Centre for Internet and Society

WIPO SCCR Text (April 30, 2014)

praskrishna — 2014-05-25T04:03:05Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-27-discussions-transcripts-day-3.txt

India needs better cyber police

praskrishna — 2014-06-04T07:56:33Z

On Wednesday, one of the largest online shopping and auction portals, eBay, revealed that earlier this year, cybercriminals accessed details of 145 million of its customers.

The article by Surabhi Agarwal was published in the Business Standard on May 23, 2014. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

Even though eBay's customers' financial details are said to be safe, the incident is being termed a "historic breach" given the enormity of the data compromised. Globally, eBay is being criticised not just for its laxity in securing the digital perimeter but also for reacting too late. The company has said that it first came to know of the breach "two weeks" ago. Records that have been accessed contain passwords as well as email addresses, birth dates, mailing addresses and other personal information.

The situation is worse when it comes to reporting such instances in India, say cyber security experts. The Indian Information Technology Act requires companies to adopt "reasonable security measures" to protect consumers' sensitive personal information such as passwords and financial details. It also makes companies duty bound to report breaches and also defines liabilities in case a firm is found not to be adhering to best data security practices. However, implementation is patchy and most such instances go unreported.

Pavan Duggal, an advocate specialising in cyber security, says most users do not come to know if there has been a breach. "Awareness is also low among consumers about the legal recourse available in case their data has been compromised," he adds. Unlike in the West, lack of a proper data protection and privacy law in India is to be blamed for this. "Companies, too, are inclined not to report such instances as they fear being negatively impacted in the market," he points out.

In case of a breach, a user can contact the adjudicating officer, which is the state infotech secretary, for legal recourse. However, the onus is on the user to prove the breach. In the US, a consumer can get a subpoena (court order) issued against a company that makes it duty bound to provide details of the breach. "In India, the regime is too lax. It is very difficult to notify the government," says Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society.

"There are stringent compliance requirements in countries such as the US. The laws in India need to come tougher if we want companies to become more serious about this," adds Duggal.

eBay has advised consumers, many of whom could be Indians, to immediately change their passwords. While people tend to use the same password across many sites, emails and phones numbers act as verifying tools for several financial transactions and could be misused. Moreover, unlike India, the US does not require additional authentication apart from credit card and CVV number, which makes transactions slightly more vulnerable. "It may be a good idea to include a one-time password as a security layer," says Abraham.

Over 200 million Indians are online. The Indian e-commerce market is estimated at $2 billion (Rs 12,000 crore) and is expected to cross $20 billion over the next four years.

"There is no such thing as 100 per cent protection in the digital world. The choice is between transacting online or not," says Akhilesh Tuteja, executive director of consulting firm KPMG. "Technology is becoming so sophisticated that what was good yesterday is not good today." A bigger dialogue is needed on people treating theft of digital assets just as they would physical assets, he adds.

The last big breach was reported at software maker Adobe Systems in October 2013, when it was uncovered that hackers accessed about 152 million user accounts. Last December Target said some 40 million payment card numbers and another 70 million customer records were hacked into.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/business-standard-may-23-2014-surabhi-agarwal-india-needs-better-cyber-police

Students lead the way with apps for ideas

praskrishna — 2014-05-28T09:24:30Z

At 1am, the lights are still on in 15-year-old Pratik's room at his house on 80 Feet Road, Indiranagar. The NPS-Koramangala student is busy typing code on his laptop for his latest app called Resolve.

The article published in the Times of India on May 21, 2014 quotes Nishant Shah.

Pratik epitomizes Gen X. Coding and decoding, these school children, barely into their teens, are developing apps drawing attention worldwide.

"I learnt coding by myself with the help of the internet. The world wants things simplified and that's why apps are a hit. The first app I made was a calculator because my dad was unhappy with the one on his phone. My work was initially rejected, but I knew that would happen. But I continued working. When I went to a Microsoft conference, they told me youngsters have ideas to change the world and we have the time," said Pratik.

He was felicitated with a Nokia Lumia 1520 at the Windows Azure Conference 2014 for his work in developing apps for Windows and Windows Phone store.

Rahul Yedida, a Class 12 student at the National Centre for Excellence, has around 18,000 downloads for the app he and his friend created. "I wasn't too happy with the amount of Maths homework. I started wondering whether an app could do it. At the same time, I had learnt a new language and wanted to test my skills. That's how I started working on it," said Rahul.

"Programming is fun. Seeing a computer work the way you want it to gives you special joy," said Vaisakh M, Rahul's co-developer. They sent a letter to Bill Gates about the app and got a reply lauding their achievement.

Quote hanger
* During my free time, I read about programming which helps me when I write programs. My friends in the colony join me when I watch videos about it. They do programs in other languages. I play games and used to wonder how they're made. My dad promised to get me a laptop if I start programming and that's how it started.

Thrisha Mohan| 12, Vidyashilp Academy, now working on a jewellery app

* Apps are the cool things to do now. With the kind of access possible thanks to smart phones, they have gone to the masses. I wouldn't be surprised at the number of apps being created. When an app is created in a college dormitory, 1,000 students in the college will download it. That's instant gratification. The ecosystem is such that with social networking sites, you become an instant hero. The question is: How many can be successful and have a long life?

S Sadagopan | director, IIIT-B

* Apps are more relevant for those growing up with interfaces which are mobile and wearable. We also need to realise there is a growing generation of people whose first point of access to the digital as well as to the connected worlds of the internet is through mobile devices. And apps are a natural way of interaction. It is a positive trend because it allows users to think of themselves not only as 'users' but as active producers of the digital world. They look beyond platforms made available by multi-national companies or private enterprises, and it allows them to build communities of interaction and learning between them. We need to make sure they are safe and not susceptible to invasive presence of others who might exploit their presence on the web.

Nishant Shah | director- research, The Centre for Internet and Society

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/times-of-india-may-21-2014-sruthy-susan-ullas-students-lead-the-way-with-apps-for-ideas

National Elections 2014: How Technology Powered Campaigns

praskrishna — 2014-05-20T07:03:51Z

HasGeek and the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) welcome you to a presentation on how technology powered politicial campaigns in the recently concluded 2014 national elections. Developers, advocacy organizations and the general public are invited to participate. The event will be held at CIS on May 23, 2014, 6.00 p.m. to 8.30 p.m.

During the 2014 Indian general elections, technology was widely used for candidate and party campaigns. The purpose of these technology-driven campaigns was to help voters make more informed decisions before casting their votes. Voter responses to these campaigns continuously helped individual candidates and political parties (via their technology teams and consultants) to rework messaging till the very end.

HasGeek and CIS are organizing three presentations followed by an interactive Q&A session to understand how technology spurred campaigns during the 2014 elections, and how voters will have to get smarter just as parties are becoming smart in reaching out to them.

Sessions

Campaigning in the pre-Internet and Internet Era (Talk)

Vijay Grover, founder of Bangalore Media Foundation and television journalist since 17 years, will compare the past and present to explain how internet technologies have changed campaigning stratgies. Grover will argue that voters need to get smart in sifting information and making choices as more and more parties use social media and information technologies in reaching out to them.

Technology-driven campaigns (Talk)

Viral Shah, part of Nandan Nilekani's campaign management team, will talk about how India is placed in the global scene with respect to technology-driven political campaigns. Viral will also discuss how to design a campaign with technology and how technology was used to power Nilekani's campaign.

Tools used for powering campaigns and attracting volunteers (Talk)

BG Mahesh, founder and managing director at Oneindia.in, will talk about the tools used during Narendra Modi's campaign. Apart from informing voters about the candidate, volunteers were also enlisted through the drives. BG Mahesh will throw light on how technology made this possible.

Schedule

Time	Sessions
18.00 18.15	Introductions: HasGeek, CIS, The Fifth Elephant
18.15 18.45	Vijay Grover: Campaigning in the pre-Internet and Internet Era
18.45 19.15	Viral Shah: Technology-driven campaigning
19.15 19.45	B.G.Mahesh: Tools used for powering campaigns and attracting volunteers
19.45 20.15	Q & A Session
20.15 20.30	Snacks

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/events/national-elections-2014-how-technology-powered-campaigns

An Open House Session with George Abraham

praskrishna — 2014-05-19T01:45:58Z

Ashoka India and the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) welcome you to an open house session with George Abraham, CEO and Founder of the SCORE Foundation at Ashoka- Innovators for the Public in Domlur on Wednesday, May 21, 2014.

“Blindness or disability is not the real problem, it is the way we all think.” – Ashoka Fellow George Abraham

Made invisible in the public sphere, persons with disability are often overlooked by society as productive members of the community. Their families, friends and mainstream media too have done little to change the limited lens through which they, and ultimately individuals with disability see and define their role in their communities.

We believe that the time has come for us as a society, especially businesses, to break the barriers between different worlds. We need to create spaces that allow us to ‘step in’ to each other’s worlds and engage in meaningful dialogues that allow us to reflect, question and develop an empathetic lens to building a society that is more inclusive to persons with disability.

Join Ashoka India and the Center for Internet and Society (CIS) for an Open House Session on Wednesday, May 21, where we will be screening an episode of George Abraham’s new show on the visually impaired-“Nazar ya Nazariya”-followed by a Q&A with George, Ashoka and CIS on what it means to shift the perception and treatment of disability in society, media and big business.

Agenda

Time	Detail
15.00 15.30	Screening of Nazar Ya Nazariya
15.30 16.00	Q&A with George Abraham
16.00 17.00	An open dialogue with experts and audience members on Stepping into Disability: How can we begin to change the paradigm on the inclusion of persons with disability into mainstream society, with a special focus on corporates and business enterprise?
17.00 17.30	Connect and Share (Networking space)

RSVP

RSVP: Olina Banerji (9480826557) - obanerji@ashoka.org
Rajesh Varghese (9008998414) - rvarghese@ashoka.org
Anandhi Visvanathan (8197177080) - anandhi@cis-india.org

The Team

George Abraham

Based on his own experiences and those of hundreds of visually impaired people, George has developed a program whose combination of clinical and non-clinical components will help the seeing impaired stand on their own feet and realize their full potentials. George has designed the Vision Enhancement Center (VEC) to institutionalize comprehensive, non-medical eye care services. Like counseling, equipment, training, medical referrals, information, and rehabilitation services. George's goal is to build the first world-class institution for the visually impaired in the SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) region to be an example that will inspire widespread reform in the way the blind and other people with disabilities are treated, cared for, educated, and employed. To garner support for his work, George is partnering with civil society organizations, medical professionals, the government, and corporations. His latest venture has been a collaboration with Doordarshan to create a 13-episode television series called Nazar Ya Nazariya, that highlights and celebrates visually impaired individuals who have overcome both physical and mental barriers to integrate successfully into the mainstream.

CIS

The Centre for Internet and Society is a non-profit research organization that works on policy issues relating to freedom of expression, privacy, accessibility for persons with disabilities, access to knowledge and IPR reform, and openness (including open government, FOSS, open standards, etc.), and engages in academic research on digital natives and digital humanities.

Ashoka

Ashoka is the world’s leading network of social entrepreneurs — men and women who are creating new institutions to implement system-changing solutions for the world’s most urgent social problems. Since 1980, Ashoka has pioneered the field of social entrepreneurship, electing and connecting more than 3,000 Fellows with innovative, sustainable solutions in a variety of fields such as civic engagement, economic development, health, human rights, environment, and learning/education in over 70 countries. As the largest association of leading social entrepreneurs in the world, Ashoka has started and supported movements that have brought about widespread social change, and has developed a keen understanding of what individuals need to make change happen. Ashoka has been engaged in learning from and serving this historical movement across the globe for 25 years.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/events/open-house-session-with-george-abraham

Wikipedia in UG Education program at Christ University

praskrishna — 2014-05-27T10:19:48Z

On May 15, 2014, Prajavani published an article about Wikipedia in UG Education program in Christ University.

Click to read the online version published by Prajavani here.

A scanned version of the article is given below:

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/prajavani-may-15-2014-wikipedia-ug-education-christ-university

The Future of Cyber Governance

praskrishna — 2014-05-27T10:05:43Z

Hague Institute for Global Justice in association with the Observer Research Foundation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Netherlands, and the Netherlands Institute for International Relations - Clingendael organized a conference on the Future of Cyber Governance at the Hague from May 13 to 15, 2014. Sunil Abraham was a speaker at this event.

Global Governance Reform Initiative

The Global Governance Reform Initiative (GGRI) seeks to overcome the challenges of global governance in three important domains – cyberspace, oceans and migration – by improving the efficiency, effectiveness and legitimacy of collective actions undertaken by relevant stakeholders.

The current focus of the GGRI is the governance of cyberspace. How cyberspace is governed has significant implications for a range of critical issues, from national security to the protection of individuals’ rights and freedoms. Yet, the governance of cyberspace is highly contested. Tensions exist between those who favour private sector-led, decentralized forms of governance, and those who favour state-led, centralized forms of governance. There is, therefore, a pressing need for practicable policies which can help balance competing demands effectively.

The conference is a platform for 17 outstanding academics and professionals representing a range of countries and sectors to present papers addressing key issues related to the governance of cyberspace. The authors were selected through a competitive application process which sought to balance the candidates’ professional and geographic backgrounds in a manner that would maximize the quality and policy-relevance of the research.

During the conference, the participants will present their papers to a select group of seasoned experts on cyber governance. These experts will provide the participants with constructive feedback on their research findings and policy recommendations. The aim of the conference is to allow the participants to engage in a rigorous analysis of the selected governance challenges in order to craft practicable policy recommendations aimed at improving the governance of cyberspace. The authors of the best papers will be invited to present their work at the 2014 India Conference on Cyber Security and Cyber Governance, organized by the Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi.
The Hague Institute undertakes this project in collaboration with the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Observer Research Foundation (New Delhi), and the Netherlands Institute of International Relations – Clingendael.

See the full details of the programme here.

Video

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/future-of-cyber-governance

Does Size Matter? A Tale of Performing Welfare, Producing Bodies and Faking Identity

praskrishna — 2014-06-04T09:45:49Z

Malavika Jayaram gave a talk.

This was published by the website of Berkman Center for Internet and Society

Big Data doesn’t get much bigger than India’s identity project. The world’s largest biometric database - currently consisting of almost 600 million enrolled - seduces with promises of inclusion, legitimacy and visibility. By locating this techno-utopian vision within the larger surveillance state that a unique identifier facilitates, Malavika will describe the ‘welfare industrial complex’ that imagines the poor as the next emerging market. She will highlight the risks of the body as password, of implementing e-governance in a legal vacuum, and of digitization reinforcing existing inequalities. The export of technologies of control - once they have been tested on a massive population that has little agency and limited ability to withhold consent - transforms this project from a site of local activism to one with global repercussions. By offering a perspective that is somewhat different from the traditional western focus of privacy, she hopes to generate a more inclusive discourse about what it means to be autonomous and empowered in the face of paternalistic development projects. She will highlight, in particular, the varied ways in which the project is already being subverted and re-purposed, in ways that are humorous and poignant.

About Malavika

Malavika is a Fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University, focusing on privacy, identity and free expression. She is also a Fellow at the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, and the author of the India chapter for the Data Protection & Privacy volume in the Getting the Deal Done series. Malavika is one of 10 Indian lawyers in The International Who's Who of Internet e-Commerce & Data Protection Lawyers directory. In August 2013, she was voted one of India’s leading lawyers - one of only 8 women to be featured in the “40 under 45” survey conducted by Law Business Research, London. In a different life, she spent 8 years in London, practicing law with global firm Allen & Overy in the Communications, Media & Technology group, and as VP and Technology Counsel at Citigroup. She is working on a PhD about the development of a privacy jurisprudence and discourse in India, viewed partly through the lens of the Indian biometric ID project.

Podcast

Watch the podcast at this link.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/harvard-university-may-13-2014-does-size-matter

Re:publica 2014: Looking for Freedom

praskrishna — 2014-06-04T05:37:57Z

Re:publica in partnership with DAIMLER, Global Innovation Gathering, Microsoft and Science:Lab organized this conference at Berlin from May 6 to 8, 2014.

Pranesh Prakash was a speaker at the session "The Architecture of Invisible Censorship: How Digital and Meatspace Censorship Differ". Click to read the full list of speakers here.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/re-publica-2014-looking-for-freedom

NVDA e-Speak Text-to-Speech Project Update (April 2014)

praskrishna — 2014-05-07T05:36:55Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/nvda-e-speak-update-april-2014.pdf

WIPO: Scope and rights of potential broadcasting treaty clarified

praskrishna — 2014-05-28T07:03:17Z

This post by Alexandra Bhattacharya was published in SUNS #7796 dated 5 May 2014.

Read the story posted on Third World Network here. CIS is quoted.

Integral concepts and the options on the scope of a proposed broadcasting treaty, and the substantive rights envisaged for broadcasting organisations have been further elucidated.

The 27th session of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) completed its two- and-half-day discussion on 30 April of the agenda item on a proposed Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organisations - a 16-year-old issue in WIPO.

However, a number of member states (India and Brazil) pointed out that there was further need to tackle the technical issues and that there was still no clear consensus.

The results of the informal consultations (Regional Coordinators plus six) held by the committee's Chair have produced two tables based on Article 6 which deals with the "Scope of Application" of the proposed treaty, and with Article 9 on "Protection for Broadcasting Organisations" in the working document (SCCR/27/2 Rev).

There is no clear consensus on most of the elements in the tables, but they are meant to consolidate all the options and proposals currently in place.

The 27th session of the SCCR is taking place in Geneva from 28 April to 2 May.

In 2007, WIPO's General Assembly agreed to pursue a "signal-based approach" to drafting a new treaty to provide protection for broadcasting organisations, to ensure that provisions on signal theft in themselves did not give broadcasters additional rights over program content.

Results of Informal Consultations: Tables on Scope of Application and Rights

The informal consultations have resulted in a table on the Scope of Application of the treaty which relates to Article 6 of the proposed treaty. The potential applicable areas identified include:

(i) traditional broadcasting [and cablecasting](wireless or by wire)(+pre-broadcast signal);

(ii) simultaneous and unchanged transmission of broadcast program (simulcasting);

(iii) deferred linear transmission of broadcast program;

(iv) on-demand transmission of broadcasting program (catch up) and program-related material (to be defined); and

(v) internet originated linear transmission (webcasting).

Elements (ii) to (v) relate to transmission over the Internet [if included, only for traditional broadcasters/cable casters]. The Chair stated that there was greater emphasis on traditional broadcasting which included both wireless or by wire along with pre-broadcast signals. There was greater divergence with respect to transmissions over the internet with a majority position that simultaneous and almost simultaneous broadcasting should be part of the treaty. Some had also expressed the opinion that webcasting should be beyond the scope of the treaty.

The second table relates to rights for broadcasting organisations and is in the context of Article 9 on "Protection for Broadcasting Organisations".

This table includes: (i) simultaneous re-transmission of the broadcast signal to the public over any medium; (ii) Near simultaneous re-transmission of the broadcast signal to the public over any medium (to be defined); (iii) Transmission of the broadcast signal to the public from a fixation and over any medium (not limited in time) including the making available right; (iv) Fixation of a broadcast signal, reproduction of fixation of broadcasts, distribution of fixations (copies) of broadcasts, performance of broadcast signal in places accessible to the public [against payment of an entrance fee]; (v) Protection of pre-broadcast signals; and (vi) National Treatment when the protection is equivalent; reciprocity when there is a difference in the protection.

After the presentation of the tables in the plenary, Brazil said that "for the sake of transparency", it wanted to state that the informal discussions were helpful in the sense that they had produced a "deeper understanding of what we are talking about".

It stressed that it had tremendous difficulty in referring to the word "consensus", as many aspects were yet to be clarified. It underlined the need to see the discussion with a "grain of salt".

India supported the statement by Brazil, noting that although the committee had "grappled with many issues," there was need for a more technical discussion. In this context, it proposed that broadcasting engineering experts be invited to an informal experts' meeting during the next session of the SCCR.

Support for India's proposal was voiced by the United States, Brazil, El Salvador, Canada, and Colombia.

The European Union stated that the discussions showed that a number of delegations had expressed their support for covering traditional broadcasting and cablecasting transmissions. The most divergent views were with respect to simulcasting deferred transmissions and on-demand transmissions.

It also said that there was a need to have more discussion with respect to elements (ii) and (iii) of the table on Rights. It added that there could be flexibility on element four if there was a good solution for two and three.

The United States was of the opinion that the "charts" that pulled out the multiple proposals on the table allowed the delegation to understand the key elements better and also to get some initial indication of the thinking of different delegations on those elements.

It observed that there was general agreement as to the inclusion of traditional broadcasting over the air which is clearly within the mandate of the General Assembly.

Elements (i) and (ii) in the table on rights, the simultaneous and near simultaneous re-transmission of signals to the public were essentially the proposal of the United States for discussion purposes, it added.

Trinidad and Tobago stated for the record that it would like the scope of protection to include traditional broadcasting and cablecasting.

China stated that simulcasting should be included in the treaty.

Protection for Broadcasting Organisations: Exclusive Rights Discussed

The second day of the SCCR focused on Article 9 on "Protection for Broadcasting Organisations" which deals with the substantive rights envisaged in the protection for broadcasting organisations in the potential treaty.

The divergence in views related to the scope and range of the substantive rights to be given to broadcasting organisations. This issue, along with the Scope of Protection (Article 6), remains one of the integral areas of the proposed treaty where consensus is yet to be reached.

A consistent concern expressed by a number of member states and some stakeholders' groups such as those representing copyright providers (authors, actors, musicians) during the session, has been the need to ensure that the potential broadcasting treaty did not infringe or curtail the existing rights of underlying content providers of the broadcast.

As seen in the discussion on the Scope of Protection, the complexity of the issue was evident and member states were encouraged to work on a matrix of exclusive rights envisaged for broadcasting organisations in order to both cement progress and also for better conceptualisation.

[The current text of Article 9 on "Protection for Broadcasting Organisations" includes two Alternatives A and B which deal with exclusive rights to be authorised to broadcasting organisations.

[Alternative A lists fewer rights which include: (i) the re-transmission of their broadcast signals to the public, by any means; (ii) performance of their broadcast signal in places accessible to the public, for commercial advantage or using very large screens; (iii) the use of a pre-broadcast signal intended for them.

[Alternative B has a more extensive list of exclusive rights and includes: (i) the right of fixation of their broadcasts; (ii) the direct or indirect reproduction, in any manner or form, of fixations of their broadcasts; (iii) the re-transmission of their broadcasts by any means, including re-broadcasting, re-transmission by wire, and re-transmission over computer networks; (iv) the communication to the public of their broadcasts; (v) the making available to the public of the original and copies of fixations of their broadcasts in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them; (vi) the transmission by any means for the reception by the public of their broadcasts following fixation of such broadcasts; (vii) the making available to the public of the original and copies of fixations of their broadcasts, through sale or other transfer of ownership.

[India's proposal in the Annex of the working document is essentially based on the right to prohibit, if done without authorisation, the following: (i) the re-broadcast of their signal through traditional broadcasting means; (ii) causing the broadcast to be seen or heard in public on payment of any charge; and (iii) make a fixation of signal for the purpose of re-broadcast.

[Additionally, for this session, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, the Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan tabled a proposal (SCCR/27/6) in which a broad range of rights such as fixation and re-transmission rights are included.

[The United States has also included a proposal for "discussion purposes" which states that "Broadcasting organizations shall have the right to authorize the simultaneous or near-simultaneous re-transmission of their broadcast or pre-broadcast signal over any medium".]

The Chair sought comments from member states on how to move forward on the issue, particularly with respect to determining the range of rights to be given to broadcasting organisations.

Belarus, introducing the group proposal SCCR/27/6, said that adequate protection should be afforded to broadcasters, bearing in mind the economic investment required by them. It added that there should be the broadest scope for the protection to be enjoyed by the broadcasters.

Belarus stated that these rights have to be linked to re-broadcasting of any such content and with the broadcasting of the content in whatever form. It added that the exhaustion of the rights should be left to domestic legislations.
With respect to India's proposal, Belarus stated that the right to prohibit was not sufficient.

The United States stated that its proposal for discussion attempted to "cut through the debate on the scope of rights" and attempted to focus on a "single core right".

The proposal for a "right to authorize the simultaneous or near-simultaneous re-transmission" focused on the need to address the fundamental concerns of the broadcasting organisations within the scope of the 2007 General Assembly mandate on a signal-based protection.

The US added that it was suggesting no post-fixation rights at the international level and only for the protection of the signal. Any protection for post-fixation would be relying on the protection of the content.

The right to authorise the simultaneous or near-simultaneous re-transmission would include the broadcast and pre-broadcast signal, it explained.

It also noted that there had not been opposition to the treaty covering these elements during the meeting, adding that there had not been any consensus on post-fixation rights.

The US further suggested an approach which could be either (i) based on the US proposal, or (ii) used the US proposal as a basis and included some version of post-fixation rights.

It said that there was a need for something that "we can all agree to in the international level".

India stated that its proposal was based on protection for broadcasting organisations based on a "signal based" approach in the traditional sense. In this context, it supported protection for simultaneous broadcasting in the traditional sense and not for webcasting and simulcasting.

Mexico was of the opinion that there was a need to seek "the establishment of general standards" and the discussion had to focus on general principles and not on the details.

In this context, it supported the proposal by the US.

In a similar vein, South Africa noted the need for a general signal-based approach and supported the proposal by the US which was based on a narrow scope of rights.

Brazil also expressed support for the US proposal and stated that with this "narrow and simple" approach it would be possible to make progress.

It however expressed reservation about including other forms of protection other than for simultaneous and near simultaneous re-transmissions.

The European Union also agreed that there was consensus in the room as to the right to authorise or prohibit simultaneous transmissions by any means. However, there was a need to focus on transmissions from fixations where there was less clarity.

It added that there was a need to separate the discussion from fixation and post-fixation rights. There was also a need to be clear about what "near simultaneous" transmissions meant.

The EU said that there was a need to also be clear about what kind of rights were referred to with respect to the right to prohibit.

Canada stated that a single solution to signal piracy remained a challenge and that it was attached to finding a minimum standard today. It added that there was a need to look at both pre- and post-fixation.

It also noted that there were different modes of delivery of broadcasts and there were a number of alternatives in the text. In this context, it would be useful to develop a matrix to further the discussion.

The need to simplify the range of rights on the table was echoed by the US, Ecuador, Chile and Colombia.
The Russian Federation supported the approach in restricting rights in some way and to focus on agreements previously reached, particularly with reference to traditional broadcasting.

It added that with respect to including additional rights in the scope of protection, there would be a need to receive corresponding authority from the General Assembly to do that.

It reiterated that a signal-based approach had already been decided and " if we are going to keep looking at every nuance, then we will not get anywhere".

Iran stated that the aim of the exercise should focus on the "anti-piracy function" and the function of the treaty should stop all forms of piracy. It noted that one approach could be an umbrella solution as seen in the WIPO Performance and Phonograms Treaty.

The Chair proposed informal consultations (Regional Coordinators plus six) in order to make progress on a matrix with respect to the range of rights and the scope of application of the potential treaty.

Concerns Expressed by Observers

A number of observers to the SCCR representing broadcasting organisations expressed the need for a treaty for the protection of broadcasting organisations; however, a number of other organisations also expressed reservations with the current work being undertaken in the SCCR.

The Trans-Atlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD) stated that it opposed the idea of granting any new layer of intellectual property rights for broadcasters that would make it more expensive and more complex to legally obtain access to and use of information.

It explained that this treaty could create many problems for consumers especially if it is without very clear fixation rights, the rights in literary, dramatic, musical, artistic works, performances, films, sound recordings, broadcasts and other material in which there are copyright and related rights.

The Electronic Information for Libraries (EIFL) and the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) said that they saw no compelling public policy reason for a new international instrument on the protection of broadcasting organisations, because piracy of broadcast signals is already adequately dealt with under existing laws and treaties.

They explained that the creation of a new layer of rights that affects access to content is of great concern to librarians, because it imposes an additional barrier to access to knowledge, especially to content in the public domain and that libraries have practical experience of such over-protection caused by multiple layers of rights.

EIFL and IFLA urged the member states to consider the costs to taxpayers and society, as well as the perceived benefits of this proposed treaty.

The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) also expressed concerns regarding the intended scope and language of Article 9 on "Protection for Broadcasting Organisations" in Working Document SCCR/27/2 Rev.

It was of the opinion that the current language expanded the scope of the proposed treaty and was likely to have the effect of granting broadcasters rights over the content being carried and not just the signal.

It stated that the language in Article 9 envisaged fixation and post-fixation rights for broadcasting organisations, for instance, among others, those of reproduction, distribution and public performance and this was inconsistent with a signal-based approach.

Secondly, it expressed reservations on the inclusion of "communication to the public" reflected in Article 9 Alternative B.

It stated that communication to the public was an element of copyright and governs the content layer, as distinct from the "broadcast" or "transmission" of a signal.

Therefore, attempts to regulate "communication to the public" would not be consistent with a signal-based approach, which the CIS believes is the mandate binding on this Committee.

The Chair's conclusions on all the agenda items are expected to be circulated and finalised on the last day of the session (2 May 2014).

The remaining days of the SCCR focused on Exceptions and Limitations for Libraries and Archives as well as Limitations and Exceptions for Educational, Teaching and Research Institutions and Persons with Other Disabilities.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/third-world-network-may-5-2014-wipo-scope-and-rights-of-potential-broadcasting-treaty-clarified

Civil Society Pushes for Privacy Panel

praskrishna — 2014-05-27T11:39:20Z

The article was published in the Times of India on May 6, 2014. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

Civil society organizations are pushing for a 'privacy commission' to provide protection to individuals from illegal breach of their privacy, with guidelines imposing penal sanction against the violators. This assumes significance

This assumes significance at a time when the Centre has decided to set up a judicial panel to probe the snoopgate scandal wherein the BJP government in Gujarat was allegedly involved in illegal surveillance of a woman architect and especially when the Right to Privacy Bill is pending in Parliament.

However, industry consortia, including CII and FICCI, prefer lesser regulation, though calling for a cautious approach.

Among civil society organizations pressing for a stringent privacy bill is the International Centre for Free and Open Source Software (ICFOSS), the only representative from Kerala to attend the NETmundial conference held recently in Brazil. The meet focused on privacy issues to ensure basic human rights, including freedom of expression.

NETmundial is the first step towards pushing for a privacy law against the snooping and spying on individuals by those in power, including agencies within and outside the country Privacy guidelines should be clear as to what data can be collected without infringing on the dignity of an individual as 'data' represents the duration of a call, while 'metadata' reveals the content of the caH," said ICFOSS director SatishBabu.

Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), another NETmundial participant, also stands for a strong privacy law. "The two-day conference that concluded on April 24 was a baby step towards a privacy law with a road map for global internet governance. It is the first step towards a multi-stakeholder model offering an equal footing for all civil society organizations, academia, government, private sector and the UN fora," said CIS executive director Sunil Abraham

“We are pushing for a privacy law in the country aimed at national privacy regulation and constituting a privacy commission on the lines of the information commission," he added.

Click to read the full story

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/the-times-of-india-may-6-2014-laxmi-ajai-prasanna-civil-society-pushes-for-privacy-panel

Pushing the Boundaries in Open Governance: Insights from OGP Asia Pacific Regional Conference in Bali, Indonesia (Day 1)

praskrishna — 2014-05-27T11:16:06Z

Sunil Abraham is quoted. He said that open governance is more about citizens checking on what government leaders are doing than on government coding its citizens to exercise surveillance.

This post originally appeared on the Open Data Research Network and has been republished with permission from the author. For the republished post on OGP website, see here.

The plenary room of Bali Nusa Dua Convention Center was jam-packed at 845 in the morning, with representatives from different countries in the Asia-Pacific region and all over the globe joining the first regional conference on open data hosted by the Government of Indonesia. The conference stage backdrop depicts a million colourful cranes moving in one direction towards the OGP logo, perhaps signalling an unprecedented wave of aspirations, commitments, plans, and actions towards a more ‘open’ governance within the region. Then a few minutes later, President Yudhoyono arrived and the two-day gathering (6-7 May 2014) of roughly 500 people started.

The program was impressive. It tried to cater to the different voices of what ideally should make an open government community – government leaders, journalists, right-to-information activists, business representatives, academia, researchers, civil-society groups, funding agencies, programmers, among others. The over-arching theme of the conference “Unlocking Innovative Openness: Impetus to Greater Citizen Engagement” speaks to both the supply side and the demand side of open data where governments can make openness more innovative to which citizens can proactively engage. The people in attendance reflected this multi-dimensionality and the kind of discussions on open governance that happened in Day 1 reflects the several, differentiated, yet somehow united view and interests of the many people that were there.

The first day of the conference brings me to four main realisations, prompted by the excellent presentations of the speakers and the lively discussion at the break-out session that I attended.

Openness is not an option but an imperative. Aruna Roy, founder of Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathanaof India, and considered one of the most influential thinkers of this decade put it more vividly using her organization’s slogan – “right to know, right to live”. While bureaucrats, like Minister Francis Maude of the UK argued that openness improve transparency, enhance public service, and stimulate growth, civil society groups claimed that openness is not something the government can do, but must do, to benefit right holders by ensuring that they are not only aware of what the government is doing but by ensuring that government leaders, to whom citizens entrust sovereignty, execute the will of the governed.
Open governance is about relations, about people, not just about technology, transparency, or data provision. Ms. Nwe Zin Win, of Myanmar National NGOs Network emphasized that as Myanmar moves towards Open Government Partnership (OGP) membership, the process should create a space for civil society groups to proactively participate. In his remarks, Director General Yoon Soon-Gu of the Republic of Korea emphasized that when his government embarked on the process of crafting Gov 3.0 as a development agenda, with the end-goal of making Koreans live a happy life, citizen consultations were conducted all across government to ensure that this plan is responsive and relevant and reflects the people’s aspirations. Anne Jellema, CEO of World Wide Web Foundation highlighted the fact that open governance is not only good for vertical accountability (government-governed) but also about horizontal accountability (agencies within the same government) and ensures that systems are working with government – judiciary, legislative, audit, executing agencies – for the common good. Open governance then, is about building that relationship of trust between government and citizens, between business and government, and between agencies in the government.
Open government has many challenges, but these are not insurmountable. Malou Mangahas of the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism emphasized five “I”s in her plenary speech that she said are the main challenges to the open government story in the Philippines and in the region – implementation, inclusiveness, information, institutionalisation, and interconnectedness. In the area of inclusiveness, one of the challenges is on how to ensure that people can participate in a context when there is a large digital divide, where internet penetration is low, and broadband speed is slow to a crawl. Mr. Samadhi of the Government of Indonesia emphasized that there are many examples in his country where government information is translated to accessible formats by infomediaries so that citizens without internet connection became aware, informed, and knowledgeable. In one of the coffee breaks, Redempto Parafina of the Affiliated Network for Social Accountability in East Asia and the Pacific shared to me that non-government organizations, concerned individuals, and universities translate information in the CheckmySchool portal to information materials for distribution and use by communities without internet.
Open governance narrative should focus on making governments more responsive and accountable. President Yudhoyono uses Facebook and Twitter, apart from the traditional media as text and snail mail, to listen to the demands of his constituents. The Government of New Zealand, according to Minister Peter Dunne, sets goals on basic public services as health, education, and employment and demands regular public reporting on these goals; reports that can be accessed and challenged by the people to whom the services are intended. Sunil Abraham of the Centre for Internet and Society argued that open governance should not veer away from this narrative. He made an example regarding India’s Unique Identification System, where the implementation is couched within the open data narrative. He believed that open governance is more about citizens checking on what government leaders are doing than on government coding its citizens to exercise surveillance.

It was a productive day. I am thankful that I was afforded the opportunity to attend the conference. One message that profoundly affected me was Aruna Roy’s exhortation at the end of her presentation – that we should make truth powerful, and that we should make power truthful.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/open-government-partnership-michael-canares-may-6-2014-pushing-the-boundaries-in-open-governance

Round-table on User Safety Internet

praskrishna — 2014-05-06T09:53:02Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/user-safety-internet.pdf

Transparency and Privacy

praskrishna — 2014-05-06T04:07:57Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/transparency-and-privacy.zip