The Centre for Internet and Society
http://editors.cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 61 to 75.
ISIS and Recruitment using Social Media – Roundtable Report
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/isis-and-recruitment-using-social-media-2013-roundtable-report
<b>The Centre for Internet and Society in collaboration with the Takshashila Institution held a roundtable discussion on “ISIS and Recruitment using Social Media” on 1 September 2016 from 5.00 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. at TERI in Bengaluru.
</b>
<p><span id="docs-internal-guid-e5578586-03c4-7aff-539c-952cd4e34bcf"> </span></p>
<p dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify; ">The objective of this roundtable was to explore the recruitment process and methods followed by ISIS on social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter and to understand the difficulties faced by law enforcement agencies and platforms in countering the problem while understanding existing counter measures, with a focus on the Indian experience.</p>
<h3 dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify; ">Reviewing Existing Literature</h3>
<p dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify; ">To provide context to the discussion, a few key pieces of existing literature on online extremism were highlighted. Discussing Charlie Winter’s “Documenting the Virtual Caliphate”, a participant outlined the multiple stages of the radicalisation process that begins with a person being exposed to general ISIS releases, entering an online filter bubble of like minded people, initial contact, followed by persuasion by the contact person to isolate the potential recruit from his/her family and friends. This culminates with the assignment of an ISIS task to such person. The takeaway from the paper, was the colossal scale of information and events put out by ISIS on the social media. It was pointed out that contrary to popular belief, ISIS publishes content under six broad themes: mercy, belonging, brutality, victimhood, war and utopia, least of which falls under the category of brutality which in fact garners the most attention worldwide. It was further elaborated that ISIS employs positive imagery in the form of nature and landscapes, and appeals to the civilian life within its borders. This strategy is that of prioritising quantity, quality, adaptability and differentiation while producing media. This strategy of producing media that is precise, adaptable and effective, according to the author, must be emulated by Governments in their counter measures, although there is no universal counter narrative that is effective. This effort, he stressed cannot be exclusively state-driven.</p>
<p dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify; ">JM Berger’s “Making Countering Violent Extremism Work” was also discussed. Here, a slightly different model of radicalisation has been identified with potential recruits going through 4 stages: the first being that of Curiosity where there is exposure to violent extremist ideology, the second stage is Consideration where the potential recruit evaluates the ideology, the third being Identification where the individual begins to self identify with extremist ideology, and the last being that of Self-Critique which is revisited periodically. According to Berger, law enforcement need only be involved in the third stage identified in this taxonomy, through situational awareness programs and investigations. This paper stated that counter-messaging policies need not mimic the ISIS pattern of slick messaging. A data-driven study had found that suspending and suppressing the reach of violent extremist accounts and individuals on online platform was effective in reducing the reach of these ideologies, though not universally so. It also found that generic counter strategies used in the US was more efficient than targeted strategies followed in Europe.</p>
<h3 dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify; ">Lack of Co-ordination, Fragmentation between the States and Centre</h3>
<p dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify; ">Speaking of the Indian scenario in particular, another participant brought to light the lack of co-ordination and consensus between the State and Central Governments and law enforcement agencies with respect to countering violent extremism with leads to a breakage in the chain of action. Another participant added that the underestimation of the problem at the state level coupled with the theoretical and abstract nature of work done at the Centre is another pitfall. While the fragmentation of agencies was stated to be ineffective, bringing them under the purview of a single agency was also proposed as an ineffective measure. It was instead suggested that a neutral policy body, and not an implementing body, should coordinate the efforts of the multiple groups involved.</p>
<h3 dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify; ">Unreliable Intelligence Infrastructure</h3>
<p dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify; ">It was pointed out that countries are presently underequipped due to the lack of intelligence infrastructure and technical expertise. This was primarily because agencies in India tend to use off-the shelf hardware and software produced by foreign companies, and such heavy dependence on unreliable parts will necessarily be detrimental to building reliable security infrastructure. Emphasis was laid on the significance of collaboration and open-source intelligence in countering online radicalisation. An appeal was made to inculcate a higher IT proficiency, indigenous production of resources, funding, collaboration, integration of lower level agencies and more research to be produced in this regard.</p>
<h3 dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify; ">Proactive Counter Narratives</h3>
<p dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify; ">The importance of proactive counter-narratives to extremist content was stressed on, with the possibility of generating inputs from government agencies and private bodies backing the government being discussed. Another solution identified was the creation and internal circulation of a clear strategy to counter the ISIS narrative and the public dissemination of research on online radicalization in the Indian context.</p>
<h3 dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify; ">Policies of Social Media Platforms</h3>
<p dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify; ">The conversation moved towards understanding policies of social media. One participant shed light on a popular platform’s strategies against extremism, wherein it was pointed out that the site’s tolerance policy extends not only to directly extremist content but also content created by people who support violent extremism .The involvement of the platform with several countries and platforms in order to create anti-extremist messaging and its intention to expand these initiatives was in furtherance of its philosophy to prevent any celebration of violence. The participant further explained that research shows that anti-extremist content that made use of humour and a lighter tone was more effective than media which relied on gravitas.</p>
<p dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify; ">Having identified the existing literature and current challenges, the roundtable concluded with suggestions for further areas of research:</p>
<ol>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Understanding the use of encrypted messaging services like Whatsapp and Telegram for extremism, and an analysis of these platforms in the Indian context. A deeper understanding of these services is essential to gauge the dimensions of the problem and identify counter measures.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">A lexical analysis of Indian social media accounts to identify ISIS supporters and group them into meta-communities, similar to research done by the RAND Corporation</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Collation of ISIS media packages was also flagged off as an important measure in order to have a dossier to present to the government. This would help policymakers gain context around the issue, and also help them understand the scale of the problem.</li>
</ol>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/isis-and-recruitment-using-social-media-2013-roundtable-report'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/isis-and-recruitment-using-social-media-2013-roundtable-report</a>
</p>
No publisherVidushi Marda, Aditya Tejus, Megha Nambiar and Japreet GrewalSocial MediaISISCountering Violent ExtremismTwitterInternet GovernanceFacebookOnline Recruitment2016-12-16T02:19:16ZBlog EntryIndia's ‘Facebook ruling’ is another nail in the coffin of the MNO model
http://editors.cis-india.org/telecom/news/the-register-february-15-2016-india-facebook-ruling-is-another-nail-in-coffin-of-mno-model
<b>Ability to access 'net from mobe no longer considered a miracle.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article was published in the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/15/indias_facebook_ruling_is_another_nail_in_the_coffin_of_the_mno_model/">Register</a> on February 15, 2016. Pranesh Prakash gave inputs.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nobody could accuse India’s telecoms regulator, TRAI, of being in the operators’ pockets. This month it has, once again, set eye-watering reserve prices for the upcoming 700 MHz spectrum auction (see separate item), and now it has taken one of the toughest stances in the world on net neutrality, in effect banning zero rated or discounted content deals like Reliance Communications’ Facebook Basics, or Bharti Airtel’s Zero.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In a ruling last Monday, TRAI said telecoms providers are banned from offering discriminatory tariffs for data services based on content, and from entering deals to subsidize access to certain websites. They have six months to wind down any existing arrangements which contravene the new rules. Its stance is even stricter than in other countries with strong pro-neutrality laws, such as Brazil and The Netherlands.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“This is the most extensive and stringent regulation on differential pricing anywhere in the world,” Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society, said. “Those who suggested regulation in place of complete ban have clearly lost.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Such decisions, combined with high spectrum costs, will quickly make the traditional cellular business model unworkable in India, and the more that happens, the more wireless internet innovation will switch to open networks running on Wi-Fi and unlicensed spectrum. R.S. Sharma, chairman of TRAI, was careful to tell reporters that the zero rating ruling would not affect any plans to offer free Wi-Fi services, like those planned by Google in a venture with Indian Railways.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">A disaster for MNOs, not Facebook</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook pronounced itself “disappointed” at TRAI’s ruling, having lobbied aggressively for a more flexible approach since RCOM was forced to suspend the Basics offering in December while the consultation process took place. But while the ruling bars the Basics offering – which provided free, low speed access, on RCOM’s network, to a selection of websites, curated by Facebook – it does not stop the social media giant pursuing other initiatives within its internet.org umbrella. These include projects to extend access using its own networks, powered by drones and unlicensed spectrum, to the unserved of India and other emerging economies.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">So while the TRAI decision may be a setback for Facebook, it is not the body blow that it represents for the MNOs with their huge debt loads and infrastructure costs, and low ARPUs. Facebook, with 130m users in India, has a comparable reach to the Indian MNOs (only three, Bharti Airtel, Vodafone and Idea, have more subscribers than Facebook has users), and is better skilled at monetizing those consumers.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The challenge for companies like Facebook is that strict neutrality rules reduce their ability to harness others’ networks in order to reach out to new users. There are about 240m people in India who are online, but don’t use Facebook, and about 800m who are not connected, so the growth potential is far larger than in the other 37 countries where Basics is offered, such as Kenya or Zambia (Facebook is blocked in China). Using RCOM’s network and marketing activities was a far cheaper way to reach some of those people than launching drones, but Facebook has other options too, including its existing efforts to make its services more usable on very basic handsets and connections; the ability to leverage the WhatsApp brand; and partnerships with Wi-Fi providers.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The drones may have less immediate results than Basics, but they are a high profile example of an ongoing shift towards open networks, which has been going on for years, driven more by Wi-Fi proliferation than neutrality laws. The latter will be an accelerant, however.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">All internet will be free, not zero rated</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Currently, zero rating is an increasingly popular tactic to lure users with an apparently cheap deal and then, hopefully, see them upgrade to richer data plans, or spend money on m-commerce and premium content, in future. Zero rating involves allowing users access to selected websites and services without it affecting their data caps or allowances.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The US regulator has so far tolerated the practice, but the debate is raging, there and elsewhere, over whether it infringes neutrality laws, by offering different pricing for different internet services. If other authorities take the stance adopted by TRAI in India, operators will have to find new ways to attract customers and differentiate themselves.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Increasingly, access to a truly open internet will be the baseline, and priced extremely low. That low pricing will be made commercially viable by rising use of Wi-Fi to reduce cost of data delivery, whether for MNOs, wireline providers or web players like Google and Facebook, which are moving into access provision. Providers, whether traditional or new, will have to stop regarding access to the internet as a premium service or a privilege – it will be more akin to connecting someone to the electricity grid, just the base enabler of the real revenue model.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Just as it’s only when users plug something into that grid that they start to pay fees, so the operators will charge for higher value offerings which ride on top of the internet – premium content, enterprise services, cloud storage, freemium applications and so on.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The mobile operators have not embraced these ideas willingly. For years, the ability to access the internet from a mobile device was regarded as a value-add, almost a miracle. Now that the wireless network is often the primary access method, they need to change their ideas and be more like the smarter cablecos – which have tacked internet access onto a model driven by paid-for content and services – or the web giants, which have worked out ways to monetize ‘free’ access, from advertising to big data.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This, of course, is one of the goals of internet.org and Google’s similar initiatives involving drones, white space spectrum and satellites. The more users are able to access the internet, preferably for free, and the more they see Google or Facebook as their primary conduits to the web, the more data these companies have to feed into their deep learning platforms, their context aware services and their advertising and big data engines.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">So while critics of TRAI said the zero rating decision was a setback to the goal of getting internet access into the hands of the huge underserved population of India, that population is too large and potentially rich for Facebook and its rivals to give up at the first hurdle.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote in a blog post: "While we're disappointed with today's decision, I want to personally communicate that we are committed to keep working to break down barriers to connectivity in India and around the world. Internet.org has many initiatives, and we will keep working until everyone has access to the internet."</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/telecom/news/the-register-february-15-2016-india-facebook-ruling-is-another-nail-in-coffin-of-mno-model'>http://editors.cis-india.org/telecom/news/the-register-february-15-2016-india-facebook-ruling-is-another-nail-in-coffin-of-mno-model</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial MediaTelecomFree BasicsTRAIInternet GovernanceFreedom of Speech and Expression2016-02-28T03:44:34ZNews ItemTwitter's India troubles show tough path ahead for digital platforms
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/dw-june-21-2021-aditya-sharma-twitter-india-troubles-show-tough-path-ahead-for-digital-platforms
<b>Twitter is in a standoff with Indian authorities over the government's new digital rules. Critics see the rules as an attempt to curb free speech, while others say more action is needed to hold tech giants accountable.
</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The blog by Aditya Sharma <a class="external-link" href="https://www.dw.com/en/twitters-india-troubles-show-tough-path-ahead-for-digital-platforms/a-57980916">was published by DW</a> on 21 June 2021. Torsha Sarkar was quoted.</p>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/Intermediary.jpg/@@images/08eb8de3-4fd6-408f-94d2-3f202da0e730.jpeg" alt="Intermediary" class="image-right" title="Intermediary" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Twitter holds a relatively low share of India's social media market. But, since 2017, the huge nation has emerged as Twitter's fastest-growing market, becoming critical to its global expansion plans.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In February, the Indian government <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/india-targets-twitter-whatsapp-with-new-regulatory-rules/a-56708566">introduced new guidelines</a> to regulate digital content on rapidly growing social media platforms.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The so-called Intermediary Guidelines are aimed at regulating content on internet platforms such as Twitter and Facebook, making them more accountable to legal requests for the removal of posts and sharing information about the originators of messages.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Employees at these companies can be held criminally liable for not complying with the government's requests.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Large social media firms must also set up mechanisms to address grievances and appoint executives to liaise with law enforcement under the new rules, as well as appoint an India-based compliance officer who would be held criminally liable for the content on their platforms.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Indian government says the rules empower "users who become victims of defamation, morphed images, sexual abuse," among other online crimes. It also said that the rules seek to tackle the problem of disinformation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">But critics fear that the rules could be used to target government opponents and make sure dissidents don't use the platforms.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Social media companies were expected to comply with the new rules by May 25.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Some Indian media reports have recently said that Twitter lost its status as an "intermediary" and the legal protection that came with it, due to its failure to comply with the new rules.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Failure to comply and serious implications</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Apar Gupta, the executive director of the Internet Freedom Foundation, a New Delhi-based digital rights advocacy group, says failure to comply with the rules could threaten Twitter's India operations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"Not complying with the rules would pose a real risk to Twitter's operational environment," he told DW.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"It will need to go to court to defend itself each time criminal prosecutions are launched against it," he added.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The first case against Twitter was filed last week, where it was charged with failing to stop the spread of a video on its platform that allegedly incited "hate and enmity" between two religious groups.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>'Heavy censorship'</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Gupta says adhering to all the government's demands would substantially change Twitter.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"Absolute compliance would mean heavy censorship of individual tweets, removal of the manipulated media tags, and blocking/suspension of accounts at the government's behest," he said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Torsha Sarkar, policy officer at the Bengaluru-based Centre for Internet and Society, fears that Twitter might at times be compelled to overcomply with government demands, threatening user rights.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"This can be either by over-complying with flawed information requests, thereby selling out its users, or taking down content that offends the majoritarian sensibilities," she told DW.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Last week, three special rapporteurs appointed by a top UN human rights body expressed "serious concerns" that certain parts of the guidelines "may result in the limiting or infringement of a wide range of human rights."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">They urged New Delhi to review the rules, adding that they did not conform to India's international human rights obligations and could threaten the digital rights of Indians.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Twitter's balancing act</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It is not the first time that Twitter has been accused of giving in to government pressure to censor content on its platform.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">At the height of the long-running farmer protests, <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/farmer-protests-india-blocks-prominent-twitter-accounts-detains-journalists/a-56411354">Twitter blocked hundreds of tweets</a> and accounts, including the handle of a prominent news magazine. It subsequently unblocked them following public outrage.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The US company stopped short of complying with demands to block the accounts of activists, politicians and journalists, arguing that such a move would "violate their fundamental right to free expression under Indian law."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">According to local media reports, Twitter's Indian executives were reportedly threatened with fines and imprisonment if the accounts were not taken down.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Special police notify Twitter offices</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Last month, the labeling of a tweet by a politician from the ruling BJP as "manipulated media" prompted a special unit of the <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/india-police-visit-twitter-offices-over-manipulated-tweet/a-57650193">Delhi police to visit Twitter's offices</a> in the capital and neighboring Gurgaon. Police notified the offices about an investigation into the labeling of the post.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Twitter India's managing director, Manish Maheswari, was said to have been asked to appear before the police for questioning, according to media reports.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Some Twitter employees have refused to talk about the ongoing tensions for fear of government reprisals.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"Such kind of intimidation does not happen every day. (But) Everyone at Twitter India is terrified," people familiar with the matter told DW on the condition of anonymity.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Big Tech VS sovereign power?</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Those calling for better regulation of tech giants say transnational <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/india-social-media-conflict/a-57702394">social media companies like Twitter lack accountability</a>, blaming them for the alleged inaction against online abuse and disinformation campaigns.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"The problem with these rules is that they centralize greater power toward the government without providing for the objective benefit of rights toward users," Gupta said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"If Twitter were to comply with these rules, it would make a bad situation worse," he said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Twitter is unlikely to ditch a major market such as India.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sarkar from the Centre for Internet and Society said "It might be difficult to say how the powers of big tech are going to collide with sovereign nations, especially in light of flawed legal interventions around the world."</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/dw-june-21-2021-aditya-sharma-twitter-india-troubles-show-tough-path-ahead-for-digital-platforms'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/dw-june-21-2021-aditya-sharma-twitter-india-troubles-show-tough-path-ahead-for-digital-platforms</a>
</p>
No publisherAditya SharmaSocial MediaInternet GovernanceIntermediary LiabilityInformation Technology2021-06-26T02:54:19ZNews ItemInterview with Pranesh Prakash
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/livemint-november-30-2012-video-interview-with-pranesh-prakash
<b>Pranesh Prakash of the Centre for Internet and Society talks to Mint’s Surabhi Agarwal about the controversial Section 66A of the IT Act and the government’s decision to tweak it. </b>
<hr />
<p>This video was <a class="external-link" href="http://origin-www.livemint.com/Multimedia/NXN6HB1L1UOLFyI8mwXUEJ/Video--Interview-with-Pranesh-Prakash.html">published in LiveMint </a>on November 30, 2012:</p>
<hr />
<p><iframe frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/TqDX3Y0jFhc" width="420"></iframe></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/livemint-november-30-2012-video-interview-with-pranesh-prakash'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/livemint-november-30-2012-video-interview-with-pranesh-prakash</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial MediaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceVideoCensorshipInformation Technology2012-11-30T06:58:39ZNews ItemGovt tweaks enforcement of IT Act after spate of arrests
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/livemint-politics-november-29-2012-surabhi-agarwal-govt-tweaks-enforcement-of-it-act-after-spate-of-arrests
<b>The government on Thursday tweaked the law to make it tougher for citizens to be arrested for online comments that are deemed offensive after recent arrests came in for heavy criticism by Internet activists, the media and other groups.</b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Surabhi Agarwal's article was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/Politics/hJLTj0OG2oXS1W64jE20bL/Govt-tries-to-tighten-application-of-cyber-law.html">published in LiveMint</a> on November 29, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This took place just before the Supreme Court was to hear a public interest litigation seeking an amendment to the Information Technology (IT) Act.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Complaints under the controversial Section 66A of the IT Act, which criminalizes “causing annoyance or inconvenience” online or electronically, can be registered only with the permission of an officer of or above the rank of deputy commissioner of police, and inspector general in metro cities, said a senior government official.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The government, however, has not amended the terms in the section that are said to be vague and subject to interpretation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The public interest litigation against Section 66A filed by student Shreya Singhal came up in chief justice <a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Altamas%20Kabir">Altamas Kabir</a>’s court on Thursday. The matter will be heard on Friday.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Two girls near Mumbai were arrested last week for criticizing on <a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Facebook">Facebook</a> the shutdown in the city for Shiv Sena chief <a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Bal%20Thackeray">Bal Thackeray</a>’s funeral. Earlier in November, a businessman in Puducherry was arrested for comments made on <a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Twitter">Twitter</a> against finance minister <a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/P.%20Chidambaram">P. Chidambaram</a>’s son <a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Karti%20Chidambaram">Karti Chidambaram</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">According to people present at the meeting of the cyber regulatory advisory committee on Thursday, the Union government will issue guidelines to states with respect to the compliance of the new enforcement rules soon. The people didn’t want to be named. An official said the move was not related to the case.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Pranesh%20Prakash">Pranesh Prakash</a>, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society think tank, said that while the change in the law is a step in the right direction and will eliminate a lot of frivolous complaints, more needs to be done to make the legislation specific.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Chief justice Kabir said the apex court was considering taking suo motu cognisance of recent incidents.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Singhal contended in her plea that “the phraseology of section 66A of the IT Act, 2000, is so wide and vague and incapable of being judged on objective standards, that it is susceptible to wanton abuse and, hence, falls foul of Article 14, 19 (1)(a) and Article 21 of the Constitution.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">She submitted that “unless there is judicial sanction as a prerequisite to the setting into motion the criminal law with respect to freedom of speech and expression, the law as it stands is highly susceptible to abuse and for muzzling free speech in the country.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The PIL was argued by Mukul Rohatgi, who said in his opening remarks that Section 66A was vague. Terms such as “offensive” and “annoyance” should be clearly defined as the section is part of criminal law, he said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Senior advocate Harish Salve, who was also present during the hearing, said India guaranteed the right to “annoy” and there was no need to have a separate law.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Salve, who is in the process of filing an intervention on behalf of some technology companies, added that the section needed to be narrowed to specifically cater to private messages sent electronically and not social media communications.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">He said the existing law of defamation should suffice and could be extended to include electronic communications. According to a lawyer who is part of the team representing Singhal, the petition also demanded that the law be made non-cognisable so that the police can’t make an arrest without an order from a magistrate.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“There has been a lot of misuse and abuse of the law recently and we want it to be struck down absolutely and also the court to issue guidelines,” he said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Apart from the incident at Palghar in Thane district involving the two girls, Singhal’s PIL referred to an April incident in which a professor of chemistry from Jadavpur University in West Bengal, <a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Ambikesh%20Mahapatra">Ambikesh Mahapatra</a>, was arrested for posting a cartoon concerning chief minister <a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Mamata%20Banerjee">Mamata Banerjee</a> on a social networking site.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">She also referred to the Puducherry case as well as the May arrests of two <a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Air%20India">Air India</a> Ltd employees, <a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/V.%20Jaganatharao">V. Jaganatharao</a> and <a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Mayank%20Sharma">Mayank Sharma</a>, by the Mumbai Police under the IT Act for posting content on Facebook and <a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Orkut">Orkut</a> against a trade union leader and some politicians.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Singhal has sought guidelines from the apex court to “reconcile Section 41 and 156 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) with Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution” and that offences under the Indian Penal Code and any other legislation, if they involve the freedom of speech and expression, be treated as a non-cognizable offences for the purposes of Sections 41 and 156 (1).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Section 41 of CPC empowers the police to arrest any person without an order from a magistrate and without a warrant in the event that the offence involved is a cognizable offence. Section 156 (1) empowers the investigation by the police into a cognizable offence without an order from a magistrate.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The government official present at the cyber regulatory advisory committee said the expressions used in Section 66A had been taken from different statutes around the world, including the UK and the US.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“There has been a broad consensus that the parameters of the law concerned might be in order but from a procedural standpoint there might be difficulty,” the official said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Prakash said that while some of the terms in the section may be taken from legislation overseas, the penalty imposed under the Indian law is far more stringent at three years of imprisonment than, for instance, six months under the UK law. “Criminal offences can’t be put at the same level as something which causes insult.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The cyber regulatory advisory committee meeting was attended by minister for communications and information technolgy Kapil Sibal, and secretaries of the department of telecommunications and information technology, besides representatives of technology companies such as Google and Facebook, industry associations and civil society.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The official also said that the situation will be reviewed every three to four months based on “ground realities”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A government official said on condition of anonymity that the decision to revive the cyber regulatory advisory committee had been taken at a meeting in August. Section 66A was put on the agenda since it was the subject of much debate, he said. The meeting, however, was not a pre-emptive measure ahead of the PIL that was taken up in the Supreme Court. The official also said that the government will spell out its position in court in favour of the legislation.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/livemint-politics-november-29-2012-surabhi-agarwal-govt-tweaks-enforcement-of-it-act-after-spate-of-arrests'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/livemint-politics-november-29-2012-surabhi-agarwal-govt-tweaks-enforcement-of-it-act-after-spate-of-arrests</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial MediaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceCensorshipInformation Technology2012-11-30T08:27:01ZNews ItemDraft nonsense
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/times-crest-pranesh-prakash-november-24-2012-draft-nonsense
<b>Seriously flawed and dodgily drafted provisions in the IT Act provide the state a stick to beat its citizens with.</b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Pranesh Prakash's <a class="external-link" href="http://www.timescrest.com/opinion/draft-nonsense-9274">op-ed was published in the Times of India</a> on November 24, 2012.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Section 66A of the Information Technology Act once again finds itself in the middle of a brewing storm. It has been used in cases ranging from the Mamata Banerjee cartoon case, the Aseem Trivedi case, the Karti Chidambaram case, the Chinmayi case, to the current Bal Thackeray-Facebook comments case. In all except the Karti Chidambaram case (which is actually a case of defamation where 's. 66A' is inapplicable), it was used in conjunction with another penal provision, showing that existing laws are more than adequate for regulation of online speech. That everything from online threats wishing sexual assault (the Chinmayi case) to harmless cartoons are sought to be covered under this should give one cause for concern. Importantly, this provision is cognisable (though bailable), meaning an arrest warrant isn't required. This makes it a favourite for those wishing to harass others into not speaking.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Section 66A prohibits the sending "by means of a computer resource or a communication device" certain kinds of messages. These messages are divided into three sub-parts : (a) anything that is "grossly offensive or has menacing character";(b) information known to be false for the purposes of "causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will" and is sent persistently;or (c) "for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages". This carries with it a punishment of up to three years in jail and a fine without an upper limit. As even non-lawyers can see, these are very broadly worded, with use of 'or' everywhere instead of 'and', and the punishment is excessive. The lawyers amongst the readers will note that while some of the words used are familiar from other laws (such as the Indian Penal Code), they are never used this loosely. And all should hopefully be able to conclude that large parts of section 66A are plainly unconstitutional.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">If that is so obvious, how did we end up getting this law? We copied (and badly at that) from the UK. The sad part is that the modifications that were introduced while copying are the bits that cause the most trouble. The most noteworthy of these changes are the increase in term of punishment to 3 years (in the UK it's 6 months); the late introduction (on December 16, 2008 by A Raja) of sub-section (c), meant as an anti-spam provision, but covering everything in the world except spam;and the mangling up of sub-section (b) to become a witches brew of all the evil intentions in this world.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Further, we must recognise that our Constitution is much stronger when it comes to issues like free speech than the UK's unwritten constitution, and our high courts and Supreme Court have the power to strike down laws for being unconstitutional, unlike in the UK where Parliament reigns supreme. The most the courts can do there is accommodate the European Convention on Human Rights by 'reading down' laws rather than striking them down.<br /><br />Lastly, even if we do decide to engage in policy-laundering, we need to do so intelligently. The way the government messed up section 66A should serve as a fine lesson on how not to do so. While one should fault the ministry of communications and IT for messing up the IT Act so badly, it is apparent that the law ministry deserves equal blame as well for being the sleeping partner in this deplorable joint venture. For instance, wrongfully accessing a computer to remove material which one believes can be used for defamation can be considered 'cyber-terrorism'. Where have all our fine legal drafters gone? In a meeting, former SEBI chairman M Damodaran noted how bad drafters make our policies seem far dumber than they are. We wouldn't be in this soup if we had good drafters who clearly understand the fundamental rights guaranteed by our constitution.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There are a great many things flawed in this unconstitutional provision, from the disproportionality of the punishment to the non-existence of the crime. The 2008 amendment to the IT Act was one of eight laws passed in 15 minutes without any debate in the 2008 winter session of Parliament. For far too long the Indian government has spoken about "multi-stakeholder" governance of the internet at international fora (meaning that civil society and industry must be seen as equal to governments when it comes to policymaking for the governance of the internet). It is about time we implemented multi-stakeholder internet governance domestically. The way to go forward in changing this would be to set up a multi-stakeholder body (including civil society and industry) which can remedy this and other ridiculously unconstitutional provisions of our IT Act.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/times-crest-pranesh-prakash-november-24-2012-draft-nonsense'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/times-crest-pranesh-prakash-november-24-2012-draft-nonsense</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIT ActSocial MediaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet Governance2012-12-03T09:08:10ZBlog Entry Interoperability and Portability as a Lever to Enhance User Choice and Privacy in Messaging Platforms
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/interoperability-and-portability-as-a-lever-to-enhance-user-choice-and-privacy-in-messaging-platforms
<b></b>
<p style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr"> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr">Since last year, digital platforms have been actively making the headlines in various countries for different acquisitions, raising questions around the anti-competitive nature of their behaviour. In the US, about 46 states filed an antitrust case against Facebook along with the Federal Trade Commission in December 2020, accusing them of buying out rivals such as WhatsApp, Instagram etc<a href="#_ftn1">[1]</a>. Recently, the US supreme court overturned the case by 46, stating it to be tardy and FTC’s case to be “legally insufficient”<a href="#_ftn2">[2]</a>. However, one of the solutions proposed for this problem by various experts and politicians is to break up Facebook<a href="#_ftn3">[3]</a>.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Influential people such as Vijay Shekhar Sharma (CEO, Paytm) in India argued similarly when Whatsapp updated its privacy policy to share data with Facebook. They suggested that the movement of users towards Signal could break Facebook's monopoly<a href="#_ftn4">[4]</a>. While it is conceivable that breaking up a platform or seeking an alternative for them will bring an end to their monopoly, well, in reality, is it so? This post will try to answer this question. In section 1, I discuss the importance of interoperability and portability amongst the messaging platforms for tackling monopoly, which, in turn, helps in enhancing user outcomes such as user choice and privacy. Section 2 discusses the enablers, legislative reimagining, and structural changes required in terms of technology to enable interoperability and portability amongst the messaging platforms. In section 3, I discuss the cost structure and profitability of a proposed message gateway entity, followed by the conclusion. </p>
<p dir="ltr"> </p>
<h3>1. Introduction</h3>
<p dir="ltr"><br />In the case of the platform economy, the formation of a monopoly is inevitable, especially in messaging platforms, because of (a) network effects and (b) lack of interoperability and portability between messaging platforms<a href="#_ftn5">[5]</a>. As the network effect gets vigorous, more users get locked into a single messaging platform leading toward a lack of user choice (in terms of switching platforms) and privacy concerns (as the messaging platforms get more significant, it poses a high risk in terms of data breaches, third-party data sharing etc.). For instance, as a WhatsApp user, it is difficult for me to switch towards any other messaging platforms as my friends, family and business/work still operate on WhatsApp. Messaging platforms also use the network effect towards their favour (a) by increasing the switching cost (b) by creating a high barrier to entry within the market<a href="#_ftn6">[6]</a>. </p>
<p dir="ltr">If there was interoperability between the messaging platforms, I could choose between the platforms freely- thereby negating some of the aforementioned limitations. Therefore, to create a competitive environment amongst messaging platforms to enhance user choice and privacy, it is crucial to have an interoperability and portability framework. To deploy interoperability and portability, it is imperative to have coordination among platforms while still competing for individual market share<a href="#_ftn7">[7]</a>. Interoperability and portability will also bring in healthy competition, as platforms will be nudged to explore alternative value propositions to remain competitive in the market<a href="#_ftn8">[8]</a>. One of the outcomes of this could be better consumer protection through innovation of privacy safeguards, etc. In addition to this, interoperability and portability could enable a low barrier to entry (through breaking the network effect), which could, in turn, increase online messaging penetration in untapped geographies as more messaging platforms emerge in the market.</p>
<p dir="ltr">There are two kinds of interoperability, vertical interoperability – i.e., interoperability of services across complementary platforms and horizontal interoperability – i.e., interoperability of services between competing platforms. While vertical interoperability exists in the form of the cloud system, multiple system login, etc., horizontal interoperability is yet to experiment at the market level. Nonetheless, realising the competition concerns in the digital platforms’ market, the European Union (European Electronic Communications Code<a href="#_ftn9">[9]</a>, Digital Service Act etc<a href="#_ftn10">[10]</a>.), the US (Stigler Committee Report<a href="#_ftn11">[11]</a>) and the UK Competition and Markets Authority<a href="#_ftn12">[12]</a> are mulling a move towards interoperability amongst the digital platforms. Furthermore, Facebook has already commissioned its efforts towards horizontal interoperability<a href="#_ftn13">[13]</a> amongst its messaging platforms, i.e., Messenger, WhatsApp and Instagram direct messages. This again adds to the competition concerns, as one platform uses interoperability towards its favour.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Besides, one of the bottlenecks towards enabling horizontal interoperability is the lack of technical interoperability – i.e., the ability to accept or transfer data, perform a task etc., across platforms. In the case of messaging platforms, lack of technical interoperability is caused due to the presence of different kinds of messaging platforms operating with different technical procedures. Therefore, to have effective horizontal interoperability and portability, it is crucial to streamline technical procedures and have guidelines which will enable technical interoperability. In the following section, I discuss the enablers, legislative reimagining, and structural changes required in terms of technology to enable interoperability and portability amongst the messaging platforms.</p>
<p dir="ltr"> </p>
<h3>2. Message Gateway Entity</h3>
<p align="center" style="text-align: left;"><strong id="docs-internal-guid-c306c6ef-7fff-4a15-1cbb-08b262bb3c75"><br /></strong></p>
<p dir="ltr">2.1. Formation of Message Gateway Entity to Enable Interoperability</p>
<p dir="ltr">To drive efficacious interoperability, it is imperative to form message gateway entities as for-profits that are regulated by a regulator (either an existing one such as TRAI or a newly established one). The three key functions of message gateway entities should be: (a) Maintain standard format for messaging prescribed by a standard-setting council, (b) Provide responsive user message delivery system to messaging platforms, (c) Deliver messages from one messaging platform to another seamlessly in real-time. There have to be multiple message gateway entities to enable competition, which will bring out more innovations, penetration, and effectiveness. Besides, it is prudent to have private players as message gateway entities as government-led message gateway entities for interoperability will not be fruitful as there will be a question of efficacy. Also, this might, in a way, bring the tender style business, which is problematic as the government could have a say in how and who it will provide its service (gatekeeping). However, the government has to set it up by itself only if it is a public good (missing markets) which might not be the case in message gateway entities.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Messaging platforms should be mandated through legislation/executive order to be a member of at least one of the message gateway entities to provide interoperability benefits to its users. Simultaneously, messaging platforms can also handle internal message delivery - User A to User B within the platform - amongst themselves.</p>
<p dir="ltr">While message gateway entities will enable interoperability between messaging platforms, it is crucial to have interoperability among themselves to compete in the market. For instance, a user from messaging platform under gateway A should be able to send messages to a user of a messaging platform under gateway B. Perhaps as we enable competition amongst the message gateways entities, the enrollment price will also become commensurate and affordable for small and new messaging platforms. In addition to this, to increase interoperability, message gateway entities should develop various awareness programs at the user level.</p>
<p dir="ltr"> Further, the regulatory guidelines for message gateway entities (governed by the regulator) must be uniform, with leeway for gateways to innovate technology to attract messaging platforms. Borrowing some of the facets from the various existing legislations, the below suggested aspects should advise the uniform guidelines,</p>
<ul><li style="list-style-type: disc;" dir="ltr">
<p dir="ltr">End-to-end encryption: As part of the uniform guidelines, message gateway entities should be mandated to enable end-end encryption for message delivery. In contrast, the recent Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021<a href="#_ftn14">[14]</a> tries to break the end-end encryption by mandating significant social media intermediaries to identify the first originator of a particular message (part II section 4 rule 2) sought through an order. As this mandate impinges upon user privacy and free speech, the Indian government should revise this rule to keep end-to-end encryption intact. Besides, WhatsApp (a significant social media intermediary) has moved to Delhi High Court to block the implementation of the rules, which came into force on May 27th, 2021<a href="#_ftn15">[15]</a>. Also, Rule 4(2) of IT Rules 2021 contradicts provisions of the PDP Bill 2019 such as privacy by design<a href="#_ftn16">[16]</a> (Section 22) and the right to be forgotten (Section 20).<br /><br /></p>
</li><li style="list-style-type: disc;" dir="ltr">
<p dir="ltr">Neutrality: The guidelines should have a strict rule for enforcing non-discrimination (similar to the Indian Government's 2018 net neutrality principles<a href="#_ftn17">[17]</a>) in delivering messages by message gateway entities. Discrimination against both messaging platforms and other message gateway entities has to be scrutinised. In addition to that, to hold message gateway entities accountable, the guidelines should mandate monthly disclosure of information (at the messaging platform level with information on which gateway entity they are routed through) on message deliveries and failures in a prescribed user-friendly format to the public.<br /><br /></p>
</li><li style="list-style-type: disc;" dir="ltr">
<p dir="ltr">Standard Format Setting: As various messaging platforms follow different formats for providing messaging services, to have seamless interoperability, message gateway entities must adhere to a standard format, which is compatible with formats followed within the market. This standard format has to keep up with technological evolution in this space and to be formulated by an independent standard-setting council (through stakeholder consultation) commissioned by the regulator. The maintenance of this standard format falls into the ambit of message gateway entities and should be governed by the regulator.<br /><br /></p>
</li><li style="list-style-type: disc;" dir="ltr">
<p dir="ltr"> Uniform identification information: As the users of messaging platforms identify other users through various means, for instance, on WhatsApp, we use the telephone number, whereas, on Instagram, we use profile name; thus, the unique identification information (UII) of a user (which can be something existing like a phone number or a new dedicated identification number) has to be standardised. Message gateway entities should facilitate messaging platforms with this process, and the generation of UII should be seamless for the user. Besides, a user's unique identification information has to be an additional way to search for other users within a messaging platform and would be crucial for messaging across platforms.<br /><br /></p>
</li><li style="list-style-type: disc;" dir="ltr">
<p dir="ltr">Consumer choice: While interoperability should be a default option for all the users, there has to be a user-friendly way of opt-out for the user who wishes to compartmentalise different kinds of messages depending upon the platform used. The unique identification information (in case of a new dedicated number) of a user who had opted out must be ceased to avoid misuse.One of the major reasons users opt-out of interoperability services could be to keep various digital public spheres (personal, leisure, professional, etc.) distant. To tackle this dilemma of the users, the messaging platforms should enable options such as (a) the optional notification for cross-platform messages with the snooze option, so that the user can decide if she wants the cross-platform message to hit the enrolled messaging platform at the given time. (b) The messaging platform should enable the “opt-out from messaging platform” setting for the users to disable messages from a list of platforms. Besides, users might choose to opt-out due to lack of trust. This has to be tackled by both the message gateway entities by creating awareness amongst the users on their rights and messaging platforms by providing a user-friendly privacy policy.<br /><br /></p>
</li><li style="list-style-type: disc;" dir="ltr">
<p dir="ltr">Data Protection: As the emergence of message gateway entities creates new data flow, this new flow of data has to take a data minimisation approach. Message gateway entities should be recognised as the data processor (one who processes data for data fiduciary, i.e., messaging platforms). They should adhere to the upcoming Personal Data Protection regime<a href="#_ftn18">[18]</a> to protect the data principals' personal data and collect personal data as per the proportionality principle. Message gateway entities should not collect any non-personal data or process any form of data to infer the behavioural traits of the data principals or messaging platforms. In addition to this, the name of the message gateway entity enrolled by the messaging platform, data collected and processed by the message gateway entity should be disclosed to the data principals through the messaging platform’s privacy policy.<br /><br /></p>
</li><li style="list-style-type: disc;" dir="ltr">
<p dir="ltr">Licensing: There should be a certain level of restriction on licensing to create a level playing field. Applicants for message gateway entities should not have an economic interest in any messaging platforms or social media intermediaries. Applicants have to ensure that the delivery failure of the messages should be at the level of 2% to 1%. Besides, to ensure low levels of delivery failure, data protection compliance and to check other requirements, message gateway entities have to go through technical and regulatory sandbox testing before issuing a license.<br /><br /></p>
</li><li style="list-style-type: disc;" dir="ltr">
<p dir="ltr">Consumer Protection: Users should be given a choice to block another user (using unique identification information) for various reasons such as personal, non-personal, phishing etc. After a stipulated number of blocking by multiple users, the suspected user should be denied access (temporarily or permanently according to the reasons) to message gateway entities. Before denying access, the message gateway entities should indicate the messaging platforms to notify the user. There has to be a robust grievance redressal mechanism for users and messaging platforms to raise their complaints regarding blocking, data protection, phishing etc. Besides, unique identification information has to be leveraged to prevent bot accounts and imposters. In addition to this, message gateway entities should be compatible with measures taken by messaging platforms to prevent the spread of disinformation and misinformation (such as restrictions on the number of recipients for forward messages).</p>
</li></ul>
<p dir="ltr"> </p>
<p dir="ltr">The figure below showcases the use case of the message exchange with the introduction of message gateway entities.</p>
<p dir="ltr"> </p>
<p dir="ltr"><img src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/MQgZuxU5iRI0hRzGifIb9obhlD7QA5UllDfJMXPdNPSs7qENsWZ9_8vIqs-EB12zDBhgYJwS8nzIw0zbBCJyKWDqN87la7e4vqdB_H9xbRk99Hc7OJp4oZeTtLl33pyCETVy5eAN" alt="null" height="465" width="624" /></p>
<p dir="ltr">Source: Author’s own illustration of the process of interoperability</p>
<p dir="ltr"> </p>
<p dir="ltr">2.2. Portability Feature to Compliment Interoperability</p>
<p dir="ltr">In the case of messaging platforms, when we talk about portability, it is essential to differentiate it into two: (a) portability of the unique identification information of the user from one platform to other seamlessly (b) portability of the user data from one platform to other followed by the portability of unique identification information. As the generation of unique identification information is facilitated by the message gateway entities, the portability of the same has to be done by the respective messaging gateway entity. Adopting some features of process and protocols from Mobile Number Portability<a href="#_ftn19">[19]</a> mandated by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, standard-setting council for messaging gateway entities (discussed above) should streamline the unique identification information portability process across messaging gateway entities.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Followed by the unique identification information porting, the message gateway entities should trigger a notification to the messaging platform (on behalf of the user) to transfer user data towards the requested platform. As mentioned in chapter V, section 19(1)(b) of The Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019, messaging platforms should transfer the user data towards the platform notified by the message gateway entity in the suggested or compatible format.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Globally since the emergence of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and other legislation that mandates data portability, platforms have launched the Data Transfer Project (DTP)<a href="#_ftn20">[20]</a> in 2018 to create a uniform format to port data. There are three components to the DTP, of which two are crucial, i.e., Data models and Company Specific Adapter. A Data Model is a set of common formats established through legislation to enable portability; in the case of messaging platforms, the standard-setting council can come up with the Data Model.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Under Company Specific Adapter, there are Data Adapters and Authentication Adapters. The Data Adapter converts the exporter platform’s data format into the Data Model and then into the importer platform’s data format. The Authentication Adapter enables users to provide consent for the data transfer. While Company Specific Adapters under DTP are broadly for digital platforms, adopting the same framework, message gateway entities can act as both a Data Adapter and as an Authentication Adapter to enable user data portability amongst the messaging platforms. Message gateway entities can help enrolled messaging platforms in format conversion for data portability and support users' authentication process using the unique identification information. Besides, as messaging gateway entities are already uniform and interoperable, cross transfer across message gateway entities can also be made possible.</p>
<p dir="ltr"> </p>
<h3>3. Profitability of Message Gateway Entities</h3>
<p dir="ltr">As the message gateway entities would operate as for-profits, they may cost the messaging platform one-time enrolment fees for membership through which the member (messaging platform) can avail interoperability and portability services. The enrolment fees should be a capital cost that compensates the messaging gateway entities for enabling technical interoperability. In addition to this, message gateway entities may levy minimal yearly fees to maintain the system, customer (messaging platforms) service and grievances portal (for both users and messaging platforms). Besides, in terms of update (as per new standards) or upgradation of the system, message gateway entities may charge an additional fee to the member messaging platforms.</p>
<p dir="ltr">On the other hand, messaging platforms don’t charge<a href="#_ftn21">[21]</a> a monetary fee for the service because the marginal cost of providing the service is near zero, while they incur only fixed cost. Besides, nothing is free in the platform economy as we pay the messaging platforms in the form of our personal and non-personal (behavioural) data, which they sell to advertisers<a href="#_ftn22">[22]</a>. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Therefore, messaging platforms have to consider the fee paid to the message gateway entities as part of their fixed cost such that they continue not to charge (monetary) users for the service as the cost-per-user would still be very low. Besides, messaging platforms also have economic incentives in providing interoperability as it could reduce multi-homing (i.e., when some users join or use multiple platforms simultaneously).</p>
<p dir="ltr"> </p>
<h3>4. Conclusion</h3>
<p dir="ltr">While breaking up Facebook and other bigger social media or messaging platforms could bring a level playing field, this process could consume a large portion of resources and time. Irrespective of a breakup, in the absence of interoperability and portability, the network effect will favour few platforms due to high switching cost, which leads to a high entry barrier.</p>
<p dir="ltr">When we text users using Short Message Service (SMS), we don't think about which carrier the recipient uses. Likewise, messaging across messaging platforms should be platform-neutral by adopting interoperability and portability features. Besides, interoperability and portability will also bring healthy competition, which would act as a lever to enhance user choice and privacy.</p>
<p dir="ltr">This also opens up questions for future research on the demand-side. We need to explore the causal effect of interoperability and portability on users to understand whether they will switch platforms when provided with port and interoperate options.</p>
<p dir="ltr"> </p>
<p dir="ltr"><em>This article has been edited by Arindrajit Basu, Pallavi Bedi, Vipul Kharbanda and Aman Nair. </em></p>
<p dir="ltr"><em>The author is a tech policy enthusiast. He is currently pursuing PGP in Public Policy from the Takshashila Institution. Views are personal and do not represent any organisations. The author can be reached at kameshsshekar@gmail.com</em></p>
<hr />
<p> </p>
<p dir="ltr"><strong> Footnotes</strong></p>
<p dir="ltr"> </p>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> Rodrigo, C. M., & Klar, R. (2020). 46 states and FTC file antitrust lawsuits against Facebook. Retrieved from The Hill: <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/technology/529504-state-ags-ftc-sue-facebook-alleging-anti-competitive-practices">https://thehill.com/policy/technology/529504-state-ags-ftc-sue-facebook-alleging-anti-competitive-practices</a></p>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a> Is Facebook a monopolist? (2021). Retrieved from The Economist:<a href="https://www.economist.com/business/2021/07/03/is-facebook-a-monopolist">https://www.economist.com/business/2021/07/03/is-facebook-a-monopolist</a></p>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="#_ftnref3">[3]</a> Hughes, C. (2019). It’s Time to Break Up Facebook. Retrieved from The New York Times: <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/opinion/sunday/chris-hughes-facebook-zuckerberg.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/opinion/sunday/chris-hughes-facebook-zuckerberg.html</a></p>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="#_ftnref4">[4]</a> Shekar, K. (2021). An Elephant in the Room – Recent Case of WhatsApp Fallout Amongst Indian Users. Retrieved from Takshashila Institution: <a href="https://takshashila.org.in/an-elephant-in-the-room-recent-case-of-whatsapp-fallout-amongst-indian-users/">https://takshashila.org.in/an-elephant-in-the-room-recent-case-of-whatsapp-fallout-amongst-indian-users/</a></p>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="#_ftnref5">[5]</a> Manur, A. (2018). How to Regulate Internet Platforms Without Breaking them . Retrieved from AsiaGlobal Online: <a href="https://www.asiaglobalonline.hku.hk/regulate-internet-platforms-antitrust-competition/">https://www.asiaglobalonline.hku.hk/regulate-internet-platforms-antitrust-competition/</a></p>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="#_ftnref6">[6]</a> Ibid</p>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="#_ftnref7">[7]</a> Nègre, A. (2021). How Can Funders Promote Interoperable Payments? Retrieved from CGAP Blog: <a href="https://www.cgap.org/blog/how-can-funders-promote-interoperable-payments">https://www.cgap.org/blog/how-can-funders-promote-interoperable-payments</a>;</p>
<p dir="ltr">Cook, W. (2017). Rules of the Road: Interoperability and Governance. Retrieved from CGAP Blog: <a href="https://www.cgap.org/blog/rules-road-interoperability-and-governance">https://www.cgap.org/blog/rules-road-interoperability-and-governance</a></p>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="#_ftnref8">[8]</a> Punjabi, A., & Ojha, S. (n.d.). PPI Interoperability: A roadmap to seamless payments infrastructure. Retrieved from PWC: <a href="https://www.pwc.in/consulting/financial-services/fintech/payments/ppi-interoperability.html">https://www.pwc.in/consulting/financial-services/fintech/payments/ppi-interoperability.html</a></p>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="#_ftnref9">[9]</a> Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on a Single Market For Digital Services (Digital Services Act) . (n.d.). Retrieved from European Union: <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?qid=1608117147218&uri=COM%3A2020%3A825%3AFIN">https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?qid=1608117147218&uri=COM%3A2020%3A825%3AFIN</a></p>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="#_ftnref10">[10]</a> European Electronic Communications Code (EECC). (n.d.). Retrieved from <a href="https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/339a9-european-electronic-communications-code-eecc/">https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/339a9-european-electronic-communications-code-eecc/</a></p>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="#_ftnref11">[11]</a> Stigler Center News Stigler Committee on Digital Platforms: Final Report. (n.d.). Retrieved from Chicago Booth: <a href="https://www.chicagobooth.edu/research/stigler/news-and-media/committee-on-digital-platforms-final-report">https://www.chicagobooth.edu/research/stigler/news-and-media/committee-on-digital-platforms-final-report</a></p>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="#_ftnref12">[12]</a> Brown, I. (n.d.). Interoperability as a tool for competition regulation. CyberBRICS.</p>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="#_ftnref13">[13]</a> Facebook is hard at work to merge its family of messaging apps: Zuckerberg. (2020). Retrieved from Business Standard: <a href="https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/facebook-is-hard-at-work-to-merge-its-family-of-messaging-apps-zuckerberg-120103000470_1.html">https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/facebook-is-hard-at-work-to-merge-its-family-of-messaging-apps-zuckerberg-120103000470_1.html</a></p>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="#_ftnref14">[14]</a>Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021. (n.d.). Retrieved from: <a href="https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Intermediary_Guidelines_and_Digital_Media_Ethics_Code_Rules-2021.pdf">https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Intermediary_Guidelines_and_Digital_Media_Ethics_Code_Rules-2021.pdf</a></p>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="#_ftnref15">[15]</a> Menn, Joseph. 2021. "WhatsApp sues Indian government over new privacy rules - sources." Reuters. Retrieved from: <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/india/exclusive-whatsapp-sues-india-govt-says-new-media-rules-mean-end-privacy-sources-2021-05-26/">https://www.reuters.com/world/india/exclusive-whatsapp-sues-india-govt-says-new-media-rules-mean-end-privacy-sources-2021-05-26/</a></p>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="#_ftnref16">[16]</a> Raghavan, M. (2021). India’s New Intermediary & Digital Media Rules: Expanding the Boundaries of Executive Power in Digital Regulation. Retrieved from Future of Privacy Forum:<a href="https://fpf.org/blog/indias-new-intermediary-digital-media-rules-expanding-the-boundaries-of-executive-power-in-digital-regulation/">https://fpf.org/blog/indias-new-intermediary-digital-media-rules-expanding-the-boundaries-of-executive-power-in-digital-regulation/</a></p>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="#_ftnref17">[17]</a>Net Neutrality. (n.d.). Retrieved from Department of Telecommunications: <a href="https://dot.gov.in/net-neutrality">https://dot.gov.in/net-neutrality</a>;</p>
<p dir="ltr">Parsheera, S. (n.d.). Net Neutrality In India: From Rules To Enforcement. Retrieved from Medianama: <a href="https://www.medianama.com/2020/05/223-net-neutrality-india-rules-enforcement/">https://www.medianama.com/2020/05/223-net-neutrality-india-rules-enforcement/</a></p>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="#_ftnref18">[18]</a>The Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019. (n.d.). Retrieved from: <a href="http://164.100.47.4/BillsTexts/LSBillTexts/Asintroduced/373_2019_LS_Eng.pdf">http://164.100.47.4/BillsTexts/LSBillTexts/Asintroduced/373_2019_LS_Eng.pdf</a></p>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="#_ftnref19">[19]</a> Consultation Paper on Review of Interconnection Usage Charges, 2019. TRAI.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Mobile Number Portability. (n.d.). Retrieved from TRAI: <a href="https://www.trai.gov.in/faqcategory/mobile-number-portability">https://www.trai.gov.in/faqcategory/mobile-number-portability</a></p>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="#_ftnref20">[20]</a> Data Transfer Project. (2018). Retrieved from <a href="https://datatransferproject.dev/">https://datatransferproject.dev</a></p>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="#_ftnref21">[21]</a> Aulakh, G. (n.d.). How messaging apps like WhatsApp, WeChat can make money while offering free texting and calling. Retrieved from Economic Times: <a href="https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/software/how-messaging-apps-like-whatsapp-wechat-can-make-money-while-offering-free-texting-and-calling/articleshow/62666227.cms">https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/software/how-messaging-apps-like-whatsapp-wechat-can-make-money-while-offering-free-texting-and-calling/articleshow/62666227.cms</a></p>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="#_ftnref22">[22]</a> (2019). Report of the Competition Law Review Committee. Ministry of Corporate Affairs.<br /><br /></p>
<p dir="ltr"><strong>Bibliography</strong></p>
<ol><li>Master Direction on Issuance and Operation of Prepaid Payment Instruments. (n.d.). Retrieved from Reserve Bank of India: <a href="https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/BS_ViewMasDirections.aspx?id=11142">https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/BS_ViewMasDirections.aspx?id=11142</a></li><li>Privacy Without Monopoly: Data Protection and Interoperability. (2021). Retrieved from Electronic Frontier Foundation: <a href="https://www.eff.org/wp/interoperability-and-privacy">https://www.eff.org/wp/interoperability-and-privacy</a></li><li>Sullivan, M. (2021). How interoperability could end Facebook’s death grip on social media. Retrieved from Fast Company: <a href="https://www.fastcompany.com/90609208/social-networking-interoperability-facebook-antitrust">https://www.fastcompany.com/90609208/social-networking-interoperability-facebook-antitrust</a></li><li>Tinworth, A. (n.d.). Why Messenger Interoperability is a digital canary in the coal mine. Retrieved from NEXT: <a href="https://nextconf.eu/2019/06/why-messenger-interoperability-is-a-digital-canary-in-the-coal-mine/#gref">https://nextconf.eu/2019/06/why-messenger-interoperability-is-a-digital-canary-in-the-coal-mine/#gref</a></li></ol>
<p align="center" style="text-align: left;"> </p>
<p dir="ltr"> </p>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div id="ftn22"> </div>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/interoperability-and-portability-as-a-lever-to-enhance-user-choice-and-privacy-in-messaging-platforms'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/interoperability-and-portability-as-a-lever-to-enhance-user-choice-and-privacy-in-messaging-platforms</a>
</p>
No publisherKamesh ShekarMessagingInteroperabilitySocial Media2021-07-06T11:37:05ZBlog EntryVodafone Report Explains Government Access to Customer Data
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/vodafone-report-explains-govt-access-to-customer-data
<b>Vodafone Group PLC, the world’s second largest mobile carrier, released a report on Friday, June 6 2014 disclosing to what extent governments can request their customers’ data.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="http://www.vodafone.com/content/dam/sustainability/2014/pdf/vodafone_full_report_2014.pdf">The Law Enforcement Disclosure Report</a>, a section of a larger annual Sustainability Report began by asserting that Vodafone "customers have a right to privacy which is enshrined in international human rights law and standards and enacted through national laws."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, the report continues, Vodafone is incapable of fully protecting its customers right to privacy, because it is bound by the laws in the various countries in which it operates. "If we do not comply with a lawful demand for assistance, governments can remove our license to operate, preventing us from providing services to our customers," The report goes into detail about the laws in each of the 29 nations where the company operates.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Vodafone’s report is one of the first published by a multinational service provider. Compiling such a report was especially difficult, according to the report, for a few reasons. Because no comparable report had been published before, Vodafone had to figure out for themselves, the “complex task” of what information they could legally publish in each country. This difficulty was compounded by the fact that Vodafone operates physical infrastructure and thus sets up a business in each of the countries where it provides services. This means that Vodafone is subject to the laws and operating licenses of each nation where it operates, unlike as a search engine such as Google, which can provide services across international borders but still be subject to United States law – where it is incorporated.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The report is an important step forward for consumer privacy. First, the Report shows that the company is aware of the conflict of interest between government authorities and its customers, and the pivotal position that the company can play in honoring the privacy of its users by providing information regarding the same in all cases where it legally can. Additionally, providing the user insight into challenges that the company faces when addressing and responding to law enforcement requests, the Report provides a brief overview of the legal qualifications that must be met in each country to access customer data. Also, Vodafone’s report has encouraged other telecom companies to disclose similar information to the public. For instance, Deutsche Telekom AG, a large European and American telecommunications company, said Vodafone’s report had led it consider releasing a report of it’s own.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Direct Government Access</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The report revealed that six countries had constructed secret wires or “pipes” which allowed them access to customers’ private data. This means that the governments of these six countries have immediate access to Vodafone’s network without any due process, oversight, or accountability for these opaque practices. Essentially, the report reveals, in order to operate in one of these jurisdictions, a communications company must ensure that authorities have, real time and direct access to all personal customer data at any time, without any specific justification. The report does not name these six nations for legal reasons.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"These pipes exist, the direct access model exists,” Vodafone's group privacy officer, Stephen Deadman, told the Guardian. “We are making a call to end direct access as a means of government agencies obtaining people's communication data. Without an official warrant, there is no external visibility. If we receive a demand we can push back against the agency. The fact that a government has to issue a piece of paper is an important constraint on how powers are used."</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Data Organization</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Vodafone’s Report lists the aggregate number of content requests they received in each country where it operates, and groups these requests into two major categories. The first is Lawful Interceptions, which is when the government directly listens in or reads the content of a communication. In the past, this type of action has been called wiretapping, but now includes reading the content of text messages, emails, and other communications.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The second data point Vodafone provides for each country is the number of Communications Data requests they receive from each country. These are requests for the metadata associated with customer communications, such as the numbers they have been texting and the time stamps on all of their texts and calls.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It is worth noting that all of the numbers Vodafone reports are warrant statistics rather than target statistics. Vodafone, according to the report, has chosen to include the number of times a government sent a request to Vodafone to "intrude into the private affairs of its citizens, not the extent to which those warranted activities then range across an ever-expanding multiplicity of devices, accounts and apps."</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Data Construction</h3>
<p>However, in many cases, laws in the various companies in which Vodafone operates prohibit Vodafone from publishing all or part of the aforementioned data. In fact, this is the rule rather than the exception. The majority of countries, including India, prohibit Vodafone from releasing the number of data requests they receive. Other countries publish the numbers themselves, so Vodafone has chosen not to reprint their statistics either. This is because Vodafone wants to encourage governments to take responsibility for informing their citizens of the statistics themselves.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The report also makes note of the process Vodafone went through to determine the legality of publishing these statistics. It was not always straightforward. For example, in Germany, when Vodafone’s legal team went to examine the legislation governing whether or not they could publish statistics on government data requests, they concluded that the laws were unclear, and asked German authorities for advice on how to proceed. They were informed that publishing any such statistics would be illegal, so they did not include any German numbers in their report. However, since that time, other local carriers have released similar statistics, and thus the situation remains unresolved.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Other companies have also recently released reports. Twitter, a microblogging website, Facebook, a social networking website, and Google a search engine with social network capabilities have all released comparable reports, but their reports differ from Vodafone’s in a number of ways. While Twitter, Google, and Facebook all specified the percent of requests granted, Vodafone released no similar statistics. However, Vodafone prepared discussions of the various legal constraints that each country imposed on telecom companies, giving readers an understanding of what was required in each country for authorities to access their data, a component that was left out of other recent reports. Once again, Vodafone’s report differed from those of Google Facebook and Twitter because while Vodafone opens businesses in each of the countries where it operates and is subject to their laws, Google, Facebook, and Twitter are all Internet companies and so are only governed by United States law.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Google disclosed that it received 27,427 requests over a six-month period ending in December, 2013, and also noted that the number of requests has increased consistently each six-month period since data began being compiled in 2009, when fewer than half as many requests were being made. On the other hand Google said that the percentage of requests it complied with (64% over the most recent period) had declined significantly since 2010, when it complied with 76% of requests.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Google went into less detail when explaining the process non-American authorities had to go through to access data, but did note that a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty was the primary way governments outside of the United States could force the release of user data. Such a treaty is an agreement between the United States and another government to help each other with legal proceedings. However, the report indicated that Google might disclose user information in situations when they were not legally compelled to, and did not go into detail about how or when it did that. Thus, given the difficulty of obtaining a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty in addition to local warrants or subpoenas, it seems likely that Google complies with many more non-American data requests than it was legally forced to.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook has only released two such reports so far, for the two six month periods in 2013, but they too indicated an increasing number of requests, from roughly 26,000 to 28,147. Facebook plans to continue issuing reports every six months.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Twitter has also seen an increase of 22% in government requests between this and the previous reporting period, six months ago. Twitter attributes this increase in requests to an increase in users internationally, and it does seem that the website has a similarly growing user base, according to charts released by Twitter. It is worth noting that while large nations such as the United States and India are responsible for the majority of government requests, smaller nations such as Bulgaria and Ecuador also order telecom and Internet companies to turn over data.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Vodaphone’s Statistics</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Though Vodafone’s report didn’t print statistics for the majority of the countries the report covered, looking at the few numbers they did publish can shed some light on the behavior of governments in countries where publishing such statistics is illegal. For the countries where Vodafone does release data, the numbers of government requests for Vodafone data were much higher than for Google data. For instance, Italy requested Vodafone data 605,601 times, while requesting Google data only 896 times. This suggests that other countries such as India could be looking at many more customers’ data through telecom companies like Vodafone than Internet companies like Google.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Vodafone stressed that they were not the only telecom company that was being forced to share customers’ data, sometimes without warrants. In fact, such access was the norm in countries where authorities demanded it.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">India and the Reports</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India is one of the most proliferate requesters of data, second only to the United States in number of requests for data from Facebook and fourth after the United States, France and Germany in number of requests for data from Google. In the most recent six-month period, India requested data from Google 2,513 times, Facebook 3,598 times, and Twitter 19 times. The percentage of requests granted varies widely from country. For example, while Facebook complies with 79% of United States authorities’ requests, it only grants 50% of India’s requests. Google responds to 83% of US requests but only 66% of India’s.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook also provides data on the number of content restrictions each country requests. A content restriction request is where an authority asks Facebook to take down a particular status, photo, video, or other web content and no longer display it on their site. India, with 4,765 requests, is the country that most often asks Facebook to remove content.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While Vodafone’s report publishes no statistics on Indian data requests, because such disclosure would be illegal, it does discuss the legal considerations they are faced with. In India, the report explains, several laws govern Internet communications. The Information Technology Act (ITA) of 2000 is the parent legislation governing information technology in India. The ITA allows certain members of Indian national or state governments order an interception of a phone call or other communication in real time, for a number of reasons. According to the report, an interception can be ordered “if the official in question believes that it is necessary to do so in the: (a) interest of sovereignty and integrity of India; (b) the security of the State; (c) friendly relations with foreign states; (d) public order; or (e) the prevention of incitement of offences.” In short, it is fairly easy for a high-ranking official to order a wiretapping in India.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The report goes on to detail Indian authorities’ abilities to request other customer data beyond a lawful interception. The Code of Criminal Procedure allows a court or police officer to ask Vodafone and other telecom companies to produce “any document or other thing” that the officer believes is necessary for any investigation. The ITA extends this ability to any information stored in any computer, and requires service providers to extend their full assistance to the government. Thus, it is not only legally simple to order a wiretapping in India; it is also very easy for authorities to obtain customer web or communication data at any time.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It is clear that Indian laws governing communication have very little protections in place for consumer privacy. However, many in India hope to change this reality. The Group of Experts chaired by Justice AP Shah, the Department of Personnel and Training, along with other concerned groups have been working towards the drafting of a privacy legislation for India. According to the <a href="http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_privacy.pdf">Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy</a>, the legislation would fix the 50 or so privacy laws in India that are outdated and unable to protect citizen’s privacy when they use modern technology.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On the other hand, the Indian government is moving forward with a number of plans to further infringe the privacy of civilians. For example, the Central Monitoring System, a clandestine electronic surveillance program, gives India’s security agencies and income tax officials direct access to communications data in the country. The program began in 2007 and was announced publicly in 2009 to little fanfare and muted public debate. The system became operational in 2013.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Conclusion</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Vodafone’s report indicates that it is concerned about protecting its customer’s privacy, and Vodafone’s disclosure report is an important step forward for consumer web and communication privacy. The report stresses that company practice and government policy need to come together to protect citizen’s privacy and –businesses cannot do it alone. However, the report reveals what companies can do to effect privacy reform. By challenging authorities abilities to access customer data, as well as publishing information about these powers, they bring the issue to the government’s attention and open it up to public debate. Through Vodafone’s report, the public can see why their governments are making surveillance decisions. Yet, in India, there is still little adoption of transparent business practices such as these. Perhaps if more companies were transparent about the level of government surveillance their customers were being subjected to, their practices and policies for responding to requests from law enforcement, and the laws and regulations that they are subject to - the public would press the government for stronger privacy safeguards and protections.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/vodafone-report-explains-govt-access-to-customer-data'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/vodafone-report-explains-govt-access-to-customer-data</a>
</p>
No publisherjoeSocial MediaInternet Governance2014-06-19T10:38:01ZBlog EntryStay connected even when you go underground
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/the-hindu-june-11-2014-sunita-sekhar-stay-connected-even-when-you-go-underground
<b>CMRL may soon start making arrangements to ensure good mobile connectivity on the underground stretch.</b>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">The <a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/chennai/chen-infra/stay-connected-even-when-you-go-underground/article6105262.ece">article by Sunita Sekhar was published in the Hindu</a> on June 12, 2014. Nishant Shah gave his inputs.</p>
<hr />
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">A really erratic mobile network connection is something all of us have probably experienced, while on the move, every now and then.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">If your mobile phone signal can fail you on the road, have you thought what it will be like when you ride underground?</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Perhaps it is time to put that thought into your head. Not very many years from now, it is likely you will be riding the Chennai Metro underground.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Folks at Chennai Metro Rail Ltd. (CMRL) have, however, already thought of this, to their credit.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">CMRL may soon start making arrangements to ensure good mobile connectivity on the underground stretch.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">“We are considering various options to boost mobile network underground. It is important we provide such a service,” says a CMRL official. Chennai Metro, built at a cost of Rs. 14,600 crore, 45 km across the city, will have 24 km underground. Of the 32 stations, 19 will be underground.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">CMRL has drawn the idea from Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC), a principal consultant. Sometime back, Delhi Metro Rail had installed additional cellular towers at its underground stations to improve mobile connectivity.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">The value of such a facility will surface especially during a crisis, according to Nishant Shah of Centre for Internet and Society.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">“Connectivity becomes crucial when something untoward — be it breakdown of infrastructure or even sexual harassment — occurs on the underground stretch. It needs to be recorded or documented immediately,” he says.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Janaki Pillai of Ability Foundation says connectivity is particularly critical for the hearing impaired, who often use the messaging and WhatsApp services.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">“But the question of them using the underground stations and the need for mobile connectivity arises only when the stations are accessible. Whether I choose to use it or not is different, but the service should be available and the choice should be mine,” she says.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/the-hindu-june-11-2014-sunita-sekhar-stay-connected-even-when-you-go-underground'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/the-hindu-june-11-2014-sunita-sekhar-stay-connected-even-when-you-go-underground</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial MediaInternet Governance2014-07-04T15:15:11ZNews ItemFOEX Live
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/foex-live
<b>Selections of news on online freedom of expression and digital technology from across India (and some parts of the world)</b>
<p><iframe frameborder="0" height="650" src="http://cdn.knightlab.com/libs/timeline/latest/embed/index.html?source=0Aq0BN7sFZRQFdGJqaHNnSC1YNTYzZEM0SThGd2ZGVFE&font=Bevan-PotanoSans&maptype=toner&lang=en&height=650" width="100%"></iframe></p>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>For feedback, comments and any incidents of online free speech violation you are troubled or intrigued by, please email Geetha at </span><span>geetha[at]cis-india.org or on Twitter at @covertlight.</span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/foex-live'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/foex-live</a>
</p>
No publishergeethaSocial MediaFeedbackPress FreedomsCensorshipFOEX LiveHuman Rights OnlineChilling EffectSection 66AArticle 19(1)(a)2014-07-07T12:36:49ZBlog EntrySo Much to Lose
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/indian-express-dec-2-2012-nishant-shah-so-much-to-lose
<b>Unless you have been hiding under a rock, you have been a witness to the maelstrom of events that accompanied the death of the political leader Bal Thackeray.</b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: center; ">Nishant Shah's <a class="external-link" href="http://www.indianexpress.com/news/so-much-to-lose/1038938/0">column was published in the Indian Express</a> on December 2, 2012.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Unless you have been hiding under a rock, you have been a witness to the maelstrom of events that accompanied the death of the political leader Bal Thackeray. For me, the brouhaha was elbowed out by the case of the police arresting two women for critiquing the events on Facebook. The person who wondered about the nature of the enforced mourning and the state of our public life, and her friend who “liked” the comment on Facebook, were booked and arrested under charges that can only be considered preposterous.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">I will not repeat these arguments because it is needless to say that I am on the side of the women and think of this as yet another manifestation of the stringent measures which are being evolved as an older broadcast way of thinking meets the decentralised realities of digital technologies.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In the midst of this the idea of internet freedom needs to be revisited. The global Press Freedom Index 2011-12 report compiled by Reporters Without Borders, ranks India at 131, or as a “partly free” country, marking us as a country where the notion of internet freedom is not to be taken for granted, and possibly also one where the concept is not properly understood.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Citing various instances from the central government’s plans to censor the social web to the authoritarian crackdown on activists and cultural producers involved in online civic protests, from the traditional media industry’s stronghold over intellectual property regimes to the arrest of individuals for voicing their independent critiques online, the report shows that we not only have an infrastructure deficit (with only 10 per cent of the people in the country connected), but also a huge social and political deficit, which is being exposed by our actions and reactions to the Web.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Take the case of professor Ambikesh Mahapatra dean of the chemistry department of Jadavpur University, who was picked up by the police and lodged in the lock up for almost 40 hours for forwarding an e-mail that contained a cartoon of Trinamool Congress leaders Mamata Banerjee, Mukul Roy and Dinesh Trivedi. He and his housing society co-resident Subrata Sengupta were charged with defamation and outraging the modesty of a woman. While the proceedings are underway with the next date of hearing slated in February, 2013, the Jadavpur university professor says, “Section, 66A of the IT Act is being used for suppression of the freedom of speech. In my opinion, it is being misused by the state government, repeatedly. The section does not empower anyone to arrest those who voice their opinion and never meant to harm anybody’s image. Prompt action is needed to check the misuse of law.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Likewise, Ravi Srinivasan, a 46-year-old a businessman from Pondicherry, was arrested for tweeting against Karti Chidambaram, son of Union Finance Minister P Chidambaram. His arrest and consequent release has not blunted his spirit. He says, “At the time (of the arrest) I had not heard of Section 66(A). I still cannot fathom why and how a tweet sent out to just 12 people — half of them family and friends — caught the eye of the police. By evening, when I had come home from the police station, my Twitter following had gone up to 1,700. About 15,000 people re-tweeted the statement that got me arrested.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Given the series of incidents that have marked the last year and the whimsical nature of regulatory injunctions on internet freedom in the country, it might be a good idea for us to reflect on democracy and freedom.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">We need to examine the fundamental nature of freedom, and how these attempts at regulating the internet are only a symptom of the systemic failures of enshrining freedom of speech, information, identity and dignity in India. However, internet freedom is often a difficult concept to engage with, because it is one of those phrases that seem to be self-explanatory but without a straightforward explanation. There are three axes which might be useful to unpack the baggage that comes with internet freedom, both for our everyday practices, and our imagined future:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Freedom of: The freedom of the internet is something that is new and needs more attention. We have to stop thinking of the internet as merely a medium or a conduit of information. As the Web becomes inextricably linked with our everyday lives, the internet is no longer just an appendage or an externality. It becomes a reference point through which our social, political and economic practices are shaped. It becomes a defining point through which we draw our meanings of what it is to be a part of the society, to have rights, to be politically aware, to be culturally engaged — to be a human. The freedom of the Net is important because the crackdowns on the Net are an attack on our rights and freedoms. The silencing of a voice on Facebook, might soon gag the voices of people on the streets, creating conditions of silence in the face of violence perpetuated by the powerful.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Freedom to: Freedom to the internet is often confused with access to the internet. While, of course, access is important in our imagination of a just society where everybody is equally connected, freedom is also about creating open and fair societies. If the power of the internet is in creating alternative spaces of expression, deliberation and opinion-making, then the freedom to the internet is about being safe and responsible in these spaces. A society that controls these spaces of public discussion, under the guise of security and public safety, is a society that has given up its faith in freedom.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Freedom for: It is often not clear that when popular technologies of information and communication are regulated and censored, it is not merely the technology that is being controlled. What is being shaped and contained is the way people use them. The freedom for the internet is about the freedom for people. The possibility that Internet Service Providers are being coerced into revealing personal information of users to police states, that intermediaries are being equipped to remove content that they find offensive from the web, and that views expressed on the social media can lead to legal battles by those who have the power but not the acumen to exercise it, all have alarming consequences. There is a need to fight for freedom, not only for the defence of technology but also for the defence of the rights that we cherish that risk being eroded.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The case of these Facebook arrests is not new. It has happened before and it will continue happening as immature governments are unable to cope with the real voices of representational democracy. These cases sometimes get naturalised because they get repeated, and even without our knowledge, can start creating a life of fear, where we internalise the regulatory system, not voicing our opinions and ideas for fear of persecution. And so, whether you agree with their politics or not, whether you endorse the viewpoints of the people who are under arrest, whether you feel implicated or not in this case, we have to realise that even if we might not agree with somebody’s viewpoint, we must defend their right to have that particular viewpoint. Anything else, and tomorrow, when you want to say something against powers of oppression, you might find yourself alone, as your voice gets heard only by those who will find creative ways of silencing you.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">— With inputs from Gopu Mohan, Madhuparna Das and V Shoba</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/indian-express-dec-2-2012-nishant-shah-so-much-to-lose'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/indian-express-dec-2-2012-nishant-shah-so-much-to-lose</a>
</p>
No publishernishantSocial MediaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-12-07T16:39:09ZBlog EntryFacebook launches FB Newswire for journalists; loses part of its immunity under IT Act 2000
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/dna-amrita-madhukalya-april-26-2014-facebook-launches-fb-newswire-for-journalists-loses-part-of-its-immunity-under-it-act-2000
<b>A bus accident in California, a fire in New Jersey and another in Vasant Kunj, NASA's successful test flight of its vertical take-off and landing craft, a ceremony to honour the sherpas who died during an avalanche at the Everest last week, and, Israel's suspension of talks with Palestinian authorities. These were some of the news that were disseminated on the first day of Facebook's newest social tool: a newswire to aid journalists and newsrooms.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-facebook-launches-fb-newswire-for-journalists-loses-part-of-its-immunity-under-it-act-2000-1982198">published in DNA</a> on April 26, 2014. Sunil Abraham is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In a tie-up with News Corp's Storyful, Facebook launched the Newswire late on Thursday to function as a tool to aid journalists and newsrooms to "find, share and embed newsworthy content from Facebook in the media they produce". Apart from Facebook, the tool is also accessible on twitter at @FBNewswire.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"FB Newswire aggregates newsworthy content shared publicly on Facebook by individuals and organisations across the world for journalists to use in their reporting. This will include original photos, videos and status updates posted by people on the front lines of major events like protests, elections and sporting events," said Andy Mitchell, director of news and global media partnerships at Facebook, via a Facebook blog post.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook has been in the centre of the internet security debate for a while; claiming immunity from legal provisions citing its non-curatorial approach and also denying responsibility for the news the social media network produces. "With the launch of this new tool, Facebook is not only curating information, it also directs knowledge of the content its produces through the newswire. That makes it legally responsible under the Information Technology Act (2000)", says Sunil Abraham, director of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The move is also seen as Facebook attempting to reach out to journalists, and eat away into the space that Twitter has occupied in the dissemination of information. Facebook has largely been operating as a social media network; and its move into the new-making space is seen as an expansion in that direction.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"There might be some competition for journalists and traditional media outlets. But largely, Facebook's tie-ups with broadcasters and political parties, where it has been promoting content in exchange for compensation, has not been transparent," says Abraham.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">With more than a billion users, Facebook is considered the largest social media network. In a statement on April 24, Facebook revealed that more than half of the world's internet population now uses the social media network and recorded a 72% increase in its revenues in the first quarter of the year.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/dna-amrita-madhukalya-april-26-2014-facebook-launches-fb-newswire-for-journalists-loses-part-of-its-immunity-under-it-act-2000'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/dna-amrita-madhukalya-april-26-2014-facebook-launches-fb-newswire-for-journalists-loses-part-of-its-immunity-under-it-act-2000</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIT ActInternet GovernanceSocial Media2014-05-06T05:41:03ZNews ItemEuropean Court of Justice rules Internet Search Engine Operator responsible for Processing Personal Data Published by Third Parties
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/ecj-rules-internet-search-engine-operator-responsible-for-processing-personal-data-published-by-third-parties
<b>The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that an "an internet search engine operator is responsible for the processing that it carries out of personal data which appear on web pages published by third parties.” The decision adds to the conundrum of maintaining a balance between freedom of expression, protecting personal data and intermediary liability.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The ruling is expected to have considerable impact on reputation and privacy related takedown requests as under the decision, data subjects may approach the operator directly seeking removal of links to web pages containing personal data. Currently, users prove whether data needs to be kept online—the new rules reverse the burden of proof, placing an obligation on companies, rather than users for content regulation.</p>
<h3>A win for privacy?</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The ECJ ruling addresses Mario Costeja González complaint filed in 2010, against Google Spain and Google Inc., requesting that personal data relating to him appearing in search results be protected and that data which was no longer relevant be removed. Referring to <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31995L0046:en:HTML">the Directive 95/46/EC</a> of the European Parliament, the court said, that Google and other search engine operators should be considered 'controllers' of personal data. Following the decision, Google will be required to consider takedown requests of personal data, regardless of the fact that processing of such data is carried out without distinction in respect of information other than the personal data.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The decision—which cannot be appealed—raises important of questions of how this ruling will be applied in practice and its impact on the information available online in countries outside the European Union. The decree forces search engine operators such as Google, Yahoo and Microsoft's Bing to make judgement calls on the fairness of the information published through their services that reach over 500 million people across the twenty eight nation bloc of EU.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">ECJ rules that search engines 'as a general rule,' should place the right to privacy above the right to information by the public. Under the verdict, links to irrelevant and out of date data need to be erased upon request, placing search engines in the role of controllers of information—beyond the role of being an arbitrator that linked to data that already existed in the public domain. The verdict is directed at highlighting the power of search engines to retrieve controversial information while limiting their capacity to do so in the future.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The ruling calls for maintaining a balance in addressing the legitimate interest of internet users in accessing personal information and upholding the data subject’s fundamental rights, but does not directly address either issues. The court also recognised, that the data subject's rights override the interest of internet users, however, with exceptions pertaining to nature of information, its sensitivity for the data subject's private life and the role of the data subject in public life. Acknowledging that data belongs to the individual and is not the right of the company, European Commissioner Viviane Reding, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=304206613078842&id=291423897690447&_ga=1.233872279.883261846.1397148393">hailed the verdict</a>, "a clear victory for the protection of personal data of Europeans".</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Court stated that if data is deemed irrelevant at the time of the case, even if it has been lawfully processed initially, it must be removed and that the data subject has the right to approach the operator directly for the removal of such content. The liability issue is further complicated by the fact, that search engines such as Google do not publish the content rather they point to information that already exists in the public domain—raising questions of the degree of liability on account of third party content displayed on their services.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The ECJ ruling is based on the case originally filed against Google, Spain and it is important to note that, González argued that searching for his name linked to two pages originally published in 1998, on the website of the Spanish newspaper La Vanguardia. The Spanish Data Protection Agency did not require La Vanguardia to take down the pages, however, it did order Google to remove links to them. Google appealed this decision, following which the National High Court of Spain sought advice from the European court. The definition of Google as the controller of information, raises important questions related to the distinction between liability of publishers and the liability of processors of information such as search engines.</p>
<h3>The 'right to be forgotten'</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The decision also brings to the fore, the ongoing debate and <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/apr/04/britain-opt-out-right-to-be-forgotten-law">fragmented opinions within the EU</a>, on the right of the individual to be forgotten. The <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-16677370">'right to be forgotten</a>' has evolved from the European Commission's wide-ranging plans of an overhaul of the commission's 1995 Data Protection Directive. The plans for the law included allowing people to request removal of personal data with an obligation of compliance for service providers, unless there were 'legitimate' reasons to do otherwise. Technology firms rallying around issues of freedom of expression and censorship, have expressed concerns about the reach of the bill. Privacy-rights activist and European officials have upheld the notion of the right to be forgotten, highlighting the right of the individual to protect their honour and reputation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">These issues have been controversial amidst EU member states with the UK's Ministry of Justice claiming the law 'raises unrealistic and unfair expectations' and has <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/apr/04/britain-opt-out-right-to-be-forgotten-law">sought to opt-out</a> of the privacy laws. The Advocate General of the European Court <a href="http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=138782&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=362663#Footref91">Niilo Jääskinen's opinion</a>, that the individual's right to seek removal of content should not be upheld if the information was published legally, contradicts the verdict of the ECJ ruling. The European Court of Justice's move is surprising for many and as Richard Cumbley, information-management and data protection partner at the law firm Linklaters <a href="http://turnstylenews.com/2014/05/13/europe-union-high-court-establishes-the-right-to-be-forgotten/">puts it</a>, “Given that the E.U. has spent two years debating this right as part of the reform of E.U. privacy legislation, it is ironic that the E.C.J. has found it already exists in such a striking manner."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The economic implications of enforcing a liability regime where search engine operators censor legal content in their results aside, the decision might also have a chilling effect on freedom of expression and access to information. Google <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/13/right-to-be-forgotten-eu-court-google-search-results">called the decision</a> “a disappointing ruling for search engines and online publishers in general,” and that the company would take time to analyze the implications. While the implications of the decision are yet to be determined, it is important to bear in mind that while decisions like these are public, the refinements that Google and other search engines will have to make to its technology and the judgement calls on the fairness of the information available online are not public.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The ECJ press release is available <a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-05/cp140070en.pdf">here</a> and the actual judgement is available <a href="http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?pro=&lgrec=en&nat=or&oqp=&lg=&dates=&language=en&jur=C%2CT%2CF&cit=none%252CC%252CCJ%252CR%252C2008E%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252Ctrue%252Cfalse%252Cfalse&num=C-131%252F12&td=%3BALL&pcs=Oor&avg">here</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <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'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/ecj-rules-internet-search-engine-operator-responsible-for-processing-personal-data-published-by-third-parties</a>
</p>
No publisherjyotiFreedom of Speech and ExpressionSocial MediaInternet GovernanceIntermediary Liability2014-05-14T14:18:46ZBlog EntryHuge outcry forces India to backtrack on social media data proposal
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/today-september-24-2015-huge-outcry-forces-india-backtrack-social-media-data-proposal
<b>Govt retracts move after strongly negative reaction to 90-day message-saving policy</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article was published by <a class="external-link" href="http://www.todayonline.com/chinaindia/india/huge-outcry-forces-india-backtrack-social-media-data-proposal?singlepage=true">Today</a> on September 24, 2015. Pranesh Prakash has been quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Responding to a chorus of withering criticism, Indian officials have withdrawn a draft policy on encryption that would have required users of social media and messaging apps to save plain-text versions of their messages for 90 days so they could be shared with the police.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The proposal, which many condemned as both draconian and impractical, came as an embarrassment days before Prime Minister Narendra Modi travels to Silicon Valley to try to attract investment and promote India as an emerging market for digital technology.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mr Modi is an avid user of social media and has mobilised large networks of online activists during his party’s campaigns.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The government issued a statement on Tuesday saying the draft proposing that users save messages for three months had been withdrawn, as officials hurried to distance themselves from the idea.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“I wish to make it clear that it is just a draft and not the view of the government,” said Mr Ravi Shankar Prasad, the Minister of Communications and Information Technology.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Internet policy activists discovered the draft on a government website late last week and began to lampoon it online as “absurd”. One offered the example of an iPhone, which automatically encrypts messages.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“They can’t intentionally want people to copy and paste every message a person gets on their iPhone on to another device,” said Mr Pranesh Prakash, a policy director at the Center for Internet and Society in Bangalore.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The draft, which was put forward by a committee of unidentified experts in the Department of Electronics and Information Technology, also overlooked the fact that most Indians use mobile phones with very little storage space, said Mr Nikhil Pahwa, the editor of MediaNama.com, which covers digital media issues in India.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“It is incomprehensible how they would have expected users to keep their messages in plain-text format,” he said. “And I don’t think that anyone can argue that keeping data in a plain-text format makes it secure.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">An official in the Communications Ministry, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorised to talk to the media, said the expert committee had been convened to formulate a policy on the “phenomenal rise” in encrypted communication over the Internet.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">He said the committee had intended to require social media platforms and messaging apps, such as WhatsApp and Viber, to save plain-text versions of messages and did not intend to impose that burden on individual users.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“It was interpreted by the netizens as ‘you and I’,” the official said. He added that interpretation was misleading.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">But that version of the requirement would also be “outrageous,” Mr Prakash said. For example, WhatsApp uses “end-to-end” encryption and does not save communications between users or have access to plain text, he said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mr Prakash said that as officials revised the proposal, the government should reach out to “experts in cryptography and human rights”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“This is a very crucial combination of three rights: the right to security, the right to freedom of expression, and the right to privacy,” he said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On television, spokesmen for Mr Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) found themselves debating their counterparts from the opposition Indian National Congress Party, one of whom remarked that “tomorrow they will start demanding that you videograph what has been going on in your bedroom for the past 90 days.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The BJP’s national spokeswoman, Shaina Nana Chudasama, responded with some exasperation. “I don’t know why we have to have this hue and cry,” she said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“Our Prime Minister believes in absolute freedom on social media. There is no question of our trying to come down heavily on the freedom of the public at large.” THE NEW YORK TIMES</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/today-september-24-2015-huge-outcry-forces-india-backtrack-social-media-data-proposal'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/today-september-24-2015-huge-outcry-forces-india-backtrack-social-media-data-proposal</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial MediaInternet Governance2015-10-01T01:31:55ZNews ItemThe Legal Validity of Internet Bans: Part I
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-legal-validity-of-bans-on-internet-part-i
<b>In recent months, there has been a spree of bans on access to Internet services in Indian states, for different reasons. The State governments have relied on Section 144, Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 to institute such bans. Despite a legal challenge, the Gujarat High Court found no infirmity in this exercise of power in a recent order. We argue that it is Section 69A of the Information Technology Act 2000, and the Website Blocking Rules, which set out the legal provision and procedure empowering the State to block access to the Internet (if at all it is necessary), and not Section 144, CrPC.</b>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify; "><span>In recent months, there has been a spree of bans on access to Internet services in India states, for different reasons. In Gujarat, the State government banned access to mobile Internet (data services) citing breach of peace during the </span><a href="http://www.ibtimes.co.in/gujarat-rioting-reported-several-parts-ahmedabad-patel-rally-event-turns-violent-644192">Hardik Patel agitation</a><span>. In Godhra in Gujarat, mobile Internet was banned as a precautionary measure </span><a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/india/gujarat/gujarat-internet-services-in-godhra-suspended-for-24-hours/">during Ganesh <i>visarjan</i></a><span>. In Kashmir, mobile Internet was banned for three days or more because the government feared that people would share pictures of </span><a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/jk-govt-plans-three-day-mobile-internet-ban-in-valley/">slaughter of animals during Eid</a><span> on social media, which would spark unrest across the state.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Can State or Central governments impose a ban on Internet access? If the State or its officials anticipate disorder or a disturbance of ‘public tranquility’, can Internet access through mobiles be banned? According to a <a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/29352399/">recent order of the Gujarat High Court</a>: Yes; <a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/930621/">Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973</a> (<strong>“CrPC”</strong>) empowers the State government machinery to impose a temporary ban.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">But the Gujarat High Court’s order neglects the scope of Section 69A, IT Act, and wrongly finds that the State government can exercise blocking powers under Section 144, CrPC. In this post and the next, we argue that it is <a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/10190353/">Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000</a> (“<strong>IT Act</strong>”) which is the legal provision empowering the State to block access to the Internet (including data services), and not Section 144, CrPC. Section 69A covers blocks to Internet access, and since it is a special law dealing with the Internet, it prevails over the general Code of Criminal Procedure.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Moreover, the blocking powers must stay within constitutional boundaries prescribed in, <i>inter alia</i>, Article 19 of the Constitution. Blocking powers are, therefore, subject to the widely-accepted tests of legality (foresight and non-arbitrariness), legitimacy of the grounds for restriction of fundamental rights and proportionality, calling for narrowly tailored restrictions causing minimum disruptions and/or damage.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>In </span><strong>Section I </strong><span>of this post, we set out a brief record of the events that preceded the blocking of access to data services (mobile Internet) in several parts of Gujarat. Then in </span><strong>Section II</strong><span>, we summarise the order of the Gujarat High Court, dismissing the petition challenging the State government’s Internet-blocking notification under Section 144, CrPC. In the next post, </span><span>we examine the scope of Section 69A, IT Act to determine whether it empowers the State and Central government agencies to carry out blocks on Internet access through mobile phones (i.e., data services such as 2G, 3G and 4G) under certain circumstances. We submit that Section 69A does, and that Section 144, CrPC cannot be invoked for this purpose. </span></p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">I. The Patidar Agitation in Gujarat:</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This question arose in the wake of agitation in Gujarat in the Patel community. The Patels or Patidars are <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/explained/simply-put-who-are-gujarats-patidars-and-why-are-they-angry/">politically and economically influential</a> in Gujarat, with several members of the community holding top political, bureaucratic and industrial positions. In the last couple of months, the Patidars have been agitating, demanding to be granted status as Other Backward Classes (OBC). OBC status would make the community eligible for reservations and quotas in educational institutions and for government jobs.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Towards this demand, the Patidars organised <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/cities/ahmedabad/demand-for-obc-status-patidars-stir-spreads-to-saurashtra/">multiple rallies</a> across Gujarat in August 2015. The largest rally, called the <i>Kranti Rally</i>, <a href="http://m.ibnlive.com/news/politics/turmoil-brewing-in-gujarat-as-patel-community-demands-obc-status-hardik-patel-begins-indefinite-hunger-strike-1051104.html">was held</a> in Ahmedabad, Gujarat’s capital city, on August 25, 2015. Hardik Patel, a leader of the agitation, reportedly went on hunger strike seeking that the Patidars’ demands be met by the government, and was arrested as he did not have permission to stay on the rally grounds after the rally. While media reports vary, it is certain that <a href="http://www.ibtimes.co.in/gujarat-rioting-reported-several-parts-ahmedabad-patel-rally-event-turns-violent-644192">violence and agitation broke out</a> after the rally. <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Patidar-agitation-Uneasy-calm-in-violence-hit-Gujarat-death-toll-rises-to-10/articleshow/48699151.cms">Many were injured</a>, some lost their lives, property was destroyed, businesses suffered; the army was deployed and curfew imposed for a few days across the State.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In addition to other security measures, the State government also imposed a ban on mobile Internet services across different parts of Gujarat. Reportedly, Hardik Patel had called for a state-wide <i>bandh </i>over Whatsapp. <a href="http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/after-clashes-over-hardik-patels-detention-no-whatsapp-in-gujarat-1211058?pfrom=home-lateststories">The police cited</a> “<i>concerns of rumour-mongering and crowd mobilisation through Whatsapp</i>” as a reason for the ban, which was instituted under <a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/930621/">Section 144, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973</a> (<strong>“CrPC”</strong>). In most of Gujarat, the ban lasted six days, from August 25 to 31, 2015, <a href="http://www.ibtimes.co.in/gujarat-patel-agitation-ban-mobile-internet-whatsapp-lifted-ahmedabad-644924">while it continued</a> in Ahmedabad and Surat for longer.<span> </span></p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">II. The Public Interest Litigation:</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A public interest petition was filed before the Gujarat High Court, challenging the mobile Internet ban. Though the petition was dismissed at the preliminary stage by Acting Chief Justice Jayant Patel and Justice Anjaria by an <a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/29352399/">oral order</a> delivered on September 15, 2015, the legal issues surrounding the ban are important and the order calls for some reflection.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In the PIL, the petitioner prayed that the Gujarat High Court declare that the notification under Section 144, CrPC, which blocked access to mobile Internet, is “void <i>ab initio</i>, <i>ultra vires </i>and unconstitutional” (para 1 of the <a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/29352399/">order</a>). The ban, argued the petitioner, violated Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution by being arbitrary and excessive, violating citizens’ right to free speech and causing businesses to suffer extensive economic damage. In any event, the power to block websites was specifically granted by Section 69A, IT Act, and so the government’s use of Section 144, CrPC to institute the mobile Internet block was legally impermissible. Not only this, but the government’s ban was excessive in that mobile Internet services were <i>completely blocked</i>; had the government’s concerns been about social media websites like Whatsapp or Facebook, the government could have suspended only those websites using Section 69A, IT Act. And so, the petitioner prayed that the Gujarat High Court issue a writ “<i>permanently restraining the State government from imposing a complete or partial ban on access to mobile Internet/broadband services</i>” in Gujarat.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The State Government saw things differently, of course. At the outset, the government argued that there was “<i>sufficient valid ground for exercise of power</i>” under Section 144, CrPC, to institute a mobile Internet block (para 4 of the <a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/29352399/">order</a>). Had the blocking notification not been issued, “<i>peace could not have been restored with the other efforts made by the State for the maintenance of law and order</i>”. The government stressed that Section 144, CrPC notifications were generally issued as a “last resort”, and in any case, the Internet had not been shut down in Gujarat; broadband and WiFi services continued to be active throughout. Since the government was the competent authority to evaluate law-and-order situations and appropriate actions, the Court ought to dismiss the petition, the State prayed.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Court agreed with the State government, and dismissed the petition without issuing notice (para 9 of the <a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/29352399/">order</a>). The Court examined two issues in its order (very briefly):</p>
<ol style="text-align: justify; ">
<li>The scope and distinction between Section 144, CrPC and Section 69A, IT Act, and whether the invocation of Section 144, CrPC to block mobile Internet services constituted an arbitrary exercise of power;</li>
<li>The proportionality of the blocking notification (though the Court doesn’t use the term ‘proportionality’).</li>
</ol>
<p><span style="text-align: justify; ">We will examine the Court’s reading of Section 69A, IT Act and Section 144, CrPC, to see whether their fields of operation are in fact different.</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong style="text-align: justify; ">Acknowledgements</strong><span style="text-align: justify; ">: We would like to thank Pranesh Prakash, Japreet Grewal, Sahana Manjesh and Sindhu Manjesh for their invaluable inputs in clarifying arguments and niggling details for these two posts.</span></p>
<hr size="1" style="text-align: justify; " width="33%" />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Geetha Hariharan is a Programme Officer with Centre for Internet & Society. Padmini Baruah is in her final year of law at the National Law School of India University, Bangalore (NLSIU) and is an intern at CIS.</span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-legal-validity-of-bans-on-internet-part-i'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-legal-validity-of-bans-on-internet-part-i</a>
</p>
No publisherGeetha Hariharan and Padmini BaruahSocial MediaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet Access69ASection 144Article 19(1)(a)Blocking2015-10-08T11:18:34ZBlog Entry