The Centre for Internet and Society
http://editors.cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 1 to 15.
The Geopolitics of Cyberspace: A Compendium of CIS Research
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/arindrajit-basu-september-24-2021-the-geopolitics-of-cyberspace-compendium-of-cis-research
<b>Cyberspace is undoubtedly shaping and disrupting commerce, defence and human relationships all over the world. Opportunities such as improved access to knowledge, connectivity, and innovative business models have been equally met with nefarious risks including cyber-attacks, disinformation campaigns, government driven digital repression, and rabid profit-making by ‘Big Tech.’ Governments have scrambled to create and update global rules that can regulate the fair and equitable uses of technology while preserving their own strategic interests.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify;">With a rapidly digitizing economy and clear interests in shaping global rules that favour its strategic interests, India stands at a crucial juncture on various facets of this debate. How India governs and harnesses technology, coupled with how India translates these values and negotiates its interests globally, will surely have an impact on how similarly placed emerging economies devise their own strategies. The challenge here is to ensure that domestic technology governance as well as global engagements genuinely uphold and further India’s democratic fibre and constitutional vision.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Since 2018, researchers at the Centre for Internet and Society have produced a body of research including academic writing, at the intersection of geopolitics and technology covering global governance regimes on trade and cybersecurity, including their attendant international law concerns, the digital factor in bilateral relationships (with a focus on the Indo-US and Sino-Indian relationships). We have paid close focus to the role of emerging technologies in this debate, including AI and 5G as well as how private actors in the technology domain, operating across national jurisdictions, are challenging and upending traditionally accepted norms of international law, global governance, and geopolitics.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The global fissures in this space matter fundamentally for individuals who increasingly use digital spaces to carry out day to day activities: from being unwitting victims of state surveillance to harnessing social media for causes of empowerment to falling prey to state-sponsored cyber attacks, the rules of cyber governance, and its underlying politics. Yet, the rules are set by a limited set of public officials and technology lawyers within restricted corridors of power. Better global governance needs more to be participatory and accessible. CIS’s research and writing has been cognizant of this, and attempted to merge questions of global governance with constitutional and technical questions that put individuals and communities centre-stage.</p>
<p>Research and writing produced by CIS researchers and external collaborators from 2018 onward is detailed in the appended compendium.</p>
<h2>Compendium</h2>
<h3>Global cybersecurity governance and cyber norms</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>Two decades since a treaty governing state behaviour in cyberspace was mooted by Russia, global governance processes have meandered along. The security debate has often been polarised along “Cold War” lines but the recent amplification of cyberspace governance as developmental, social and economic has seen several new vectors added to this debate. This past year two parallel processes at the United Nations General Assembly’s First Committee on Disarmament and International Security-United Nations Group of Governmental Experts (UN-GGE) and the United Nations Open Ended Working Group managed to produce consensus reports but several questions on international law, norms and geopolitical co-operation remain. India has been a participant at these crucial governance debates. Both the substance of the contribution, along with its implications remain a key focus area for our research.</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>Edited Volumes</em></p>
<ul>
<li>Karthik Nachiappan and Arindrajit Basu <a href="https://www.india-seminar.com/2020/731.htm">India and Digital World-Making</a>, <em>Seminar </em>731, 1 July 2020 <em>(featuring contributions from Manoj Kewalramani, Gunjan Chawla, Torsha Sarkar, Trisha Ray, Sameer Patil, Arun Vishwanathan, Vidushi Marda, Divij Joshi, Asoke Mukerji, Pallavi Raghavan, Karishma Mehrotra, Malavika Raghavan, Constantino Xavier, Rajen Harshe' and Suman Bery</em>)</li></ul>
<p><em><br />Long-Form Articles</em></p>
<ol>
<li>Arindrajit Basu and Elonnai Hickok, <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/arindrajit-basu-and-elonnai-hickok-november-30-2018-cyberspace-and-external-affairs"><em>Cyberspace and External Affairs: A Memorandum for India</em></a> (Memorandum, Centre for Internet and Society, 30 Nov 2018) </li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-potential-for-the-normative-regulation-of-cyberspace-implications-for-india"><em>The Potential for the Normative Regulation of Cyberspace</em></a><em> </em>(White Paper, Centre for Internet and Society, 30 July 2018) </li>
<li>Arindrajit Basu and Elonnai Hickok <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/conceptualizing-an-international-security-regime-for-cyberspace"><em>Conceptualizing an International Security Architecture for cyberspace</em></a><em> </em>(Briefings of the Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace, Bratislava, Slovakia, May 2018)</li>
<li>Sunil Abraham, Mukta Batra, Geetha Hariharan, Swaraj Barooah, and Akriti Bopanna,<a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/indias-contribution-to-internet-governance-debates"> India's contribution to internet governance debates</a> (NLUD Student Law Journal, 2018)</li></ol>
<p><em><br />Blog Posts and Op-eds</em></p>
<ul>
<li>Arindrajit Basu, Irene Poetranto, and Justin Lau, <a href="https://carnegieendowment.org/2021/05/19/un-struggles-to-make-progress-on-securing-cyberspace-pub-84491">The UN struggles to make progress in cyberspace</a><em>, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace</em>, May 19th, 2021</li>
<li>Andre’ Barrinha and Arindrajit Basu, <a href="https://directionsblog.eu/could-cyber-diplomacy-learn-from-outer-space/">Could cyber diplomacy learn from outer space</a>, <em>EU Cyber Direct</em>, 20th April 2021</li>
<li>Arindrajit Basu and Pranesh Prakash<strong>, </strong><a href="https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/patching-the-gaps-in-indias-cybersecurity/article34000336.ece">Patching the gaps in India’s cybersecurity</a>, <em>The Hindu, </em>6th March 2021</li>
<li>Arindrajit Basu and Karthik Nachiappan, <a href="https://www.leidensecurityandglobalaffairs.nl/articles/will-india-negotiate-in-cyberspace">Will India negotiate in cyberspace?</a>, Leiden Security and Global Affairs blog,December 16, 2020</li>
<li>Elizabeth Dominic, <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-debate-over-internet-governance-and-cyber-crimes-west-vs-the-rest">The debate over internet governance and cybercrimes: West vs the rest?</a>,<em> Centre for Internet and Society, </em>June 08, 2020</li>
<li>Arindrajit Basu, <a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/indias-role-global-cyber-policy-formulation"><em>India’s role in Global Cyber Policy Formulation</em></a><em>, Lawfare, Nov 7, 2019</em></li>
<li>Pukhraj Singh, <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/guest-post-before-cyber-norms-let2019s-talk-about-disanalogy-and-disintermediation">Before cyber norms,let's talk about disanalogy and disintermediation</a>, <em>Centre for Internet and Society, </em>Nov 15th, 2019</li>
<li>Arindrajit Basu and Karan Saini, <a href="https://mwi.usma.edu/setting-international-norms-cyber-conflict-hard-doesnt-mean-stop-trying/">Setting International Norms of Cyber Conflict is Hard, But that Doesn’t Mean that We Should Stop Trying</a><em>, Modern War Institute, </em>30th Sept, 2019</li>
<li>Arindrajit Basu, <a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/"><em>Politics by other means: Fostering positive contestation and charting red lines through global governance in cyberspace</em></a><em> (Digital Debates, </em>Volume 6, 2019<em>)</em></li>
<li>Arindrajit Basu<em>, </em><a href="https://thewire.in/trade/will-the-wto-finally-tackle-the-trump-card-of-national-security">Will the WTO Finally Tackle the ‘Trump’ Card of National Security?</a><em> (The Wire, </em>8th May 2019<em>)</em></li></ul>
<p><em>Policy Submissions</em></p>
<ol>
<li>Arindrajit Basu, <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-comments-on-pre-draft-of-the-report-of-the-un-open-ended-working-group">CIS Submission to OEWG </a>(Centre for Internet and Society, Policy Submission, 2020)</li>
<li>Aayush Rathi, Ambika Tandon, Elonnai Hickok, and Arindrajit Basu. “<a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-submission-to-un-high-level-panel-on-digital-cooperation">CIS Submission to UN High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation</a>.” Policy submission. Centre for Internet and Society, January 2019.</li>
<li>Arindrajit Basu,Gurshabad Grover, and Elonnai Hickok. “<a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/arindrajit-basu-gurshabad-grover-elonnai-hickok-january-22-2019-response-to-gcsc-on-request-for-consultation">Response to GCSC on Request for Consultation: Norm Package Singapore</a>.” Centre for Internet and Society, January 17, 2019.</li>
<li>Arindrajit Basu and Elonnai Hickok. <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/gcsc-response.">Submission of Comments to the GCSC Definition of ‘Stability of Cyberspace</a> (Centre for Internet and Society, September 6, 2019)</li></ol>
<ol></ol>
<h3>Digital Trade and India's Political Economy</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>The modern trading regime and its institutions were born largely into a world bereft of the internet and its implications for cross-border flow and commerce. Therefore, regulatory ambitions at the WTO have played catch up with the technological innovation that has underpinned the modern global digital economy. Driven by tech giants, the “developed” world has sought to restrict the policy space available to the emerging world to impose mandates regarding data localisation, source code disclosure, and taxation - among other initiatives central to development. At the same time emerging economies have pushed back, making for a tussle that continues to this day. Our research has focussed both on issues of domestic political economy and data governance,and the implications these domestic issues have on how India and other emerging economies negotiate at the world stage.</em></p>
<p><em>Long-Form articles and essays</em></p>
<ol>
<li>Arindrajit Basu, Elonnai Hickok and Aditya Chawla,<em> </em><a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-localisation-gambit-unpacking-policy-moves-for-the-sovereign-control-of-data-in-india"><strong>T</strong></a><a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-localisation-gambit-unpacking-policy-moves-for-the-sovereign-control-of-data-in-india">he Localisation Gambit: Unpacking policy moves for the sovereign control of data in India</a><em> (</em>Centre for Internet and Society<em>, </em>March 19, 2019)<strong><em> </em></strong></li>
<li>Arindrajit Basu,<a href="about:blank">Sovereignty in a datafied world: A framework for Indian diplomacy</a> in Navdeep Suri and Malancha Chakrabarty (eds) <em>A 2030 Vision for India’s Economic Diplomacy </em>(Observer Research Foundation 2021) </li>
<li>Amber Sinha, Elonnai Hickok, Udbhav Tiwari and Arindrajit Basu, <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/mlat-report">Cross Border Data-Sharing and India </a>(Centre for Internet and Society, 2018)</li></ol>
<p><em>Blog posts and op-eds </em></p>
<ul>
<li>Arindrajit Basu,<a class="external-link" href="http://www.hinrichfoundation.com/research/article/wto/can-the-wto-build-consensus-on-digital-trade/"> Can the WTO build consensus on digital trade,</a> Hinrich Foundation,October 05,2021<br /></li><li>Amber Sinha, <a href="https://thewire.in/tech/twitter-modi-government-big-tech-new-it-rules">The power politics behind Twitter versus Government of India</a>, <em>The Wire</em>, June 03, 2021</li>
<li>Karthik Nachiappan and Arindrajit Basu, <a href="https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/shaping-the-digital-world/article32224942.ece?homepage=true">Shaping the Digital World</a>, <em>The Hindu</em>, 30th July 2020</li>
<li>Arindrajit Basu and Karthik Nachiappan, <a href="https://www.india-seminar.com/2020/731/731_arindrajit_and_karthik.htm"><em>India and the global battle for data governance</em></a>, Seminar 731, 1st July 2020</li>
<li>Amber Sinha and Arindrajit Basu, <a href="https://scroll.in/article/960676/analysis-reliance-jio-facebook-deal-highlights-indias-need-to-revisit-competition-regulations">Reliance Jio-Facebook deal highlights India’s need to revisit competition regulations</a>, <em>Scroll</em>, 30th April 2020</li>
<li>Arindrajit Basu and Amber Sinha, <a href="https://thediplomat.com/2020/04/the-realpolitik-of-the-reliance-jio-facebook-deal/">The realpolitik of the Reliance-Jio Facebook deal</a>, <em>The Diplomat</em>, 29th April 2020</li>
<li>Arindrajit Basu, <a href="https://thediplomat.com/2020/01/the-retreat-of-the-data-localization-brigade-india-indonesia-and-vietnam/"><em>The Retreat of the Data Localization Brigade: India, Indonesia, Vietnam</em></a><em>, The Diplomat</em>, Jan 10, 2020</li>
<li>Amber Sinha and Arindrajit Basu, <a href="https://www.epw.in/engage/article/politics-indias-data-protection-ecosystem"><em>The Politics of India’s Data Protection Ecosystem</em></a>, <em>EPW Engage</em>, 27 Dec 2019</li>
<li>Arindrajit Basu and Justin Sherman, <a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/key-global-takeaways-indias-revised-personal-data-protection-bill">Key Global Takeaways from India’s Revised Personal Data Protection Bill</a>, <em>Lawfare</em>, Jan 23, 2020</li>
<li>Nikhil Dave,“<a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/geo-economic-impacts-of-the-coronavirus-global-supply-chains-part-i">Geo-Economic Impacts of the Coronavirus: Global Supply Chains</a>.” <em>Centre for Internet and Society</em> , June 16, 2020.</li></ul>
<h3>International Law and Human Rights</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>International law and human rights are ostensibly technology neutral, and should lay the edifice for digital governance and cybersecurity today. Our research on international human rights has focussed on global surveillance practices and other internet restrictions employed by a variety of nations, and the implications this has for citizens and communities in India and similarly placed emerging economies. CIS researchers have also contributed to, and commented on World Intellectual Property Organization negotiations at the intersection of international Intellectual Property (IP) rules and the human rights.</em></p>
<p><em>Long-form article</em></p>
<p><em> </em></p>
<ol>
<li>Arindrajit Basu, <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/extra-territorial-surveillance-and-the-incapacitation-of-human-rights">Extra Territorial Surveillance and the incapacitation of international human rights law</a>, 12 NUJS LAW REVIEW 2 (2019)</li>
<li>Gurshabad Grover and Arindrajit Basu, ”<a href="https://cyberlaw.ccdcoe.org/wiki/Scenario_24:_Internet_blockage">Internet Blockage</a>”(Scenario contribution to NATO CCDCOE Cyber Law Toolkit,2021)</li>
<li>Arindrajit Basu and Elonnai Hickok, <a href="https://www.ijlt.in/journal/conceptualizing-an-international-framework-for-active-private-cyber-defence">Conceptualizing an international framework for active private cyber defence </a>(Indian Journal of Law and Technology, 2020)</li><li>Arindrajit Basu,<a class="external-link" href="http://www.orfonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Digital-Debates__CyFy2021.pdf">Challenging the dogmatic inevitability of extraterritorial state surveillance </a>in Trisha Ray and Rajeswari Pillai Rajagopalan (eds) Digital Debates: CyFy Journal 2021 (New Delhi:ORF and Global Policy Journal,2021)<br /></li></ol>
<p><em>Blog Posts and op-eds</em></p>
<ul>
<li>Arindrajit Basu, “<a href="https://www.medianama.com/2020/08/223-american-law-on-mass-surveillance-post-schrems-ii/">Unpacking US Law And Practice On Extraterritorial Mass Surveillance In Light Of Schrems II</a>”, <em>Medianama</em>, 24th August 2020</li>
<li>Anubha Sinha, “World Intellectual Property Organisation: Notes from the Standing Committee on Copyright Negotiations (<a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-notes-from-day-1">Day 1</a>, <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-notes-from-day-2">Day 2</a>, <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-notes-from-day-3-and-day-4-1">Day 3 and 4</a>)”, July 2021</li><li>Raghav Ahooja and Torsha Sarkar,<a class="external-link" href="http://www.lawfareblog.com/how-not-regulate-internet-lessons-indian-subcontinent">How (not) to regulate the internet:Lessons from the Indian Subcontinent</a>,Lawfare,September 23,2021,<br /></li></ul>
<h3>Bilateral Relationships</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>Technology has become a crucial factor in shaping bilateral and plurilateral co-operation and competition. Given the geopolitical fissures and opportunities since 2020, our research has focussed on how technology governance and cybersecurity could impact the larger ecosystem of Indo-China and India-US relations. Going forward, we hope to undertake more research on technology in plurilateral arrangements, including the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue. </em></p>
<ul>
<li>Arindrajit Basu and Justin Sherman, <a href="https://thediplomat.com/2021/03/the-huawei-factor-in-us-india-relations/">The Huawei Factor in US-India Relations</a>,<em>The Diplomat</em>, 22 March 2021</li>
<li>Aman Nair, “<a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/tiktok-it2019s-time-for-biden-to-make-a-decision-on-his-digital-policy-with-china">TIkTok: It’s Time for Biden to Make a Decision on His Digital Policy with China</a>,” <em>Centre for Internet and Society</em>, January 22, 2021,</li>
<li>Arindrajit Basu and Gurshabad Grover, <a href="https://thediplomat.com/2020/10/india-needs-a-digital-lawfare-strategy-to-counter-china/">India Needs a Digital Lawfare Strategy to Counter China</a>, <em>The Diplomat</em>, 8th October 2020</li>
<li>Anam Ajmal, <a href="https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/toi-edit-page/the-app-ban-will-have-an-impact-on-the-holding-companies-global-power-projection-begins-at-home/">The app ban will have an impact on the holding companies...global power projection begins at home</a>, <em>Times of India</em>, July 7th, 2020 (Interview with Arindrajit Basu)</li>
<li>Justin Sherman and Arindrajit Basu, <a href="https://thediplomat.com/2020/03/trump-and-modi-embrace-but-remain-digitally-divided/">Trump and Modi embrace, but remain digitally divided</a>, <em>The Diplomat</em>, March 05th, 2020</li></ul>
<h3>Emerging Technologies</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>Governance needs to keep pace with the technological challenges posed by emerging technologies, including 5G and AI. To do so an interdisciplinary approach that evaluates these scientific advances in line with the regimes that govern them is of utmost importance. While each country will need to regulate technology through the lens of their strategic interests and public policy priorities, it is clear that geopolitical tensions on standard-setting and governance models compels a more global outlook.</em></p>
<p><em>Long-Form reports</em></p>
<ol>
<li>Anoushka Soni and Elizabeth Dominic,<a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/legal-and-policy-implications-of-autonomous-weapons-systems"> Legal and Policy implications of Autonomous weapons systems</a> (Centre for Internet and Society, 2020)</li>
<li>Aayush Rathi, Gurshabad Grover, and Sunil Abraham,<a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/regulating-the-internet-the-government-of-india-standards-development-at-the-ietf"> Regulating the internet: The Government of India & Standards Development at the IETF</a> (Centre for Internet and Society, 2018)</li></ol>
<p><em>Blog posts and op-eds</em></p>
<ul>
<li>Aman Nair, <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/would-banning-chinese-telecom-companies-make-5g-secure-in-india">Would banning Chinese telecom companies make India 5G secure in India?</a> <em>Centre for Internet and Society</em>, 22nd December 2020</li>
<li>Arindrajit Basu and Justin Sherman<strong>, </strong><a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/two-new-democratic-coalitions-5g-and-ai-technologies">Two New Democratic Coalitions on 5G and AI Technologies</a>, <em>Lawfare</em>, 6th August 2020</li>
<li>Nikhil Dave, <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-5g-factor.">The 5G Factor: A Primer</a>, <em>Centre for Internet and Society,</em> July 20, 2020.</li>
<li>Gurshabad Grover, <a href="https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/huawei-ban-india-united-states-china-5755232/">The Huawei bogey</a> <em>Indian Express</em>, May 30th, 2019</li>
<li>Arindrajit Basu and Pranav MB, <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/what-is-the-problem-with-2018ethical-ai2019-an-indian-perspective">What is the problem with 'Ethical AI'?:An Indian perspective</a>, Centre for Internet and Society, July 21, 2019</li></ul>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><em> </em></p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>(This compendium was drafted by Arindrajit Basu with contributions from Anubha Sinha. Aman Nair, Gurshabad Grover, and Pranav MB reviewed the draft and provided vital insight towards its conceptualization and compilation</em>. Dishani Mondal and Anand Badola provided important inputs at earlier stages of the process towards creating this compendium)</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/arindrajit-basu-september-24-2021-the-geopolitics-of-cyberspace-compendium-of-cis-research'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/arindrajit-basu-september-24-2021-the-geopolitics-of-cyberspace-compendium-of-cis-research</a>
</p>
No publisherarindrajitCyber SecurityInternet GovernanceCyberspace2021-11-15T14:48:49ZBlog Entry“Politics by other means”: Fostering positive contestation and charting ‘red lines’ through global governance in cyberspace
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/arindrajit-basu-orfonline-october-21-2019-politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace
<b>The past year has been a busy one for the fermentation of global governance efforts in cyberspace with multiple actors-states, industry, and civil society spearheading a variety of initiatives. Given the multiplicity of actors, ideologies, and vested interests at play in this ecosystem, any governance initiative will be, by default, political, and desirably so.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span style="text-align: justify; ">Arindrajit Basu's essay for this year's Digital Debates: The CyFy Journal </span><a class="external-link" href="https://www.orfonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Digital_Debates_2019_V7.pdf" style="text-align: justify; ">was published jointly by Global Policy and ORF</a><span style="text-align: justify; ">. It was written in response to a framing essay by Dennis Broeders under the governance theme. The article was edited by Gurshabad Grover. </span><i style="text-align: justify; "> Arindrajit also acknowledges the contributions of the editorial team at ORF: Trisha, Akhil and Meher.</i></p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There is no silver bullet that will magically result in universally acknowledged rules of the road. Instead, through consistent probing and prodding, the global community must create inclusive processes to galvanize consensus to ensure that individuals across the world can repose trust and confidence in their use of global digital infrastructure.<a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_edn2"><sup>[2]</sup></a> This includes both ‘red lines’ applicable to clearly prohibited acts of cyberspace and softer norms for responsible state behaviour in cyberspace, that arise from an application of the tenets of International Law to cyberspace.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">Infrastructure is political</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Networked infrastructures typically originate when a series of technological systems with varying technical standards converge, or when a technological system achieves dominance over other self-contained technologies.<a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_edn3"><sup>[3]</sup></a> Through this process of convergence, networked infrastructures must adapt to a variety of differing political conditions, legal regulations and governance practices.<a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_edn4"><sup>[4]</sup></a> Internet infrastructure was never self-contained technology, but an amalgamation of systems, protocols, standards and hardware along with the standards bodies, private actors and states that define it.<a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_edn5"><sup>[5]</sup></a> The architecture has always been deeply socio-technical<a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_edn6"><sup>[6]</sup></a> and any attempt to severe the technology from the politics of internet governance would be a fool’s errand.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Politics catalyzed the development of the technological infrastructure that lead to the creation of the internet. During the heyday of nuclear brinkmanship between the USA and USSR, Paul Baran, an engineer with the US Department of Defense think tank RAND Corporation was tasked with building a means of communication that could continue running even if some parts were to be knocked out by a nuclear war.<a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_edn7"><sup>[7]</sup></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As Baran’s ‘Bomb proof network’ morphed into the US Department of Defense funded ARPANET, it was initially apparent that it was not meant for either mass or commercial use, but instead saw its nurturing in the US as a tool of strategic defense.<a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_edn8"><sup>[8]</sup></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This enabled the US to retain a disproportionate -- and till the 1990s, relatively uncontested -- influence on internet governance. As the internet rapidly expanded across the globe, various actors found that single state control over an invaluable global resource was unjust.<a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_edn9"><sup>[9]</sup></a> Others (9which included US Senator Ted Cruz), argued that the internet would be safer in the hands of the United States than an international forum whose processes could be reduced to stalemate as a result of politicized conflict between democratic and non-democratic states who seek to use online spaces as an instrument of suppression.<a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_edn10"><sup>[10]</sup></a> The ICANN and IANA transitions were therefore not rooted in technical considerations but much-needed geopolitical pressure from states and actors who felt ‘disregarded’<a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_edn11"><sup>[11]</sup></a> in the governance of the internet. An inclusive multi-stakeholder process fueled by inclusive geopolitical contestation is far more effective in the long run and has the potential of respecting the rights of ‘disregarded’ communities all across the globe far more than a unilateral process that ignores any voices of opposition.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It is now clear that despite its continued outsized influence, the United States is no longer the only major state player in global cyber governance. China has propelled itself as a major political and economic challenger to the United States across several regimes<a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_edn12"><sup>[12]</sup></a>, including in the cyber domain. China’s export of the ‘information sovereignty’<a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_edn13"><sup>[13]</sup></a> doctrine at various cyber norms proliferation fora, including at the United Nations-Group of Governmental Experts (GGE), and regional forums like the Shanghai Co-operation (SCO), is an example of its desire to impose its ideological clout on global conceptions of the internet.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As a rising power, China’s aspirations in global internet governance are not limited to ideology. China is at an ‘innovation imperative’, where it needs to develop new technologies to retain its status and fuel long-term growth.<a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_edn14"><sup>[14]</sup></a> This locks it into direct economic, and therefore strategic competition with the United States that seeks to retain control over the same supply chains and continues to assert its economic and military superiority.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">China has dominated the 5G space in an unprecedented way, and has been a product of a concerted ‘whole of government’ effort.<a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_edn15"><sup>[15]</sup></a> Beijing charted out an industrial policy that enabled the deployment of 5G networks as a key national priority.<a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_edn16"><sup>[16]</sup></a> China has also successfully weaponized global technical standard-setting efforts to promote its geo-economic interests.<a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_edn17"><sup>[17]</sup></a> Reeling from the failure of its domestic 3G standard that was ignored globally, China realised the importance of the ‘first-movers’ advantage’ in setting standards for companies and businesses.<a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_edn18"><sup>[18]</sup></a> Through an aggressive strategic push at a number of international bodies such as the International Telecommunications Union, China’s diplomatic pivot has allowed it to push standards established domestically with little external input, thereby giving Chinese companies the upper hand globally.<a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_edn19"><sup>[19]</sup></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Politics continues to frame the technical solutions that enable cybersecurity.19 Following Snowden’s revelations, some stakeholders in the global community have shaped their politics to frame the problem as one of protecting individuals’ data from governments and private companies looking to extract and exploit it. The technical solutions developed in this frame are encryption standards and privacy enhancing technologies. However, intelligence agencies continue to frame the problem differently: they see it as an issue of collecting and aggregating data in order to identify malicious actors and threat vectors. The technical solutions they devise are increased surveillance and data analysis -- problems the first framing intended to solve. The techno-political gap, both in academic scholarship and global norms proliferation efforts continues to jeopardize attempts at framing cybersecurity governance.<a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_edn20"><sup>[20]</sup></a> Instead of artificially depoliticizing technology, it is imperative that we ferment political contestation in a manner that holistically promulgates the perception that internet infrastructure can be trusted and utilised by individuals and communities around the world.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">Fostering ‘red lines’ and diffusing ‘unpeace’ in cyberspace</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">‘Unpeace’ in cyberspace continues to ferment through ‘below the threshold’ operations that do not amount to the ‘use of force’ as per Article 2(4), or an ‘armed attack’ triggering the right of self-defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This makes the application of jus ad bellum (‘right to war’) inapplicable to most cyber operations.<a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_edn21"><sup>[21]</sup></a> However, the application of ‘jus in bello’ (law that governs the way in which warfare is conducted) or International Humanitarian Law (IHL) does not require armed force to be of a specific intensity but seeks to protect civilians and prevent unnecessary suffering. Therefore the principles of IHL that have evolved in The Geneva Conventions should be used as red lines that limit collateral damage as a result of cyber operations.<a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_edn22"><sup>[22]</sup></a> No state should conduct cyber operations that intend to harm civilians, and should us all means at its disposal to avoid this harm to civilians. It should act in line with the principles of necessity<a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_edn23"><sup>[23]</sup></a> and proportionality.<a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_edn24"><sup>[24]</sup></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Cultivating ‘red lines’ is easier said than done. The debate around the applicability of IHL to cyberspace was one of the reasons for the breakdown of the fifth UN-GGE in 2017.<a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_edn25"><sup>[25]</sup></a> States have also been reluctant to state their positions on the rules developed by the International Group of Experts (IGE) in the Tallinn Manual.<a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_edn26"><sup>[26]</sup></a> This is due to two main reasons. First, not endorsing the rules may allow them to retain operational advantages in cyberspace where they continue engaging in cyber operations without censure. Second, even those states who wish to apply and adhere to the rules hesitate to do so in the absence of effective processes that censure states that do not comply with the rules.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Both these issues stem from the difficulties in attributing a cyber attack to a state as cyber attacks are multi-stage, multi-step and multi-jurisdictional, which makes the attacker several degrees removed from the victim.<a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_edn27"><sup>[27]</sup></a> Technical challenges to attribution, however should not take away from international efforts that adopt an integrated and multi-disciplinary approach to attribution which must be seen as a political process working in conjunction with robust technical efforts.<a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_edn28"><sup>[28]</sup></a> The Cyber Peace Institute, which was set up earlier in September 2019, and adopts an ecosystem approach to studying cyber attacks, thereby improving global attribution standards may institutionally serve this function.<a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_edn29"><sup>[29]</sup></a> As attribution processes become clearer and hold greater political weight, an increasing number of states are likely to show their cards and abandon their policy of silence and ambiguity -- a process that has already commenced with a handful of states releasing clear statements on the applicability of international law in cyberspace.<a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_edn30"><sup>[30]</sup></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Below the threshold operations are likely to continue. However, the process of contestation should result in the international community drawing out norms that ensure that public trust and confidence in the security of global digital infrastructure is not eroded. This would include norms such as protecting electoral infrastructure or a prohibition on coercing private corporations to aid intelligence agencies in extraterritorial surveillance29 The development of these norms will take time and repeated prodding. However, given the entangled and interdependent nature of the global digital economy, protracted effort may result in universal consensus in some time.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">The Future of Cyber Diplomacy</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The recently rejuvenated UN driven norms formulation processes are examples of this protracted effort. Both the Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) and Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG) processes are pushing states towards publicly declaring their positions on multiple questions of cyber governance, which will only further certainty and predictability in this space. The GGE requires all member states to clearly chart out their position on the applicability of various questions of International Law, which will be included as an Annex to the final report and is definitely a step in the right direction.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There are multiple lessons from parliamentary diplomacy culminating in past global governance regimes that negotiators in these processes can borrow from.<a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_edn31"><sup>[31]</sup></a> As in the past, the tenets of international law can influence collective expectations and serve as a facilitative mechanism for chalking out bargaining points, and driving the negotiations within an inclusive, efficient and understandable framework.<a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_edn32"><sup>[32]</sup></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Both processes will be politicized as before with states seeking to use these as fora for furthering national interests. However, this is not necessarily a bad thing. Protracted contestation is preferable to unilateralism where a select group of states decides the future of cyber governance. The inclusive, public format of the OEWG running in parallel to the closed-door deliberations at the GGE enables concerted dialogue to continue. Most countries had voted for the resolutions setting up both these processes and while the end-game is unknown, it appears that states remain interested in cultivating cyber norms.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Of course, the USA and its NATO allies had voted against the resolution setting up the OEWG and Russia, China and the SCO allies had voted against the resolution resurrecting the GGE. However, given the economic interests of all states in a relatively stable cyberspace, it is clear that both these blocks desire global consensus on some rules of the road for responsible behaviour in cyberspace. This means that both processes may arrive at certain similar outcomes. These outcomes might over time evolve into norms or even crystallise into rules of customary international law if they are representative of the interests of a large number of states.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, sole reliance on state-centric mechanisms to achieve a stable governance regime may be misplaced. As seen with Dupont’s contribution to the Montreal Protocol that banned the global use of Chloro-Fluoro-Carbons (CFCs)<a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_edn33"><sup>[33]</sup></a> or the International Committee of the Red Cross’s concerted efforts in rallying states to sign the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions<a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_edn34"><sup>[34]</sup></a>, norm-entrepreneurship and the mantle of leadership in norm-entrepreneurship need not be limited to state actors. Non-state actors often have the gifts of flexibility and strategic neutrality that make them a better fit for this role than states. Microsoft’s leadership and its ascent to this leadership mantle in the cyber governance space must therefore be taken heed off. The key role it played in charting out the CyberSecurity Tech Accords, Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace and its most recent initiative, the Cyber Peace Institute, must be commended. However, the success of its entrepreneurship relies on how well it can work both with multilateral mechanisms under the aegis of the United Nations and multi-stakeholder fora such as the Global Commission on Stability in Cyberspace. This will lead to a cohesive set of rules that adequately govern the conduct of both state and non-state actors in cyberspace.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It is unfortunate, however, that most governance efforts in cyberspace are driven by the United States or China or their allies. For example, only UK<a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_edn35"><sup>[35]</sup></a>, France<a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_edn36"><sup>[36]</sup></a>, Germany,<a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_edn37"><sup>[37]</sup></a> Estonia<a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_edn38"><sup>[38]</sup></a>,Cuba<a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_edn39"><sup>[39]</sup></a> (backed by China and Russia), and the USA<a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_edn40"><sup>[40]</sup></a> have all engaged in public posturing advocating their ideological position on the applicability of International Law in cyberspace in varying degrees of detail with other countries largely remaining silent. Other emerging economies need to get into the game to make the process more representative and equitable.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">More recently, India has begun to take a leadership role in the global debate on cross-border data transfers, spurred largely by their domestic political and policy ecosystem championing ‘digital nationalism.’ At the G20 summit in Osaka in July this year, India, alongside the BRICS grouping emphasized the development dimensions of data for emerging economies and pushed the notion of ‘data sovereignty’-broadly understood as the sovereign right of nations to govern data within their territories/jurisdiction in the national interest and for the welfare of its people.<a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_edn41"><sup>[41]</sup></a> Resisting calls from Western allies including the United States to get on board Japan’s initiative promoting the free flow of data across borders, Vijay Gokhale also mentioned that discussions on data flows must not take place at plurilateral forums outside the World Trade Organization as this would prevent inclusive discussions.<a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_edn42"><sup>[42]</sup></a>This form of posturing should be sustained by emerging economies like India and extended to the security domain as well through which the hegemony that a few powerful actors retain over the contours of cyber governance can be reduced.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">To paraphrase Clausewitz, technological governance is the conduct of politics by other means. Internet infrastructure has become so deeply intertwined with the political ethos of most countries that it has become the latest front for geopolitical contestation among state and non-state actors alike. Politicizing cyber governance prevents a deracinated approach to the process that ignores simmering inequalities, power asymmetries and tensions that a limited technical lens prevents us from viewing.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The question is, not if but how cyber governance will be politicized. Will it be a politics of inclusion that protects the rights of the disregarded and adequately represents their voices in line with the requirements of International Law, or will it be a politics of convenience through which states and non-state actors utilise cyber governance for reaping strategic dividends? The global cyber policy ecosystem must continue the battle to ensure that the former remains essential.</p>
<hr />
<h3>Endnotes</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_ednref1"><sup>[1]</sup></a> Arindrajit Basu and Elonnai Hickok (2018) “<a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/cyberspace-and-external-affairs" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Cyberspace and External Affairs: A memorandum for India</a>”, 8-13.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_ednref2"><sup>[2]</sup></a> In its draft definition of cyber stability, <a href="https://cyberstability.org/news/request-for-consultation-definition-of-stability-of-cyberspace/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">The Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace has adopted a bottom up user centric definition of Cyber Stability where individuals can be confident in the stability of cyberspace as opposed to an objective top-down determination of cybersecurity metrics</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_ednref3"><sup>[3]</sup></a> PN Edwards, GC Bowker Jackson SJ, R Williams 2009. Introduction: an agenda for infrastructure studies. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst.10(5):364–74</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_ednref4"><sup>[4]</sup></a> Brian Larkin, “ The Politics and Poetics of Infrastructure” Annual Rev. Anthropol 2013,42:327-43</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_ednref5"><sup>[5]</sup></a> Ibid.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_ednref6"><sup>[6]</sup></a> Kieron O’Hara and Wendy Hall, “<a href="https://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/documents/Paper%20no.206web.pdf" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Four Internets: The Geopolitics of Digital Governance</a>” CIGI Report No.208, December 2018.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_ednref7"><sup>[7]</sup></a> Cade Metz, “<a href="https://www.wired.co.uk/article/h-bomb-and-the-internet" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Paul Baran, the link between nuclear war and the internet</a>” Wired, 4th Sept. 2012.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_ednref8"><sup>[8]</sup></a> Kal Raustila (2016) “Governing the Internet” American Journal of International Law 110:3,491</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_ednref9"><sup>[9]</sup></a> Samantha Bradshaw, Laura DeNardis, Fen Osler Hampson, Eric Jardine & Mark Raymond, <a href="https://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/no17.pdf" rel="noopener" target="_blank">The Emergence of Contention in Global Internet Governance</a> 3 (Global Comm’n on Internet Governance, Paper Series No. 17, July 2015).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_ednref10"><sup>[10]</sup></a> Klint Finley, "<a href="https://www.wired.com/2016/10/internet-finally-belongs-everyone/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">The Internet Finally Belongs to Everyone</a>”, Wired, March 18th, 2016.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_ednref11"><sup>[11]</sup></a> Richard Stewart (2014), Remedying Disregard in Global Regulatory Governance: Accountability, Participation and Responsiveness” AJIL 108:2</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_ednref12"><sup>[12]</sup></a> Tarun Chhabra, Rush Doshi, Ryan Hass and Emilie Kimball, “<a href="https://www.brookings.edu/research/global-china-domains-of-strategic-competition-and-domestic-drivers/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Global China: Domains of strategic competition and domestic drivers</a>” Brookings Institution, September 2019.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_ednref13"><sup>[13]</sup></a> According to this view, a state can manage and define its ‘network frontiers; through domestic legislation or state policy and patrol information at it state borders in any way it deems fit. Yuan Yi,. “网络空间的国界在哪 ” [Where Are the National Borders of cyberspace]? 学习时报.May 19, 2016.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_ednref14"><sup>[14]</sup></a> Anthea Roberts, Henrique Choer Moraes and Victor Ferguson (2019), “<a href="https://ssrn.com/abstract=3389163" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Toward a Geoeconomic Order in International Trade and Investment</a>” (May 16, 2019).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_ednref15"><sup>[15]</sup></a> Eurasia Group (2018), “The Geopolitics of 5G”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_ednref16"><sup>[16]</sup></a> Ibid.( In 2013, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT), the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) and the Ministry of Science and technology (MOST) established the IMT-2020 5G Promotion Group to push for a government all-industry alliance on 5G.)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_ednref17"><sup>[17]</sup></a> Bjorn Fagersten&Tim Ruhlig (2019), "<a href="https://www.ui.se/globalassets/ui.se-eng/publications/uipublications/2019/ui-brief-no.-2-2019.pdf" rel="noopener" target="_blank">China’s standard power and it’s geopolitical implications for Europe</a>” Swedish Institute for International Affairs.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_ednref18"><sup>[18]</sup></a> Alan Beattie, “Technology: how the US, EU and China compete to set industry standards” Financial Times, Jul 14th, 2019</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_ednref19"><sup>[19]</sup></a> Laura Fitchner, Walter Pieters.,&Andre Herdero Texeira(2016). Cybersecurity as a Politikum: Implications of Security Discourses for Infrastructures. In Proceedings of the 2016 New Security Paradigms Workshop (36-48). New York: Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_ednref20"><sup>[20]</sup></a> Michael Crosston,” Phreak the Speak: The Flawed Communications within cyber intelligentsia” in Jan-Frederik Kremer and Benedikt Muller,”Cyberspace and International Relations: Theory, Prospects and Challenges (2013, Springer) 253.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_ednref21"><sup>[21]</sup></a> “<a href="https://casebook.icrc.org/glossary/fundamental-principles-ihl" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Fundamental Principles of International Humanitarian Law</a>".</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_ednref22"><sup>[22]</sup></a> Veronique Christory “<a href="https://casebook.icrc.org/glossary/fundamental-principles-ihl" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Cyber warfare: IHL provides an additional layer of protection</a>” 10 Sept. 2019.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_ednref23"><sup>[23]</sup></a> See (The “<a href="https://casebook.icrc.org/glossary/military-necessity" rel="noopener" target="_blank">principle of military necessity</a>” permits measures which are actually necessary to accomplish a legitimate military purpose and are not otherwise prohibited by international humanitarian law. In the case of an armed conflict, the only legitimate military purpose is to weaken the military capacity of the other parties to the conflict.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_ednref24"><sup>[24]</sup></a> See <a href="https://casebook.icrc.org/glossary/proportionality" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Proportionality</a>; The principle of proportionality prohibits attacks against military objectives which are “expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_ednref25"><sup>[25]</sup></a> Declaration by Miguel Rodriguez, Representative of Cuba, <a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Cuban-Expert-Declaration.pdf" rel="noopener" target="_blank">At the final session of group of governmental experts on developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security</a> (June 23 2017).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_ednref26"><sup>[26]</sup></a> Dan Efrony and Yuval Shany (2018), “ A Rule Book on the Shelf? Tallinn Manual 2.0 on Cyberoperations and Subsequent State Practice” AJIL 112:4</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_ednref27"><sup>[27]</sup></a> David Clark and Susan Landau. “Untangling Attribution.” Harvard National Security Journal (Harvard University) 2 (2011</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_ednref28"><sup>[28]</sup></a> Davis, John S., Benjamin Adam Boudreaux, Jonathan William Welburn, Jair Aguirre, Cordaye Ogletree, Geoffrey McGovern and Michael S. Chase. Stateless Attribution: Toward International Accountability in Cyberspace. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, (2017). At</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_ednref29"><sup>[29]</sup></a> See “<a href="https://cyberpeaceinstitute.org/latest-insights/2019-09-26-cyberpeace-institute-to-lead-global-action-againstcyberattacks" rel="noopener" target="_blank">CyberPeace Institute to Support Victims Harmed by Escalating Conflicts in Cyberspace</a>”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_ednref30"><sup>[30]</sup></a> Dan Efrony and Yuval Shany (2018), “ A Rule Book on the Shelf? Tallinn Manual 2.0 on Cyberoperations and Subsequent State Practice” AJIL 112:4</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_ednref31"><sup>[31]</sup></a> Arindrajit Basu and Elonnai Hickok (2018), “<a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/gcsc-research-advisory-group.pdf" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Conceptualizing an International Security architecture for cyberspace</a>”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_ednref32"><sup>[32]</sup></a> Monica Hakimi (2017), “The Work of International Law,” Harvard International Law Journal 58:1.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_ednref33"><sup>[33]</sup></a> James Maxwell and Forrest Briscoe (2007),” There’s money in the air: The CFC Ban and Dupont’s Regulatory Strategy” Business Strategy and the Environment 6, 276-286.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_ednref34"><sup>[34]</sup></a> Francis Buignon (2004). “The International Committee of the Red Cross and the development of international humanitarian law.” Chi. J. Int’l L.5: 19137</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_ednref35"><sup>[35]</sup></a> Jeremy Wright, “<a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/cyber-and-international-law-in-the-21st-century" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Cyber and International Law in the 21st Century</a>” Govt. UK.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_ednref36"><sup>[36]</sup></a> Michael Schmitt, “<a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/66194/frances-major-statement-on-international-lawand-cyber-an-assessment/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">France’s Major Statement on International Law and Cyber: An Assessment</a>” Just Security, September 16th, 2019.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_ednref37"><sup>[37]</sup></a> Nele Achten, "<a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/germanys-position-international-law-cyberspace" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Germany’s Position on International Law in Cyberspace</a>”, Lawfare, Oct 2, 2018,</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_ednref38"><sup>[38]</sup></a> Michael Schmitt, “<a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/64490/estonia-speaks-out-on-key-rules-for-cyberspace/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Estonia Speaks out on Key Rules for Cyberspace</a>” Just Security, June 10, 2019.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_ednref39"><sup>[39]</sup></a> <a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Cuban-Expert-Declaration.pdf" rel="noopener" target="_blank">https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Cuban-Expert-Declaration.pdf</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_ednref40"><sup>[40]</sup></a> <a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Brian-J.-Egan-International-Law-and-Stabilityin-Cyberspace-Berkeley-Nov-2016.pdf" rel="noopener" target="_blank">https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Brian-J.-Egan-International-Law-and-Stabilityin-Cyberspace-Berkeley-Nov-2016.pdf</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_ednref41"><sup>[41]</sup></a> Justin Sherman and Arindrajit Basu, "<a href="https://thediplomat.com/2019/07/fostering-strategic-convergencein-us-india-tech-relations-5g-and-beyond/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Fostering Strategic Convergence in US-India Tech Relations: 5G and Beyond</a>”, The Diplomat, July 03, 2019.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace-56811/#_ednref42"><sup>[42]</sup></a> Aditi Agrawal, "<a href="https://www.medianama.com/2019/07/223-india-and-tech-policy-at-the-g20-summit/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">India and Tech Policy at the G20 Summit</a>”, Medianama, Jul 1, 2019.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/arindrajit-basu-orfonline-october-21-2019-politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/arindrajit-basu-orfonline-october-21-2019-politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace</a>
</p>
No publisherbasuCyberspaceInternet Governance2019-10-21T15:40:38ZBlog EntryCyber Policy 2.0
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/cyber-policy-2.0
<b>National Law University organized an executive education program in Bangalore on August 17, 2019. Arindrajit Basu was a speaker. He spoke on Deconstructing the India regulatory approach to data governance and cyber security.</b>
<p>For more details about the program, <a class="external-link" href="http://policyandgovernance.in/cyber-policy-2/">click here</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/cyber-policy-2.0'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/cyber-policy-2.0</a>
</p>
No publisherAdminCyber SecurityInternet GovernanceCyberspace2019-08-19T14:18:13ZNews ItemThe Potential for the Normative Regulation of Cyberspace: Implications for India
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-potential-for-the-normative-regulation-of-cyberspace-implications-for-india
<b>Author: Arindrajit Basu
Edited by: Elonnai Hickok, Sunil Abraham and Udbhav Tiwari
Research Assistance: Tejas Bharadwaj</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The standards of international law combined with strategic considerations drive a nation's approach to any norms formulation process. CIS has already produced work with the <a class="external-link" href="https://cyberstability.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/GCSC-Research-Advisory-Group-Issue-Brief-2-Bratislava-1.pdf">Research and Advisory Group (RAG)</a> of the Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace (GCSC), which looks at the negotiation processes and strategies that various players may adopt as they drive the cyber norms agenda.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This report focuses more extensively on the substantive law and principles at play and looks closely at what the global state of the debate means for India</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">With the cyber norms formulation efforts in a state of flux,India needs to advocate a coherent position that is in sync with the standards of international law while also furthering India's strategic agenda as a key player in the international arena.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This report seeks to draw on the works of scholars and practitioners, both in the field of cybersecurity and International Law to articulate a set of coherent positions on the four issues identified in this report. It also attempts to incorporate, where possible, state practice on thorny issues of International Law. The amount of state practice that may be cited differs with each state in question.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The report provides a bird’s eye-view of the available literature and applicable International Law in each of the briefs and identifies areas for further research, which would be useful for the norms process and in particular for policy-makers in India.Historically, India had used the standards of International Law to inform it's positions on various global regimes-such as UNCLOS and legitimize its position as a leader of alliances such as the Non-Aligned Movement and AALCO. However, of late, India has used international law far less in its approach to International Relations. This Report therefore explores how various debates on international law may be utilised by policy-makers when framing their position on various issues. Rather than creating original academic content,the aim of this report is to inform policy-makers and academics of the discourse on cyber norms.In order to make it easier to follow, each Brief is followed by a short summary highlighting the key aspects discussed in order to allow the reader to access the portion of the brief that he/she feels would be of most relevance. It does not advocate for specific stances but highlights the considerations that should be borne in mind when framing a stance.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The report focuses on four issues which may be of specific relevance for Indian policy-makers. The first brief, focuses on the Inherent Right of Self-Defense in cyberspace and its value for crafting a stable cyber deterrence regime. The second brief looks at the technical limits of attributability of cyber-attacks and hints at some of the legal and political solutions to these technical hurdles. The third brief looks at the non-proliferation of cyber weapons and the existing global governance framework which india could consider when framing its own strategy. The final brief looks at the legal regime on counter-measures and outlines the various grey zones in legal scholarship in this field. It also maps possible future areas of cooperation with the cyber sector on issues such as Active Cyber Defense and the legal framework that might be required if such cooperation were to become a reality.Each brief covers a broad array of literature and jurisprudence and attempts to explore various debates that exist both among international legal academics and the strategic community.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The ongoing global stalemate over cyber norms casts a grim shadow over the future of cyber-security. However, as seen with the emergence of the nuclear non-proliferation regime, it is not impossible for consensus to emerge in times of global tension. For India, in particular, this stalemate presents an opportunity to pick up the pieces and carve a leadership position for itself as a key norm entrepreneur in cyberspace.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a class="external-link" href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/normative-regulation-of-cyber-space-report/at_download/file">Read the full report here</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-potential-for-the-normative-regulation-of-cyberspace-implications-for-india'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-potential-for-the-normative-regulation-of-cyberspace-implications-for-india</a>
</p>
No publisherpranavCyberspaceInternet Governance2018-07-31T23:49:47ZBlog EntryCIS contributes to the Research and Advisory Group of the Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace (GCSC)
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-contributes-to-the-research-and-advisory-group-of-the-global-commission-on-the-stability-of-cyberspace-gcsc
<b>The Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace (GCSC) is an initiative of the Hague Centre for Strategic Studies and the East West Institute that seeks to promote mutual awareness and understanding among various cyberspace communities. It seeks to develop norms and policies that advance the stability and security of cyberspace.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Chaired by Marina Kaljurand, and Co-Chaired by Michael Chertoff and Latha Reddy, the Commission comprises 26 prominent Commissioners who are experts hailing from a wide range of geographic regions representing multiple communities including academia industry, government, technical and civil society.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As a part of their efforts, the GCSC sent out a call for proposals for papers that sought to analyze and advance various aspects of the cyber norms debate.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Elonnai Hickok and Arindrajit Basu’s paper ‘ Conceptualizing an International Security Architecture for Cyberspace’ was selected by the Commissioners and published as a part of the Briefings of the Research and Advisory Group.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Arindrajit Basu represented CIS at the Cyberstability Hearings held by the GCSC at the sidelines of the <a href="https://www.globsec.org/projects/globsec-2018/">GLOBSEC forum </a>in Bratislava-a multilateral conference seeking to advance dialogue on various issues of international peace and security.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The published paper and the Power Point may be accessed <a href="https://cyberstability.org/research/issue-brief-2-bratislava/">here.</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The agenda for the hearings is reproduced below</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">GCSC HEARINGS, 19 MAY 2018</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">HEARINGS: TOWARDS INTERNATIONAL CYBERSTABILITY</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Venue: “Habsburg” room, Grand Hotel River Park 15:00-15:15</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Welcome Remarks by Marina Kaljurand, Chair of the Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace (GCSC) and former Foreign Minister of Estonia 15:15-16:45</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Hearing I: Expert Hearing</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>This session focuses on the topic Cyberstability and the International Peace and Security Architecture and includes scene settings, food-for-thought presentations on the new GCSC commissioned research, briefings and open statements by government and nongovernmental</i> speakers.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“Scene setting: ”Cyber Diplomacy in Transition” by Carl Bildt, former Prime Minister of Sweden</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“Commissioned Research I: Lessons learned from three historical case studies on establishing international norms” by Arindrajit Basu, Centre for Internet and Society, India</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Commission Research II: The “pre-normative” framework and options for cyber diplomacy” by Elana Broitman, New America Foundation</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“Some Remarks on current thinking within the United Nations”, by Renata Dwan, Director United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) (Registered Statements by Government Advisors) (Statements by other experts)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">(Open floor discussion) 16:45-17:15</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Coffee Break</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-contributes-to-the-research-and-advisory-group-of-the-global-commission-on-the-stability-of-cyberspace-gcsc'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-contributes-to-the-research-and-advisory-group-of-the-global-commission-on-the-stability-of-cyberspace-gcsc</a>
</p>
No publisherArindrajit BasuCyber SecurityInternet GovernanceCyberspace2018-07-05T16:00:02ZBlog EntryThe Body in Cyberspace
http://editors.cis-india.org/telecom/knowledge-repository-on-internet-access/body-in-cyberspace
<b>Perhaps one of the most interesting histories of the cyberspace has been its relationship with the body. Beginning with the meatspace-cyberspace divide that Gibson introduces, the question of our bodies’ relationship with the internet has been hugely contested. There have been some very polarized debates around this question. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Where are we when we are online? Are we the person in the chair behind an interface? Are we the avatar in a social networking site interacting with somebody else? Are we a set of data running through the atmosphere? Are we us? Are we dogs? These are tantalising and teasing questions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Early debates around the body-technology questions were polarized. There were people who offered that the cyberspace is a virtual space. What happens in that make-believe, performative space does not have any direct connections with who we are and how we live. They insisted that the cyberspace is essentially a performance space, and just like acting in a movie does not make us the character, all our interactions on the internet are also performances. The idea of a virtual body or a digital self were proposed, thinking of the digital as an extension of who we are – as a space that we occupy to perform different identities and then get on with our real lives.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sherry Turkle, in her book <i>Life on the Screen</i>, was the first one to question this binary between the body and the digital self. Working closely with the first users of the online virtual reality worlds called Multiple User Dungeons, Turkle notes how being online started producing a different way of thinking about who we are and how we relate to the world around us. She indicates three different ways in which this re-thinking happens. The first, is at the level of language. She noticed how the users were beginning to think of their lives and their social relationships through the metaphors that they were using in the online world. So, for instance, people often thought of life through the metaphor of windows – being able to open multiple windows, performing multiple tasks and identities and ‘recycling’ them in their everyday life. Similarly, people saying that they are ‘low on bandwidth’ when they don’t have enough time and attention to devote to something, or thinking about the need to ‘upgrade’ our senses. We also are quite used to the idea that memory is something that resides on a chip and that computing is what machines do. These slippages in language, where we start attributing the machine characteristics to human beings are the first sign of understanding the human-technological relationship and history.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The second slippage is when the user start thinking of the avatars as human. We are quite used to, in our deep web lives, to think of machines as having agency. Our avatars act. Things that we do on the internet perform more actions than we have control of – a hashtag that we start on twitter gets used and responded to by others and takes on a life of its own. We live with sapient technologies – machines that care, artificial intelligence algorithms that customise search results for us, scripts and bots that protect us from malware and viruses. We haven’t attributed these kinds of human agencies to machines and technologies in the past. However, within the digital world, there is a complex network of actors, where all the actors are not always human. Bruno Latour, a philosopher of science and technology, posits in his ‘Actor Network Theory’ that the emergence of these non-human actors has helped us understand that we are not only dependent on machines and technologies for our everyday survival, but that many tasks that we had thought of as ‘human’ are actually performed, and performed better by these technologies. Hence, we have come to care for our machines and we also think of them as companions and have intimate relationships with them. And the machines, even as they make themselves invisible, start becoming more personal.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The third slippage that Turkle points out is the way in which the boundaries between the interior and the exterior were dissolved in the accounts of the users’ narratives of their digital adventures. There is a very simplistic understanding that what is human is inside us, it is sacred and organic and emotional. Earlier representational technology products like cinema, books, TV etc. have emphasised this distinction between real life and reel life. No actor is punished for the crime they commit in the narrative of a film. It is not very often that an author claims to be the character in a book. We have always had a very strong sense of distinction between the real person and the fictional person. But within the virtual reality worlds, these distinctions seem to dematerialize. The users not only thought of their avatars as human but also experienced the emotions, frustrations, excitement and joy that their characters were simulating for them. And what is more important, they claimed these experiences for themselves.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Namita Malhotra, who is a legal scholar and a visual artist, in her monograph on Pleasure, Porn and the Law, looks at the way in which we are in a process of data-stripping – constant revelation of our deepest darkest secrets and desires, within the user generated content rubric. Looking at the low-res, grainy videos on sites like YouTube and Vimeo, which have almost no narrative content and are often empty of sexual content, produce all of us in a global orgiastic setting, where our bodies are being extended beyond ourselves. In the monograph, Malhotra argues that the Internet is not merely an extension but almost like a third skin that we wear around ourselves – it is a wrapper, but it is tied, through ligaments and tendons, to the flesh and bone of our being, and often things that we do online, even when they are not sexual in nature, can become pornographic. Conversely, the physical connections that we have are now being made photographically and visually available in byte sized morsels, turned into a twitpic, available to be shared virally, and disseminated using mobile applications, thus making our bodies escape the biological containers that we occupy but also simultaneously marks our bodies through all these adventures that we have on the digital infobahn.</p>
<table class="listing">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th>
<h3>Case Study: A Rape in Cyberspace</h3>
</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: justify; ">
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A contemporary of Sherry Turkle, Julian Dibbell, in his celebrated account of ‘A Rape in Cyberspace’<a href="#fn1" name="fr1">[1] </a>describes a case-study that corroborates many of the observations that Turkle posits. Dibbell analyses a particular incident that occurred one night in a special kind of MUD – LambdaMOO (MUD, Object-Oriented) – which was run by the Xerox Research Corporations. A MUD, is a text-based virtual reality space of fluid dimensions and purposes, where users could create avatars of themselves in textual representations. Actions and interactions within the MUD are also in long running scripts of texts. Of course, technically all this means that a specially designed database gives users the vivid impression of their own presence and the impression of moving through physical spaces that actually exists as descriptive data on some remotely located servers.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">When users log into LambdaMoo, the program presents them with a brief textual description of one of the rooms (the coat closet) in the fictional database mansion. If the user wants to navigate, s/he can enter a command to move in a particular direction and the database replaces the original description with new ones, corresponding to the room located in the direction s/he chose. When the new description scrolls across the user’s screen, it lists not only the fixed features of the room but all its contents at that moment – including things (tools, toys, weapons), as well as other avatars (each character over which s/he has sole control). For the database program that powers the MOO, all of these entities are simply subprograms or data structures which are allowed to interact according to rules very roughly mimicking the laws of the physical world.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Characters may leave the rooms in particular directions. If a character says or does something (as directed by its user), then the other users who are located in the same ‘geographical’ region within the MOO, see the output describing the utterance or action. As the different players create their own fantasy worlds, interacting and socialising, a steady script of text scrolls up a computer screen and narratives are produced. The avatars, as in Second Life or even on Social Networking Sites like Orkut, have the full freedom to define themselves, often declining the usual referents of gender, sexuality, and context to produce fantastical apparitions. It is in such an environment of free-floating fantasy and role-playing, of gaming and social interaction mediated by digital text-based avatars, that a ‘crime’ happened.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Dibell goes on to give an account of events that unfolded that night. In the social lounge of LambdaMoo, which is generally the most populated of all the different nooks, corners, dimensions and rooms that users might have created for themselves, there appeared an avatar called Dr. Bungle. Dr. Bungle had created a particular program called Vodoo Doll, which allowed the creator to control avatars which were not his own, attributing to them involuntary actions for all the other players to watch, while the targeted avatars themselves remained helpless and unable to resist any of these moves. This Dr. Bungle, through his evil Vodoo Doll, took hold of two avatars – legba and Starsinger and started controlling them. He further proceeded to forcefully engage them in sexually violent, abusive, perverted and reluctant actions upon these two avatars. As the users behind both the avatars sent a series of invective and a desperate plea for help, even as other users in the room (# 17) watched, the Vodoo Doll made them enter into sexually degrading and extremely violent set of activities without their consent. The peals of his laughter were silenced only when a player with higher powers came and evicted Dr. Bungle from the Room # 17. As an eye-witness of the crime and a further interpolator with the different users then present, Dibbell affirms that most of the users were convinced that a crime had happened in the Virtual World of the digital Mansion. That a ‘virtual rape’ happened and was traumatic to the two users was not questioned. However, what this particular incident brought back into focus was the question of space.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Dibbell suggests that what we had was a set of conflicting approaches to understand the particular phenomenon:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Where virtual reality and its conventions would have us believe that legba and Starsinger were brutally raped in their own living room, here was the victim legba scolding Mr. Bungle for a breach of *civility* … [R]eal life, on the other hand, insists the incident was only an episode in a free-form version of Dungeons and Dragons, confined to the realm of the symbolic and at no point threatening any players life, limb, or material well-being…’</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The meaning and the understanding of this particular incident and the responses that it elicited, lie in the ‘buzzing, dissonant gap’ between the perceived and experienced notion of Technosocial Space. The discussions that were initiated within the community asked many questions: If a crime had happened, where had the crime happened? Was the crime recognised by law? Are we responsible for our actions performed through a digital character on the cyberspaces? Is it an assault if it is just role playing?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The lack of ‘whereness’ of the crime, or rather the placelessness of the crime made it especially more difficult to pin it to a particular body. The users who termed the event as rape had necessarily inverted the expected notion of digital space as predicated upon and imitative of physical space; they had in fact done the exact opposite and exposed digital spaces as not only ‘bleeding into reality’ but also a constitutive part of the physical spaces. Their Technosocial Space was not the space of the LambdaMoo Room # 17 but the physical locations (and thus the bodies, rather than the avatars) of the players involved. However, this blurring was not to make an easy resolution of complex metaphysical questions. This blurring was to demonstrate, more than ever, that the actions and pseudonymous performances or narratives which are produced in the digital world are not as dissociated from the ‘Real’ as we had always imagined. More importantly, the notional simulation of place or a reference to the physical place is not just a symbolic gesture but has material ramifications and practices. As Dibell notes in his lyrical style.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">‘Months later, the woman in Seattle would confide to me that as she wrote those words posttraumatic tears were streaming down her face — a real-life fact that should suffice to prove that the words’ emotional content was no mere playacting. The precise tenor of that content, however, its mingling of murderous rage and eyeball-rolling annoyance, was a curious amalgam that neither the RL nor the VL facts alone can quite account for.’</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The eventual decision to ‘toad’ Dr. Bungle – to condemn him to a digital death (a death only as notional as his crime) and his reappearance as another character take up the rest of Dibbell’s argument. Dibbell is more interested in looking at how a civil society emerged, formed its own ways of governance and established the space of LamdaMOO as more than just an emotional experience or extension; as a legitimate place which is almost as much, if not more real, than the physical places that we occupy in our daily material practices. Dibbell’s moving account of the entire incident and the following events leading the final ‘death’ and ‘reincarnation’ has now been extrapolated to make some very significant and insightful theorisations of the notions of the body and its representations online.</p>
<b>Exercise</b>: Based on this case-study, break into small groups to determine whether a rape happened on cyberspace and how we can understand the relationship of our online personas with our bodies.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Cyberspace and the State</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The history of body and technology is one way of approaching the history of the internet. However, as we realise, that more than the management of identity or the projection of our interiority, it is a narrative about governance. How does the body get regulated on the internet? How does it become the structure through which communities, networks, societies and collective can be imagined? The actions and transactions between the internet and the body can also help us to look at the larger questions of state, governance and technology which are such an integral part of our everyday experience of the internet. Questions of privacy, security, piracy, sharing, access etc. are all part of the way in which our practices of cultural production and social interaction are regulated, by the different intermediaries of the internet, of which the State is one.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Asha Achuthan, in her landmark work <i>Re:Wiring Bodies</i><a href="#fn2" name="fr2">[2]</a> that looks at the history of science and technology in India, shows that these are not new concerns. In fact, as early as the 1930s and 1940s, when the architects of India’s Independence movements were thinking about shaping what the country is going to look like in the future, they were already discussing these questions. It is more popularly known that Jawaharlal Nehru was looking to build a ‘scientific temperament’ for the country and hoping to build it through scientific institutions as well as infrastructure – he is famously credited to having said that ‘dams are the temples of modern science.’ Apart from Nehru’s vision of a modern India, there was a particular conversation between M.K. Gandhi and Rabindranath Tagore, that Achuthan analyses in great detail. Achuthan argues that the dialogue between Gandhi and Tagore is so couched in ideology, poetry and spirituality that we often forget that these were actually conversations about a technology – specifically, the charkha or the spinning wheel.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">For both Gandhi and Tagore, the process of nation building was centred around this one particular charkha. The charkha was the mobile, portable, wearable device (much like our smart phones) that was supposed to provide spiritual salvation and modern resources to overcome the evils of both traditional and conservative values as well as unemployment and production. The difference in Gandhi and Tagore was not whether the charkha – as a metaphor of production and socio-economic organisation – should be at the centre of our discourse. The difference was that Gandhi thought that the usage of charka, complete immersion in the activity, and the devotion to it would help us weave a modern nation For Gandhi, the citizen was not somebody who used the charkha, but the citizen was somebody who becomes a citizen in the process of using the charkha. Tagore, meanwhile, was more concerned about whether we are building a people-centred nation or a technology-centred device. He was of the opinion that building a nation with the technology at its core, might lead to an apocalyptic future where the ‘danavayantra’ or demonic machine might take over and undermine the very human values and ideals that we are hoping to structure the nation through.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">If you even cursorily look at this debate, you will realise that the way Gandhi was talking about the charkha is in resonance with how contemporary politicians talk about the powers of the internet and the way in which, through building IT Cities, through foreign investment, through building a new class of workers for the IT industry, and through different confluences of economic and global urbanisation, we are going to Imagine India<a href="#fn3" name="fr3">[3] </a>of the future. Similarly, the caution that Tagore had, of the charkha as superseding the human, finds its echoes in the sceptics who have been afraid that the human is being forgotten<a href="#fn4" name="fr4">[4]</a> in the e-governance systems that are being set up, which concentrate more on management of data and information rather than the rights and the welfare of people.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This historical continuity between technology and governance, also finds theorisation in Ashish Rajadhyaksha’s book <i>The Cultural Last Mile</i><a href="#fn5" name="fr5">[5] </a>that looks at the critical turns in India’s governance and policy history and how the technological paradigm has been established. Rajadhyaksha opens up the State-technology-governance triad to more concrete examples and looks at how through the setting up of community science centres, the building of India’s space and nuclear programmes, and through on-the-ground inventions like radio and chicken-mesh wire-loops, we have tried to reinforce a broadcast based model of governance. Rajadhyaksha proposes that the earlier technologies of governance which were at our disposal, helped us think of the nation state through the metaphor of broadcast. So we had the State at the Centre, receiving and transmitting information, and in fact managing all our conversation and communication by being the central broadcasting agency. And hence, because the state was responsible for the message of the state reaching every single person, but also responsible that every single person can hypothetically communicate with every other single person, the last mile became important. The ability to reach that last person became important. And the history of technology and governance has been a history of innovations to breach that last mile and make the message reach without noise, without disturbance, and in as clean and effective a way as possible.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">With the emergence of the digital governance set up, especially with the building of the Unique Identity Project,<a href="#fn6" name="fr6">[6]</a> we now have the first time when the government is not concerned about breaching the last mile. The p2p networks that are supposed to manage the different flows of information mean that the State is not a central addressee of our communication but one of the actors. It produces new managers – internet service providers, telecom infrastructure, individual hubs and connectors, traditional media agencies – that help us think of governance in a new way. Which is why, for instance, with the UID authorities, we are no longer concerned about the relay of state information from the centre to the subject. Hence, we have many anecdotal stories of people enrolling for the Aadhaar card without actually knowing what benefits it might accrue them. We also have stories coming in about how there are people with Aadhaar numbers which have flawed information but these are not concerns. Because for once, the last mile has to reach the Government. The State is a collector but there are also other registrars. And there is a new regime here, where the government is now going to become one of the actors in the field of governance and it is more interested in managing data and information rather than directly governing the people.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This historical turn is interesting, because it means that we are being subjected to different kinds of governance structures and institutions, without necessarily realising how to negotiate with them to protect us. One of the most obvious examples is the Terms of Services<a href="#fn7" name="fr7">[7]</a> that we almost blindly sign off when using online platforms and services and what happens when they violate rights that we think are constitutionally given. What happens when Facebook removes some content from your profile without your permission because it thinks that it is problematic? Who do you complain to? Are your rights as a user or a citizen? Which jurisdiction will it fall under? Conversely, what happens when you live in a country that does not grant you certain freedoms (of speech and expression, for instance) and you commit an infraction using a social media platform. What happens when your private utterances on your social networks make you vulnerable [<a href="#fr8" name="fn8">8</a>]. to persecution and prosecution in your country?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">These are all questions of the human, the technological, and the governmental which have been discussed differently and severally historically, in India and also at the global level. Asking these questions, unpacking the historical concerns and how they have leap-frogged in the contemporary governmental debates is important because it helps us realise that the focus of what is at stake, what it means to be human, what we recognise as fair, just and equal are also changing in the process. Instead of thinking of e-governance as just a digitization of state resources, we have to realise that there is a certain primacy that the technologies have had in the state’s formation and manifestation, and that the digital is reshaping these formulations in new and exciting, and sometimes, precarious ways.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Cyberspace and Criminality</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The history of the internet in India, but also around the world, is bookended between pornography and terrorism. While there has been an incredible promise of equity, equality, fairness, and representation of alternative voices on the internet, there is no doubt that what the internet has essentially done is turn us all into criminals – pornographers, pirates, terrorists, hackers, lurkers… If you have been online, let us just take for granted that you have broken some law or the other, no matter how safe you have been online, and where you live. The ways in which the internet has facilitated peer-2-peer connections and the one-one access means that almost everything that was governed in the public has suddenly exploded in one large grey zone of illegality.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Ravi Sundaram calls this grey zone of illegal or semi-legal practices the new ‘cyberpublics’. For Sundaram, the new public sphere created by the internet is not only in the gentrified, middle-class, educated people who have access to the cyberspaces and are using social media and user generated content sites to bring about active social and political change. More often than not, the real interesting users of the internet are hidden. They access the internet from cybercafés, in shared names. They have limited access to the web through apps and services on their pirated phones. They share music, watch porn, gamble, engage in illicit and surreptitious social and sexual engagements and they are able to do this by circumventing the authority and the gaze of the law.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On the other side are the more tech savvy individuals who create alternative currencies like Bitcoin, trade for weapons, drugs and sex on SilkRoute, form guerrilla resistance groups like Anonymous, and create viruses and malware that can take over the world. These cyberpublics are not just digital in nature. They erupt regularly in the form of pirate bazaars, data swaps, and the promiscuous USB drive that moves around the machines, capturing information and passing it on further. These criminalities are often the defining point of internet policy and politics – they serve as the subjects that need to be governed, as well as the danger that lurks in the digital ether, from which we need to be protected. For Sundaram, the real contours and borders of the digital world are to be tested in an examination of these figures. Because, as Lawrence Liang suggests, the normative has already been assimilated in the system. The normative or the good subject is no longer a threat and has developed an ethical compass of what is desirable and not. However, this ethical subject also engages in illicit activities, while still producing itself as a good person. This contradiction makes for interesting stories.</p>
<table class="listing">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th>
<h3>DPS MMS: Case Study</h3>
</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: justify; ">
<p>One of the most fascinating cases of criminality that captured both public and legal attention was the notoriously cases where the ideas of Access were complicated in the Indian context, was the legal and public furore over the distribution of an MMS (Multi-Media Message) video that captured two underage young adults in a sexual act. The clip, which was dubbed in popular media as ‘DPS Dhamaka’ became viral on the internet. The video clip was listed on an auction (peer-2-peer) website as an e-book and as ‘Item 27877408 – DPS Girl having fun!!! Full video + Bazee points’ for Rs. 125. This visibility of the clip on the auction site Bazee.com, brought it to the eyes of the State where its earlier circulation through private circuits and P2P networks had gone unnoticed. Indeed, the newspapers and TV channels had created frenzy around it, this video clip would have gone unnoticed. However, the attention that Bazee.com drew led to legal intervention.</p>
<p>Following the visibility of the video clip, there was an attempt to find somebody responsible for the crime and be held liable for the ‘crime’ that had happened. Originally, Ravi Raj, a student at IIT Kharagpur, who had put up the clip on Bazee was arrested for possessing and selling pornography. He was arrested and kept in police custody for at least three days and so was the male student who made the clip. They were both made to go through proceedings in juvenile court (though he was the last to be arrested). Both the students in the video were suspended from school after the incident. Eventually, the most high profile arrest and follow up from the DPS MMS incident was the arrest of the CEO of Bazee.com – Avnish Bajaj. However, Bajaj was released soon because as the host of the platform and not its content, he had no liability.</p>
<p></p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is the beginning of a series of slippages where a punishable body in the face of public outcry had to be identified. We witnessed a witch-hunt that sought to hold the boy who made the video clip responsible, the student of IIT who attempted to circulate the clip and eventually the CEO of Bazee. The string of failed prosecutions seems to indicate that the pornographer-as-a-person was slipping through the cracks of the legal system. As NamitaMalhotra argues, it is not the pornographic object which is ‘eluding the grasp of the court’ but that it seems to be an inescapable condition of the age of the internet -that the all transactions are the same transactions, and all users are pornographers.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We can see in the case that the earlier positions that were easily criminalised when it came to objects in mass media – producer, consumer, distributor of obscenity, were vacated rapidly in the DPS MMS case. We have a case where the bodies, when looked at through simplified ideas of Access, could not be regulated. The girl in the clip could not be punished because she was the victim in the case that could be read as statutory rape. In the case of the boy, a stranger argument was posed – ‘that in our fast urbanising societies where parents don’t have time for children, they buy off their love by giving them gadgets – which makes possible certain kinds of technological conditions...thus the blame if it is on the boy, is on the larger society’ (Malhotra, 2011).</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eventually, the court held that the description of the object and the context of its presence indicates that the said obscene object is just a click away and such a ‘listing which informed the potential buyer that such a video clip that is pornographic can be procured for a price’. There is a suggestion that there was nobody in particular that could be fixed with the blame. What was at blame was access to technology and conditions of technology within which the different actors in this case were embedded. Malhotra points out that in earlier cases around pornography, judgements have held pornography responsible for itself.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In the case of the DPS MMS, it seemed that technology – especially access to technology by unsupervised persons – has taken that role. The eventual directive that came out of this case was a blanket warning issued to the public that ‘anyone found in possession of the clip would be fined and prosecuted’. It is as if the attention of the court was on the ways in which the video clip was produced, circulated and disseminated, rather than the content. There was an anxiety around peoples’ unsupervised access to digital technologies, the networks that facilitated access to content without the permission of the state, and modes of circulation and dissemination that generated high access to audiences which cannot be controlled or regulated.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The State’s interest in this case, is not in the sexual content of the material but in the way it sidesteps the State’s authorial positions and produces mutable, transmittable, and transferable products as well as conditions of access. Such a focus on practices and behaviours around the obscene object, rather than the content itself, seems not to disrupt the law’s neat sidestepping of the force of the image itself. These different tropes of access to technology informed the State’ attempt at control and containment of techno-social practices in the country, giving rise to imaginations of the User as being in conditions of technology which make him/her a potential criminal. This idea of access as transgression or overriding the legal regulatory framework does not get accounted for in the larger technology discourse. However, it does shape and inform the Information Technology regulations which are made manifest in the IT Act. The DPS MMS case complicated the notion of access and posited a potentially criminal techno-social subject who, because of access to the digital, will be able to consume information and images beyond the sanction of the law.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The DPS MMS case shows how the ways in which public discourse can accuse, blame and literally hang technology seems to diverge from how the court attempts to pin down an offence or crime and prosecute by constructing a techno-social subject as the pervert, while also accusing pornography as a phenomenon. The court is unable to hold technology to blame but the accused is technology-at-large and modernity, which subsumes practices around technology and separates out the good and ethical ways in which a citizen should access and use technologies to rise from the potentially criminal conditions of technology within which their Techno-social identity is formed.</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Summary</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">We started by making a distinction between Internet and Cyberspace to see how the two are separate objects of focus and have a relationship that needs to be examined in greater detail. It was argued that while the Internet – in material, infrastructural and technological forms – is important to understand the different policies and politics at the local, regional and global level, it has an account that is easier to follow. Cyberspace, on the other hand, because it deals with human interactions and experiences, allows for a more complex set of approaches into understanding our engagement with the digital domain. We began with the original definitions and imaginations of cyberspace and the ways in which it founded and resolved debates about the real-virtual, the physical-digital, and the brain-mind divides which have been historically part of the cybercultures discourse.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It was proposed, hence, that instead of looking at the history of the Internet, we will look at the history of cyberspace, and see if we can move away from a straight forward historical narrative of the Internet which focuses largely on the institutions, numbers, names and technological advances. The ambition was not to just produce a similar history of cyberspace but think of conceptual frameworks through which cyberspace can be studied. The proposition was that instead of just looking at history as a neutral and objective account of events and facts, we can examine how and why we need to create histories. Also, that it is fruitful to look at the aspirations and ambitions we have in creating historical narratives. It was then suggested that instead of trying to create a definitive history, or even a personal history of the internet, it might be more fruitful to look at the intersections that cyberspace has with different questions and concerns that have historically defined the relationship between technologies and society. 3 different conceptual frameworks were introduced as methods or modes by which this historical mode of inquiry can be initiated.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The first framework examined how we can understand the boundaries and contours of the internet and cyberspace by looking at its relationship with our bodies. The ways in which we understand our bodies, the mediation by technologies, and the extensions and simulations that we live with, help us to understand the human-technology relationship in more nuanced fashions. Looking at the case-study of a rape that happened in cyberspace, we mapped out the different ways in which we can think of a technosocial relationship.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The second framework drew from historical debates around technology and governance to see how the current concerns of e-governance and digital subjectivity are informed by older debates about technology and nation building. Looking at the dialogues between Gandhi and Tagore, and then the imagination of a nation through the broadcast technologies, we further saw how the new modes of networked governance are creating new actors, new conditions and new contexts within which to locate and operate technologies.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The third framework showed how the technological is not merely at the service of the human. In fact, the presence of the technological creates new identities and modes of governance that create potential criminals of all of us. Through the case-study of the DPS MMS, and in an attempt to look at the grey zone of illegal cyberpublics, we saw how at new technosocial identities are created at the intersection of law, technology, governance and everyday practices of the web. The fact that the very condition of technology access can create us as potential criminals, in need to be governed and regulated, reflects in the development of internet policy and governance.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It was the intention of this module to complicate three sets of presumptions and common knowledge that exist in the discourse around Internet and Cyberspace. The first was to move away from thinking of the Internet merely as infrastructure and networks. The second was to suggest that entering the debates around human-technology everyday relationships would offer more interesting ways of looking at accounts of the technological. The third was to propose that the history of the internet does not begin only with the digital, but it needs larger geographical and techno-science contexts in order to understand how the contemporary landscape of internet policy and governance is shaped.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The module was not designed to give a comprehensive history and account of the internet. Instead, it built a methodological and conceptual framework that would allow us to examine the ways in which we approach Internet and Society questions – in the process, it would also help us reflect on our own engagement, intentions and expectations from the Internet and how we create the different narratives and accounts for it.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">Additional Readings</h2>
<ol> </ol><ol>
<li>Johnny Ryan,“A History of the Internet and the Digital Future”, <i>University of Chicago Press</i>, <a href="http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/distributed/H/bo10546731.html">http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/distributed/H/bo10546731.html</a></li>
<li>John Naughton,“A Brief History of the Future”, <i>Overlook</i>, <a href="https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/john-naughton/a-brief-history-of-the-future/">https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/john-naughton/a-brief-history-of-the-future/</a></li>
<li>Christos J.P. Moschovitis et al.,“History of the Internet”, <i>Barnes & Noble</i>, <a href="http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/history-of-the-internet-christos-j-p-moschovitis/1100883985?ean=9781576071182">http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/history-of-the-internet-christos-j-p-moschovitis/1100883985?ean=9781576071182</a></li>
<li>Katie Hafner and Matthew Lyon, “Where Wizards Stay up Late”, <i>Barnes & Noble</i>, <a href="http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/where-wizards-stay-up-late-katie-hafner/1113244151?ean=9780684812014">http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/where-wizards-stay-up-late-katie-hafner/1113244151?ean=9780684812014</a></li>
<li>Janet Abbate,“Inventing the Internet”, <i>MIT Press</i>, <a href="http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/inventing-internet">http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/inventing-internet</a></li>
<li>Tim Berners-Lee,“Weaving the Web: The Original Design and Ultimate Destiny of the World Wide Web”,<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weaving_the_Web:_The_Original_Design_and_UltimateDestiny_of_the_World_Wide_Web_by_its_inventor">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weaving_the_Web:_The_Original_Design_and_UltimateDestiny_of_the_World_Wide_Web_by_its_inventor</a></li>
<li>Peter Salus,“Casting the Net: From ARPANET to INTERNET and Beyond”, <i>Pearson</i>, <a href="http://www.pearson.ch/1471/9780201876741/Casting-the-Net-From-ARPANET-to-INTERNET.aspx">http://www.pearson.ch/1471/9780201876741/Casting-the-Net-From-ARPANET-to-INTERNET.aspx</a></li>
</ol>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr1" name="fn1">1</a>]. Julian Dibbell “A Rape in Cyberspace”, available at http://www.juliandibbell.com/articles/a-rape-in-cyberspace/, last accessed on January 24, 2014.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr2" name="fn2">2</a>]. Asha Achuthan, “Re:Wiring Bodies”, Centre for Internet and Society, available at http://cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/rewiring-bodies.pdf, last accessed on January 25, 2014.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr3" name="fn3">3</a>]. Nandan Nilekani, “Imagining India: The Idea of a Renewed Nation”, <i>Penguin</i>, available at <a href="http://www.penguin.ca/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9780670068449,00.html">http://www.penguin.ca/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9780670068449,00.html</a>, last accessed on January 24, 2014.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr4" name="fn4">4</a>]. Jahnavi Phalkey, “Focus: Science, History, and Modern India”, <i>The University of Chicago Press</i>, <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/670950">http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/670950</a>, last accessed on January 24, 2014.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr5" name="fn5">5</a>]. Ashish Rajadhyaksha, “The Last Cultural Mile”, <i>The Centre for Internet and Society</i>, available at <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/last-cultural-mile.pdf">http://cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/last-cultural-mile.pdf</a>, last accessed on January 24, 2014.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr6" name="fn6">6</a>]. Ashish Rajadhyaksha, “In the Wake of Aadhar: The Digital Ecosystem of Governance in India”, <i>Centre for Study of Culture and Society</i>, available at <a href="http://eprints.cscsarchive.org/532/">http://eprints.cscsarchive.org/532/</a>, last accessed on January 23, 2014.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr7" name="fn7">7</a>]. Terms of Service, Didn’t Read, available at <a href="http://tosdr.org/">http://tosdr.org/</a>, last accessed on January 26, 2014.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr8" name="fn8">8</a>]. Siva Vaidyanathan, “The Googlization of Everything: (And Why Should We Worry)”, <i>University of California Press</i>, available at <a href="http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520258822">http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520258822</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/telecom/knowledge-repository-on-internet-access/body-in-cyberspace'>http://editors.cis-india.org/telecom/knowledge-repository-on-internet-access/body-in-cyberspace</a>
</p>
No publishernishantCyborgsCyberspace2014-05-13T10:13:22ZPageCIS Cybersecurity Series (Part 13) - Pranesh Prakash
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/cis-cybersecurity-series-part-13-pranesh-prakash
<b>CIS interviews Pranesh Prakash, lawyer and policy director with Centre for Internet and Society, as part of the Cybersecurity Series.</b>
<div>
<div><i>"When it comes to things cyber we completely lose our sense of proportion. While killing someone by negligence only attracts two years of punishment, saying something that people can define "offensive" attracts even more under 66A of the Information Technology Act. Something that can be a nuisance, under the Criminal Laws, can attract up to six months punishment, whereas under the IT act, it is up to three years..." - Pranesh Prakash, lawyer and policy director, Centre for Internet and Society</i></div>
<div></div>
<div>Centre for Internet and Society presents its thirteenth installment of the CIS Cybersecurity Series.</div>
<div></div>
<div>The CIS Cybersecurity Series seeks to address hotly debated aspects of cybersecurity and hopes to encourage wider public discourse around the topic.</div>
<div></div>
<div>Pranesh is a Policy Director with the Centre, and is a graduate of the National Law School of India University, Bangalore, with a degree in Arts and Law.</div>
<div></div>
</div>
<p><iframe frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/gUDeTeQ6DAg" width="560"></iframe></p>
<div><b><i><br /></i></b></div>
<div><b><i>This work was carried out as part of the Cyber Stewards Network with aid of a grant from the International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada.</i></b></div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/cis-cybersecurity-series-part-13-pranesh-prakash'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/cis-cybersecurity-series-part-13-pranesh-prakash</a>
</p>
No publisherpurbaCyberspaceCybersecurityInternet GovernanceCyber Security FilmCyberculturesCyber SecurityCyber Security Interview2014-01-20T06:20:44ZBlog EntryDesiSec: Episode 1 - Film Release and Screening
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/desisec-episode-1-film-release-and-screening
<b>The Centre for Internet and Society is pleased to to announce the release of the first documentary film on cybersecurity in India - DesiSec.
We hope you can join us for a special screening of the first episode of DesiSec, on 11th December, at CIS!</b>
<div>Early 2013, the Centre for Internet and Society began shooting its first documentary film project. After months of researching and interviewing activists and experts, CIS is thrilled to announce the release of the first documentary film on cybersecurity in India - <strong>DesiSec: Cybersecurity and Civi Society in India</strong>.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Trailer link: <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-cybersecurity-series-film-trailer">http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-cybersecurity-series-film-trailer</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>CIS is hosting a special screening of <strong>DesiSec: Episode 1</strong> on <strong>11th December, 2013, 6 pm</strong> and invites you to this event. The first episode is centered around the issue of privacy and surveillance in cyber space and how it affects Indian society.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>We look forward to seeing you there!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>RSVP: <a href="mailto:purba@cis-india.org" target="_blank">purba@cis-india.org</a></div>
<div>Venue: http://osm.org/go/yy4fIjrQL?m=</div>
<div> </div>
<div><strong><em>This work was carried out as part of the Cyber Stewards Network with aid of a grant from the International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada.</em></strong></div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/desisec-episode-1-film-release-and-screening'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/desisec-episode-1-film-release-and-screening</a>
</p>
No publisherpurbaCyberspacePrivacyCybersecurityInternet GovernanceSurveillanceCyber Security FilmCyber SecurityEvent2013-12-17T08:13:32ZEventCIS Cybersecurity Series (Part 9) - Saikat Datta
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-cybersecurity-series-part-9-saikat-datta
<b>CIS interviews Saikat Datta, Resident Editor of DNA, Delhi, as part of the Cybersecurity Series.
</b>
<p><em>"Anonymous speech, in countries which have extremely severe systems of governments, which do not have freedom, etcetera, is welcome. But in a democracy like India, I do not see the need for anonymous speech because it is anyways guaranteed by the Constitution of India. So, no, I do not see the need for anonymity in an open and democratic state like India and I would be seriously worried if such a requirement comes up. Shouldn't I strive to be ideal? The ideal suggests that the constitution has guaranteed freedom of speech. Anonymity, for a time being may be acceptable to some people but I would like a situation where a person, without having to seek anonymity, can speak about anything and not be prosecuted by the state, or persecuted by society. And that is the ideal situation that I would like to strive for." - Saikat Datta, Resident Editor, DNA, Delhi.</em></p>
<p>Centre for Internet and Society presents its ninth installment of the CIS Cybersecurity Series. </p>
<p>The CIS Cybersecurity Series seeks to address hotly debated aspects of cybersecurity and hopes to encourage wider public discourse around the topic.</p>
<p>Saikat Datta is a journalist who began his career in December 1996 and has worked with several publications like The Indian Express, the Outlook magazine and the DNA newspaper. He is currently the Resident Editor of DNA, Delhi. Saikat has authored a book on India's Special Forces and presented papers at seminars organized by the Centre for Land Warfare Studies, the Centre for Air Power Studies and the National Security Guards. He has also been awarded the International Press Institute Award for investigative journalism, the National RTI award in the journalism category and the Jagan Phadnis Memorial Award for investigative journalism.</p>
<p> </p>
<iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/Fn2tqVU5mGg" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>
<div> </div>
<div><strong><em>This work was carried out as part of the Cyber Stewards Network with aid of a grant from the International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada.</em></strong></div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-cybersecurity-series-part-9-saikat-datta'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-cybersecurity-series-part-9-saikat-datta</a>
</p>
No publisherpurbaCybersecurityCyberspaceCyberculturesCyber Security Interview2013-08-05T05:24:35ZBlog EntryCIS Cybersecurity Series (Part 8) - Jeff Moss
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-cybersecurity-series-part-8-jeff-moss
<b>CIS interviews Jeff Moss, Chief Security Officer for ICANN, as part of the Cybersecurity Series.</b>
<p><em>"Most consumers don't understand the privacy trade offs when they browse the web... the data that is being collected about them, the analytics that is being run against their buying behaviour, it is invisible... it is behind the scenes... and so it is very difficult for the consumer to make an informed decision." - Jeff Moss, Chief Security Officer, ICANN.</em></p>
<p>Centre for Internet and Society presents its eighth installment of the CIS Cybersecurity Series. </p>
<p>The CIS Cybersecurity Series seeks to address hotly debated aspects of cybersecurity and hopes to encourage wider public discourse around the topic.</p>
<p>In this installment, CIS interviews Jeff Moss. Jeff is the chief security officer for ICANN. He founded Black Hat Briefings and DEF CON, two of the most influential information security conferences in the world. In 2009, Jeff was sworn in as a member of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Advisory Council (DHS HSAC), providing advice and recommendations to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security on matters related to domestic security. </p>
<iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/VuarlhLqBII" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>
<div> </div>
<div><strong><em>This work was carried out as part of the Cyber Stewards Network with aid of a grant from the International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada.</em></strong></div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-cybersecurity-series-part-8-jeff-moss'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-cybersecurity-series-part-8-jeff-moss</a>
</p>
No publisherpurbaCybersecurityCyberspaceCyberculturesCyber Security Interview2013-07-30T09:25:44ZBlog EntryCIS Cybersecurity Series (Part 7) - Jochem de Groot
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-cybersecurity-series-part-7-jochem-de-groot
<b>CIS interviews Jochem de Groot, former policy advisor to the Netherlands government, as part of the Cybersecurity Series</b>
<p><em>"The basic principle that I think we must continue to embrace is that rights online are the same as rights offline... The amount of information that is available online is so enormous that it would be easy for governments to abuse that information for all kinds of purposes... And we are at a stage right now where we are really experimenting with how much information the govt or law enforcement can take to ensure the rule of law." - Jochem de Groot</em></p>
<p>Centre for Internet and Society presents its seventh installment of the CIS Cybersecurity Series. </p>
<p>The CIS Cybersecurity Series seeks to address hotly debated aspects of cybersecurity and hopes to encourage wider public discourse around the topic.</p>
<p>In this installment, CIS interviews Jochem de Groot. Jochem has worked on the Netherlands government’s agenda to promote Internet freedom globally since 2009. He initiated and coordinated the founding conference of the Freedom Online Coalition in The Hague in December 2011, and advised the Kenyan government on the second Freedom Online event in Nairobi in 2012. Jochem represents the Dutch government in the EU, UN, OSCE and other multilateral fora, and oversees a project portfolio for promoting internet freedom globally. </p>
<iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/EU-PV2bmECg" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>
<div> </div>
<div><strong><em>This work was carried out as part of the Cyber Stewards Network with aid of a grant from the International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada.</em></strong></div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-cybersecurity-series-part-7-jochem-de-groot'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-cybersecurity-series-part-7-jochem-de-groot</a>
</p>
No publisherpurbaCybersecurityCyberspaceCyberculturesCyber Security Interview2013-07-30T09:26:28ZBlog EntryCIS Cybersecurity Series (Part 5) - Amelia Andersdotter
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/cis-cybersecurity-series-part-5-amelia-andersdotter
<b>CIS interviews Amelia Andersdotter, member of the European parliament, as part of the Cybersecurity Series</b>
<p><i>"Normally a good security policy will also provide privacy to the citizen that is encompassed by the security policy. So things like encryption, for instance, bring a more secure communication, more private communication, where you are able to interact with other people on equal terms and you don't have to fear outside interference. And that is obviously good for both the individual and for security. But then of course, security policies can be framed in different ways. It depends on who you are trying to protect with the security policy. Are you trying to create a secure situation for a copyright holder, or are you trying to create a secure situation for a law enforcement officer, or for a private citizen?" - Amelia Andersdotter, member of European parliament.</i></p>
<p>Centre for Internet and Society presents its fifth installment of the CIS Cybersecurity Series.</p>
<p>The CIS Cybersecurity Series seeks to address hotly debated aspects of cybersecurity and hopes to encourage wider public discourse around the topic.</p>
<p>Amelia Andersdotter is a Member of the European Parliament for the Pirate Party in Sweden. She works with industrial policy in the parliamentary committee of Industry, Research and Energy and is a substitute member of the committees for international trade, INTA, and budget control, CONT. Amelia is the Patron of the European Parliament Free Software User Group (EPFSUG), and also works in the delegations for the Andean community and Korean peninsula.</p>
<p>Amelia's website is: http://ameliaandersdotter.eu/</p>
<p> </p>
<p><iframe frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/RPh7RF2dkcw" width="560"></iframe></p>
<div></div>
<div>
<p><b><i>This work was carried out as part of the Cyber Stewards Network with aid of a grant from the International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada.</i></b></p>
</div>
<div><b><i><br /></i></b></div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/cis-cybersecurity-series-part-5-amelia-andersdotter'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/cis-cybersecurity-series-part-5-amelia-andersdotter</a>
</p>
No publisherpurbaCyberspaceCybersecurityInternet GovernanceCyberculturesCyber Security Interview2013-08-01T09:54:14ZBlog EntryCIS Cybersecurity Series (Part 4) - Marietje Schaake
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-cybersecurity-series-part-4-marietje-schaake
<b>CIS interviews Marietje Schaake, member of the European parliament, as part of the Cybersecurity Series</b>
<div><em>"It is important that we don't confine solutions in military head quarters or in government meeting rooms but that consumers, internet users, NGOs, as well as businesses, together take responsibility to build a resilient society where we also don't forget what it is we are defending, and that is our freedoms... and we have learned hopefully from the war on terror, that there is a great risk to compromise freedom for alleged security and that is a mistake we should not make again." - Marietje Schaake, member of European parliament.</em></div>
<div><em><br /></em></div>
<div>Centre for Internet and Society presents its fourth installment of the CIS Cybersecurity Series.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The CIS Cybersecurity Series seeks to address hotly debated aspects of cybersecurity and hopes to encourage wider public discourse around the topic.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In this installment, CIS interviews Marietje Schaake, member of the European Parliament for the Dutch Democratic Party (D66) with the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) political group. She serves on the Committee on Foreign Affairs, where she focuses on neighbourhood policy, Turkey in particular; human rights, with a specific focus on freedom of expression, Internet freedom, press freedom; and Iran. In the Committee on Culture, Media, Education, Youth and Sports, Marietje works on Europe’s Digital Agenda and the role of culture and new media in the EU´s external actions. In the Committee on International Trade, she focuses on intellectual property rights, the free flow of information and the relation between trade and foreign affairs.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Marietje's website is: http://www.marietjeschaake.eu/</div>
<div> </div>
<p><iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/F7IIHCu2D4g" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong><em>This work was carried out as part of the Cyber Stewards Network with aid of a grant from the International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada.</em></strong></p>
<p><strong><em><br /></em></strong></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-cybersecurity-series-part-4-marietje-schaake'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-cybersecurity-series-part-4-marietje-schaake</a>
</p>
No publisherpurbaCybersecurityCyberspaceCyberculturesCyber Security Interview2013-07-12T10:24:14ZBlog EntryCIS Cybersecurity Series (Part 3) - Eva Galperin
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/cis-cybersecurity-series-part-3-eva-galperin
<b>CIS interviews Eva Galperin, Global Policy Analyst at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).</b>
<p><i>"It is a vital tool for speaking truth to power. Unless you are able to speak anonymously, you are not really free to espouse unpopular ideas to people who have the power to do bad things to do... I think the value of anonymous speech vastly outweighs the difficulties that you can sometimes get into because people can speak anonymously. And on the whole, I think anonymity is worth protecting." - Eva Galperin, Global Policy Analyst at EFF. </i></p>
<p>Centre for Internet and Society presents its third installment of the CIS Cybersecurity Series.</p>
<p>The CIS Cybersecurity Series seeks to address hotly debated aspects of cybersecurity and hopes to encourage wider public discourse around the topic.</p>
<p>In this installment, CIS speaks to Eva Galperin, the Global Policy Analyst at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).She has worked for the EFF in various capacities for the last five years, applying the combination of her political science and technical background to organizing activism campaigns, and doing education and outreach on intellectual property, privacy, and security issues.</p>
<p>EFF homepage: <a href="https://www.eff.org/">https://www.eff.org/</a></p>
<div></div>
<p><iframe frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/BLtiuVX0nEM" width="560"></iframe></p>
<div></div>
<div>
<p><b><i>This work was carried out as part of the Cyber Stewards Network with aid of a grant from the International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada.</i></b></p>
</div>
<div><b><i><br /></i></b></div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/cis-cybersecurity-series-part-3-eva-galperin'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/cis-cybersecurity-series-part-3-eva-galperin</a>
</p>
No publisherpurbaCyberspaceCybersecurityInternet GovernanceCyberculturesCyber Security Interview2013-08-01T09:55:23ZBlog EntryCIS Cybersecurity Series (Part 2) - Ram Mohan
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/cis-cybersecurity-series-part-2-ram-mohan
<b>CIS interviews Ram Mohan, a pioneer in the field of Internet security and internationalization, as part of the Cybersecurity Series</b>
<p><em>"In the Indian context, I think the government does have a significant responsibility to protect its citizenry from cybercrime. There is a greater need for the government to work with private industries as well as academic institutions to ensure a strong understanding of the threats unique to India. After all there are many threats that either originate in the context of the Indian sub-continent and are specific to India." - Ram Mohan, Executive Vice President, & Chief Technology </em><em>Officer of Afilias Limited.</em></p>
<p>Centre for Internet and Society presents its second installment of the CIS Cybersecurity Series.</p>
<p>The CIS Cybersecurity Series seeks to address hotly debated aspects of cybersecurity and hopes to encourage wider public discourse around the topic.</p>
<p>In this installment, CIS speaks to Ram Mohan, a pioneer in the field of Internet security and internationalization. Ram Mohan is Executive Vice President, & Chief Technology Officer of Afilias Limited. He also serves on the Board of Directors of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).</p>
<p> </p>
<p><iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Riub6EIwCgk" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong><em>This work was carried out as part of the Cyber Stewards Network with aid of a grant from the International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada.</em></strong></p>
<div><strong><em><br /></em></strong></div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/cis-cybersecurity-series-part-2-ram-mohan'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/cis-cybersecurity-series-part-2-ram-mohan</a>
</p>
No publisherpurbaCybersecurityCyberspaceCyberculturesCyber Security Interview2013-07-12T10:27:26ZBlog Entry