Centre for Internet and Society

Post and be Damned

praskrishna — 2012-11-19T03:40:46Z

Your careless comments online could put you in jail, thanks to Section 66A of the Information Technology Act. Kavitha Shanmugam examines a law that some critics say is vague and unconstitutional

Kavita Shanmugham's column was published in the Telegraph on November 14, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

Two weeks ago, S. Ravi, owner of a small plastic packaging unit in Puducherry, was rudely woken up by the police at 5am, manhandled and arrested. Reason: Ravi had posted a couple of unflattering comments about Karti Chidambaram, son of finance minister P. Chidambaram, on Twitter. He had tweeted that Chidambaram Junior "had amassed more wealth than Robert Vadra".

Ravi was arrested under Section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2008, and hauled up before a judicial magistrate who remanded him to nine days in custody. "It was then that I became really scared," says Ravi, who is out on bail.

A casual tweeter with just 16 followers, Ravi believes he did nothing wrong. “I was using a statement that was already there on the Internet. They could have sent me a lawyer’s notice or investigated the complaint before taking action,” argues Ravi, whose Twitter following has now jumped to 2,518.

"My tweet was retweeted by 20,000 people, who dared the authorities to arrest them too," he adds indignantly, terming Section 66A a “draconian law" with "wide scope for misuse".

Ravi is not alone in denouncing Section 66A of the IT Act. Indeed, there is now a huge outcry against the law, with a section of legal and cyber experts saying that it is nothing but a useful tool in the hands of the powers that be to curb freedom of speech and expression online.

At the same time, there are those who believe that online abuse or defamation cannot masquerade as freedom of speech and that the law is necessary to move against those who commit this offence.

Karti Chidambaram, for one, believes that Ravi’s tweet was motivated and defamatory. "The tweeter made one tweet in 78 days. It was about me. It clearly implied that I am corrupt. That is malicious. So I preferred a complaint to the police. The law exists. I didn’t frame the law," he says.

Section 66A of the IT Act lays down that a person can be punished with up to three years’ imprisonment if he or she sends offensive information or messages through a computer resource or communication device. The problem arises because it fails to clarify what can be termed "offensive". For example, information that is "grossly offensive" or has "menacing character” or information disseminated for the “purpose of causing annoyance and inconvenience" are all brought under the ambit of "offensive". This leaves the law wide open for various interpretations and abuse. "It’s too vaguely worded," insists M. Lenin, a lawyer advising volunteers of India Against Corruption in Chennai. “Any online statement can be declared 'offensive' and any tweet may be deemed ‘inconvenient’. The section has become a convenient tool for the police to harass people."

Section 66A of the IT Act lays down that a person can be punished with up to three years’ imprisonment if he or she sends offensive information or messages through a computer resource or communication device. The problem arises because it fails to clarify what can be termed "offensive". For example, information that is "grossly offensive" or has "menacing character” or information disseminated for the “purpose of causing annoyance and inconvenience" are all brought under the ambit of "offensive". This leaves the law wide open for various interpretations and abuse.

"It’s too vaguely worded," insists M. Lenin, a lawyer advising volunteers of India Against Corruption in Chennai. “Any online statement can be declared 'offensive' and any tweet may be deemed ‘inconvenient’. The section has become a convenient tool for the police to harass people."

Earlier this year, Section 66A was also invoked, among other laws, to arrest Jadavpur University professor Ambikesh Mahapatra for forwarding an email cartoon of West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee.

Indeed, some experts go a step further and call Section 66A patently unconstitutional. Says Pranesh Prakash, policy director, Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, "It’s clearly in violation of Article 19(1)(a) of our Constitution that guarantees freedom of speech. The fact that some information is ‘grossly offensive’ (Section 66A) or that it causes ‘annoyance’ or ‘inconvenience’ while being known to be false (Section 66A(c)) cannot be a reason for curbing freedom of speech unless it is directly related to violating decency, morality or public order, or amounts to defamation."

However, apologists for Section 66A argue that the law has its merits too in that it can be used to move against genuine incidents of harassment or defamation online. Take the case of Chinmayee Sripada, a popular Chennai-based playback singer. Chinmayee, who has one lakh followers on Twitter, was targeted by a group of six men who sent her lewd and threatening tweets for a period of time. Apparently, they were upset with her remarks on reservation and for not joining them in a Twitter campaign against the killing of Tamil Nadu fishermen by the Sri Lankan navy.

Recently, Chinmayee complained to the police with “thousands of pages of ugliness and vulgarity” and the trolls, including a professor at the National Institute of Fashion Technology, Chennai, were identified and arrested under Section 66A.

The offending tweeters apologised to her and closed their accounts after the arrest. "I believe Section 66A belled the cat. The arrest made people realise that Twitter also demands self-regulation. In the name of freedom of speech there is zero control on platforms like Twitter. There should be some boundaries," says Chinmayee’s mother T. Padmahasini.

Ramachandra Murthy, Ravi’s lawyer, too believes that Section 66A is a "good tool" for genuine cases of harassment. "Unfortunately, it is being misused by influential people. Still, if you are innocent the case can never hold up in court," he reasons.

Others question the need for a separate law to deal with cases of online defamation or harassment when the Indian Penal Code already has provisions to tackle them. New Delhi-based lawyer Apar Gupta cites the examples of Section 500, 499 and 294 of the IPC which deal with defamation or committing obscene acts in public. "Section 66A only makes the burden on the accused harsher," he adds.

While some IT experts want Section 66A scrapped, others say that it should at least be amended. “Even if the section is not struck off the statute books, the provisions in it may be read down by the courts and safeguards may be prescribed in its application,” says Gupta.

Until that happens, mistaking social media platforms for online drawing rooms where you can indulge in all kinds of freewheeling chat could be fraught with danger.

Justice A.P. Shah, a former chief justice of the Delhi High Court, echoes that view. "Section 66A is very broad and loosely worded. The scope of such a law has to be restricted. Instead, it is vague and clearly violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution that guarantees freedom of speech and expression," he says.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/telegraphindia-opinion-story-kavitha-shanmugham-nov-14-2012-post-and-be-damned

Privacy in the Social Networked World

praskrishna — 2012-12-04T16:19:51Z

The Asian Privacy Scholars Network 2nd International Conference was hosted by the Centre for Business Information Ethics, Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan, on behalf of the Asian Privacy Scholars Network, November 19 - 20, 2012. Elonnai Hickok is speaking at the event.

Monday, November 19, 2012

09:00—09:30	Registration and Welcome
09:30—10:30	Keynote Speaker: Pirongrong Ramasoota (Chulalongkorn University, Thailand) The Future of Privacy in the World's Largest Democracy
10:30—11:00	Break
11:00—12:30	Whon-Il Park (Kyung Hee University, Korea) How to Protect, or Utilize, Personal Visual Information in Korea Sinta Dewi Rosadi (University Padjadjaran, Indonesia) Constitutional Privacy Protection: The Indonesian Experience Takato Natsui (Meiji University, Japan) Censorship, Burying and Mental Health in Business Office
12:30—14:00	Lunch
14:00—15:00	Lilian Edwards (Strathclyde University, UK) International Implications of the Proposed Revision of the EU Data Protection Directive Graham Greenleaf (UNSW, Australia and Meiji University, Japan) 100 Data Privacy Laws: Their Significance and Origins
15:00—15:30	Break
15:30—16:30	Kiyoshi Murata/Yohko Orito (Meiji University/Ehime University, Japan) Japanese Youngsters' Social Attitude towards Privacy Ryoko Asai/Iordanis Kavathatzopoulos (Meiji University, Japan/Uppsala University, Sweden) The Paradoxical Nature of Privacy
18:00—20:00	Conference Banquet (Salon San, 23rd Floor, Liberty Tower, Meiji University)

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

09:00—09:45	Keynote Speaker: Roger Clarke (Xamax Consultancy, UNSW and ANU, Australia) Consumer-Oriented Social Media as Market Opportunity
09:45—10:00	Video Presentation from David Lyon (Queens University, Canada)
10:00—10:30	Break
10:30—12:00	Daniel Trottier (Uppsala University, Sweden) Social Networking Sites and Crowd-sourced Surveillance Colin Bennett (University of Victoria, Canada) Social Networking and Privacy Jurisdiction Andrew Adams (Meiji University, Japan) Facebook Code: SNS Platform Affordances and Privacy
12:00—13:00	Lunch
13:00—14:30	Elonnai Hickok (Centre for Internet and Society, India) Transparency and Privacy in India Fumio Shimpo (Keio University, Japan) Current Developments in Japanese Data Protection Policy Panel: Chen, Greenleaf, Hickok, Shimpo
14:30—15:00	Break
15:00—17:00	Ian Brown (University of Oxford, UK) Data Protection and Social Networking Services Shirley Williams (University of Reading, UK) Do Computer Science Scholars Consider Issues of Privacy when Studying Large Twitter Data Sets? Final Panel: Adams, Bennett, Brown, Clarke, Williams

Organisers

Prof Andrew A. Adams, Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan
Prof Kiyoshi Murata, Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan
Prof Graham Greenleaf, UNSW, Sydney, Australia
(JSPS Visiting Fellow, Meiji University Sep-Dec 2012)

Read the original here

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/privacy-in-social-networked-world

India second in requesting user info: Google

praskrishna — 2012-11-15T09:40:10Z

India is at second place after the US in terms of the government requests for user data from Google

Karthik Subramanian's article was published in the Hindu on November 14, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

The Indian government made the second largest demand for Web user information — next only to the United States government — to Google in the six-month period from January to June this year, according to the ‘Transparency Report’ published by the Web services major on Tuesday.

During the six-month period, the Indian government — both by way of court orders and by way of requests from police— requested Google to disclose user information 2,319 times over 3,467 users/accounts. Google fully or partially complied with the request to the tune of 64 per cent. Only the U.S. government requested more data during the period — 7,969 requests over 16,281 accounts, compliance rate: 90 per cent.

It is the sixth time Google has brought out the bi-annual report detailing its interactions with the world government agencies. It details two categories of interactions : requests to divulge user data; and requests to pull down content. India ranked seventh in the list of requests to pull down data; experts say that the possible reason could be the government not having such powers under the Constitution.

Pranesh Prakash, policy director with Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society, said that the Google report was a damning indictment of the country’s government exceeding its constitutional bounds by demanding removal of material for defamation, government criticism, etc., without a valid court order. "There are no laws in our country that allows the executive or the police to remove such material without a court order."

Substantial spike

In all, 33 countries figure in the report. There was a substantial spike when compared to previous reports with respect to the number of requests from various governments to pull down content.

"In the first half of 2012, there were 20,938 inquiries from government entities around the world. Those requests were for information about 36,614 accounts,” wrote Dorothy Chou, Google’s senior policy analyst, on the Official Google Blog while presenting the report. “The number of government requests to remove content from our services was largely flat from 2009 to 2011. But it’s spiked in this reporting period. In the first half of 2012, there were 1,791 requests from government officials around the world to remove 17,746 pieces of content."

Google is leading the cause for voluntary disclosure of the interactions it has with the governments. Other web services that put out similar transparency reports include micro-blogging site Twitter; cloud storage service Dropbox; and social networking site Linkedin.

Mr. Prakash said it was not enough if just the web services put out such reports. "The telecom service providers must voluntarily come out with such information," he added.

"There is a dearth of public information about the amount of legal interception and surveillance. This does not bode well in a democratic polity."

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/the-hindu-sci-tech-internet-karthik-subramanian-nov-14-2012-india-second-in-requesting-user-info-google

India second in keeping tabs on netizens

praskrishna — 2012-11-15T09:04:01Z

India ranks second globally in accessing private details of its citizens, next only to the US, if the latest data from Google is to be believed.

The article by Ishan Srivastava was published in the Times of India on November 15, 2012, Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

The transparency report by the internet search giant lists out requests it received from governments across the world to access information on the users of its various services.

In the first six months of 2012, India made 2,319 requests involving 3,467 users. In comparison, the US made 7,969 requests in the same period and Brazil, which comes third, sent 1,566 requests. Globally, there were 20,938 requests for user data during the January-June period. The data can include your complete Gmail account, chat logs, Orkut profile and search terms among others. These reports are prepared by Google every six months, and were started in July-December 2009.

The requests for user data from India doubled from 1,061 in July-December 2009 to 2,207 in July-December 2011.

"Though India is a large country with a significant number of internet users, this data is nonetheless an indicator of growing surveillance," said Pranesh Prakash, policy director at Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), a Bangalore-based organization looking at issues of public accountability, internet freedom and openness.

"India lacks a general privacy law that helps set guidelines for such user requests, despite privacy being a constitutional right as part of the right to life," said Prakash.

India also actively sends requests to take down content which it deems defamatory and against national security. While the number of court orders for taking down web content has remained almost stagnant over the years, there has been a rise in the number of requests by the executive and police. Between January and June this year, there were 20 court orders and 64 requests from executive/police that resulted in 596 items being taken down from the web. In comparison, there were only eight court orders and 22 executive/police requests in January-June 2010, resulting in 125 items being taken down.

"The government does not always specify the reason for which they want access. They just want access, what they do with the information is not known to us," said a legal adviser to an MNC. "These requests come with a threat to our continued operation in India."

Falsified court orders are also being employed to seek removal of content. Three such court orders were sent to Google "that demanded the removal of blog posts and entire blogs for alleged defamation." One order was said have been issued by a local court in Andheri, Mumbai while the other two by the Delhi high court. But all the three were found to be fake.

Google says a single court order was responsible for removal of 360 items this year as they "contained adult videos that allegedly violated an individual's personal privacy." While such orders have a positive impact like curbing pornography and violent content, governments at every level have also tried to use these requests to take down unfavourable content or criticism.

In January-June 2011 period, Google received "requests from state and local law enforcement agencies to remove YouTube videos that displayed protests against social leaders or used offensive language in reference to religious leaders". Google rejected a majority of these requests. It also received a request from a law enforcement agency to remove 236 communities and profiles from Orkut that were critical of a local politician. Google did not remove them either.

"Prior to 2009, government had limited powers of interception. However, after 26/11 they gave themselves huge powers to block and monitor content," said Supreme Court lawyer Pavan Duggal. "Data privacy is non-existent in India." He said that the A P Shah Committee, which was formed to recommend principles for a privacy law, has submitted its report to the Planning Commission and now it is up to the government to take it to the next stage.

Both Prakash and Duggal said that technology companies in India, including telecom players, should come out with similar transparency reports as Google. A report by international watchdog Privacy International says that Bharti Airtel, in its 2010-2011 annual report, said it had received 422 appreciation letters from law enforcement agencies for assistance in lawful interceptions. "The Indian IT Act requires electronic audit by firms but the law is silent on how this audit is filed," said Duggal.

Globally, Dropbox, LinkedIn, Sonic.net and Twitter release transparency reports apart from Google.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/times-of-india-india-times-tech-tech-news-internet-ishan-srivastava-nov-15-2012-india-second-in-keeping-tabs-on-netizens

Board and Society Members

praskrishna — 2024-06-26T08:11:38Z

The Centre for Internet and Society was established in 2008 with Sunil Abraham, Nishant Shah, Achal Prabhala, Lawrence Liang, Atul Ramachandra, Subbiah Arunachalam, and Vibodh Parthasarathi as the founding Society members; and Sunil Abraham, Achal Prabhala, Lawrence Liang, and Atul Ramachandra as the founding Board members. Please find below the lists of the members who have served on the CIS Society and Board since. The information in this page reflects the membership status, of Society and Board, as of March 31, 2024.

Members of Board and Society during 2023-24

Members of Board and Society during 2022-23

Members of Board and Society during 2021-22

Members of Board and Society during 2020-21

Members of Board and Society during 2019-20

Members of Board and Society during 2018-19

Members of Board and Society during 2017-18

Members of Board and Society during 2016-17

Members of Board and Society during 2015-16

Members of Board and Society during 2014-15

Members of Board and Society during 2013-14

Members of Board and Society during 2012-13

Members of Board and Society during 2011-12

Members of Board and Society during 2010-11

Members of Board and Society during 2009-10

Members of Board and Society during 2008-09

Members of Board and Society during 2023-24

Members of Board	Position	Members of Society	Position
Nikhil Narendran	President	T. Vishnu Vardhan	Chief Functionary
Vikram Hegde	Secretary	Nikhil Narendran	Member
T. Vishnu Vardhan	Treasurer	Vikram Hegde	Member
Prof. Lakshmi Arya	Member	Anubha Sinha	Member
Prof. Radhika Mamidi	Member	Arindrajit Basu	Member
		Pranav M B	Member
		Dr. Rekha Jain	Member
		Shyam Ponnappa	Member
		Prof. Subbaiah Arunachalam	Member
		Dr. Suchitra Balasubrahmanyan	Member
		Sunil Abraham	Member
		Tanveer Hasan	Member
		Pranesh Prakash	Member

Members of Board and Society during 2022-23

Members of Board	Position	Members of Society	Position
Dr. Asha Achuthan	Member	Dr. Asha Achuthan	Member
Nikhil Narendran	Member	Nikhil Narendran	Member
Vikram Hegde	Member	Vikram Hegde	Member
		Anubha Sinha	Member
		Arindrajit Basu	Member
		Pranav M B	Member
		Dr. Rekha Jain	Member
		Shyam Ponnappa	Member
		Prof. Subbaiah Arunachalam	Member
		Dr. Suchitra Balasubrahmanyan	Member
		Sunil Abraham	Member
		T. Vishnu Vardhan	Chief Functionary
		Pranesh Prakash	Member

Members of Board and Society during 2021-22

Members of Board	Position	Members of Society	Position
Dr. Rekha Jain	Chairperson	Dr. Rekha Jain	President
Mr. Amber Sinha	Secretary	Dr. Amit Mitra	Member
Dr. Amit Mitra	Member	Dr. Suchitra Balasubrahmanyan	Member
Dr. Suchitra Balasubrahmanyan	Member	Mr. Amber Sinha	Member
Mr. Vibodh Parthasarathi	Member	Mr. Arindrajit Basu	Member
		Mr. Shyam Ponnappa	Member
		Mr. Sunil Abraham	Member
		Mr. T. Vishnu Vardhan	Member
		Mr. Vibodh Parthasarathi	Member
		Prof. Subbaiah Arunachalam	Member

Members of Board and Society during 2020-21

Members of Board	Position	Members of Society	Position
Dr. Rekha Jain	Chairperson	Dr. Rekha Jain	President
Mr. Amber Sinha	Secretary	Dr. Amit Mitra	Member
Dr. Amit Mitra	Member	Dr. Suchitra Balasubrahmanyan	Member
Dr. Suchitra Balasubrahmanyan	Member	Mr. Amber Sinha	Member
Mr. Vibodh Parthasarathi	Member	Mr. Arindrajit Basu	Member
		Mr. Shyam Ponnappa	Member
		Mr. Sunil Abraham	Member
		Mr. T. Vishnu Vardhan	Member
		Mr. Vibodh Parthasarathi	Member
		Prof. Subbaiah Arunachalam	Member

Members of Board and Society during 2019-20

Members of Board	Position	Members of Society	Position
Sunil Abraham	President	Amber Sinha	President
T. Vishnu Vardhan	Treasurer	T. Vishnu Vardhan	Treasurer
Pranesh Prakash	Member	Sunil Abraham	Secretary
Shyam Ponnappa	Member	Shyam Ponnappa	Member
		Dr. Rekha Jain	Member
		Dr. Suchitra Balasubrahmanyan	Member
		Vibodh Parthasarathi	Member
		Arindrajit Basu	Member

Members of Board and Society during 2018-19

Members of Board	Position	Members of Society	Position
Sunil Abraham	President	Sunil Abraham	President
Pranesh Prakash	Treasurer	Pranesh Prakash	Treasurer
Shyam Ponnappa	Member	Shyam Ponnappa	Member
T. Vishnu Vardhan	Member	T. Vishnu Vardhan	Member
		Jayna Kothari	Member
		Hans Varghese Mathew	Member
		Subbiah Arunachalam	Member
		Vibodh Parthasarathi	Member
		Kavita Philip	Member

Members of Board and Society during 2017-18

Members of Board	Position	Members of Society	Position
Jayna Kothari	President	Jayna Kothari	President
Nirmita Narasimhan	Secretary	Nirmita Narasimhan	Secretary
Pranesh Prakash	Treasurer	Pranesh Prakash	Treasurer
Shyam Ponnappa	Member	Shyam Ponnappa	Member
Sunil Abraham	Member	Sunil Abraham	Member
T. Vishnu Vardhan	Member	T. Vishnu Vardhan	Member
		Hans Varghese Mathew	Member
		Kavita Philip	Member
		Lawrence Liang	Member
		Nishant Shah	Member
		Subbiah Arunachalam	Member
		Sumandro Chattapadhyay	Member
		Vibodh Parthasarathi	Member

Members of Board and Society during 2016-17

Members of Board	Position	Members of Society	Position
Sunil Abraham	President	Sunil Abraham	President
Nirmita Narasimhan	Secretary	Nirmita Narasimhan	Member
T. Vishnu Vardhan	Treasurer	T. Vishnu Vardhan	Treasurer
Kavita Philip	Member	Kavita Philip	Member
Nishant Shah	Member	Nishant Shah	Member
Shyam Ponnappa	Member	Shyam Ponnappa	Member
		Hans Varghese Mathew	Member
		Jayna Kothari	Member
		Lawrence Liang	Member
		Pranesh Prakash	Treasurer
		Subbiah Arunachalam	Member
		Vibodh Parthasarathi	Member

Members of Board and Society during 2015-16

Members of Board	Position	Members of Society	Position
Sunil Abraham	President	Sunil Abraham	President
Nirmita Narasimhan	Secretary	Nirmita Narasimhan	Member
T. Vishnu Vardhan	Treasurer	T. Vishnu Vardhan	Treasurer
Kavita Philip	Member	Kavita Philip	Member
Nishant Shah	Member	Nishant Shah	Member
Shyam Ponnappa	Member	Shyam Ponnappa	Member
		Hans Varghese Mathew	Member
		Jayna Kothari	Member
		Lawrence Liang	Member
		Pranesh Prakash	Treasurer
		Subbiah Arunachalam	Member
		Vibodh Parthasarathi	Member

Members of Board and Society during 2014-15

Members of Board	Position	Members of Society	Position
Sunil Abraham	President	Sunil Abraham	President
Nirmita Narasimhan	Secretary	Nirmita Narasimhan	Member
T. Vishnu Vardhan	Treasurer	T. Vishnu Vardhan	Treasurer
Kavita Philip	Member	Kavita Philip	Member
Nishant Shah	Member	Nishant Shah	Member
Shyam Ponnappa	Member	Shyam Ponnappa	Member
		Hans Varghese Mathew	Member
		Jayna Kothari	Member
		Lawrence Liang	Member
		Pranesh Prakash	Treasurer
		Subbiah Arunachalam	Member
		Vibodh Parthasarathi	Member

Members of Board and Society during 2013-14

Members of Board	Position	Members of Society	Position
Lawrence Liang	Chairman	Lawrence Liang	Member
		Sunil Abraham	President
		Nishant Shah	Treasurer
Jayna Kothari	Member	Jayna Kothari	Member
Kavita Philip	Member	Kavita Philip	Member
Subbiah Arunachalam	Member	Subbiah Arunachalam	Member
Vibodh Parthasarathi	Member	Vibodh Parthasarathi	Member

Members of Board and Society during 2012-13

Members of Board	Position	Members of Society	Position
Lawrence Liang	Chairman	Lawrence Liang	Member
		Sunil Abraham	President
		Nishant Shah	Treasurer
Jayna Kothari	Member	Jayna Kothari	Member
Kavita Philip	Member	Kavita Philip	Member
Subbiah Arunachalam	Member	Subbiah Arunachalam	Member
Vibodh Parthasarathi	Member	Vibodh Parthasarathi	Member

Members of Board and Society during 2011-12

Members of Board	Position	Members of Society	Position
Lawrence Liang	Chairman	Lawrence Liang	Member
		Sunil Abraham	President
		Nishant Shah	Treasurer
Jayna Kothari	Member	Jayna Kothari	Member
Subbiah Arunachalam	Member	Subbiah Arunachalam	Member
Vibodh Parthasarathi	Member	Vibodh Parthasarathi	Member
		M.K. Narasimha Rao	Member

Members of Board and Society during 2010-11

Members of Board	Position	Members of Society	Position
Subbiah Arunachalam	Chairman	Subbiah Arunachalam	Member
		Sunil Abraham	President
		Nishant Shah	Treasurer
Atul Ramachandra	Member	Atul Ramachandra	Member
Lawrence Liang	Member	Lawrence Liang	Member
Vibodh Parthasarathi	Member	Vibodh Parthasarathi	Member
		Achal Prabhala	Member
		M.K. Narasimha Rao	Member

Members of Board and Society during 2009-10

Members of Board	Position	Members of Society	Position
Subbiah Arunachalam	Chairman	Subbiah Arunachalam	Member
		Sunil Abraham	President
		Nishant Shah	Treasurer
Atul Ramachandra	Member	Atul Ramachandra	Member
Lawrence Liang	Member	Lawrence Liang	Member
Vibodh Parthasarathi	Member	Vibodh Parthasarathi	Member
		Achal Prabhala	Member

Members of Board and Society during 2008-09

Members of Board	Position	Members of Society	Position
Sunil Abraham	President	Sunil Abraham	President
Achal Prabhala	Vide-President	Achal Prabhala	Member
Lawrence Liang	Secretary	Lawrence Liang	Member
		Nishant Shah	Treasurer
Atul Ramachandra	Member	Atul Ramachandra	Member
		Subbiah Arunachalam	Member
		Vibodh Parthasarathi	Member

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/about/people/board-and-society-members

Art in the Open Source Age — A Talk by Gene Kogan

praskrishna — 2012-12-13T06:06:34Z

The Centre for Internet and Society is hosting a talk by Gene Kogan, a programmer and digital artist, at its office in Bangalore on November 30th, 2012, from 5.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m.

Talk Summary

The open source movement has challenged longstanding assumptions about art practice. Communities of programmers and makers have collaborated online to create mature software development kits such as Processing and OpenFrameworks, as well as websites like Instructables.com where users can document and share their process. The rapid digitization of the blueprints for creative projects have greatly lowered the barrier to getting started.

These new tools and practices have greatly influenced the workflows that artists, designers, and technologists operate with, and have upended traditional notions of authorship and copyright. Techniques manipulating existing digital content have inspired much debate over legitimacy and authenticity. This talk will critically examine this new outlook and attempt to resolve some practical issues.

Gene Kogan

Gene Kogan is an American artist and programmer currently based out of Bangalore. He is interested in performance art, generative systems, and machine learning. He writes free software for negotiating high dimensional spaces to discover the unexpected and serendipitous. He is currently based out of Bangalore.

His work can be seen on his website at www.genekogan.com. You can also follow him on twitter at @genekogan.

VIDOE

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/events/art-in-the-open-source-age

Steady Steps.....FOSS and the MDG's

praskrishna — 2012-12-09T01:11:31Z

Pranesh Prakash was a panelist at this IGF workshop held on November 9, 2012. It was organised by International Center For Free and Open Source Software and Free Software and OpenSource Foundation For Africa.

IG4D Thematic Cluster 2 "Enabling Environment" Question 1: What does it take to attract investment in infrastructure and enc

Concise Description of Workshop:

This workshop will address some key areas, where Free and open source software has made a milestone, in the last few years to fulfill the Millennium development goal, across the globe. Many a times whenever FOSS is mentioned, , thoughts quickly run to ‘techies’ . In this session , the Panelists will give practical presentations/projects on Free and Open Source Software, outside the technical arena and show how it has changed the face of : 1) Governments:- We will look at, Policy in the area of Open Data, 2) In Academia:- We will look at, Open Education Resources (OER) , FOSS in schools etc, both in Africa and India. 3) In Private Sector- we will look at , Wealth creation, innovation and job creation, just to mention but a few. 1) Secondly we will look at how FOSS is bridging the digital divide, existing between the different age groups more especially the Youth, Women, between the different social circles/media , inclusion of person's with disabilities.etc, through partnerships and rural deployment of FOSS. We will have the privilege to look at initiative(s), in Brazil. 1) Last but not least, It will address, the key policies, that governments should embrace, that would continue to enhance FOSS in the Internet development goal at national level , regional level and at the global level. A rich discussion will be encouraged, from the participants to ensure that the FOSS community understands its strength and role in the internet governance realm, in policy making process and in the privacy, security and openness arena.

Workshop Agenda:
1. What Milestone has FOSS made in:
i) Academia
ii) Government
iii) Private Sector
2. Is FOSS factor to consider in bridging the digital divide?
3. Regarding the Milestone that FOSS has achieved, should there be national, regional, global.etc policies to ensure a fair palying field it?
- Closing remarks, What actions to be taken, conclusion.

Submitted Workshop Panelists:

1. Mr. Satish Babu - ICFOSS, India (Government)- Moderator- Confirmed
2. Mr. Fernando Botelho- F123.org, Brazil (Remote Participation)- Confirmed
3. Ms. Anne Rachel Inne, ICANN- Confirmed
4. Mr. Pranesh Prakash, CIS Bangalore, India- Confirmed
5. Ms. Mishi Choudhary, Executive Director of International programs at Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC), India- Confirmed
6. Mr. Yves Miezan Ezo, FOSSFA , CHALA, France- Confirmed
7.Ms. Nnenna Nwakanma, CEO, Nnenna.org, Cote d' Ivoire- Confirmed

Name of Remote Moderator(s):

Ms. Judy Okite, FOSSFA

Assigned Panellists:

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/steady-steps-foss-and-mdgs

Law yet to catch up with tech-enabled peeping toms

praskrishna — 2012-11-08T08:06:07Z

Devices that give sharp images are the order of the day. But this clarity is lacking when it comes to regulating use of cameras and camera phones in public places, say policy makers.

The article by Sandhya Soman & Pratiksha Ramkumar was published in the Times of India on November 7, 2012.

If there is one thing that sends more clients harried by blackmailers to detectives like A M Malathy of Malathy Detective Agency, it is the pervasive presence of the camera, most often inside modest cell phones. "One girl had to leave a town as her ex-boyfriend uploaded her photo on the internet and referred to her as a call girl. We got the web page removed," says Malathy.

But tracing culprits is difficult if they are strangers on the road. Absence of a privacy law makes it difficult for police to book culprits. "If someone photographs a woman on a bus, we can ask the person to delete it. But we can't book the person s there is no law," says Jegabar Sali, assistant commissioner, cyber crime cell.

The Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000 talks of punishment only in cases where a person's private areas have been photographed. However, things are looking up with the government trying to draw up the Right to Privacy Bill.

"The problems posed by digital technology are complex and we need to define what these new crimes are," says Rajeev Chandrasekhar, independent Member of Parliament, who introduced the Right to Privacy Bill,2010 in Parliament. "I did it because I got representations from parents and women about how MMS clips were being used to blackmail them," says Chandrasekhar.

There have been attempts at legislation earlier. The Mobile Camera Phone Users (Code of Conduct) Bill, 2006 attempted to regulate the use of camera phones in public places. It proposed that manufactures build camera phones that flash a light or emit a 'click' sound, and that users should get consent of the person being photographed.

"The sound and light are for informing people that they are being filmed," says Sunil Abraham, executive director, Centre for Internet and Society, a Bangalore-based organisation that was part of the committee. These provisions are part of South Korea's privacy law, which sought to bring down cases of technology-enabled 'upskirt' photography, where photos of women were taken without their permission, he says.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/times-of-india-sandhya-soman-and-pratiksha-ramkumar-nov-7-2012-law-yet-to-catch-up-with-tech-enabled-peeping-toms

Information security policy on govt agenda

praskrishna — 2012-11-08T06:18:28Z

As an increasing quantity of sensitive information is transmitted through electronic channels, the government is considering putting in place an internal information security policy to reduce the risk of leaks and counter possible cyber attacks, said three government officials involved in discussions on the proposal.

Surabhi Agarwal's article was published in LiveMint on November 6, 2012. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

The policy will include new guidelines on top of the standards set out by the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and mandate safeguards for each category of information on how it should be transmitted, stored and preserved. The categories are “top secret”, “secret”, “confidential”, “restricted” and “official use only”.

Experts argue that given the easy portability of such information and its vulnerability to hackers, the policy should have been in place much sooner.

The Official Secrets Act seeks to protect sensitive information including official communications, sketch plans, documents and other information pertaining to government functioning. Gaining wrongful access to information deemed to be an official secret or unauthorized use of such information are regarded as offences.

Given that the law was enacted almost a quarter century before independence, it had no provisions to deal with electronic transmission of such information made possible by technological advances in subsequent decades, said cyber expert Pawan Duggal.

One of the three government officials cited above said the aim of the proposed internal information security policy is to protect classified information that’s transmitted electronically much as it is done currently in the paper format.

"As more information is getting transmitted in the electronic format, we have to put in place procedures, guidelines, policies and standards for protecting that information in the electronic format," the official said.

From the newsroom: Securing government information	The discussions, being anchored by the home ministry, have been under way for some time and the policy should be finalized in the “next few months”, the official said. A second official said the policy will lay down the dos and don’ts for government officers on how information has to be transmitted, stored and preserved in the electronic format. “In case of a breach, the investigation agencies can then look into whether the requisite safeguards were followed or not,” the official said. The proposal follows a rash of attacks on government computer systems that exposed their vulnerability to hackers. Former minister of state for communications and information technology Sachin Pilot told Parliament recently that between December 2011 and February 2012, a total of 112 government websites had been hacked.

From the newsroom: Securing government information

The discussions, being anchored by the home ministry, have been under way for some time and the policy should be finalized in the “next few months”, the official said.

A second official said the policy will lay down the dos and don’ts for government officers on how information has to be transmitted, stored and preserved in the electronic format. “In case of a breach, the investigation agencies can then look into whether the requisite safeguards were followed or not,” the official said. The proposal follows a rash of attacks on government computer systems that exposed their vulnerability to hackers.

Former minister of state for communications and information technology Sachin Pilot told Parliament recently that between December 2011 and February 2012, a total of 112 government websites had been hacked.

A third government official, who also didn’t want to be identified, said that every government official would have to follow standard procedures in electronic transmission of information.

“The moment one’s computer is connected to the Internet, it is part of a global network, so attackers in the cyber space know which information can be stolen from where if the necessary deterrents are not in place,” the official said.

Sensitive information such as tax matters and intellectual property issues are part of the information that’s transmitted electronically by government offices, which if leaked can have market implications as well as an impact on governance, experts said.

“The government leaks like a sieve,” said B.G. Verghese, a visiting professor at New Delhi-based Centre for Policy Research.

“This is a step and they are trying to lay some ground rules to regulate a process that fits in with concepts of law, good governance, Constitution, privacy and prevents any wrongdoing,” Verghese said.

The proposed policy, when put in place, will be a step forward so long as it does not dilute the powers available to citizens under the Right to Information Act, said Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bangalore-based research organization Centre for Internet and Society.

Currently there are several concerns centred on electronic transmission, including questions about who is responsible for information, especially its unauthorized use. “This could help establish an audit trail,” Abraham said.

The first government official quoted above stressed that although cyber security and information security cut across each other, the two concepts are different.

“Cyber (security) is basically about devices and networks, whereas information security is very particularly about the information which travels on the net,” this official said. Reinforced cyber security will be an additional benefit once the information security policy comes into force, he said.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/live-mint-politics-surabhi-agarwal-nov-6-2012-information-security-policy-on-govt-agenda

ITU – NTA Workshop on Making ICT and mobile phones accessible for persons with disabilities in Nepal

praskrishna — 2012-11-07T12:19:04Z

The International Telecommunication Union is organizing this event on November 9, 2012 in Nepal. Nirmita Narasimhan is participating as a speaker in the session "Introduction: ICT and telecom accessibility, good practices in policy and industry initiatives".

This was published by the ITU on November 7, 2012.

09:00	Welcome and Inauguration Master of Ceremony (MC) welcomes all
	MC requests chief guest (Hon. Minister or Secretary) to inaugurate the Diyo (Oil lamp / Light)
09:15	Opening Remarks Sameer Sharma, Senior Adviser, ITU Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific
09:25	Keynote Address MoIC Secretary / Joint Secretary
09:40	Announcements Master of Ceremony thanks the Members at the Dais and walks over ot the schedule
09:40-10:00	Photo Session - Coffee Break
10:00	Making ICT Accessible for Persons with Disabilities: ITU Initiatives Sameer Sharma, Senior Adviser, ITU Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific
10:30	Introduction: ICT and telecom accessibility, good practices in policy and industry initiatives Nirmita Narasimhan, ITU Expert, Accessibility
11:00	Formulating policy and project implementation for persons with disabilities Archana Gulati, ITU Expert, Universal Service Policy
11:30	Perspective, initiatives, plans and challenges in making Telecom Services accessible to Persons with Disabilities NDCL / Ncell
12:15	Policy initiatives, ground realities and way forward for making telecom services accessible to Persons with Disabilities NTA
12:30	Panel Discussion Telecom Operators, MoIC officials
13:30	Closing Remarks MoIC / NTA / ITU
13:45-14:30	Lunch break

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/itu-int-itu-d-asp-cms-events-2012-nepal-itu-nta-workshop-on-making-ict-and-mobile-phones-accessible-for-persons-with-disabilities-in-nepal

Who is Following Me: Tracking the Trackers (IGF2012)

praskrishna — 2012-12-07T17:17:32Z

The Internet Society and the Council of Europe are co-organising a workshop at the IGF (Baku - 8 November 2012 - 09:00 - 10:30) regarding online tracking. Malavika Jayaram is a speaker.

Interest in online tracking as a policy issue spiked with the release of the Preliminary Federal Trade Commission Staff Report in December 2010 entitled Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change – A Proposed Framework for Businesses and Policymakers calling for a “do not track” mechanism, the launch of the W3C Tracking Protection Workng Group and the recent entry into force of the so-called European “Cookie Directive” provisions. However, the actual and potential observation of individuals’ interactions online has long been a concern for privacy advocates and others.

Much of the policy attention is currently focused on cookies used to track users to build profiles for more targeted advertising, but some of the more difficult issues are:

How to deal with less-observable tracking (e.g. browser and/or device fingerprinting, monitoring of publicly disclosed information)
How to develop laws that accommodate different tracking scenarios – for example:
- different entities (law enforcement, companies, etc.);
- different and sometimes multiple purposes (security, personalising user experience, targeting advertising, malicious activity; etc.);
- first-party and third-party tracking o single site and multiple site tracking
Transparency (particularly on small mobile devices)
Whether a traditional consent model is sufficient and effective

The panel:

Wendy Seltzer, Policy Council, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Kimon Zorbas, Vice President, Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) Europe
Cornelia Kutterer, Director of Regulatory Policy, Corporate Affairs, LCA, Microsoft EMEA
Malavika Jayaram, partner at Jayaram & Jayaram, Bangalore
Shaundra Watson, Counsel for international consumer protection, USA Federal Trade Commission
Rob van Eijk, Council of Europe expert, Leiden University (PhD student)

The moderators:

Christine Runnegar, Internet Society
Sophie Kwasny, Council of Europe

The remote moderator:

James Lawson, Council of Europe

This workshop will explore:

Current and emerging trends in online tracking (and their related purposes)
How to give individuals full knowledge of the tracking that occurs when they go online
Mechanisms to give individuals greater control over tracking and data use
The respective roles of all actors (government, law enforcement, Internet intermediaries, businesses, browser vendors, application developers, advertisers, data brokers, users, Internet technical community, etc.)
Whether effective data protection online can be ensured solely by law.
Whether self-regulation and voluntary consensus standards offer better options for tuning privacy choice to the rapidly advancing technology environment.

Please read our background paper and update

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/who-is-following-me

Solutions for Enabling Cross-border Data Flows

praskrishna — 2012-12-07T22:42:35Z

ICC BASIS and the Internet Society are co-organising a workshop at the IGF (Baku - 7 November 2012 - 14:30 to 16:00) to explore solutions for enabling cross-border data flows. Malavika Jayaram is a panelist.

This was published by Internet Society. For details published on the IGF website, see here

BRIEF OVERVIEW

The Internet has revolutionised our ability to communicate and share data beyond national boundaries, thereby facilitating cross-border social and commercial interactions. Enabling cross-border data flows, however, raises a number of important Internet governance policy considerations for a broad range of stakeholders, such as business, intermediaries, users, law enforcement agencies, governments, policymakers and the wider Internet technical community. In this context, the workshop will explore policy issues, from various stakeholder perspectives.

The dynamic panel of experts will provide a wide range of perspectives for this discussion and explore concrete solutions and options for enabling cross-border data flows. This is an important opportunity to raise awareness about the practical and the policy realities raised by these issues. It will also be an opportunity to share concrete issues, experiences, possible approaches and solutions.

MODERATOR
Jeff Brueggeman, Vice President-Public Policy & Deputy Chief Privacy Officer, AT&T

PANELLISTS
Joseph Alhadeff, Chief Privacy Strategist, Vice President, Global Public Policy, Oracle
Maria Häll, Ministry of Enterprise, Energy and Communications, Sweden
Malavika Jayaram, Partner, Jayaram & Jayaram, Bangalore
Christine Runnegar, Senior Policy Advisor, Internet Society
Ivan Sanchez Medina, Member of the Columbian National Telecommunications Commission, CRC

LEAD DISCUSSANTS
Olga Cavalli, Advisor to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Argentina
Christoph Steck, Chief Regulatory Officer, Telefonica (TBC)
Kevin Bankston, Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director, Center for Democracy & Technology

REMOTE MODERATOR
Constance Weise, ICC BASIS

SUBSTANTIVE RAPPORTEUR
Karen Mulberry, Policy Advisor, Internet Society

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/solutions-for-cross-border-data-flows

Best Bits 2012

praskrishna — 2012-12-06T06:46:17Z

Best Bits organized a workshop at the IGF. It was held on November 3 and 4, 2012. Pranesh Prakash and Elonnai Hickok participated in the event.

Agenda

Day 1, Saturday, November 3, 2012

9.00 - 10.45	Internet governance history and review Mapping Internet governance – institutions and actors Last 20 years of Internet governance: ITU, ISOC, WSIS and IGF Last 2 years – ACTA, SOPA/PIPA and online activism eg. StopTheMeter.ca, government assertions of sovereignty over IG Southern perspectives on global Internet governance
11.00 - 12.45	The ITU and the International Telecommunications Regulations What are the real dangers of the proposed ITR revisions? Remaining opportunities for input into the WCIT process How to engage with your national delegation to the ITU Beyond WCIT – WTPF, WTSA, IMPACT, and the Dedicated Group
12.45 - 14.00	Lunch and networking break
12.00 - 17.30	Drafting a civil society statement to WCIT Draws together points of consensus Defines the legitimate role of the ITU Judges it against the WSIS criteria Refers to statement on IG principles

Day 2, Sunday, November 4, 2012

9.00 - 10.30	Declarations of Internet rights and Internet governance principles Background to Internet principles declarations 1999 to 2012 Declaration of Internet Freedom – first and second iterations Other current initiatives – “rival” Declaration, Marco Civil, etc. Respective advantages of consolidation and maintaining diversity
10.45 - 12.15	Process towards enhanced cooperation on Internet public policy issues If not the ITU, then what? The global vacuum on Internet-related public policy issues Likely scenarios (favourable or not) if the vacuum is not filled Discussion of reform proposals – Committee on Internet Related Policies, Enhanced Cooperation Task Force
12.15 - 13.00	Lunch and networking break
13.00 - 16.00	Drafting civil society IG principles for the IGF Development of existing statements Reinforces multi-stakeholder approach Suggests roadmap for improved implementation of enhanced cooperation
16.15 - 17.45	Next steps Making an inclusive civil society network on IG issues sustainable Other existing civil society+ networks – Internet Defence League, Internet Governance Caucus, Global Network Initiative, CSISAC, OpenMedia network, Internet Progress Administration Recap of upcoming events and campaigns for possible joint action

Participants

Alejandro Pisanty
Andrew Puddephatt
Anja Kovacs
Anna Orlova
Anriette Esterhuysen
Antonio Medina Gomez
Arthit Suriyawongkul
Ashnah Kalemera
Avri Doria
bdelachapelle
Brett Solomon
Carlos Alberto Afonso
Claudio Ruiz
Deborah Brown
Dixie Hawtin
Donny B U
Elonnai Hickok
Emma Llanso
Fouad Bajwa
Gene Kimmelman
Iarla Flynn
Imran Ahmed Shah
Jeremy Malcolm
Joana Varon Ferraz
Jochai Ben-Avie
Joonas Mikael Mäkinen
Joy Liddicoat
Katitza Rodriguez
Kevin Bankston
LAURA ABBA
matthew shears
Mawaki Chango
Michael Gurstein
Nnenna Nwakanla
Norbert Bollow
Parminder Jeet Singh
Pranesh Prakash
Premila Kumar
Raquel Gatto
Rashmi Rangnath
Sanja_Kelly
Shahzad Ahmad
Shita Laksmi
STEFANO TRUMPY
Stephanie Borg Psaila
Sylwia Rudnik
Tapani Tarvainen
Theresa Züger
Valeria Betancourt
William Drake
Wolfgang Kleinwächter

Attending Remotely

AHM Bazlur Rahman
Alex Comninos
Baudouin SCHOMBE
chaitanyabd
cveraq
De
encels
Fatima Cambronero
ganda
Hanane
Hindenburgo Francisco Pires
Jorge Gonzalez
Julian Casasbuenas G.
Lorna Tingu Makuma
Narine Khachatryan
natienciso
Pitshou Bulembi Ndongala
richaraix
rohanjay
Siranush Vardanyan
Sonigitu Asibong Ekpe
Susan Coughtrie
thierrys
vinsolo
Virginia Paque

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/best-bits

Cloudy Jurisdiction: Addressing the thirst for Cloud Data in Domestic Legeal Processes

praskrishna — 2012-12-09T01:00:49Z

Elonnai Hickok was a panelist at this workshop held at the IGF in Baku, Azerbaijan on November 7, 2012. The workshop was co-organised by Electronic Frontier Foundation (Peru) and University of Ottawa.

The use of cloud services is rising globally. Cloud computing and storage are uniquely tailored to take full advantage of our increasingly networked environment. However, a move to the cloud also entails tangible challenges as vast repositories of information once kept within the sacrosanct safety of the home computer are placed on a remote server in the control of a third party. While the protections of home storage and processing can be replicated in the cloud, legal norms have been slow to adopt. Jurisdiction, the classic internet governance question, is raised in particularly stark contrast in the move to the cloud, as placing user data can subject that data to the legal access laws of any (or even many) jurisdictions in the world.

While there are indicators that such data is being accessed at increasing and alarming rates, globally, yet even the dimensions of the problem remain obscure. What is needed is a set of shared international norms relating to transparency, data sovereignty and lawful access to private information. In recent years, however, International forums have appeared much more eager to adopt international standards for data access (be it to combat cybercrime, secure critical infrastructure, or help intellectual property holders uncover alleged infringers of their rights) than for data sovereignty. Standards need to be developed that will provide a basis for the special challenges to cross-jurisdictional privacy that the move to the cloud highlights. This panel will examine the need for such a cross-jurisdictional framework, what one might look like, and, importantly, how one might bring such a framework about where the issue appears to be a low priority for many national governments.

Agenda
The objective of this panel is to attempt to resolve some of the trans-border threats to civil liberties that are posed by the move to the cloud. If a baseline of privacy protection can be assured at the international level, concerns over limiting data flows on the basis of jurisdiction will be alleviated. This panel will be divided into two parts. The first part will discuss some of the challenges raised by the cloud environment for traditional civil liberties paradigms. The discussion in part two will be solution-driven—what rules can be put in place at the international level to alleviate the heightened risk to privacy and other civil liberties raised by a cloud-centric model.

Part 1: Cloud-based threats to cross-border civil liberties (45 mins)
This part will discuss some of the challenges to civil liberties arising from a cross-border cloud-based environment. The panel will be further sub-divided into 25-30 minutes of panelist input, followed by 15-20 minutes of general discussion. Panelists will be asked to spend 3-5 minutes highlighting what they view as the most pressing of these challenges may be.

This might include specific recurring problems that have arisen in many comparable online contexts, as they relate to the cloud such as, for example:

legal obligations to build in intercept capacity into Internet services (compare CALEA 2.0 efforts in US, Lawful Access in Canada, and domestic server obligations such as those imposed on RIM by India and others in order to facilitate access to data that is encrypted in transit).
Concerns that many legal regimes permit voluntary conduct without adequate safeguards for political pressure on companies, particularly smaller businesses, to comply with requests.
Inability to challenge surveillance laws because the programs are shrouded in secrecy, because individuals are never made aware they have been surveilled, because of standing issues, etc.
Ability for ‘one-stop access’: cloud centralizes mass amounts of data in one place. This concentration as well as a general erosion of traditional criteria designed to ensure surveillance is targeted in a way that impacts minimally on the general populace.
Nascent suggestions of informal information sharing arrangements through MLATs and less transparent more informal arrangements.

Part 2: Adopting protections at the International level (45 mins.)
The discussion in Part 2 will focus on how some of these problems can be addressed at the international level by adoption of a set of principled protections designed to meet the realities of online and specifically cloud services. The focus is on problem resolution.

Format for Part 2 will mirror that of Part 1. Panelists will be provided with 3-5 minutes each and asked to present their views on one or two solutions that can be adopted at the international level to the problems presented in part 1. The remainder (20-25 minutes) will be dedicated to general discussion.

It is hoped that the discussion will explore specific protections that might be adopted at the international level, how to advance those solutions, and what strategies can generally advance these objectives, on the advocacy front, by use of transparency tools to increase awareness of some of the issues.

Questions to think about:

Historically, interception of communications received the strongest protection at law, but it relied to a great extent on the act of interception coinciding with the communication itself. Should we be expanding this to other means of communications?
Do we have effective mechanisms to immunize private organizations from political pressure to voluntarily share information? Particularly, a lot of small companies can now have a lot of information. Are they well equipped to resist political pressure
Does the content/traffic data distinction still hold? Do we need a new framework for analysing the types of data produced as a natural byproduct of our online activities?
Can the MLAT regime form the basis for ensuring fundamental rights are respected in legitimate cross-border surveillance activities? If so, what would it take to have it reflect a baseline of protections?
Is it feasible to develop and formally adopt detailed limitations on state access at the international or regional level?
Is cloud-based info susceptible to unauthorized state access in new ways? Is this something the law can fix (mandate encryption in storage or other safeguards)? Social engineering concerns?

Background Reading:

The Draft International Principles on Surveillance & Human Rights: http://necessaryandproportionate.org/
Global Network Initiative, "Principles on Freedom of Expression and Privacy", http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/sites/default/files/GNI_-_Principles_1_.pdf
I. Brown & D. Korff, “Digital Freedoms in International Law”, GNI 2012, http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/sites/default/files/Digital%20Freedoms%20in%20International%20Law.pdf
J. McNamee, “Internet Intermediaries: The New Cyberpolice?”, GIS Watch, http://www.giswatch.org/sites/default/files/gisw_-_internet_intermediaries_-_the_new_cyber_police_.pdf
A. Escudero-Pascal & G. Hosein, "The Hazards of Technology-Neutral Policy: Questioning Lawful Access to Traffic Data", (2004) 47(3) ACM 77, http://web.it.kth.se/~aep/PhD/docs/paper6-acm-1905-reviewed_20021022.pdf
HRC, “Protect, Respect and Remedy: A Framework for Business and Human Rights”, April 2008, A/HRC/8/5, http://198.170.85.29/Ruggie-report-7-Apr-2008.pdf
HRC, “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework”, March 2011, A/HRC/7/31, http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Business/A-HRC-17-31_AEV.pdf
ACLU, “New Justice Department Documents Show Huge Increase in Warrantless Electronic Surveillance”, Sept 2012, http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/new-justice-department-documents-show-huge-increase

Organiser(s) Name:

Katitza Rodriguez, International Rights Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation (Peru)
Tamir Israel, Staff Lawyer, Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC), University of Ottawa (Canada)

Previous Workshop(s):

Submitted Workshop Panelists:

Chair: Katitza Rodriguez, International Rights Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation; (US/Peru) (Civil Society) / Confirmed

Ian Brown, Senior Research Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute (EU) (Academic) / Confirmed
Bertrand de la Chapelle, Program Director at International Diplomatic Academy (EU) (Civil Society) / Confirmed
Marc Crandall, Global Compliance, Google (US) (Private Sector)
Elonnai Hickok, Policy Associate, Centre for Internet & Society (India) (Civil Society) /Confirmed
Sophie Kwasny, Head of Data Protection Unit, Data Protection & Cybercrime Division, Council of Europe (IGO) / Confirmed
Bruce Schneier, Chief Security Technology Officer of BT (US) (Private Sector) / Confirmed
Wendy Seltzer, Policy Counsel, W3C (US) (Technical Community) / Confirmed

Name of Remote Moderator(s): Paul Muchene, iHub Nairobi (Kenya) (Private Sector) Assigned Panellists: de La Chapelle - Bertrand Rodriguez - Katitza Brown - Ian Schneier - Bruce KWASNY - Sophie Seltzer - Wendy Crandall - Marc

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/cloudy-jurisdiction-addressing-the-thirst-for-cloud-data-in-domestic-legeal-processes

Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy

praskrishna — 2012-11-06T09:39:43Z

The report covers international privacy principles, national privacy principles, rationale and emerging issues along with an analysis of relevant legislations/bills from a privacy perspective.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/report-of-group-of-experts-on-privacy.pdf