Centre for Internet and Society

Privacy, security and surveillance: tackling international dilemmas and dangers in the digital realm

praskrishna — 2014-12-15T12:56:49Z

Pranesh Prakash was a panelist in the session "Beyond the familiar: how do other countries deal with security and surveillance oversight?" The event was organized by Wilton Park between November 17 and 19, 2014.

Complete details of the programme can be accessed here.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/wilton-park-november-17-19-privacy-security-surveillance

PT Project - India Access to Knowledge through Music

praskrishna — 2014-11-18T01:56:28Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/pt-project-access-to-knowledge-through-music.pdf

Countering US pressures on India’s IP regime

praskrishna — 2014-12-07T12:20:36Z

Anubha Sinha attended a meeting organized by Lawyer's Collective on "Countering US pressures on India’s IP regime" on November 16, 2014.

Medecins Sans Frontieres, Third World Network, Zakir Thomas, Mira Shiva and a few others also participated. One of the action points was responding to the call for comments issued by the DIPP on formulating a National IPR Policy. All Civil Society members present agreed to make submissions based on their sectoral area of expertise. CIS will also make a submission in this regard.

The tentative date for the next meeting is December 6, 2014. Minutes of the meeting can be downloaded here.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/news/countering-us-pressure-on-indias-ip-regime

Content co-ordination for the Panel Discussion on Crypto-Currencies

praskrishna — 2014-12-05T01:35:01Z

Sharath Chandra Ram was a panelist at this event organized by the Law and Technology Society on November 15, 2014 at the National Law School of India in Bangalore. His presentation was titled Scalability and Security Issues in Distributed Trust based Cryto-Currency Systems like BITCOIN.

Moderator: Ms. Sonal Basu (Program Director-Legal, Mindtree)

Panelists:
Mr. Vikram Nikkam (Co-founder, Unocoin)
Mr. Benson Samuel (Co-founder, Coinsecure)
Dr. (Prof.) TS Somashekar (Associate Professor of Economics, NLSIU)
Mr. Sharath Chandra (Researcher, Centre for Internet and Society)

Student Speakers:
Ms. Nivedita Mukhija

Download Sharath's presentation

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/news/crypto-currencies

Risky Business: Transparency, Technology, Security and Privacy

praskrishna — 2014-11-14T01:24:58Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/risky-business.odp

Mobile Phones to Study (PDF)

praskrishna — 2017-02-15T14:02:31Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/annexure-1-mobile-phones-to-study.pdf

Ground Zero Summit 2014

praskrishna — 2014-12-05T00:42:17Z

Geeta Hariharan participated in this event organized by India Infosec Consortium on November 13 and 14, 2014 in New Delhi.

Living from the successes of last year and our recent conference in Colombo, Ground Zero Summit 2014, in its second year promises to be Asia's largest information security gathering and proposes to be the ultimate platform for showcasing researches and sharing knowledge in the field of cyber security. The event will feature a panel discussion on cyber diplomacy.

Click to read more about the event

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/ground-zero-summit-2014

Fourth Discussion Meeting of the Expert Committee to Discuss the Draft Human DNA Profiling Bill

praskrishna — 2014-12-08T16:07:24Z

The fourth expert committee meeting was held on November 10, 2014 at the Department of Biotechnology to discuss the potential privacy concerns of the draft Human DNA Profiling Bill. Sunil Abraham however was unable to participate because of technical problems.

Agenda

Welcome and opening remarks by the Secretary, DBT
Remarks by the Chairman - Dr. T.S. Rao, Senior Adviser, DBT
A brief overview on deliberations and decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court - Dr. Alka Sharma, Director, DBT
Discussion and finalization of the Bill by the members
Recommendations of the Expert Committee
Any other item with the permission of the Chairman.

Resources

Click here (Zip file, 2698 Kb) to download the following resources from earlier meetings:

Record note of discussions of the Expert Committee Meeting held on January 31, 2013 at DBT, New Delhi, to discuss the potential privacy concerns on draft Human DNA Profiling Bill.
Annexure 1 to Record note: Draft Human DNA Profiling Bill 2012: The Privacy Issues and Concerns
Annexure 2 to Record note: Short background note on the draft Human DNA Profiling Bill
Record note of the 2nd discussion meeting of the Expert Committee held on May 13, 2013 in DBT to discuss the draft Human DNA Profiling Bill
Minutes of the 3rd meeting of the Expert Committee held on November 25, 2013 in DBT to discuss the draft Human DNA Profiling Bill
Record note of the discussions of the Experts Sub-committee Meeting on Human DNA Profiling Bill held on September 3, 2013 at CPFD, Hyderabad
Affidavit on behalf of DBT
Human Draft DNA Profiling Bill 2012 (Working Draft Version, April 29, 2012)

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/fourth-discussion-meeting-of-expert-committee-to-discuss-draft-human-dna-profiling-bill

Times Group wants TRAI to save the Internet from greedy telcos via Net Neutrality

praskrishna — 2014-12-05T00:52:23Z

In an especially strong attack against perceived threats to its Internet-based business, the Times of India group has sought regulatory intervention to ensure what is popularly called Net Neutrality, or the concept that internet service providers must charge only from the end consumer.

The article was published in Real Time News on November 10, 2014. Sunil Abraham gave his inputs.

In other words, the Times of India group wants TRAI to ensure that internet service providers and telecom companies do not take payments from certain websites to give favorable treatment to those websites on their networks.

Such a situation already exists in India’s cable business, where channels who do not pay cable operators are often simply blocked out by the cable operator and the consumer is not able to watch those channels.

The Times Group, which operates a host of websites under its Times Internet subsidiary, believes that rules should be put in place so that telecom operators and other Internet companies do not block out websites who do not pay money to them as has happened in the cable industry. This will prevent small websites and blogs from reaching their customers without paying money to telecom operators, it warned.

In a letter to the TRAI, the Times Group said there are certain trends in the Indian market in which some operators are already giving favorable treatment to certain websites.

“Given the lack of formal rules, the danger is that ISPs in India will violate the principal of Net Neutrality,” it said in a letter.

“There have already been some incidents where Indian ISPs have ignored net neutrality. This sets a precedent that broadband providers can choose the content you want to access, by making it easier or harder to get that content. On the Net, ISPs can use differential bandwidth caps, speed limits and pricing on broadband consumption.”

In recent months, operators like telecom operators have been pushing the regulator to allow them to charge websites and Internet-based services like WhatsApp. They argue that these services take up bandwidth on their networks and that they must be compensated for the bandwidth used by consumers for services like WhatsApp, Facebook etc..

“Telecom Operators in India are gearing up to push for a regulation to get websites to pay to allow consumers to access them. The telecom industry’s lobbying arm, the Cellular Operators Association of India, has listed “revenue sharing agreements” with telecom operators one of the five items on their wishlist for the new government,” Times Group said.

The debate around net neutrality started in the US where internet service providers started promoting their own websites and services by giving lower rates for accessing them.

“Services like Netflix and Hulu have revolutionized digital content consumption and given users enormous flexibility, but they are coming under pressure by copycat services developed by cable companies, such as Comcast Xfinity. These services take advantage of owning the cable connection by offering better, unlimited connectivity when using their service, while offering limited or capped connectivity when accessing Hulu or Netflix. This is an anti-competitive move that stifles innovation and competition,” Times Group said.

Other excerpts from Times Group’s submissions follow –

“Net Neutrality is the principle that the internet users should be able to access web content, download or upload files and communicate in methods of their choice without restrictions or limitations imposed by their Internet Service Providers (ISPs). Net Neutrality means an Internet that enables and protects free speech1 and equal opportunities. This means that Internet service providers should not block or discriminate against any applications or content that ride over those networks, and should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication or different speeds for different kinds of content.

“Underlying this, is the principle of whether or not India has enough safeguards to ensure that the ecosystem for content is a healthy and thriving one, and is not abused by distributors or last-mile operators aiming to create anti-competitive practices. This is a very real threat indeed, because while content may be king, distribution is God – and thousands of content owners are at the mercy of a few last mile owners who have become far more powerful than any media conglomerate could ever dream to be.

“It is hence critical that the government and regulators wake up to the fact that the only way to ensure a competitive media landscape with equal opportunities for all content-owners and their customers on Net and Mobile, is to ensure there are enough rules whereby customer connectivity is neutral to the content that rides on it. How net neutrality has shaped the internet : Net neutrality has shaped the internet in two fundamental ways: One, web users are free to connect to whatever website or service they want. ISPs do not bother with what kind of content is flowing from their servers.

“This has allowed the internet to grow into a truly global network and has allowed people to freely express themselves. For example, you can criticize your ISP on a blog post and the ISP will not restrict access to that post for its other subscribers, even though the post may harm its business. But more importantly, net neutrality has enabled a level playing field on the internet. To start a website, you don’t need lot of money or connections. Just host your website and you are good to go. If your service is good, it will find favour with web users.

“Unlike the cable TV where you have to forge alliances with cable connection providers to make sure that your channel reaches viewers, on the internet you don’t have to talk to ISPs to put your website online. This has led to the creation of Google, Facebook, Twitter and countless other services, all of which had very humble beginnings. They started as basic websites with modest resources. But they succeeded because net neutrality allowed web users to access these websites in an easy and unhindered manner. What will happen if there is no net neutrality : If there is no net neutrality, ISPs will have the power (and inclination) to shape internet traffic so that they can derive extra benefit from it.

“For example, several ISPs believe that they should be allowed to charge companies for services like YouTube and Netflix because these services consume more bandwidth compared to a normal website. Basically, these ISPs want a share in the money that YouTube or Netflix make. Without net neutrality, the internet as we know it, will not exist. Instead of free access, there could be “package plans” for consumers.

“For example, if you pay Rs 500, you will only be able to access websites based in India. To access international websites, you may have to pay more. Or there could be different connection speeds for different types of content, depending on how much you are paying for the service and what “add-on package” you have bought. This would clearly be a discriminatory practice between different websites and different kinds of content –and would men abuse of near-monopolistic powers of ISPs. Lack of net neutrality, would also spell doom for innovation on the web.

“It is possible that ISPs will charge web companies to enable faster access to their websites. Those who don’t pay, may see that their websites opening slowly. This means bigger companies like Google would be able to pay more to make access to Youtube or Google+ faster for web users but a startup that wants to create a different and better video hosting site, may not be able to do that and lose its business. Instead of an open and free internet, without net neutrality we are likely to get a web that has silos in it and to enter each silo, you will have to pay some “tax” to ISPs.

“The bottom line is that lack of net neutrality is an anti-consumer practice that will stifle competition and innovation in the digital economy, leaving power in the hands of telecom operators and broadband providers, rather than the thousands of emerging entrepreneurs in India. How Internet Neutrality may be jeopardized by ISPs, Telecom providers or other players in collusion: The case of Net and Mobile ISPs or Telecom players offering internet may try to get Internet companies to pay tolls and threaten to block or delay them if they don’t. They may do exclusive deals or other arrangements which may result in Internet blackouts or smaller websites being caught in the crossfire –, or websites, tweets, emails and texts may be mysteriously delayed or dropped, Videos would load slowly, if at all or the websites may end up working fine one minute, and time out another.

“More dangerously, this would enable a company to slow down its competitors or block political opinions it disagrees with. ISP would claim it is not their fault, and users would have no idea whom to blame –especially as there are currently no protections for Internet users. Further there is no competition in broadband, and even if there is, all ISPs may end up playing this game. On the Net, ISPs can use differential bandwidth caps, speed limits and pricing on broadband consumption. But on mobile, telecom operators can offer further favouritism towards preferred services, with additional benefits like selective billing integration and marketing/promotion.

“And since bandwidth on mobile is more limited than over broadband, restrictions or favouritism in bandwidth consumption offer telecom operators an even stronger, anti-competitive advantage. Worse, it sets a precedent that broadband providers can choose the content you want to access, by making it easier or harder to get that content. Further if freed from any legal restraints, ISPs can monitor everything users do and say online — and sell the information to the highest bidder. ISPs will have something that companies like Facebook and Google don’t: direct control over users’ connections to the Internet and the devices user use to connect to it. What is at stake is innovation and creativity, market competition, information availability and freedom of expression –and it is essential to protect thews ehard won freedoms only via Net Neutrality. International Scenario: Net neutrality has become a very heated issue in US and Europe, with significant momentum across civic groups, regulators and governments….

“While the internet only has 50-60 million users, its users can access vast amounts of content even as industries like e- commerce and travel have blossomed, creating economic value and real utility to consumers. Compare it to the MVAS world, where despite over 900 million users, the most common consumer sentiment is that they are being unfairly billed for irrelevant services. So what is the difference? On the internet, anyone can start a company and compete fairly for the consumers’ attention, spurring innovation and value. But in the mobile VAS world, only five major telecom operators control the services and choose the MVAS companies they want to patronize –even as they pay them rock bottom rates in revenue shares. The result is much less competition, and operators selling the same services (like caller ringback tones) increasingly aggressively to their customers, but with little or no innovation…

“As connectivity grows across the internet and mobiles, it is crucial that the government allows the same flourishing, open liberal ecosystem that has currently existed on the Web to continue across devices. India’s huge population and strong technical talent have the potential for global scale entrepreneurship and innovation, and can create a new dynamic India in the way IT had done in the 1990s. But it requires an infrastructure and atmosphere that is not controlled by last-mile connectivity providers who abuse their dominance.

“One should not confuse this with cross-media ownership –which is a non-issue, prompted by political motivations that fear a strong media. The real issue is whether or not we have enough safeguards to ensure that the ecosystem for content is a healthy and thriving one, and is not abused by distributors or last-mile operators aiming to create anti-competitive practices by expanding into content. This is a very real threat indeed, because while content may be king, distribution is God – and the thousands of content owners are at the mercy of a few last mile owners who have become far more powerful than any media conglomerate could ever be.

“It is high time, then, that the government and regulators wake up to the fact that the only way to ensure a competitive media landscape with equal voice for all content, is to ensure there are enough rules whereby customer connectivity is neutral to the content that rides on it. Survival of Net Neutrality : Net neutrality was earlier being implemented as a sort of a gentlemen’s agreement. It has survived so far because few people realized the potential of internet when it took off around 30 years ago. But now when the internet is not just an integral part of the society but an incredibly powerful –and disruptive— force as well,, ISPs across the world are trying to get the power to shape and control the traffic.

“But there are ways to keep net neutrality alive. Consumers should demand that ISPs continue their hands-off approach from the internet traffic. If consumers see a violation of net neutrality, they ought to take a proactive approach and register their displeasure with the ISP. They should also reward ISPs that uphold the net neutrality. At the same time, it is crucial to ensure that TRAI comes out with a set of clear and precise rules that protect the net neutrality.

“‘We have started seeing ISPs trying to take control of the traffic that flows from their servers but TRAI can regulate them. It can keep the internet open and consumer-friendly by forming rules that protect net neutrality. These are early days so it is easy to do. If ISPs manage to change the system, it may become too late,’ Sunil Abraham, director of Centre for internet and Society in Bangalore says.

“Conclusion: Internet has thrived because of its freedom of competition and ability for anyone with an internet connection to change the world. It is necessary to have safeguards – laws and checks and balances on the last mile of the consumer – to ensure last mile neutrality, which has now become the global movement across mediums. Taking advantage of last mile ownership throttles such innovation and competition.”

RTN's Take

We believe telecom operators and internet service providers should be allowed to offer ‘special offerings’ such as ‘Free Facebook’ by tying up with Facebook if companies like Facebook want to pay the internet access charges on behalf of the consumer.

However, such services should not be marketed as ‘Internet’ or ‘Web Access’ and must be clearly marketed as ‘Facebook Access’ or ‘Walled Garden Access’. Conversely, any consumer who pays for ‘Internet’ access should get neutral and unmanipulated access to all websites on an equal footing. There should be no behind-the-scenes tinkering with the traffic in such cases.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/telecom/news/rtn-asia-november-10-2014-times-group-wants-trai-to-save-internet-from-greedy-telcos-via-net-neutrality

Getting Strategic about Openness and Privacy

praskrishna — 2014-11-09T09:19:23Z

This blog post by Tim Davies, Open Data Research Lead at Web Foundation was published in Open Up? on November 3, 2014.

Click to read the original post here. Sunil Abraham gave his inputs.

Information is powerful. And in a world where the amount of information generated, captured and stored has grown exponentially in recent decades, getting hold of the information you need, when you need it, relies upon having access to the data that describes it. That makes the control of data especially powerful.

Modern transparency initiatives, promoting the idea of open data, have been seeking to break the data-monopoly of privileged actors within the state — unlocking key datasets and making them available for public scrutiny and reducing the information inequalities that undermine open public discourse. Opening up government data is *one* way in which citizens can reclaim some power and reestablish the principle that “they work for us”. Open government data gives us power to know how the government is spending money, what companies are getting public sector contracts and licenses, who owns these companies, what profits they make and what royalties and taxes they pay. Yet, progress has been slow, and we have faced substantial challenges in securing reliable and standardised flows of public data that can be joined-up to give a true picture of how public resources are being used, and key decisions made. Although millions of public datasets have been placed online, the most politically salient are often lacking. The 2013 Open Data Barometer found fewer than 1 in 10 accountability datasets were truly open.

At the same time, advocates of building a more open government need to grapple with three other trends that are shaping discussions of data, power and the state:

Firstly, and most important, the revelations brought to our attention by whistleblower Edward Snowden have confirmed the extent of the secret state and the profound imbalance of power between citizens and their state created through mass surveillance. Whilst projects to disclose even basic data on the state like public spending are underfunded and ad hoc, billions of dollars are poured into tools and technologies that violate basic human rights and that threaten trust and security on the Web. Fundamentally the problem with secret mass surveillance is that it destroys the checks and balances that are meant to limit the power of the state over citizens.
Secondly, and in part due to the discussion spared by Snowden, public awareness of the data, and consequently power, held by corporations has grown. The Web has become increasingly centralised, and large companies now harvest large amounts of data on any individual technology user. In parallel, in some countries such as the UK, governments have sought to use open data agendas as cover for increased proprietary sharing of public data with private firms, seeking to go around established principles of consent to share publicly held health, tax or student records with profit-making firms. Such data-sharing is not inherently wrong if there are public benefits, but building citizen trust in the state’s stewardship of personal data, and ensuring safeguards are in place to warrant that trust, is a major challenge.
Thirdly, concerns have been raised that some of the data released through open data initiatives may also affect the privacy of citizens. Some aggregated and anonymised datasets can be combined with other data to reverse engineer identifiable information. Although early calls for “raw data now” were clear that they were not calling for open personal information, in practice the divide between personal and public can be a narrow one.

So, do these trends mean we should be more cautious about opening up? Should the balance swing back towards a focus on protecting privacy? Ultimately, a simple opposition of privacy and openness is a false dichotomy. The question is not should we focus on openness, or should we protect privacy: but is Who should be open? And how? And whose privacy should be protected, and how?

Sunil Abraham, of the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore, has offered a key solution in the idea that:

“Transparency should be proportional to power, privacy inversely so.”

It is on this basis that organisations working for a fairer future, with more vibrant public discourse, greater freedom, and better governments, can campaign for both privacy and openness together. Those who occupy public office, own companies, or tender for public contracts must accept that there is a legitimate public interest in information about their activities in these roles, whilst independent citizens must be afforded space to form views and live lives without constant state surveillance. Companies should not be considered to have a right to privacy: their interests are already protected by other laws and provisions.

To deliver effective openness through open data, the Web Foundation is working to understand how data gets used on the ground in different settings across the world, and, with Omidyar support, is working on the creation of inclusive open data standards for public contracting data. Standards like the Open Contracting Data Standard are part of building a new infrastructure of open governance, making it possible to join-up data from different places, helping tilt the balance of power towards citizens when it comes to scrutinising governments and corporations. Through the Open Data Barometer we keep track of the availability of key datasets that can be used for accountability, and we’re co-chairing the Open Government Partnership Open Data Working Group, seeking to set high standards for relevant and usable data disclosures by governments.

By focussing on the civic use of data, we can better identify those datasets that must be in the public domain. And by thinking about relative power when considering privacy we can address genuine privacy concerns, whilst not allowing corporations claiming privacy rights, or public figures trying to hide their financial interests, from diminishing the power of data to enable accountability.

At the same time, the Web Foundation leads the Web We Want campaign, challenging mass surveillance and seeking to secure a Web where individuals have the right to privacy, and the tools to secure it. And increasingly transparency of what the state and companies do with personal data can help increase the capacity of citizens to respond to threats to their autonomy, and can increase oversight and safeguards on state or corporate capacity.

Ultimately, our ongoing efforts to open up, and to protect individual freedoms, have to be strategic. And keeping an analysis of power, and Sunil’s maxim, in mind, provides a good starting point to guide the strategy.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/open-up-tim-davies-november-3-2014-getting-strategic-about-openness-and-privacy

Ubiquity, Mobility, Globality: Charting Directions in Mobile Phone Studies

praskrishna — 2014-12-04T16:27:26Z

Nehaa Chaudhari made a presentation at the Ubiquity, Mobility, Globality : Charting Directions in Mobile Phone Studies Conference. This was organized by the Center for Global Communication Studies at the Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia on November 6 and 7, 2014. Nehaa was on a panel titled Mobile and its Effects on Global Markets and made a presentation on Pervasive Technologies: Access to Knowledge in the Workplace.

Nehaa Chaudhari's presentation can be downloaded here (PDF, 518 KB). Click here for the full programme. Download the agenda here.

Mobile phones are tools for activism and civic participation, surveillance and repression, market making and market disruption. In Ithiel de Sola Pool’s memorable phrase, there have been few “technologies of freedom” that match the consequences of these new instruments and the infrastructure that supports them. This conference examines dimensions of the social, political, and economic effects of the global ubiquity of mobile phones:

What are the affordances and limitations of mobile phones in development?
What is the impact of mobile phones on socio-political change?
How do mobile phones continue to shape our civil liberties?
What are the geo-political consequences of these mobilities?
How does mobile phone adoption challenge and support market innovation?

To tackle these questions, this conference brings together voices from the academy, civil society, and industry—all to examine the heterogeneous sources and consequences of mobility’s diffusion. The goal of this conference is to further interdisciplinary and comparative approaches to the understanding of the mobile phenomenon and to chart directions in mobile phone studies. The conference is funded by the Provost’s Global Engagement Fund, the Center for Global Communication Studies, and the Project for Advanced Research in Global Communication and the program reflects the input of several Schools at Penn, including the Annenberg School for Communication, Wharton, Law, and the School of Arts and Sciences.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/news/center-for-global-communication-studies-november-6-2014-ubiquity-mobility-globality-charting-directions-in-mobile-phone-studies

PT:A2K - Workplace

praskrishna — 2014-11-09T08:39:50Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/pervasive-technologies-a2k-workplace.pdf

October 2014 NVDA Report

praskrishna — 2014-11-08T05:10:13Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/october-2014-nvda-report.pdf

Resources of Meeting

praskrishna — 2014-11-07T00:37:51Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/resources-meeting.zip

Learning Forum: Transparency and Human Rights in the Digital Age

praskrishna — 2014-12-04T16:14:38Z

Pranesh Prakash spoke at this event organized by Global Network Initiative on November 6, 2014 in California.

Pranesh Prakash spoke on transparency reports and their use and abuse in India; the Intermediary Liability Rules in India (and its non-provision of any transparency mechanism); and the need for transparency in private speech regulation, not just governmental speech regulation.

The Global Network Initiative and the Telecommunications Industry Dialogue on Freedom of Expression and Privacy present:

2014 Learning Forum - Silicon Valley
Transparency and Human Rights in the Digital Age

Hosted by LinkedIn

Agenda

1:30PM - Registration

2:00PM - Opening Remarks

Mark Stephens, Independent Chair, Global Network Initiative

Jeffrey Dygert, Executive Director of Public Policy, AT&T

Pablo Chavez, Vice President, Global Public Policy and Government Affairs, LinkedIn

2:15PM - Why does transparency matter for protecting and respecting rights online?

Arvind Ganesan, Director of Business and Human Rights, Human Rights Watch

Deirdre Mulligan, Associate Professor, UC Berkeley School of Information

Michael Samway, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University

3:00PM - What is the state of transparency reporting by companies and governments, and what's missing?

Steve Crown, Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, Microsoft

Jeffrey Dygert, Executive Director of Public Policy, AT&T

Jason Pielemeier, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, U.S. Department of State

Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director, Centre for Internet & Society, Bangalore

Moderated by Bennett Freeman, Senior Vice President, Sustainability Research and Policy, Calvert Investments

4:00PM - Break

4:30PM - How do companies communicate with users in response to live events?

Ben Blink, Senior Policy Analyst, Free Expression and International Relations, Google

Patrik Hiselius, Senior Advisor, Digital Rights, TeliaSonera

Rebecca MacKinnon, Director, Ranking Digital Rights Project, New America Foundation

Hemanshu Nigam, CEO, SSP Blue

Sana Saleem, Director, Bolo Bhi

Moderated by Cynthia Wong, Senior Internet Researcher, Human Rights Watch

The program will be followed by a reception from 5:30 to 6:30pm.

By invitation only, non-transferrable.

Have questions about Learning Forum: Transparency and Human Rights in the Digital Age? Contact Global Network Initiative

The original was published here.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/learning-forum-transparency-and-human-rights-in-the-digital-age