in ensuring that data privacy
breaches are brought to the attention of the FTC under the program. While the program has somewhat adequately
addressed the privacy practices of first party participants, the number of
third parties on social networking sites calls into question the
comprehensiveness and effectiveness of the Safe Harbor program. Facebook itself as a first party site may adhere
to the Safe Harbor Program. However, its
growing number third party platform members may not always adhere to best practices
in the field, nor can Facebook or the Safe Harbor Program guarantee that they
do so.</p>
<p>The Safe Harbor Program does require that all participants
take certain security measures when transferring data to a third party. Third parties must either subscribe to the
safe harbor principles, or be subject to the EU Data Directive. Alternatively, an organization can may also
enter into a written agreement with a third party requiring that they provide
at least the same level of privacy protection as is required by program
principles. Therefore, third parties of
participating program sites are, de facto, bound by the safe harbor principles by
the way of entering into agreement with a first party participant of the
program. This is the approach taken by
most social networking sites and their third parties.</p>
<p>It is important to note, however, that third parties are not
governed directly by the regulatory bodies, such as the FTC. The safe harbor website also <a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018476.asp">explicitly notes</a>
that the program does not apply to third parties. Therefore, as per these provisions, Facebook must
adhere to the principles of the program, while its third party platform members
(such as social gaming companies), only must do so indirectly as per a separate
contract with Facebook. The
effectiveness of this indirect mode of governing of third party privacy
practices is questionable for numerous reasons.</p>
<p>Firstly, while Facebook does take steps to ensure that
third parties use information from Facebook in a manner which is consistent to
the safe harbor principles, the company explicitly <a href="http://www.facebook.com/policy.php">waives any guarantee</a> that third
parties will “follow their rules”. Prior to allowing third parties to access any
information about users, Facebook requires third parties to <a href="http://www.facebook.com/terms.php">agree to terms</a> that limit their
use of information, and also use technical measures to ensure that they only
obtain authorized information. Facebook
also warns users to “always review the policies of third party applications and
websites to make sure you are comfortable with the ways in which they use
information”. Not only are users
required to read the privacy policies of every third party application, but are
also expected to report applications which may be in violation of privacy
principles. In this sense, Facebook not
only waives responsibility for third party privacy breaches, but also places further
regulatory onus upon the user.</p>
<p>As the program guidelines express, the safe harbor relies to
a great degree on enforcement by the private sector. However, it is likely that a self-regulatory
framework may lead the industry into a state of regulatory malaise. Under the safe harbor program, Facebook must
ensure that the privacy practices of third parties are adequate. However, at the same time, the company may
simultaneously waiver their responsibility for third party compliance with safe
harbor principles. Therefore, it remains
questionable as to where responsibility for third parties exactly lies. When third parties are not directly
answerable to the governing bodies of safe harbor program, and when first parties
can to waive responsibility for their practices, from where does the incentive to
effectively regulate third parties to come from? </p>
<p>While Facbeook may in fact take reasonable legal and technical
measures to ensure third party compliance, the room for potential dissonance
between speech and deed is worrisome. Facebook is required to ensure that third
parties provide “<a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018476.asp">at least the same
level of privacy protection</a>” as they do.
However, in practice, this has yet to become the case. A quick survey of twelve of the most popular
Platform Applications in the gaming category showed<a name="_ednref6" href="#_edn6"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a>
that third parties are not granting their users the “same level of privacy
protection”[5]. For example, section 9.2.3
of Facebooks “<a href="http://www.facebook.com/terms.php">Rights and
Responsibilities</a>” for Developers/Operators of applications/sites states
that they must “have a privacy policy or otherwise make it clear to users what
user data you are going to use and how you will use, display, or share that
data”. </p>
<p>However, out of the 12 gaming applications surveyed, four
companies failed to make privacy policies available to users <em>before</em> they granted the application
access to the personal information, including that of their friends<a name="_ednref7" href="#_edn7"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a> [6]. After searching for the privacy policies on
the websites of each of the four social gaming companies, two completely failed
to post privacy policies on their central websites. This practice is in direct breach of the
contract made between these companies and Facebook, as mentioned above. In addition to many applications failing to clearly
post privacy policies, many of provisions set out in these policies were
questionable vis-à-vis safe harbor principles. </p>
<p>For example Zynga, makes of popular games Mafia Wars and
Farmville, reserve the right to “maintain copies of your content
indefinitely”. This practice remains contrary
to Safe Harbor principles which states that information should not be kept for
longer than required to run a service.
Electronic Arts also maintains similar provisions for data retention in
its privacy policy. Such practices are
rather worrisome also in light of the fact that both companies also reserve the
right to collect information on users from other sources to supplement profiles
held. This includes (but is not limited
to) newspapers and Internet sources such as blogs, instant messaging services, and
other games. It is also notable to
mention that only one of the twelve social gaming companies surveyed directly
participates in the safe harbor program. </p>
<p>In addition to the difficulties of ensuring that safe harbor
principles are adhered to by third parties, the information asymmetries which
exist between first party sites, citizens, and governance bodies vis-à-vis
third parties complicate this model. Foremost,
it is clear that Facebook, despite its resources, cannot keep tabs on the
practices of all of their applications.
This puts into question if industry self-regulation can really guarantee
that privacy is respected by third parties in this context. Furthermore, the lack of knowledge or
understanding held by citizens about how third parties user their information
is particularly problematic when a system relies so heavily on users to report
suspected privacy breaches. The same is
likely to be true for governments, too. As
one legal scholar, promoting a more laisse-fair approach to third party
regulation, notes—multiple and invisible third party relationships presents
challenges to traditional forms of legal regulation<a name="_ednref8" href="#_edn8"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a> [7]. </p>
<p>In an “open “social ecosystem, the sheer volume of data
flows between users of social networking sites and third party players appears
to have become increasingly difficult to effectively regulate. While the safe harbor program has been
successful in establishing best practices and minimum standards for data
privacy, it is also clear that governance bodies, and public interest groups,
have focused most attention on large industry players such as Facebook. This has left smaller third party players on
social networking sites in the shadows of any substantive regulatory concern. If
one this has become clear, it is the fact that governments may no longer be
able to effectively govern the flows of data in the burgeoning context of “open
data”. </p>
<p>As I have demonstrated, it remains questionable whether or
not Facebook can regulate third parties data collection practices
effectively. Imposing more stringent
responsibilities on safe harbor participants could be a positive step. It is reasonable to assume that it would be
undue to impose liability on social networking sites for the data breaches of
third parties. However, it is not
unreasonable to require sites like Facebook go beyond setting “minimum
standards” for data privacy, towards taking a more active enforcement, if even
through TRUSTe or another regulatory body.
If the safe harbor is to be effective, it cannot allow program participants
to simply wave the liability for third party privacy practices. The indemnity granted to third parties on social
networking sites may deem the safe harbor program more effective in sustaining
the non-liability of third parties, rather than protecting the data privacy of
citizens.</p>
<div></div>
<div>
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
</div>
<p class="discreet"><a name="_edn1" href="#_ednref1"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a>[1] Official Directive 95/46/EC</p>
<p class="discreet"><a name="_edn2" href="#_ednref2"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a></p>
<p class="discreet"><a name="_edn3" href="#_ednref3"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a>[2] 95/46/EC</p>
<p class="discreet">[3] Ibid</p>
<p class="discreet"><a name="_edn4" href="#_ednref4"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a><a name="_edn5" href="#_ednref5"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></a>[4] See Acquisit,
A. a. (n.d.). Imagined Communities: Awareness, Information Sharing, and Privacy
on Facebook. <em>PET 2006</em></p>
<p class="discreet"><a name="_edn6" href="#_ednref6"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a>[5] Of the Privacy Policy browsed include, Zynga, Rock
You!, Crowdstar, Mind Jolt, Electronic Arts, Pop Cap Games, Slash Key, Playdom,
Meteor Games, Broken Bulb Studios, Wooga, and American Global Network.</p>
<p class="discreet"><a name="_edn7" href="#_ednref7"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a>[6] By adding an application, users are also sharing with
third parties the information of their friends if they do not specifically opt out of this practice.</p>
<p class="discreet">[7]See<strong>
</strong> Milina, S. (2003).
Let the Market Do its Job: Advocating an Integrated Laissez-Faire Approach to
Online Profiling. <em>Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal</em> .</p>
<pre></pre>
<div>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
</div>
<h2> </h2>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/does-the-safe-harbor-program-adequately-address-third-parties-online'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/does-the-safe-harbor-program-adequately-address-third-parties-online</a>
</p>
No publisherrebeccaPrivacyInternet GovernanceFacebookData ProtectionSocial Networking2011-08-02T07:19:34ZBlog EntryThe (in)Visible Subject: Power, Privacy and Social Networking
http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking
<b>In this entry, I will argue that the interplay between privacy and power on social network sites works ultimately to subject individuals to the gaze of others, or to alternatively render them invisible. Individual choices concerning privacy preferences must, therefore, be informed by the intrinsic relationship which exists between publicness/privateness and subjectivity/obscurity. </b>
<strong><br />The Architecture of Openness</strong>
<p> </p>
<div>
<div id="parent-fieldname-text">
<p>Through a Google search or a quick scan of Facebook, people
today are able to gain “knowledge” on others in a way never once
possible. The ability to search and collect information
on individuals online only continues to improve as online social networks grow
and
search engines become more comprehensive.
Social networks, and the social web more broadly, has worked to
fundamentally alter the nature of personal information made available
online. Social networking services today enable the average person, with web access, to publish information through a “social
profile”. Personal
information made available online is now communicative, narrative and
biographic. Consequentially, social profiles have become
rich containers of personal information that can be searched, indexed
and
analyzed.</p>
<p>The architecture of the social web further encourages users
to enclose volumes of personally identifiable information. Most social
network sites embrace the “ethos
of openness” as, by default, most have relaxed privacy settings. While
most sites give users relative control
over the disclosure of personal information, services such as MySpace,
Facebook
and Live Journal are far ahead of the black and white public/private
privacy
models of sites such as Bebo and Orkut. Bebo,
for example, only allows users to disclose information to “friends” or
“everyone”, granting little granularity for diverse privacy
preferences. MySpace and Facebook, on the other hand, have
made room for “friends of friends”, among other customizable group
preferences. All networking sites also consider certain pieces
of basic information publicly available, without privacy controls. On
most sites, this includes name,
photograph, gender and location, and list of friends. Okrut, however,
considers far more
information to public—leaving the political views and religions of its’
members
public. This openness leaves the
individual with little knowledge or control over how their information
is
viewed, and subsequently used.</p>
<p>Search functionality has also increased the visibility of
individuals outside their immediate social network. For example, sites
such Facebook and LinkedIn
index user profiles through Google search.
Furthermore, all social network sites index their users, effectively
allowing profiles to be searched by other users through basic
registration data,
such as first and last name or registered email address. While most
services allow users to remove
their profiles from external search engines, they are often not able to
effectively control internal searches. Orkut,
for example, does not allow users to disable internal searches according
to
their first and last names. LinkedIn and
MySpace also maintains that users be searchable by their email
addresses.</p>
<p>Through this open architecture and search functionality, social
network sites have rendered individuals more “visible” vis-à-vis one
another. The social web has effectively
altered the spatial dimensions of our social lives as grounded, embodied
experience becomes ubiquitous and multiply experienced. Privacy, in the
online social milieu, assumes
greater fluidity and varied meaning—transcending spatially
constructed
understandings of the notion. </p>
<p>While the architecture of social networking sites encourages
users to be more “public”, heightened control, or “more privacy” is
generally
suggested as the panacea to privacy concerns.
However, the public/private binary of privacy talk often fails to
capture the complex nexus which exists between privacy and power in the
networked ecosystem. Privacy preferences
on social networks, and the consequences thereof, are effectively shaped
and
influenced by structures of power. In
this entry, I will argue that the interplay between privacy and power
works
ultimately to expose individuals to the subjective gaze of others, or to
render
them invisible. In this respect,
individual choices concerning privacy preferences must be informed by
the
intrinsic relationship between notions of publicness/privateness and
subjectivity/obscurity.</p>
<p><strong>Power and
Subjectivity </strong></p>
<p>The searchable nature of the social profile allows others to
quickly and easily aggregate information on one another. As privacy
scholar Daniel Solve <a href="http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/dsolove/Future-of-Reputation/text.htm">notes</a>,
social searching may be of genuine intent – individuals
use social networking services to locate old friends, and to connect
with current
colleagues. However, curiosity does not
always assume such innocence, as fishing expeditions for personal
information
may serve the purpose of judging individuals based perception of the
social
profile. The relatively power of search
and open information can be harnessed to weed out potential job
applicants, or
to rank college applicants. Made
possible through the architecture of the web and social constructions of
power,
individuals may be subjected to the deconstructive gaze of superiors. </p>
<p>The architecture of social networking sites significantly compliments
this nexus between privacy and power. As
individual behavior and preferences become more transparent, the act of
surveillance is masked behind the ubiquity and anonymity of online
browsing. Drawing
on Foucault’s panopticism, social networks make for the
“containerization” of social
space –allowing the powerful to subjectively hierarchize and classify
individuals in relation to one another<a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/../others/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking-1#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"></span></span></a>
[1]. This practice becomes particularly
troublesome online, as individuals are often unable to control how they
are constructed
by others in cyberspace. </p>
<p>Perfect control is difficult to guarantee in an ecosystem
where personal information is easily searched, stored, copied, indexed,
and
shared. In this respect, the privacy
controls of social networking sites are greatly illusory. Googling an
individual’s name, for example,
may not reveal the full social profile of an individual, but may unveil
dialogue involving the individual in a public discussion group. The
searchable nature of personal information
on the web has both complicated and undesirable consequences for privacy
of the
person for, what I believe, to be two main reasons.</p>
<p>The first point refers to what Daniel J. Solve describes as
the “<a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID440200_code249137.pdf?abstractid=440200&rulid=39703&mirid=1">virtue
of knowing less</a>”.
Individuals may be gaining more “information” on others through the
internet, but this information is often insufficient for judging one’s
character as it only communicates one dimension of an individual. In <a href="http://heinonlinebackup.com/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/washlr79&section=16">her
work</a>, Helen Nissenbaum emphasizes the importance contextual
integrity holds for personal information.
When used outside its intended context, information gathered online may
not be useful for accurately assessing an individual. In addition, the
virtual gaze is void of the
essential components of human interaction necessary to effectively
understand
and situate each other. As Solve notes,
certain information may distort judgment of another person, rather than
increasing
its accuracy.</p>
<p>Secondly, the act of surveillance through social networks work
to undermine privacy and personhood, as individuals seek to situate
others as
“fixed texts” <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/../others/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking-1#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"></span></span></a>[2].
Due to the complex nature of the social self, such practice is undesirable. Online
social networks are socially constructed spaces, with diverse meanings
assigned
by varied users. One may utilize a social
network service to build and maintain professional relationships, while
another
may use it as an intimate space to share with close friends and family.
James Rachels’ <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/6152658/Why-Privacy-is-Important-James-Rachels">theory
of
privacy</a> notes that privacy is important, as it allows individuals
to
selectively disclose information and to engage in behaviors appropriate
and
necessary for maintaining diverse personal relationships. Drawing on
the work of performance theorists
such as <a href="http://books.google.co.in/books?id=gyWuhD3Q3IcC&dq=judith+butler+gender+trouble&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=5W56S_aTL4vo7APq4YmfCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CBgQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=&f=false">Judith
Butler</a>, we can assert that identity is not fixed or unitary, but is
constituted by performances that are directed at different audiences<a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/../others/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking-1#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"></span></span></a>
[3]. Sociologist Erving Goffman also notes that we
“live our lives as performers…<span class="msoIns"><ins cite="mailto:lynda%20spark" datetime="2010-02-15T17:54"> </ins></span>[and]
play many different roles and
wear many different masks”<a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/../others/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking-1#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"></span></span></a>
[4]. Individuals, therefore, are inclined to
perform themselves online according to their perceived audiences. It is
the audience, or the social graph,
which constructs the context that, in turn, informs individual behavior.</p>
<p>Any attempt to situate and categorize the individual becomes
particularly problematic in the context of social networks, where
information
is often not intended for the purpose for which it is being used. Due
to the complex nature of human behavior, judgments
of character based on online observation only effectively capture one
side of
the “complicated self”<a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/../others/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking-1#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"></span></span></a>.
As Julie Cohen <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1012068">writes</a>,
the “law often fails to capture the mutually
constitutive interactions between self and culture, the social
constructions of
systems of knowledge, and the interplay between systems of knowledge and
systems of power”. Because the panoptic
gaze is decentralized and anonymous in the networked ecosystem,
individuals will
often bear little knowledge on how their identities are being digitally
deconstructed and rewired. Most importantly,
much of this judgment will occur without individual consent or
knowledge—emphasizing the transparent nature of the digital self. <strong></strong></p>
<p><strong>Power and
(in)visibility</strong></p>
<p>In response to the notion that the architecture of the
social web may render individuals transparent to the gaze of others, the
need
for more “control” over privacy on social network sites has captured the
public
imagination. Facebook’s abrupt <a href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_pushes_people_to_go_public.php">privacy
changes</a>, for example, have<span class="msoIns"><ins cite="mailto:lynda%20spark" datetime="2010-02-15T17:58"> </ins></span>received
widespread
attention in the <a href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/why_facebook_is_wrong_about_privacy.php">blogosphere</a>
and even by <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/dec/17/facebook-privacy-ftc-complaint">governments</a>.
While
popular privacy discourse often continues to fixate on the
public/private
binary—Facebook’s questionable move towards privacy decontrol has raised
important questions of power and privilege.</p>
<p>A recent <a href="http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2010/01/16/facebooks_move.html">blog
post</a> by danah boyd nicely touches upon the dynamics of
power, public-ness, and privilege in the context of online social networking.
As she notes, “Public-ness has always been a
privilege…<span class="msoIns"><ins cite="mailto:lynda%20spark" datetime="2010-02-15T18:00"> </ins></span>but now we've changed the
equation
and anyone can theoretically be public…<span class="msoIns"><ins cite="mailto:lynda%20spark" datetime="2010-02-15T18:00"> </ins></span>and
seen
by millions. However, there are still
huge social costs to being public…the privileged don’t have to worry
about the
powerful observing them online…but most everyone else does –forcing
people into
the public eye doesn’t <em>dismantle the
structures of privilege and power</em>, but only works to <em>reinforce
them</em>” (emphasis added). </p>
<p>This point touches upon an important idea —that publicity has value.
This nexus between visibility and power is
one which unfolds quite clearly in the social media ecosystem. One’s
relevance or significance could,
arguably, be measured relative to online visibility. Many individuals
who are seen as “leaders”
within their own professional or social circles often maintain public
blogs, maintain
a herd of followers on Twitter, and often manage large numbers of
connections
on social network sites. The more
information written by or on an individual online, arguably, the more
relevant
they appear to in the eyes of their peers and superiors alike.</p>
<p>Power and privilege, however experienced, will be mirrored
in the online context. While the participatory
and decentralized nature of Web 2.0 arguably works challenge traditional
structures of power, systemic hierarchies and are often reinforced
online –as Facebook’s
privacy blunders clearly illustrates. The privileged need not worry
about the
subjective gaze of their superiors, as boyd notes. Those who may be
compromised due to the lack
of privateness, however, do. As boyd
goes on to argue, “the privileged get more privileged, gaining from
being
exposed…<span class="msoIns"><ins cite="mailto:lynda%20spark" datetime="2010-02-15T18:04"> </ins></span>and those struggling to keep
their
lives together are forced to create walls that are constantly torn down
around
them”. As public exposure may over often
equate to power, we must <span class="msoDel"><del cite="mailto:lynda%20spark" datetime="2010-02-15T18:04"> </del></span>critically
challenge
the assumption that the move towards more privacy control on social
networks will best empower its members.</p>
<p> If publicity can
potentially have great value for the individual, the opposite also rings
true. Privacy, as polemic to publicness,
alternatively works to diminish the presence of the individual,
rendering them
invisible or irrelevant within hyper-linked networks. With
greater personal protectionism online,
an individual may go unnoticed or unrecognized, fizzling out dully
behind their
more public peers. Drawing on social
network theory, powerful people can be understood as “supernodes” as
they
connect more peripheral members of a network.
As <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=629283">Lior
Strahilevitz notes</a>, supernodes tend to be better
informed than the peripherals, and are most likely to be perceived as
“leaders”. </p>
<p>As the power of the supernode relates to privacy, Strahilevitz
states that that “supernodes
maintain their privileged status by<strong> </strong>continuing
to serve as information clearinghouses….and, in certain contexts, become
supernodes based in part on their willingness to share previously
private
information about themselves”. It is within
the context of visibility and power that the idea of (in)visibility and
powerlessness online unfold. Those who
have most at risk by going public, may chose not to do so. Those with in
comfortable positions with considerably less to lose by going public may
be
inclined to “open up”. Heightened privacy
controls on social network services, therefore, can work to reinforce
the very structures
of power they seek to dismantle. </p>
<p>This is
not to argue, however, that more privacy is necessarily bad, and that
less
privacy is good, or that users shouldn’t be selective in their
disclosures –<span class="msoIns"><ins cite="mailto:lynda%20spark" datetime="2010-02-15T18:08"> </ins></span>to
the contrary. As personal information
has become ubiquitous and tools for aggregating information improve,
maintaining
privacy online becomes more pertinent than ever. However, the concept of
privacy
will only continue to become increasingly complex as digital networks
continue
to deconstruct and reconfigure the spatial dimensions of the public and
private. How are we to effectively understand privacy
in a social environment which values openness and publicity? Can the
fluid and dynamic self gain
visibility online without becoming subject to the gaze of superiors?
Will those who selectively choose
friends and carefully disclose personal information fizzle out, while the powerful
and less inhibited continue to reassert privilege? The interplay
between power and privacy on
the social web is a multiply constitutive and reinforcing synergy
–understanding
how to effectively strike balance between the right to privacy and
self-determination
is the challenge ahead.</p>
<p> </p>
<div>
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<div id="ftn1">
<p><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/../others/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking-1#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1"><span class="FootnoteCharacters"><span class="FootnoteCharacters"></span></span></a><span class="footnotereference"><span class="footnotereference"></span></span>
1. see “Foucault in Cyberspace” by James Boyle</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn2">
<p><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/../others/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking-1#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2"><span class="FootnoteCharacters"><span class="FootnoteCharacters"></span></span></a></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn3">
<p><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/../others/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking-1#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3"><span class="FootnoteCharacters"><span class="FootnoteCharacters"></span></span></a><span class="footnotereference"><span class="footnotereference"></span></span>2.
Julie Cohen</p>
<p>3. Cohen citing Butler</p>
<p>4. Solve citing Goffman</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="viewlet-social-bookmarks">
<div id="shareit" class="hidden">
<div id="exit">
<h4>Bookmark & Share:</h4>
<ul id="viewlet_bookmarks"><li>
<a href="http://del.icio.us/post?url=http://www.cis-india.org/advocacy/others/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking-1&amp;title=The%20%28in%29Visible%20Subject:%20Power,%20Privacy%20and%20Social%20Networking">
<img src="../../../../++resource++sb_images/delicious.png" alt="Del.icio.us" />
</a>
</li><li>
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=http://www.cis-india.org/advocacy/others/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking-1">
<img src="../../../../++resource++sb_images/facebook.jpg" alt="Facebook" />
</a>
</li><li>
<a href="http://www.google.com/bookmarks/mark?op=add&bkmk=http://www.cis-india.org/advocacy/others/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking-1&title=The%20%28in%29Visible%20Subject:%20Power,%20Privacy%20and%20Social%20Networking">
<img src="../../../../++resource++sb_images/google.jpg" alt="Google Bookmarks" />
</a>
</li><li>
<a href="http://twitter.com/home?status=http://www.cis-india.org/advocacy/others/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking-1">
<img src="../../../../++resource++sb_images/twitter.gif" alt="Twitter" />
</a>
</li><li>
<a href="http://www.myspace.com/Modules/PostTo/Pages/?c=http://www.cis-india.org/advocacy/others/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking-1&amp;t=The%20%28in%29Visible%20Subject:%20Power,%20Privacy%20and%20Social%20Networking">
<img src="../../../../++resource++sb_images/myspace.png" alt="MySpace" />
</a>
</li><li>
<a href="http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&amp;url=http://www.cis-india.org/advocacy/others/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking-1&amp;title=The%20%28in%29Visible%20Subject:%20Power,%20Privacy%20and%20Social%20Networking">
<img src="../../../../++resource++sb_images/digg.png" alt="Digg" />
</a>
</li><li>
<a href="http://reddit.com/submit?url=http://www.cis-india.org/advocacy/others/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking-1&amp;title=The%20%28in%29Visible%20Subject:%20Power,%20Privacy%20and%20Social%20Networking">
<img src="../../../../++resource++sb_images/reddit.png" alt="Reddit" />
</a>
</li><li>
<a href="http://slashdot.org/bookmark.pl?title=The%20%28in%29Visible%20Subject:%20Power,%20Privacy%20and%20Social%20Networking&amp;url=http://www.cis-india.org/advocacy/others/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking-1">
<img src="../../../../++resource++sb_images/slashdot.png" alt="Slashdot" />
</a>
</li></ul>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="visualClear"></div>
<h5 class="hiddenStructure">Document Actions</h5>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking'>http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking</a>
</p>
No publisherrebeccaSocial NetworkingAttention EconomyFacebookPrivacy2011-08-18T05:06:52ZBlog Entry