Centre for Internet and Society

Counter Surveillance Panel: DiscoTech & Hackathon (Flyer)

praskrishna — 2014-02-24T21:29:51Z

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

Counter Surveillance Panel: DiscoTech & Hackathon

praskrishna — 2014-02-28T05:36:15Z

We invite you to a Counter Surveillance DiscoTech and Hackathon at the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore on Saturday, March 1, 2014 (9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m.). The event is being co-organized by the Centre for Internet and Society in tandem with the MIT Centre for Civic Media Co-Design Lab, with support from members of Tactical Technology Collective, Hackteria.org and Srishti School of Art Design and Technology. Registrations begin at 9.00 a.m. The event shall close with a featured talk by renown information activist and maker lab innovator Smari McCarthy, titled "Privacy for Humanity" at 5.00 p.m.

Overview

Mirroring the call by MIT Civic Media Lab Co-Design Studio, this event brings together students, technologists, designers and citizens to explore counter-surveillance strategies. The event will be held simultaneously across various locations including Boston, Palestine, Lisbon and Buenos Aires. Click here for the definition of DiscoTech.(Discovering Technology)

Agenda

We shall begin with brief contextualized introductions catalyzed by researchers in the field of privacy & surveillance, followed by workshops and hackathons led by expert practitioners. Participants are welcome from diverse backgrounds looking to be involved in designing engaging and creative ways to counter surveillance. The event shall close with a featured talk by renown information activist and maker lab innovator Smari McCarthy , titled "Privacy for Humanity" at 5.00 p.m.

Introductory Catalyst Sessions

Malavika Jayaram: Fellow at Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University and the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore
Laird Brown: DesiSec Project at the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore and University of Toronto
Kaustubh Srikant: Head of Technology, Tactical Technology Collective and Maya Indira Ganesh (Program Director)
Abhay Raj Naik: Assistant Professor, Azim Premji University

Design and Hackathon Lead Catalysts

Yashas Shetty:Faculty@ www.srishti.ac.in and Co-Founder Hackteria.org (DNA Spoofing, Surveillance Camera: Avoidance, Microscopic Re-Appropriation & Bacterial Discotheque)

Hari Dilip Kumar: Co, Founder, FluxGen: (Introducing data transmission protocols, Software Defined Radio (SDR) design and surveillance detection )

Sharath Chandra Ram: Researcher @ CIS Open Lab and Faculty@Srishti (Civic Media solutions using open citizen networks and the web, spectrum scanning, visual communication design strategies, finger print mash-up publishing)

Featured Talk and Interactive Closing Session by Smari McCarthy

(Executive Director, International Modern Media Institute and Founder, Icelandic Pirate Party & Icelandic Digital Freedom Society)

Title of Talk: PRIVACY for HUMANITY - 5.00 p.m.

Click to download the flyer invite
Date: Saturday, March 1, 2014
Time: 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. (Registration 9.00 a.m. sharp)
Venue: Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore
Map : http://bit.ly /1fcDDLG

Please RSVP due to limited space and logistics for lunch and refreshments

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/events/counter-surveillance-panel-disco-tech-hackathon

Consultation on Institutional Arrangements for IP managment under MHRD

praskrishna — 2014-03-12T13:17:00Z

Planning Commission and MHRD jointly are having consultations to design institutional arrangements for IP management under the MHRD between 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. on February 21, 2014 at IIC (Annexe), New Delhi 9 Lecture Hall No. 1).

Nehaa Chaudhari participated in this consultation.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/consultation-institutional-arrangements-ip-management-mhrd

The Forbes India 30 Under 30 List

praskrishna — 2014-02-21T07:59:41Z

Showcasing an enterprising new generation that dreams big and refuses to say die.

This article by Abhilasha Khaitan appeared in the Forbes India magazine of 21 February, 2014. Pranesh Prakash features in the list.

To borrow from Ayn Rand, ‘the question for this generation isn’t who is going to let them but who is going to stop them’. As a torchbearer of individualism, Rand would have approved of the first-ever Forbes India 30 Under 30 list. Sort of. The rider: This isn’t just a celebration of capitalism and profit; it is also in recognition of social value. Do-gooders, geeks, greens, musicians, sportspersons, creative-types and biz kids: The net was thrown wide to catch the best and the brightest.

As the names on the previous page will tell you, it was a worthwhile effort.

It was also an education. Generalisations, it appears, do not apply to the youth. Consider India’s reputation as nerd-land and a skew in favour of techpreneurs and IT geniuses would be expected. But while brilliant professionals dot the landscape, only a few seem to have translated an original thought into a viable, disruptive business proposition. Pallav Nadhani of FusionCharts, Rahul Yadav of Housing.com and Nischal Shetty of JustUnfollow , for instance, score high on both originality and utility.

If there is a slant, it is towards verticals that best suit the lone ranger: Sports, entertainment, the arts. Even there, though, we tried to separate the clichéd from the uncharted and zeroed in on Sushant Singh Rajput and Rajkummar Rao; and Suhail Yusuf Khan and Aathira Krishna; and Rahul Dravid’s purported successor Cheteshwar Pujara.

Plot this list on a heat map and the social entrepreneurship and policy dots would glow red too. Sectors with the potential for real change are drawing them in hordes. There is Rwitwika Bhattacharya who figured out the best way to get political leaders to perform is by helping them do it; Shashank Kumar who is committed to empowering farmers. Even those with different skill sets—design, in this case—are not oblivious: So a communication designer, Aditi Gupta, tries to create awareness about menstruation, a taboo subject.

Then some are in it for the happiness quotient: Pooja Dhingra for her macarons and Shivan and Narresh for their bikini sari.

This might be a good point to ask: Where is Virat Kohli? Deepika Padukone? Any sub-30 list should lead with those names. Here’s the thing: They don’t even make our consideration set. The reason is in the purpose behind this search: Forbes India was looking for a spark, for a story that is still waiting to be told and, for the most part, only starting to unfold.

To that end, individuals who are already forces in their fields—household names—will feature on another day, on another list.

As for those who are part of this list of possibility, it really is a question of who is going to stop them.

30 Under 30 list

Art & Culture
Suhail Yusuf Khan, 26
Sarangi Player / Vocalist

Aathira Krishna, 25
Carnatic Violinist

Design
Moneet Chitroda, 28
Sr Designer - Interiors, Renault Techno Centre

Aditi Gupta, 29
Co-Founder, Menstrupedia.com

Lokesh Karekar, 29
Visual Artist & Director, Locopopo

Alok Shetty, 27
Principal Architect & Founder, Bhumiputra Architecture

E-Commerce
Rahul Yadav, 24
Co-founder & CEO, Housing.com

Bhavish Aggarwal, 28
Co-Founder and CEO, Olacabs

Entertainment
Sushant Singh Rajput, 27
Actor

Rajkummar Rao, 29
Actor

Kishan SS, 18
Actor / Director

Fashion
Shivan Bhatiya & Narresh Kukreja, 29, 28
Swimwear Designers

Finance
Raghu Kumar, 28
Co-Founder, RKSV

Manju Bhatia, 27
Joint MD, Vasuli Recovery

Food & hospitality
Pooja Dhingra, 27
Founder-Chef, Le15 Patisserie

Greentech & sustainability
Abhishek Humbad, 27
Founder, NextGen PMS

Healthcare
Kabir Chadha, 27
Founder & CEO, Epoch Elder Care

Law, policy & Politics
Rwitwika Bhattacharya, 27
Founder, Swaniti Initiative

Pranesh Prakash, 28
Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society

Apar Gupta, 29
Partner, Advani & Co.

NGOs & Social Entrepreneurship
Shashank Kumar, 28
Co-Founder, Farms n Farmers

Tarique Mohammad Quereshi, 29
Founder, Koshish

Anoj Viswanathan, 26
Co-Founder & President, Milaap

Kuldeep Dantewadia, 25
CEO & Co-Founder, Reap Benefit

Social Media / Mobile / Digital
Nischal Shetty, 28
Founder, JustUnfollow

Sports
Deepika Kumari, 19
Archer

Cheteshwar Pujara, 26
Cricketer

Gaganjeet Bhullar, 25
Golfer

Technology
Pallav Nadhani, 29
Co-Founder & CEO, FusionCharts

Paras Chopra, 26
Founder, Wingify

Methodology

Will we find 30 under-30s? That was the question that troubled when we started work on this project. The numbers are easy enough to add up but the list had to be representative, relevant and, well, not half-baked.

It was never going to be exhaustive. We knew that. The landscape was too vast, the information too sparse and spread out. But limited though it may be in geographical scope, the rigour in research—and the depth in young talent—has produced quality that satisfies the parameters we had set at the beginning. These are: Trigger: The extent of achievement and his/her impact in a short span of time and the level of disruption/innovation that has been shown; Scope: Scalability of his/her business or line of work; Sustainability: Signs of being a flash in the pan or is there enough indication of a long-run play?

The research took on two legs: One, interviews by Forbes India staffers with sources across relevant categories as well as through studies of databases and media coverage. Two, an online application on forbesindia.com inviting applications from entrepreneurs/professionals who felt they qualified. This helped us arrive at a long list which went up to over 300 names across the 14 categories. (Even this number went through an initial vetting.)

The next step was narrowing down to a ‘short long’ list—the names most likely to make it to the top 30. This pool of 75 names was decided in consultation with experts and observers—and this was the toughest leg. Consider that we had entered the ‘first among equals’ phase where separating the final 30 from the other contenders was, really, a judgment call.

But armed with expert views, the Forbes India editorial team debated, argued and vetoed for hours to finalise the 30 individuals you will read about here. There are those outside the list that couldn’t be left out. They find mention too.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/forbes-india-abhilasha-khaitan-feb-7-2014-india-under-30-list

Lakshadweep Chapter

praskrishna — 2014-02-20T09:59:57Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/lakshadweep-chapter.pdf

Jammu and Kashmir

praskrishna — 2014-02-20T09:44:16Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/jammu-kashmir-chapter.pdf

Himachal Pradesh Chapter

praskrishna — 2014-02-20T09:22:13Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/himachal-pradesh-chapter.pdf

Dark days for the creative class in India: Siddiqui

praskrishna — 2014-02-17T09:14:43Z

As India’s literacy rate improves, governments, courts, media, publishers and big business are all stifling free speech.

Haroon Siddiqui's article was published in thestar.com on February 16, 2014. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

In contrast to North America and Europe, India’s book publishers, newspapers and TV/radio stations are doing well, thanks to a rising literacy rate and a growing middle class. Authors, artists, journalists and filmmakers are enjoying big audiences and relatively good paycheques. Yet, paradoxically, free speech has never been so imperilled in the world’s largest democracy, for several reasons.

Governments are using colonial-era laws to stifle free speech. The lower courts and police are caving in to religious bigots who demand bans on what they don’t want to see and hear. Vigilante groups are using goon tactics to intimidate the creative class. Big business is slapping lawsuits and creating libel chill. Publishing houses are capitulating to legal, political and economic pressure. The media are too busy mollycoddling governments and advertisers to stand up for free speech.

Legal framework

The constitution guarantees free speech but, as in Canada and several European nations, it also imposes “reasonable restrictions” to maintain peace and public order. The Supreme Court has set a high bar for imposing any restrictions, yet both the federal and state governments routinely shut down anything that might flare communal riots, especially between Hindus and Muslims — a real and ever-present danger. Politicians don’t want blood on their hands to uphold the right of a preening writer to poke people in the eye. Critics counter that the political class doesn’t really care for intellectual freedom.

Libel and defamation laws criminalize speech and prescribe jail terms. This, again, is not much different than, say, the Canadian Criminal Code, under which those convicted of hate speech may be jailed for up to three years. (That’s what we are left with after the Stephen Harper Conservatives axed the civilian remedy that was available under the Human Rights Act.)

India’s Anti-Sedition Act prohibits words and actions that may cause “hatred or contempt or disaffection” toward government. This is used even against journalists, activists and those protesting government policies. As many as 6,000 farmers and fishermen were charged for opposing a nuclear plant along the southeast coast.

The Penal Code makes it an offence, punishable by up to three years in jail, to hurt anyone’s religious sensibilities; promote enmity between different religious groups; circulate “any statement or report containing rumour or alarming news with intent to create or promote, or which is likely to create or promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community feelings of enmity,” etc., etc.

Worse, the code allows anyone offended by anything to demand that the offensive material be removed.

Indians are easily offended, indeed are “desperate to be offended,” jokes novelist Manu Joseph. The milieu allows religious leaders and politicians to stoke real or imagined grievances and rush to the courts and the police, both of which usually cave in rather than risk the wrath of frenzied protesters.

“Instead of protecting the right of free expression, the state defends the offended,” writes Salil Tripathi on the website Index on Censorship.

Adds Kian Ganz, editor of the website Legally India: “Many of these British-colonial laws were written and enforced to ‘control’ a multi-ethnic and religious population. Yet they are still around and are regularly used to stifle free speech.”

Religious bigotry

While we hear mostly of angry Muslims taking offence to alleged insults to Islam — the 1988 ban on Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses being the prime example — increasingly it is Hindu fundamentalists who have been agitating successfully against what they do not like.

“Hindu bigots have matched, or perhaps even outperformed, their Islamic counterparts,” writes Ramachandra Guha, India’s pre-eminent historian. He was condemning Penguin India’s decision last week to recall and pulp American academic Wendy Doniger’s The Hindus: an Alternative History, under pressure from a Hindu group that said the 2009 book contained “heresies” and was focused on “sex and eroticism.”

There has been no bigger victim of Hindu wrath than the late M.F. Hussain, the “Picasso of India.” His priceless work was vandalized, he was slapped with hundreds of lawsuits and threatened with death for painting Hindu deities in the nude. He went into exile in Doha, Qatar, where I spoke to him on the phone in 2011 and heard his pain at having been hounded out of his beloved India. We agreed to meet later but he died soon after, at age 95.

Last year, India’s leading intellectual Ashish Nandy was threatened with arrest for ostensibly offending Dalits (Hindus of a lower caste, formerly known as untouchables).

In 2012, Mumbai police arrested a young woman who complained on Facebook about the shutdown of the city of 18 million on the death of Bal Thackeray, leader of a chauvinist regional Hindu party. Another woman who “liked” the page was also detained,both for “hurting religious sentiments.”

In 2011, the western state of Gujarat stopped the sale of American journalist Joseph Lelyveld’s biography of Mahatma Gandhi, which suggested that the great leader may have had a sexual relationship with a male German architect. The chief minister (premier), Narendra Modi, is now the prime ministerial candidate of the Hindu nationalist Bharata Janata Party for federal elections in May, which he is favoured to win.

In 2010, Canadian author Rohinton Mistry’s 1995 book, A Fine Balance, was removed from the syllabus of Bombay University, his alma mater, following objections by a student, the grandson of Thackeray. The head of the university’s English Department had to go into hiding after receiving death threats.

In 2008, Delhi University expunged from its history course an essay by A.K. Ramanujam on Hinduism following complaints by a Hindu group, and Oxford University Press India temporarily stopped printing it.

Other examples:

In 2007, a court issued an arrest warrant for actor Richard Gere for kissing Bollywood actress Shilpa Shetty, following complaints by irate Hindus. An institute in the western city of Pune was vandalized because American academic James Laine had done part of his research there for his book, Shivaji: Hindu King in Islamic India. An art gallery in Bangalore hastily removed partially nude pictures of Hindu deities fearing retaliation by a Hindu moral squad.

Guha, the historian, once suggested that both Rushdie and Hussain, one pilloried by Muslims and the other by Hindus, be conferred India’s highest civilian honours. “That would have been a blow for artistic freedom. And it’d have equally offended Hindu and Islamic bigots.”

Libel chill

There has been a steady rise in what free speech advocates see as nuisance lawsuits by corporate houses, businessmen and political parties.

In December, Jitender Bhargava, executive director of Air India until 2010, saw his book on the national airline withdrawn by Bloomsbury India, allegedly under political pressure.

The same month, another book, Sahara: The Untold Story, on the controversial finance and real estate conglomerate, was held back under a court order.

In 2011, Penguin removed a chapter in The Beautiful and the Damned from its Indian edition after Arindam Chaudhuri, who runs business schools, sued about his profile in it. He also sued Caravan, a journal of politics and culture, for an article on how he had “made a fortune off the aspirations and insecurities of India’s middle class.” The Delhi-based businessman still has the Delhi-based magazine entangled in the case he filed in a jurisdiction 1,750 kilometres away — and 300 kilometres from the nearest airport.

Penguin also held back a biography of J. Jayalalithaa, chief minister of the southern state of Tamil Nadu, who had a stay order issued against it.

In 1998, a book about the head of a textile conglomerate, Dhirubhai Ambani, was not published in India after the publisher was threatened with lawsuits. A second edition of The Polyester Prince was issued in India but with the offending material cut out.

It is difficult for outsiders, especially without the benefit of reading the materials in dispute, to judge the timidity of the publishers. But there’s no questioning the creeping self-censorship.

Obeisant media

Vinod Jose, executive editor of Caravan, writes in its annual media issue:

“Media owners bargained with the government to secure lucrative licences to mine coal blocks in return for their power to influence the public. Editors got caught on tape striking deals with lobbyists but remained arrogantly unapologetic. Owners fired political editors who wrote about politics independently . . . Forbes India pulled a story because it irked the finance ministry.”

Jose said that in 2013, the year surveyed, “the dominant mood of the press was docility.” If in the 1950s and 1960s, the media served the state, now they serve big business. They have begun to expose government corruption but remain mostly mum on corporate malfeasance. The Times of India, the country’s largest English daily, takes equity in some companies it provides advertising space to.

State surveillance

India, like the United States and other democracies, is under heavy criticism for invasion of citizen privacy under sweeping state surveillance, especially by its eight intelligence agencies that operate under mostly secretive powers.

“The real problem is that we don’t know what powers they do have — we only know bits and pieces about the Centralised Monitoring System (CMS), from some tender documents that indicate that the government intends to track web usage, phone calls, text messages and map location information, apparently without the knowledge of even telecom operators,” says Nikhil Pahwa of MediaNama (Media Journal), a website that provides news and analysis of digital media. “The issue is even less obvious here than that of the NSA,” the National Security Agency in the United States.

“The rules give the Indian government the ability to gag free speech, and block any website it deems fit, without publicly disclosing why or who blocked it — or providing adequate recourse for getting the block removed.”

“Intelligence agencies are not answerable to parliament, only to the Home ministry,” says Anja Kovacs of the Centre for Internet and Society. There are few checks and balances, little or no civilian oversight.

“The Indian government’s centralized monitoring is chilling, given its reckless and irresponsible use of the sedition and Internet laws,” says Human Rights Watch. “New surveillance capabilities have been used . . . to target critics, journalists and human rights activists.”

“Every month at the federal level, 7,000 to 9,000 phone taps are authorized or re-authorized,” writes Pranesh Prakash, policy director for the Centre for Internet and Society.

Conclusion

It is useful to remember that whatever is true of India, the exact opposite may also be true. So, while the situation is getting bleaker on the free speech front, in India the state is not the sole culprit, unlike in Russia, China or other authoritarian places. India also has a vibrant civil society that’s hammering away — is free to hammer away — at the need for a liberal polity to be liberal. The intellectuals, activists and NGOs I have quoted, testify to that. Here’s another:

The PEN All-India Centre in Mumbai and the newly formed Delhi Pen, both part of the global network of writers dedicated to free speech, said this last week:

“The removal of books from our bookshops, bookshelves and libraries, whether through state-sanctioned censorship, private vigilante action or publisher capitulation are all egregious violations of free speech that we shall oppose in all forms at all times.”

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/the-star-op-ed-february-16-2014-haroon-siddiqui-dark-days-for-creative-class-in-india

Broadband Internet needs attention: Sunil Abraham

praskrishna — 2014-02-17T08:59:24Z

Telecom regulation is mostly a success, but wired and wireless broadband needs attention, says Centre for Internet and Society executive director.

The article by Sidin Vadukut was published in Livemint on February 3, 2014. Sunil Abraham was interviewed.

First of all from a policy perspective, how have priorities changed when it comes to technology in India from 2007 to now? Has it moved on from an issue of the infrastructure itself, to how this pipeline is used and managed?

Yes and no. Regarding carriage, telecom regulation has been mostly a success in terms of penetration and affordability, but wired and wireless broadband regulation still needs urgent attention for shared back haul, shared spectrum, unlicensed spectrum, quality of service, etc. We are making slow progress on privacy, security and cross-jurisdictional issues.

In 2014, what do you think are the key public policy issues facing technology in India? What forces do you see colliding with each other?

Privacy and data protection: Here there is conflict with transparency and innovation. Also we have to optimize privacy with security. Free speech: here traditional norms collide with potential of new technologies and energy of digital natives. Intellectual property: here the challenge is how to spread dissatisfaction equally between innovators, entrepreneurs, consumers, state and the public.

The Internet in India, and the many apps that ride on it, is pointed out as a disruptor on many accounts. From politics to social welfare to news and media. Is it too soon to see how Internet has changed Indian society? Or are we beginning to get a sense of this?

I would channel Evgeny Morozov here: there is no such thing as the Internet. Especially in India, many of the so-called data users on mobile phones are trapped within walled gardens created by Google, Facebook and Twitter. In short, specific technologies have social consequences within specific sites. We have anecdotal evidence that the availability of OERs (open educational resources), MOOCs (massive open online courses) and shadow libraries have transformed Indian classrooms in the cities. But there are very few empirical studies establishing causation between the Internet and Indian social phenomena.

When we say Internet in India, we really mean English language Internet in India. How substantial are the efforts to make the web more accessible to non-English speakers? What is holding this back?

The situation is absolutely depressing. For most languages there is a lot of work that remains to be done when it comes to input methods, fonts, rendering technology, spelling and grammar assistance, thesaurus, optical character recognition, text-to-voice, voice-to-text, machine translation, etc. We need large-scale government funding to create market incentives so that the Indian technology gap is bridged using open standards and technologies. We need government mandates to ensure that manufacturers produce some models of their products that comply with these standards.

What two-three policy changes can truly make technology an agent of social change in India?

Device level patent pool and compulsory licence for mobile devices to ensure proliferation of devices at the both ends of the pyramid. We need to move from community radio (FM only) policy to a technology neutral (terrestrial TV, Wi-Fi, mobile technologies, ADSL, fibre, etc) community media policy.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/livemint-february-3-2014-sidin-vadukut-broadband-internet-needs-attention

MAG Order

praskrishna — 2014-02-17T08:40:02Z

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

MAG Meeting Notice 2014

praskrishna — 2014-02-17T07:36:38Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/mag-2014-meeting-notice.pdf

Nishant Shah: “We will develop new textual and visual practices to facilitate the transfer of knowledge worldwide”

praskrishna — 2014-03-06T12:05:45Z

Today we are starting with a new format for the blog of the Hybrid Publishing Lab. There will be an interview series with our International Tandem Partners giving an insight on their current work, interest and cooperation with HP.

Read Dr. Shah's interview by Julia Rehfeldt published on the website of Hybrid Publishing Lab

First up is our Tandem Partner Dr. Nishant Shah, Research Associate at Common Media Lab and Hybrid Publishing Lab. He is the co-founder and Director-Research at the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore, India.

Julia Rehfeldt: Dr. Shah, can you introduce yourself briefly und tell us what you are currently concerned with in your research?

Dr. Nishant Shah: This is a question that has always flummoxed me. I have spent all of the last decade trying to figure out how to explain what I do and what my research concerns are and I never have one straightforward answer to give.

The easiest way to answer this would be to say that I wear many hats. I am deeply interested in looking at how the digital shift is changing the way in which we see the world around us. And so my work spans several sectors, disciplines and intersections, trying to look at the mechanics and logics, logistics and structures of the world that we live in.

At the Hybrid Publishing Lab, as an International Tandem Partner, I look at the knowledge infrastructures of the digital times. I learn from the research and practice of my colleagues to explore the future of academic publishing, and I try to critically think through questions of Intellectual Property, Open Access movements, and concerns of Digital Humanities in the global knowledge circuits. Apart from that, I like to translate my research and knowledge for different stakeholders, to work with practitioners, policy makers, artists, technologists, hackers, legal scholars and development actors at the intersection of Internet and Society. As the Director – Research at the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, I have been trying to develop South-based global networks that examine the conditions of being human, being social, and being political in emerging network societies. I also enjoy exploring new forms and content of pedagogy for students in and out of the classrooms, to develop new conditions of learning through and with digital media and cultures.

Rehfeldt: What was the most significant change, talk or lecture you experienced in 2013 that had an impact on the rights of open access or on your personal insights on that matter?

Dr. Shah: I think, on a very personal and a professional level, the death of Aaron Swartz and the horrific face of Intellectual Property tyrannies that surround the academic publishing which ironically focuses on questions of human liberty, values, equity and access, has had the most dramatic impact on me. Aaron Swartz committed suicide just over a year ago, and the conditions of his persecution, on the behalf of the American legal system, the intellectual property conglomerates and a globally reputed university that claims to build better futures for our digital worlds, has shocked most of us.

While playing the blame-game is redundant now – it is not going to bring back a young man who only believed in dreams of utopic sharing and commons – it is important to remind us that these battles of information and intellectual property are not for niche circles. We are increasingly living in worlds where more and more of our everyday life is being mediated, mitigated and measured in big data and quantified services.

We don’t only live in information age, but we also live through information, constantly producing data. And the technologies we use, the applications we live with, the platforms we live on, the social networks that we belong to, all take our information and data and copyright it so that we have almost no rights over it. This problem becomes only more amplified in the traditional academic knowledge industries where publicly funded research and practice gets hidden behind paywalls so that it remains in niche circles of access to those with privilege. We are reaching a stage where not only our formal knowledge but even our thoughts, desires and memories are quickly being contained in forms and formats that are no longer accessible to us.

2013 has shown that the more we lose control of our data, the more we lose battles of access to our collective knowledge, the more we concede our rights to information, which is the de facto currency of our times, the more we are going to be at the service of private and governmental conglomerates that shall control and contain the possibilities of radical transformation and change in our future.

Rehfeldt: You are currently involved in setting up a ‘Making Change’ project based on your paper ‘Whose change is it, anyway?’ published April 2013. Can you tell us what prompted your reflections in that paper, and what you seek to achieve with the project?

Dr. Shah: The ‘Making Change‘ project is an example of the multi-stakeholder, multi-disciplinary, knowledge methods and production that I am interested in. It is shaped by the framework proposed in the ‘Whose Change is it anyway?’ concept paper that proposes that in order to look at the change processes around us, we need to change the ways in which forms, formats, conditions, structures, processes, and life-cycles of knowledge practices need to be re-examined. The project aims to build conceptual frameworks by engaging different change actors in digital storytelling to understand how we analyse and examine the radical processes of change in the times to come.

Making Change is a knowledge exploration through which we seek to unpack the form, function, and practice of social and political change in emerging network societies. With this project, we will map existing traditional and innovative change practices through new knowledge methods and propose hybrid ways of building a knowledge commons that helps consolidate, curate and disseminate these new insights for change actors.

Hence, we will create a Knowledge Commons. The Knowledge Commons is a mash-up of resources, which we will set in motion through four distinct processes of getting insight into the mechanics, logistics, and catalysts of social and political change:

1. In this project, we will use new methods of collaborative knowledge production methods that bring in different knowledge stakeholders and actors to reflect upon and consolidate their existing projects.

2. We will develop new textual and visual practices to facilitate the transfer of knowledge worldwide.

3. We will work with existing knowledge communities – academia, policy, and practice – to build pedagogic resources for training knowledge visionaries about the future of change.

4. We will produce, curate and disseminate knowledge prototypes through storytelling to debate, question and re-energize discussions on important keywords and concepts in the change narratives.

The core of the Knowledge Commons will consist of new narratives and prototypes of how these narratives might help other approaches for social and political change. We shall further organize these narratives to train and help social change actors to develop better strategies of working within digital and network societies. The Knowledge Commons seeks to generate cross-fertilization between different networks of knowledge actors to generate critical insights to gain access, exchange and contribute to knowledge dialogues.

The Knowledge Commons is not just an online platform, but is built up through a combination of knowledge generating workshops (production sprints) as well as reflections, which are curated through online dialogues and critique. The production sprints invite the key change actors from our networks to incite conversations inspired by the thought piece ‘Whose Change is it Anyway?’. The conversations will be further annotated by the ‘Making Change’ white paper which offers more complex and nuanced ways of looking at the contexts, catalyst and processes of change embedded in particular movements.

Rehfeldt: There has been a lot of talk about ‘Twitter revolutions’ and ‘Blackberry riots’ – what would you say do digital technologies contribute to contemporary social movements and political action in the public sphere more generally?

Dr. Shah: I have spent some time trying to do away with the binaries and polarised responses that phrases like ‘Twitter Revolutions’ and ‘Blackberry Riots’ produce. They seem to bring pre-defined responses – they either suggest that the emergence of new digital technologies and applications, by their very presence, are producing radical change practices. They deny the historical conditions, the political contexts, the social and cultural practices of the region, and the structures of inequity and injustice that are often characteristic to particularly geographies and cultures. They refuse to understand that the digital does not merely produce things new – instead, it helps extend the existing movements of social and political change and are a part of a much larger paradigm shift. They alienate existing human endeavours of change and create false dichotomies like the old and new activisms, or traditional and digital movements.

I think it is better to understand that the digital produces ruptures and interruptions in the narrative of change; but the digital also has historical continuities which need to be better embedded in the geographical and political contexts of change. At the end of the day, we need to debunk the idea that digital activism around the globe is the same. Just because everybody uses Twitter to orchestrate people’s movements in different countries, it doesn’t mean that they are doing the same thing or in the same way. We need to do away with the homogenizing rhetoric of the digital that presumes that digital cultures are universal, and learn to look at the intersections of life that inform and are shaped by the emergence of the digital technologies.

Rehfeldt: To finish up, is there an interesting online article, or video you have read or seen lately which you could suggest to our readers?

Dr. Shah: I think one of the most interesting collections around digital and new activism last year was the anthology edited by Kees Biekart: Development and Change – Special Issue: FORUM 2013

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/nishant-shah-we-will-develop-new-textual-and-visual-practices-to-facilitate-the-transfer-of-knowledge-worldwide

Workshop on Media Law & Policy Curriculum Development

praskrishna — 2014-02-17T10:25:54Z

Centre for Communication Governance, National Law University, Delhi and University of Oxford in support with the International Higher Education-Knowledge Economy Partnerships Programme of the British Council is organizing this workshop on February 16 at National Law University in Delhi.

Chinmayi Arun is a speaker and Bhairav Acharya will be speaking at this event.

Timing	Programme
10.00 10.10	Welcome Address Prof. (Dr.) Srikrishna Deva Rao, Registrar & Professor of Law, National Law University, Delhi
10.10 10.15	Introduction to the Project Chinmayi Arun, Research Director, Centre for Communication Governance at National Law University, Delhi
10.15 10.45	Session 1: Introductory Material The Media Landscape, Media & Democracy Lead discussants: Aloke Thakore, Kanamma Raman, Sukumar Muralidharan and Vibodh Parthasarathi Freedom of Expression & Freedom of Press Lead discussants: Arudra Burra, Bhairav Acharya, Manav Kapur and Sukumar Muralidharan
10.45 11.30	Session 2: Media Law The State and the Media (Sedition, Contempt of Court, Parliamentary Privilege and Reporting Court Proceedings) Geeta Seshu, Jawahar Raja, Manav Kapur, Praveen and Sukumar Muralidharan Citizen, Society and the Media (Defamation, Obscenity, Public Order & Communal Harmony and Privacy) Arudra Burra, Bhairav Acharya, Jawahar Raja, Praveen and Saurav Datta
11.30 11.45	Tea
11.45 12.15	Session 3: Media Content & Regulatory Mechanism and Public Service Broadcasting Media Carriage, Pluralism, Ownership & Cross Ownership Lead discussants: Aloke Thakore, Geeta Seshu, Saurav Datta and Vibodh Parthasarathi
12.15 12.45	Session 4: Converged Media, Globalised Media and the Internet Lead discussants: Aloke Thakore, Abhinav Srivastava, Geeta Seshu Kanamma Raman and Sukumar Muralidharan
12.45 13.30	General Feedback about accessibility, structure and other miscellaneous factors

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/workshop-media-law-and-policy-curriculum-development

Biblio Review File

praskrishna — 2014-02-14T06:56:48Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/biblio-january-february-2014.pdf

National Consultation on Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities in Development Process

praskrishna — 2014-03-12T13:46:35Z

On February 12, 2014, CBM India in collaboration with United Nations Solution Exchange (UNSE) for Gender Community organized a 'National Consultation on Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities in Development Processes' at the World Health Organization (WHO), Regional office for South-East Asia in New Delhi. Around 85 delegates attended the consultation

Anandhi Viswanathan participated in a panel discussion. She made a presentation on the National Resource Kit project, the challenges faced during the research phase of the project and contributed to the recommendations being submitted to the government of India by CBM regarding inclusion of persons with disabilities in development processes.

See more details of the event of CBM website.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/national-consultation-on-inclusion-of-persons-with-disabilities-in-development-process