Centre for Internet and Society

Accessibility in the New Telecom Policy 2011

praskrishna — 2012-01-02T05:12:12Z

Responding to the call for comments on NTP 2011, 27 organisations sent a joint letter requesting that accessibility for persons with disabilities be included specifically within the goals and objectives of the policy. The submission is available here. It deals exclusively with the issue of accessibility in telecommunications for persons with disabilities, which has been left out of NTP 2011. We outline below in some detail the rationale for including accessibility in the NTP.

Demographic case

The ‘World Report on Disability’, issued in June 2011 by the World Health Organization in cooperation with the World Bank, estimates that over a billion of the world’s population lives with some form of disability.[1]

According to World Bank estimates, 20 per cent of the world's poorest people are disabled and are understood to be the most disadvantaged sections of society.[2] The global literacy rate for persons with disabilities was reported at approximately three per cent in 1998 by UNDP.[3]

Whether due to discrimination or an inability to work, the unemployment rate amongst the disabled is very high, almost 80 per cent in some countries. In India, while there are no accurate statistics on the number of disabled or their access to ICT, education and employment, it is commonly believed that the number of persons with disabilities can be safely estimated to be above 70 million. Added to this is a vast population of elderly and illiterate persons who are unable to access mainstream telecommunications services as are available today.

Legal case

India has signed and ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) and is therefore obliged to ensure the human rights under the UNCRPD, including those of education, employment, to life and access to information and communication technologies and to treat persons with disabilities on an equal basis as others. Even under domestic law, our constitution recognises equality and non discrimination as important guiding principles and under the prevailing as well as new draft disability laws. We are committed to ensuring access to information, ICTs and all other aspects of social life which are essential to enjoy the right to life.

Global best practices:

Countries around the world, both developed as well as developing have recognised the important role that ICTs play in connecting the disabled, and also that special efforts and measures need to be taken to promote accessibility of and access to telecommunications facilities and services for persons with disabilities. For instance, Australia, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, France, Japan, Malaysia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sweden, USA, UK and many other countries in the European Union have at least one if not multiple policies and legislations to promote accessible telecommunications and these include both provisions in mainstream as well as exclusive policies. Similarly at least 17 countries around the world have specific provisions for connecting the disabled and providing services through their universal service funds. Many of these countries have included the aim of connecting the disabled as a goal in their national policies and then gone on to achieve this through specific policy initiatives. It is important to identify this as a national commitment within the policy to ensure adequate follow up.

Challenges to disability access to telecommunications in India:

Given below are a few key challenges impeding disability access to telecommunication and ICT services in India today:

Unaffordability of telecommunications products and services for persons with disabilities living below the poverty line and in rural areas.

Unavailability of compatible assistive technologies in local languages and at affordable rates.

Absence of special enabling measures such as provision of hearing aid compatible phones, priority assistance in repairs, low tariff on basic telephony services, accessible services and customer care,

Absence of a national relay service and emergency service system.

Unavailability of low cost handsets in the market which are compatible with assistive technology.

Failure of mainstream programmes and initiatives to reach out to persons with disabilities, for instance the Common Service Centres need to be made accessible to all.

Inaccessibility of broadcast services: includes inaccessibility of hardware like set top boxes which can at present not be navigated by blind persons, as well as inaccessibility of TV programmes because of lack of captioning and descriptions.

Recommendation

Given that there is a lot which needs to be done to connect persons with disabilities to the information society, we strongly urge the DoT to clearly identify this as a national goal under the policy. Without this, it will be difficult to ensure that adequate programmes and policies are created to make telecommunications accessible and universally available and persons with disabilities will be unable to enjoy even the basic rights of life such as the right to health care, to information, education, employment, recreation and many more. Finally we would also like to stress that mention of accessibility in NPIT and other policies alone will not suffice to ensure accessibility of telecom services. While those do govern accessibility of web sites, standards and content, the NTP will take care of accessibility of telecom services like broadband and fixed and mobile telephony, as well as of products. Given that today a large and ever increasing number of persons are relying solely on mobile phones to communicate and transact, creating an accessible
telecommunications environment becomes an inevitable priority goal.

Annexure – List of Signatories

Accessability (Delhi)
Alternative Law Forum (Bangalore)
Andhjan Kalyan Trust (Gujrat)
Arushi (Bhopal)
Blind Persons’ Association(Ahmedabad)
Blind Relief Association (Delhi)
Centre for Internet and Society(Bangalore)
Daisy Forum of India(Delhi)
Deafway(Delhi)
Deaf Mutes Society (Ahmedabad)
Dr. Amrik Singh Cheema Foundation Trusts(Chandigarh)
Fourthway Foundation (Bangalore)
Indian Association for the Blind(Madurai)
Indian Institute for Assistive Technology(Mumbai)
Maraa (Bangalore)
Mitra Jyothi (Bangalore)
National Association for the Blind(Mumbai)
National Association for the Deaf(Delhi)
Saksham(Delhi)
Samrita Trust(Secundrabad)
Score Foundation (Delhi)
Sightsavers International (Mumbai office)
Society for Visually Handicapped (West Bengal)
Sruti Disability Rights Centre (Kolkata)
Technical Training Institute(Pune)
Third Eye Charitable Trust(Chennai and Kolkata)
Xavier’s Resource Centre for the Visually Challenged (Mumbai)

[1]http://www.who.int/disabilities/world_report/2011/en/index.html
[2]http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=18
[3]Ibid.

Click to download the file [PDF, 182 kb]

The submission was made to the Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications & Information Technology, Government of India on 9 December 2011.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/accessibility/accessibility-new-telecom-policy-2011

When the digital spills into the physical

praskrishna — 2011-12-22T05:42:39Z

Nishant Shah, Director-Research, Centre for Internet and Society, Bengaluru, tells us why flash mobs are an interesting sign of our times, and not just a passing fad.

What is a flash mob?
There are many different forms of flash mobs, if you look at their content. In terms of structure, it has to do with a bunch of people, who are connected to each other by common technologies but don't necessarily know each other, and yet, come together in a public space to perform a set of pre-decided actions. Congregate, Orchestrate and Disperse -- that is the anatomy of a flash-mob. Hence it is different from other kinds of mobilisations, because it is very rare for anybody to know who is the organiser of a flash mob.

There are no long speeches, political expositions or agendas used in order to bring people together for a flash mob. Once the brief performance has been done, people don't stay back to form communities and discuss. The word 'flash' draws its inspiration both from 'flash-floods' and 'flash-in-a-pan', both referring to the immanence and suddenness of a flashmob.

What is a smart mob?
Howard Rheingold coined the term smart mob in a book by the same name. Smart mobs are a more inclusive form of digital technology-based mobilisation. Rheingold uses the term to refer to a series of sharing, collaborative, performative engagements that have emerged around the world, especially with young people using the Internet. The people don't know each other, but through different Peer-to-Peer (p2p) protocols, are able to share their resources towards a particular purpose. So it might be a group of friends who want to dance at the train station, or geeks sharing their idle computing time to search for records of UFOs, or people using location based applications to meet each other in caf ©s and form friendships. Smart mobs are essentially different from flashmobs because they have a specific agenda and are geared towards a longer, sustained and enduring practice of community belonging and building.

What role does the Internet and digital technology play in organising flash mobs?
One of the fundamental tenets of flash mobs is the condition of anonymity. The web offers the necessary condition where the intended participant does not have to disclose any personal information. They are able to interact, communicate, receive and share information while giving out nothing more than their email addresses and cellphone numbers. It would have been impossible to think of a flash mob without the use of these technologies because while the postal service would also offer similar conditions (though the physical address is more of an identifier), the flash mob also requires a speed and scale which would otherwise have been impossible in an analogue world.

What is a flash mob best suited to achieve? Is it a form of celebration, a protest, campaign, a quick way to poke fun, or be ironic?
I would say the flash mob is a tool — a process that can be deployed for anything that you want. You can use it as a form of celebration or protest. You can also use it to bully somebody, to destroy public property or create conditions of danger. However, that is true of any tool that we use. A hammer, for example, can be used to hit a nail, or hit some one. The flash mob is a symptom of how our digital and physical realities are merging. It uses the aesthetics of p2p, interaction with strangers, gaming elements with more control over the spaces that we occupy, 'avatar'ification which allows for a pseudonymous existence, etc. to organise something in the physical world. And it is these spillages of the digital into the physical (and vice versa) that make flash mobs significantly more interesting than just a passing fad.

MidDay published this interview in their newspaper on 18 December 2011. The original can be read here

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/when-digital-spills-into-physical

India's Techies Angered Over Internet Censorship Plan

praskrishna — 2011-12-22T05:30:09Z

India has the world's largest democracy, and one of the most rambunctious. Millions of its young people are cutting edge when it comes to high-tech. Yet the country is still very conservative by Western standards, and a government minister recently said that offensive material on the web should be removed.

The way it was reported in India, Communications Minister Kapil Sibal started the whole row by assembling the heads of social networking sites at a meeting in his office in New Delhi.

At the time, he was reported to have asked companies, like Google and Facebook, to devise a system to filter through and edit out objectionable material before it could make its way online.

In an interview with the Indian cable channel CNN-IBN, Sibal pointed to offensive religious content that could cause ethnic or inter-communal conflict.

"We will defend any citizens' right to freedom of speech until our last breath. But we don't want this kind of content to be on the social media," Sibal said in the interview.

India's civil society, and more particularly its very active blogosphere, was outraged.

Pranesh Prakash from the Center for Internet and Society in Bangalore says even the suggestion of censorship is a dangerous idea. Particularly if it's done before the content is posted online.

Indian Telecommunications Minister Kapil Sibal has said that Internet giants such as Facebook and Google have ignored his demands screen derogatory material from their sites, so the government would have to take action on its own.

"Pre-censorship is a very dangerous idea and is also something that actually doesn't happen in countries that are known for censoring the internet," Prakash says. "It will be charting a new path in Internet censorship."

Prakash says the proposal would be impractical, as well as undemocratic. Even with an army of censors, it would impossible to filter through content before it's uploaded, he says.

Stung by the criticism, Kapil Sibal now says he was misunderstood and that it "would be madness" to ask for pre-screening of content on electronic media and social media.

But in that fateful meeting, the Communications Minister also reportedly objected to unflattering portrayals of India's political leaders on the Internet and in Twitter messages. And that idea reinforced concerns that the government was overreaching and muffling dissent.

Censoring hate speech is one thing, but leaving it to the likes of Google to monitor political speech is problematic, says Apar Gupta, an Internet lawyer in New Delhi.

"It may offend you today, it may not cater to your taste, but at the end of the day: is it legal?" says Gupta. "The new proposals are quite a dramatic change, not only in terms of enforcement, but also in terms of what kind of speech it will prohibit."

Up till now, there has been some legal room for the government to censor inflammatory speech. For example, movies in India are subjected to a government censor board that monitors their content before they can be released to the general public. This year, a controversial movie about India's social caste system, was banned in some parts of the country.

But the Internet is less restrictive, says Apar Gupta.

"You can voice your opinion without any social sanctions for your opinions," he says. "So it's been a pressure valve which has allowed a lot of people to let off steam."

But even so, when debate online boils over in India it's the website or search engine that's held responsible. So critics of the proposed restrictions don't see the need for further action.

All this has left Communications Minister Kapil Sibal as something of a hate figure among Internet-savvy Indians. Although he says he's going to be pressing for tighter controls, he has agreed to meet with the Internet companies again.

This article by Elliot Hannon was published in NPR on 20 December 2011. Read the original here

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/techies-angered-over-censorship

Unpacking Digital Natives from their Shiny Packaging

praskrishna — 2011-12-25T05:04:43Z

The ‘Digital natives’ concept is neither necessarily nor inherently positive, as YiPing Tsou highlights in her article Digital Natives in the Name of a Cause: From "Flash Mob" to "Human Flesh Search". The essay was published in the Digital AlterNatives with a Cause? Book 2, To Think. Argyri Panezi reviews the essay.

In this article, the writer supports that China, despite having a plethora of hacker talents, does not conform to the typical paradigm of liberal, usually anti-government, group of digital natives. She explains that the so-called “red hackers” are working hand-in-hand with the dominant ideology, fighting against the enemy abroad while hunting down the enemy within who disrupts the ‘harmony’ (of the nation). Focusing on China’s digital culture, Tsou demonstrates that digital natives, despite what is commonly thought of them as a universal group, can also engage in far from civic-minded activities. The stories of Human Flesh Search as described in the article, gives flesh to this argument.

‘Human Flesh Search’ is a Chinese phenomenon of online crowdsourcing that targets ‘morality violators’ (the modern versions of medieval witches). Most importantly, the punishment meted out to these ‘violators’ is not only harsh (the mob versus an individual) but also reaches beyond cyberspace, affecting the real lives of the one who’s hunted, even affecting the lives of their family. All the examples given, illustrate how this ‘naming-and-shaming’ trend becomes an insidious calling card of the entire hacking society in China.

As Tsou explains, Human Flesh Searches mobilize masses of people online or offline to identify certain violators of ‘morality’ that the community seeks to punish because the ‘crimes’ might not be punishable by the law. Indeed, the Human Flesh Search stories bring in mind B-grade reality shows: as the first story goes, the real identity of a woman staring in a kitten-killing video is discovered and consequently, the woman is attacked both in cyberspace (via email, social media networks) and in real space (her residence, work place). Another story seems more serious, mainly from a political and legal perspective; a student expressing himself in favor of a Korean ruling in a sports game is immediately dealt by the online community as a traitor who has to pay for what he has said online. What seems to follow, within these stories, are blatant violations of privacy and freedom of speech.

What message do the Human Flesh Searches stories convey? What are these stories teaching us? While Internet enthusiasts have connected digital natives with progressive liberal movements, it is also the case that some can be (ab)using the powers of technology, and principally the power of crowd-sourcing, engaging in phenomena that even recap medieval witch-hunt. It is clear that the rationale of the author is not to call for more regulation or censorship online, but rather to point out that technology and the Internet is merely a tool, and as every tool it can have both good and bad uses; a knife might be used safely in a kitchen, it can save lives in the hands of a doctor, and can take lives in the hand of a murderer.

Tsou cleverly alternates between the phrases ‘wisdom of the crowd’, ‘crowd-sourcing’ and ‘irrationality of the crowds’. While the majority can collaborate to get brilliant results, it can also quickly become a tyranny against anything ‘different’, ‘irregular’ or ‘immoral’. Wikipedia is a famous example of the first (a success story of mass collaboration) but also the second (see the editing wars on Wikipedia talk pages).

In all, Tsou effectively reminds us that the aspiring digital stories of peer-to-peer culture and civic empowerment, including technology-mobilized revolutions such as the recent examples in the Middle East and elsewhere, do have a counter side, what the author calls “the dark force of digital natives”. The importance of this realization is immense. Internet romanticism can be at the very least naïve, and at most dangerous as it gives space to the abusers to continue their work using a tool that is wrongly considered solely equalizing, empowering, liberating.

Argyri Panezi, a native of Greece, studied law at the University of Athens and at Harvard Law School (focusing on issues of Internet law and policy), now practicing as an attorney at law in Brussels, Belgium.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/digital-natives/unpacking-from-shiny-packaging

Indecent Proposals

praskrishna — 2012-02-14T06:13:22Z

If Kapil Sibal’s attempts to police net content fructify, it may even lead to a reversal of some of the forward-looking provisions of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000. The new proposal, for instance, will reverse Section 79 which protects intermediaries (websites and carriers) from being prosecuted or made liable for any objectionable content published. Says Pranesh Prakash, programme manager, Centre for Internet and Society: “Unfortunately, what Sibal says turns this upside down as they would now be held responsible for e-content.” Sibal wants to monitor content prior to publication.

The article by Arindam Mukherjee was published in Outlook Magazine on December 19, 2011. Pranesh Prakash was quoted in it.

While there are privacy concerns, any attempt to do real-time monitoring could pose serious legal complications. Says cyber law expert Pavan Duggal: “This proposition could be ultra vires of the Constitution which guarantees fundamental rights under Article 19, which is about freedom of speech and expression subject to reasonable restrictions.” And the reasonable restrictions for monitoring, blocking and interception of internet content are already built into the IT Act.

Says Rajya Sabha MP Rajeev Chandrasekhar: “If Sibal was really serious about protecting people, he should have read the IT Act that has a section which allows a victim to legally pursue his/her claim of defamation. If Sibal has his way, DoT bureaucrats will decide what content is ‘appropriate’ or ‘inappropriate’.”

“If Sibal was really serious, he should have read the IT Act...it has a section on how victims can pursue defamation claims.”

Moreover, the IT Intermediary Guideline Rules, 2011, though still provisional, mandate that once service providers receive instructions, they have to remove objectionable content within 36 hours. The Act also has other specific provisions like Section 69, which provides safeguards for interception, monitoring/decryption of information; Section 69A which gives procedures and safeguards for blocking access of information by the public; Section 69B for monitoring and collecting traffic data or information. There are also provisions for obscenity and defamation, with steep fines prescribed. Following these, the state has blocked 11 websites since ’09

However, what Sibal and his men would have seen is the Act’s inability to act on the content freely flowing in social media sites. Says Duggal: “The IT Act, 2000, was amended in ’08, but doesn’t talk about social media which came up only around that time. There is a need to bring social media within the ambit of the Act. What Sibal is suggesting doesn’t exist anywhere in the world.” Monitoring social media websites would also be a huge challenge as crores of messages and tweets are generated from India everyday.

And privacy? Experts say since India does not have dedicated legislation on privacy, the government could escape any attack on that front. Although some privacy elements were added to the IT Act in 2008, its scope is limited and the concept of data privacy is missing. In fact, the law doesn’t even recognise a person’s right to data privacy!.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/indecent-proposals

Censorship — A Death Knell for Freedom of Expression Online

praskrishna — 2011-12-19T10:12:46Z

On December 8, 2011, NDTV aired an interesting discussion on internet censorship. Shashi Tharoor, Soli Sorabjee, Shekhar Kapoor, Ken Ghosh and Sunil Abraham participated in this discussion with NDTV's Sonia Singh.

Sunil said that we need to reflect upon the limitations of freedom of expression which was listed out by Soli Sorabjee and then ask the question whether they are the same limitations in the IT Act. If one reads section 66A, one comes to the conclusion that the IT Act places many additional limitations on the freedom of expression (annoying speech, speech harmful to minors, inconvenient speech) and these are limitations that don’t have existing definitions either in the IT Act or any other statute or case laws.

Sunil further said that through section 79 which is the intermediary liability regime, the government places together a private censorship regime. We did some research at CIS. We sent fraudulent take down notices to seven large international and national intermediaries and through our empirical research we can demonstrate that these intermediaries over-comply with these fraudulent take down notices. So there is already (since the amended IT Act and the notification of the Rules in April this year) a huge chilling effect on the internet thanks to post facto censorship and what the minister is now calling for is preemptive or pro-active censorship which is really going to be the death knell for freedom of expression online.

VIDEO

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/internet-censorship

ITU Tutorial on Audiovisual Media Accessibility

praskrishna — 2012-06-18T10:58:29Z

At the invitation of CIS, in cooperation with the ITU-APT Foundation of India, ITU is organising a two-day Tutorial on Audio Visual Media Accessibility from March 14 to 15, 2012 at the India International Centre, New Delhi, India. The Tutorial will be preceded by the fourth meeting of the Focus Group on Audio Visual Media Accessibility (FG AVA) on March 13, 2012. This meeting will take place at the same venue and will also be hosted by CIS, in cooperation with the ITU-APT Foundation of India.

Cross-posted from the International Telecommunication Union website. Register online for the event here.

Watch the event Live

Background

Several tools will be used in the two-day tutorial, namely ITU publications relating to the field. To name two amongst the most recent ones, Accessibility to Broadcasting Services for Persons with Disabilities and Making Television Accessible" Report, G3ict-ITU, November 2011.

Objectives

The programme of the ITU Tutorial on Audiovisual Media Accessibility will provide an in-depth insight of topics and measures to improve the accessibility of AV media: Captioning (pre-prepared and live), Audio/Video Description and spoken captions, visual signing and sign language, emergency access services. These topics will reference examples from digital broadcast television and mobile telephony media. Participants will gain a better understanding of:

How to Get started - strategies for establishing and expanding new accessibility services (how it can be done, what it costs, what business models exist to ensure the viability of accessibility services);
How standards can help developing countries plan and implement the transition from analogue to digital TV (what issues need to be addressed to optimize the Digital Dividend; making sure that various groups of vulnerable viewers are not disenfranchised by the digital switchover);
Human resource development for improved usability and accessibility (closely tied to work being done by the Audiovisual Media Accessibility Focus Group’s Working Parties).

Audience

Regulators and legislators working on measures to improve digital media’s compliance with international accessibility conventions and directives; Accessibility service advocates from organizations representing persons with disabilities; Media executives from public service and commercial TV channels seeking compliance with media accessibility regulation; Pay-TV operators; Consumer electronics manufacturers; Consumer electronics wholesalers and retailers examining the business implications of demographic changes and media regulation.

Tutors

The tutors are leading experts in the field from industry and either participated in the writing of the handbook or contribute to the work of the ITU-T Focus Group on Audiovisual Media Accessibility.

Draft Programme

FG AVA Tutorial Programme - 14-15 March 2012

Day 1 - Wednesday 14 March 2012
Morning
Master of Ceremony:
Mr Sunil Abraham, Executive Director of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS)

Welcome addresses:
Mr Ravi Shanker
Administrator
Administrator Universal Service Obligation Fund

Dr. Govind
CEO
National Internet Exchange of India

Ms. Swaran Lata
Director and Head of Department
(TDIL Programme)
Department of Information and Technology

Mr. R. N. Jha
Deputy Director General (International Relations)
Department of Telecommunications

Ms. Archana Gulati
Financial Advisor,
National Disaster Management Authority

Tutorial Programme
Wednesday 14 March 2012
Introduction to seminar - Peter Olaf LOOMS
Tutors, objectives, activities, resources.

The rationale of accessible media – who needs them? - Peter Olaf LOOMS

Who needs accessible media?
What is the nature of the media accessibility challenge in India?
Can we quantify and prioritise the challenge?

2. Introduction to media and accessibility – what are the strategies? Peter Olaf LOOMS

What can be done to improve TV accessibility?
How can an understanding of the value chain and the stakeholders help optimise media accessibility?
What can we do to make media other than TV accessible?

Afternoon

3. Making television accessible – what is in scope and out of scope? Peter Olaf LOOMS

What does the term “media” mean?
What can we do to improve TV usability?
How can we improve accessibility by offering access services?

Thursday 15 March 2012

4. Access services – the options (subtitling, audio description, visual signing, audio subtitles and speaking interfaces) Takebumi ITAGAKI and Peter Olaf LOOMS

Workflows - what does producing access services entail?
Bandwidth requirements – what does it take to encode and deliver media and access services to their intended users?
Costs – what resources are needed and what do they cost?

5. Accessibility and business models

What is a business model?
Are there business models for accessible television receivers?
What are the common business models for television access services?
Legislation, regulation and standards – how do we turn vision into reality?

Afternoon

6. Putting it all together – from vision to reality

How can we plan and execute the introduction of access services for a specific media platform
Evaluating our work over the two-day period

Formal closing of the seminar

Learning Resources

"Making Television Accessible" joint ITU and G3ict Report (in English).

Accessibility to Broadcasting Services for Persons with Disabilities ITU-R Report
Podcasts (integrated slides and audio) in English from the Danish Technical University and the IT University of Copenhagen on Agile Project Management and on Accessible Media issues.
Case work (handouts) on USB sticks.

Learning Activities

Lectures

Pair Work

Case work in groups

See the agenda on ITU website

Related Information

Documentation and Registration

General Information

Host: Centre for Internet and Society, New Delhi, India in cooperation with the ITU-APT Foundation of India

Organized by: ITU

Date: 14-15 March 2012

Venue: India International Centre,
Seminar hall no. 1, 2 and 3 main building
#40, Lodi Road, Max Mueller Marg,
Connaught Place, New Delhi, Delhi 110001.
E-mail : cbo.iic@nic.in;
Website: www.iicdelhi.nic.in
Map from airport to IIC: http://maps.google.co.in/maps?hl=en&tab=wl

Practical Information (including hotel accommodation, transportation, visa and health requirements) (coming soon)

Host country contact persons:
Sunil Abraham (Executive Director)
mail: sunil@cis-india.org

Nirmita Narasimhan (Programme Manager)
mail: nirmita@cis-india.org

Ajoy Kumar (Administrator)
mail: ajoy@cis-india.org

Office details:
Centre for Internet and Society
194, 2nd C Cross,
Domlur 2nd stage,
Bengaluru: 560071
Tel: +91 80 25350955, +91 80 40926283
website: www.cis-india.org

Convening Letter, Registration and Programme

Convening Letter

On-line registration

Draft Programme (coming soon)

Organized by:

Hosted by:

VIDEO

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/accessibility/itu-tutorial-delhi

How ‘private-censorship’ is making online content disappear, quietly

praskrishna — 2011-12-19T05:31:50Z

If only Kapil Sibal knew how successful his ministry has already been in making online content quietly disappear and how pliant Internet companies can be in India when it comes to requests to remove content, thanks in some part to the rules notified by IT ministry in April 2011.

The Union Minister for Communication and Information Technology, days after an avalanche of bad press fell upon him after his reported warning to Google and Facebook to 'pre-screen content', is due to meet Internet companies today, in an attempt to put the recent past behind.

A display of Facebook's homepage on a computer monitor at an Internet cafe in Delhi, India. Ruth Fremson/The New York Times
Known as the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules 2011, they are quite the magic wand when it comes to making online information disappear.

In what should deeply worry users of the Internet, an under-cover investigation by an Internet research company reveals how privately administered censorship – prescribed under the IT rules to intermediaries to limit their liability – is having a "chilling effect on free speech." The yet-t0-be published investigative report by Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) is available with Firstpost.

As part of the under-cover investigation a CIS researcher sent ‘takedown notices’ (requests to remove content online) to seven major websites quoting liberally from the IT rules.

The seven websites (the draft report does not name them) comprised two search engines, an online shopping portal, a website which disseminates news, two websites that disseminate news and allows user-generated comments to be published below articles, a website which offers multiple services such as news, search and shopping.

Note that each of the seven websites is an intermediary – merely receiving, storing or transmitting information. Disturbingly, of the seven websites to which takedown notices were sent, "six over-complied despite there being apparent flaws in the notices."

Here is how a website that disseminates news (identified as Intermediary B in the draft report) responded to the request to remove content on its site.

The researcher, who is also a lawyer, issued a takedown notice for the removal and disablement of one user-generated comment published below a news article on the Telangana movement.

The comment in question read as follows: "Telangana cause is justified, no one is denying that. But have you come to the point, you want to burn India? This is what I am opposing, burning demolition, killing, etc. is the hidden agenda of vested interests. And we Hyderabadis (Hindus and Muslims) will not allow anyone to burn our homeland. I have seen this movement since 1968. These leaders who are leading the agitation are selfish, short sighted and they hav no vision and mission. can any of Telangana leaders answer to the following?" The author of the comment goes on to raise eight questions on water-sharing, tourism, education, displacement and reservation.

While the comment condemns violence in the Telangana movement, blames politicians for being selfish and raises questions, the takedown notice brought to the knowledge of the intermediary that the comment was "racially and ethnically objectionable", "hateful" , "disparaging" "defamatory" – as provided in Rule 3(2)(b) of the IT Rules – and "violates any law for the time being in force" as provided in 3(2)(e) of the IT Rules read with Sections 124A, 153A, 153B, 292A, 295A and 499 of the Indian Penal Code 1860."

The terms such as 'objectionable', 'hateful', 'disparaging' and 'defamatory' are not defined anywhere in the Rules.

The takedown notice did not state the cause of action or establish the author of the takedown notice as an affected person. "After approximately 72 hours, it was noticed that instead of removing just the one comment as identified in the takedown notice, Intermediary-B had removed all 15 comments published below the newspaper article," states draft report.

The search engines (identified as Intermediary A and Intermediary E) didn’t disappoint either. They were sent takedown notices to remove 'three communication links' (base URLs of three websites) provided in its search engine results on searching for 'online gambling'.

According to the draft report, the three communication links and, additionally, all other URLs of the three websites, including sub-domains were removed – after 120 hours on Intermediary A and after seven days on Intermediary E. Even though Intermediary A in response to the takedown notice claimed being exempt under IT rules, they "still removed the three communication links mentioned in the takedown notice (and additionally all other URL’s of the 3 websites, including sub-domains), presumably to avoid legal risk and to err on the side of caution," reveals the report.

The only defender of Internet democracy, who would have guessed, was the online shopping portal. And for what? Baby diapers. The takedown notice to the portal without any supporting document or medical report claimed that a certain brand of diapers caused rashes. "Thankfully, the takedown notice was rejected…. Unlike all other intermediaries, Intermediary-F recognised that the takedown notice of the author was completely frivolous."

Unfortunately, in the other six cases, to paraphrase the famous statement, when they were asked to bend, they chose to crawl.

Should they not have acted more responsibly by rejecting flawed takedown notices and defended the freedom of expression of their users?

Speaking to Firstpost, Pranesh Prakash, Programme Manager, CIS, said, "They should have. Google’s self-reported compliance rate of 51 per cent shows that they are probably over-stepping the law in order to appease the Indian government’s requests. Given that 71 per cent of the requests were for ‘government criticism’, their removal of 51 per cent of the material indicates that they removed at least some of the requests they received for ‘government criticism’. While it is impossible to say more without having greater details about the requests, I believe it is fair to say that requests for removal of ‘government criticism’ should generally not be acted upon."

Going by the pliancy shown by the six websites in removing online content, all Sibal had to do was to shoot off takedown notices. And quietly and, most likely, the images that caused him so much heartache would have disappeared. Right?

"Most definitely. And this points to a problem with the current regulations. While it is difficult for government officials and police, etc., to remove content in books, it is very easy for them to remove content from the web. Should web content be this much easier for the government to censor than content in books, movies, etc.?" asks Pranesh.

This article by Pallavi Polanki was published in Firstpost.com on December 15, 2011. Pranesh Prakash was quoted in it. Read the original here

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/private-censorship-making-online-content-disappear-quietly

Free Speech Online in India under Attack?

praskrishna — 2012-03-02T03:03:24Z

When the Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology, Mr. Kapil Sibal suggested pre-censorship for a range of popular online platforms and social networking sites, the suggestion was met by a barrage of criticism, which soon forced him to back down. Yet Sibal’s suggestion is not the only threat to free speech on the Internet in India today. Legislation such as the Intermediary Due Diligence Rules and Cyber Café Rules (also jointly known as the IT Rules) issued in April 2011 is equally dangerous for free speech online.

Achal Prabhala, Anja Kovacs and Lawrence Liang will join Sunil Abraham to discuss in more detail some of the direct threats to freedom of expression online in India today including the larger legal and social context of freedom of expression and censorship, control and resistance in which they have to be understood and the steps that can be taken to ensure that substantive protections for freedom of expression online will be put into place.

The Speakers

Achal Prabhala

Achal is based in Bangalore, Karnataka. He is a researcher, activist and writer in the areas of access to knowledge and access to medicine besides being a member of the Advisory board of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Anja Kovacs

Anja works with the Internet Democracy Project, which engages in research and advocacy on the promises and challenges that the Internet poses for democracy and social justice in the developing world.

Lawrence Liang

Lawrence is a researcher and lawyer based in Bangalore, who is known for his legal campaigns on issues of public concern. He is a co-founder of the Alternative Law Forum and works on the intersection of law, technology and culture. He has worked closely with filmmakers and artists in a number of anti-censorship campaigns.

The Moderator

Sunil Abraham

Sunil is the Executive Director of the Centre for Internet and Society, a Bangalore-based non-profit organization. He is also a social entrepreneur and Free Software advocate. He founded Mahiti in 1998 which aims to reduce the cost and complexity of Information and Communication Technology for the Voluntary Sector by using Free Software.

This event is jointly organised by the Internet Democracy Project and the Centre for Internet and Society. Join us at the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore, on Wednesday 21 December, at 5.30 pm.

VIDEOS

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/free-speech-online-in-india-under-attack

On Natives, Norms and Knowledge

praskrishna — 2011-12-23T04:40:10Z

Philip Ketzel reviews Ben Wagner's essay "Natives, Norms and Knowledge: How Information Technologies Recalibrate Social & Political Power Relations Communications" published in Book 4: To Connect.

Using digital technologies has become so convenient that with the rise of the so called digital revolution arose also the need to reflect it. A very impressive compilation of reflections dealing with the role and impact of the “user” (or digital native, as it is now called) comes in the form of a four book collective called Digital AlterNatives with a Cause? by the Centre for Internet & Society and Hivos. The fourth book features Ben Wagner’s essay Natives, Norms and Knowledge: How Information and Communications Technologies Recalibrate Social and Political Power Relations. It is a text I strongly recommend, especially to those interested in the reasons behind contemporary policies that try to regulate digital activism such as the US SOPA Act.

Wagner starts out by recapitulating the fact that, as any technological progress, the digital revolution has produced profound cultural changes. In order to make these changes more visible and to question their implications, he analyses the ways in which they can be understood as shifts of "sociological, normative and knowledge boundaries" (p. 22).Yet behind every boundary lies a legitimising process setting it up. Hence, Wagner is also interested in the discourses and institutions that legitimise these shifts of boundaries.

So where and how are the boundaries being shifted?

For example, there is the fact that now more people have the power to influence what we call reality or history. Wagner points out that this new power is socially seen less evenly distributed than one would hope. He says "it seems that the existing elite has simply expanded and been complemented by an additional 'digital elite'." (p. 22) Though the old-school elite still holds some aces up their sleeves in order to keep this new 'digital elite', respectively digital natives, under control. This is for instance, according to Wagner, reflected in the ways the media keeps producing and sustaining stereotypes of the unsocial nerd, which makes it possible to easily stigmatise subversive elements such as Mr. Assange.

Analysing the effects of this newly gained power, Wagner looks at the norms set up by digital natives. Instead of pining down a list of certain norms, he has a much better approach by saying:

[T]he tools provided by the internet have unmasked pre-existing norms which were not previously evident. The tools of the internet bring these norms to the surface by allowing for their practise an environment which seems to offer endless opportunities to those connected to it. (p. 24)

So we’re dealing with a new playground on which the digital natives seem to dominate the rule defining process. This makes it problematic for the political system, as its purpose is to keep social order and also to acknowledge, reflect and integrate certain shifts of norms. As an example for such a critical discourse, Wagner refers to the rise of the Pirate Party.

However, this establishment of a new social order is strongly correlated with a re-bordering of knowledge, as Wagner states. On the one hand there are those who seek to open up knowledge borders by for example sharing files, while on the other hand there are those who call for more restrictions because they fear a digital "wild west culture" (p. 26) or a destruction of their position. Both sides have valid points, and Wagner correctly highlights the conflict a society faces when this re-bordering process "takes place outside of realms where it can be contested." (p. 28)

This review is part of the Tweet-a-Review event organized by the ‘Digital Natives with a Cause? Project and is republished here from Philip Ketzel’s blog.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/digital-natives/on-natives-and-norms

Digital Native: Twin Manifestations or Co-Located Hybrids

praskrishna — 2011-12-23T04:36:40Z

Samuel Tettner reviews ‘Digital Natives and the Return of the Local Cause’ from Book 1: To Be. The essay is authored by Anat Ben-David.

Ben-David’s piece is a well-articulated and informed attempt to resolve two of the several conceptual fuzziness of the term “Digital Native”. She attempts this in a philosophical manner: trying to move away from the ontological “who are Digital Natives?” to an epistemological “when and where are Digital Natives?” Her reasoning is that this perceptive change will allow us to unpack the duplicity of a hybrid term and to understand if it refers to a unique phenomenon in the world worth exploring.

To answer the when and the where, Ben-David situates the term into its constituencies: digital and native, contextualizing the words using two approaches; historiographical (when) for the digital and geopolitical (where) for the native.

The digital is semantically pin-pointed in the short but active history of information technology within an activism framework, to use a broad word. The author then places two events side to one: First the 1999 manifestations against World-trade Organization protests in Seattle and then the 2011 Tahir Square protests in Egypt. Are these two phenomena different in nature? Is Tahir Square a more technologically advanced version of Seattle? Are the basic mechanisms the same, albeit with new faces and shinier phones?

Ben-David postulates three reasons for placing the manifestations on a different trajectory. First, “The Internet” of 1999 and “The Internet” of 2011 are distinctively not the same thing. The second is that the demographic constituting the protest are not the same: in 1999 they were mostly Civic Society Organization (CSO) employees and volunteers, while in Tahrir they were mostly civilians and concerned citizens connected through their local networks.

The third concerns the spatial and symbolic nature of the protests. In Seattle, the protests were against large transnational corporations; Seattle was chosen because it hosted the World Trade Organization that year. In Egypt, the protest was directed against local corruption and concerned itself with local governance issues. Tahir Square was chosen because the protests were directly about, of and in Egypt.

Which brings us to the where. The ‘Native’ is used by Ben-David to refer to the ongoing structural shifts towards localized activism campaigns. This change came with the growing realization that transnational activism campaigns that tried to effect change across loosely cohesive cross-sections of the world, tended to lose touch with their points of origin and remain in suspended animation. Local campaigns seem to be more responsive and agile, specially in their ability to enter into dialogues with the needs of local populations. The spontaneity of action, the granular level of the causes, and the lowered threshold of the agents and initiators are some of the aspects Ben-David sees in emergent campaigns, which are critically different from activism campaigns in the past.

Of course, the location and the time intertwine eventually. A growing trend in the development of the digital world has been the localization of frameworks, methodologies and approaches. The author’s use of Richard Roger’s four stages of the evolution of politics about the web is outstanding: It shows us without telling us that the distinction between when and where is purely analytical and that they really are a single entity of the time-space continuum.

Ben-David succeeds in contextualizing both the digital and the native as different sides of the same coin: as two manifestations of the growth and maturation process that technology-mediated activism has been through over the last 10 years. The result is an internally-consistent perspective which sees Digital Natives habituating hybrid-timespaces alongside heterogeneous actors, where the relationship between the local and the global is contingent, transitory, dynamic – and knowledge can be transformed and adapted to fit actors and their causes.

This review is part of the Tweet-a-Review event organized by the ‘Digital Natives with a Cause? Project and is republished here from Samuel Tettner’s blog.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/digital-natives/twin-manifestations

Digital Native Video Contest Announcement

praskrishna — 2012-03-13T11:07:53Z

The Centre for Internet & Society and Hivos Knowledge Programme are pleased to announce the Everyday Digital Native (Digital AlterNatives) Video Contest.

The Everyday Digital Native is hiding inside each of us.

You THINK Digital.
You CONNECT using digital devices and gadgets.
You ACT Digitally, always clicking, linking, tagging and Liking.
You know what it means To Be Digital. It's simply a way of life!
Tell us your Digital Story. What makes your life so click-worthy?

Submit your proposal via Online Application Form (https://www.research.net/s/BZXQPHL) by 26 January 2012

WINNING PRIZE: EUR 500 each for TOP 10 VIDEO FINALISTS!!

Selection Process

Round 1: Contest entries closes on 26 January
Round 2: The jury will shortlist 20 entries
Round 3: The 20 shortlisted participants send in their final videos by 10 March
Round 4: Public voting for Top 10 videos. Voting closes: 31 March 2012.
Top 10 Finalists win EUR 500 each!
Round 5: Jury Selects Top 2 Winners: 10 April

Submission Guidelines

Use this Online Application Form to submit your proposals
Participants wishing to submit a sketch(es), storyboard, collage or short video narration at the proposal stage can send in their submissions to digitalnatives@cis-india.org. Please ensure your submission is accompanied by a brief explanatory write-up.
For team / group submissions, it is enough for one team member to fill the online form / submit proposal via email on behalf of the team.
The Digital AlterNatives with a Cause books are the inspiration for this video contest. You can use any of the essays as a basis for your video.
File type: AVI, MP4 formats
Language: Please send proposals / fill the online form in English. The final videos can be in any language, with English subtitles.
Title: Each proposal should feature a tentative title, short description of what the video will feature (characterization, storyline) and the theme and idea behind the video.
Genre: Do mention the style of execution / genre: animation, claymation, stick drawings stitched together in Movie Maker, paper art on video, documentary, short film, promotional message, and other styles of digital movie making.
Contact Details: Be sure to include your name and contact email, your city of residence and a two-liner on what you do to give us a perspective on your video.
Limit your written proposals to 350-500 words, although there’s no word limit strictly.
Your video shouldn’t exceed 30 minutes in run time, so fine-tune your ideas and storyboard accordingly
Every applicant is allowed only one proposal. No multiple story submissions.
Applicants can work individually or in a pair or a group. Each group will be permitted one entry submission.
All submissions must be original and clearly attributed to the relevant copyright holder. If referenced from third-party sources or if work is licensed under Creative Commons, please mention so.

Jury Members

Shashwati Talukdar Shashwati Talukdar grew up in India where her engagement with theatre and sculpture led to filmmaking, and a Masters degree from the AJ Kidwai Mass Communication Research Center in Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi. She developed an interest in American Avant-Garde film and eventually got an MFA in Film and Media Arts from Temple University, Philadelphia (1999). Her work covers a wide range of forms, including documentary, narrative and experimental. Her work has shown at venues including the Margaret Mead Festival, Berlin, Institute of Contemporary Art in Philadelphia, Kiasma Museum of Art and the Whitney Biennial. She has been supported by entities including the Asian Cine Fund in Busan, the Jerome Foundation, New York State Council on the Arts among others.
Leon Tan Leon Tan, PhD, is a media-art historian, cultural theorist and psychoanalyst based in Gothenburg, Sweden. He has written on art, media, globalization and copyright in journals such as CTheory and Ephemera, and curated media-art projects and art symposia in international sites such as KHOJ International Artists’ Association (New Delhi, 2011), ISEA (Singapore, 2008) and Digital Arts Week (Zurich, 2007). He is currently researching media-art practices in India, and networked museums as an expanded field of cultural memory making.
Jeroen van Loon Jeroen, digital media artist, investigates the (non-) impact of digital technology on our lives. For two months he went analogue, refrained from connecting to the World Wide Web, and communicated through his Analogue Blog. He is currently working on Life Needs Internet in which he travels around the world and collects people's personal handwritten internet stories.
Becky Band Jain Becky Band Jain is a non-profit communications specialist and blogs on everything from technology to psychology and culture. She spent the last five years living in India and she’s now based in New York. She’s a dedicated yoga and meditation practitioner and is passionate about ICTD and new media.
Namita A Malhotra Namita A. Malhotra is a legal researcher and media practitioner and a core member of Alternative Law Forum in Bangalore, India. Her areas of interest are image, technology, media and law, and her work takes the form of interdisciplinary research, video and film making and exploring possibilities of recombining material, practice and discipline. She is also a founder member of Pad.ma (Public Access Digital Media Archive) which is a densely annotated online video archive.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/digital-natives/video-contest/video-contest-event-original

Technological beasts like Facebook, Orkut, YouTube & Google impossible to control

praskrishna — 2011-12-13T03:25:03Z

They were places that let you be: to chat with buddies, exchange photos and plan parties. The rules of engagement were loose, voyeurism passed off as curiosity, vanity as sharing and gibes as friendly banter.

Becoming the voice of a generation was never the agenda. Neither was toppling governments or inciting riots. But technological beasts are impossible to tame. And social networking sites (SNWs), made up of millions of lives, have morphed into the most unpredictable monster yet.

What started as online hangouts, have become a melting pot of opinions and ideas. Facebook, Orkut, YouTube and Google+, enjoy power of the collective, bolstered by technology that allows real-time interaction and blurs physical distances. The effect has shaken up the world: Wall Street to West Asia.

But the government ought to have been smarter than to call the biggest social media intermediaries, Yahoo, Google, Facebook and Microsoft, into a closed door meeting and force stricter rules. The news leaked, and the beast became angry. Social network users have gone into a frenzy to protect their rights.

Kapil Sibal, communications minister, held a press conference to highlight the kind of user-content that the government opposes. He clarified the government wants pre-screening not censoring. But SNW followers have paid no heed. For any external control taints the idea of an online hangout.

But one can't wish away perverseness. And Sibal is not completely wrong, there is plenty of it on SNWs. The question is, who should take it down? Users, hosts or the government?

Extra Rules Not Required

The country has not been running without cyber laws. So why invent new ones for the social media? "Rules are already in place, the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Information Technology Rules, 2011, which allow anyone, including the government, to take a legal recourse," says Pawan Duggal, advocate in the Supreme Court of India and a cyber law expert.

Section 2(1) of IT Act defines an "intermediary" as any person who on behalf of another person receives, stores or transmits a message or provides any service with respect to that message. By this definition, an intermediary is just a messenger. SNWs, internet service providers and web hosts fall in this category.

Changes and additions to the IT laws have already made their job tough. SNWs are responsible for taking down all potentially problematic content as and when requested. There is a time limit too: 36 hours to respond to such a request. If an SNW refuses to do so, it can be dragged to the court as a co-accused.

Duggal says that web hosts can be prosecuted if they create unlawful content, incite and encourage unlawful activities, or fail to remove illegal content despite it being brought to their notice. So why does the government suddenly want more rules for them?

Asking for the Moon

No one's denying the need for regulation. And SNWs have good regulators: millions of users. If even one finds a post offensive, he or she can report abuse. The nomenclature may be different, but every host of user-generated content has this option.

The problem is there's no scale to measure what offends sensibilities. There's a list of items that are considered illegal but they are not defined. For instance, "harmful to minors", makes the cut, but what qualifies as harmful is unclear. Even pornography is not defined by Indian laws.

This is why the government may not be wrong to be on tenterhooks. But its solution to the problem is untenable: both conceptually and technologically. "A pre-screening mechanism is not impossible. Tools and algorithms to monitor social media content are constantly evolving. But considering the scale of FB, YouTube, Twitter, etc, it will definitely affect real-time interaction," says Shree Parthasarathy, senior director, enterprise risk services, Deloitte, a consultancy.

Numbers corroborate the view. In India itself, there are almost 43 million users on Facebook, 3.6 million on Google Plus and 3.5 million on Twitter. Worldwide, YouTube uploads more than 48 hours of video every minute. Imagine an army of employees monitoring each post by referring to a catalogue of words considered unacceptable and a repository of images that are deemed inappropriate or offensive.

"The question is not whether it's possible but whether it's appropriate. Such a move will require extensive investment in infrastructure," says Parthasarathy.

Advith Dhuddu, founder of AliveNow.in, a social media firm based in Bangalore, says: "Technology doesn't understand sentiments or sarcasm. It won't distinguish between a porn clip or a video on sex education." Further, even if India decides to monitor content within the subcontinent, it cannot control what's created outside of the country.

Anti-intermediary Legacy

India has never been a favourite among web hosts. IT laws here have always been stricter than in the West and despite amendments, the burden of responsibility on intermediaries is high. "If pre-screening kicks in, web hosts will not be able to claim they did not know about any contentious material on their sites as they will have a seal of approval. This will undermine the sites' legal immunity, a big worry for web hosts," says Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS).

Outside India, there's differential treatment for different kinds of intermediaries, the principles of natural justice are implemented and there are options for counter notices and notifications. For instance, in Brazil, as per a draft bill, if someone sends three fraudulent take-down notices, he will not be allowed to send a take-down notice again for a year.

Before 2008, things in India were worse. Intermediaries were liable for their user's content. This led to the arrest of Bazee.com chief, Avnish Bajaj, in connection with the sale of the infamous DPS Noida MMS clip CD on the website.

Post the Bazee.com fiasco, IT laws have been amended. But according to Abraham, "There is still no principle of natural justice, no differentiation between different types of intermediaries and no penalty for abusing."

No wonder social media is over cautious. An unpublished report by the CIS claims intermediaries err on the side of caution and "overcomply" when take-down notices are sent. The researcher sent fraudulent notices to seven intermediaries, including prominent search engines and hosts, identifying specific user-generated material as offensive.

"Of the seven intermediaries to which take-down notices were sent, six over-complied...Not all intermediaries have sufficient legal competence or resources to deliberate on the legality of an expression, as a result of which, intermediaries have a tendency to err on the side of caution," says the report.

No Muzzle, Just Checks

The bottom line is: government control will take the fun away from SNWs. Imagine an invisible monitoring authority checking out pictures of a party before your friends and family can. It is creepy. It also hints at repression, of the kind China specialises in. No thank you, we are not competing in this department.

Some people believe the government doesn't intend to censor SNWs, it just goofed up on the communication. "Sibal is right in saying that obscenity in real and cyber space is the same. He bungles when he puts an insult to the Prophet, Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh in the same bracket. Had he put the debate in a different form, citizens might have appreciated that he's desperately trying to do a good job," says sociologist Shiv Vishwanathan.

If that's true, government officials can start a page: "I like social networks". That is a language we all understand.

This article by Sunanda Poduwal & Kamya Jaiswal was published in the Economic Times on December 11, 2012. Sunil Abraham was quoted in this. Read the original here

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/technological-beasts-impossible-to-control

Caught in the Web

praskrishna — 2011-12-12T15:32:28Z

Do we need a cyber Big Brother watching us? A look at both sides of the coin.

In the summer of 2009, a hue and cry was raised by netizens when the Government blocked a hugely popular adult-oriented cartoon site called Savitabhabhi.com. The site was blocked after complaints that Savita Bhabhi's lurid tales were highly offending to the sensibilities of those grounded in Indian traditions. Those who opposed the move said that this was done without granting the creators an opportunity to defend their right to freedom of expression.
Recent ruffles

A similar brouhaha erupted recently when Communication and IT Minister Kapil Sibal, in a hurriedly called press conference, announced that the Government will bring in a law to pre-filter content posted on social networking Web sites. The trigger for this was certain pictures, with religious connotations, uploaded on various social networking sites including Facebook and Google Plus. Sibal claims that despite Government appeals the Web site refused to remove the content. If the new law is implemented, your status updates or videos will be screened by the internet company for objectionable content before it is published.

The move has angered Internet users, promoters of free speech and social networking companies. “As it is the status of freedom of speech in India is in a bad shape. Sibal's new rules will only make it worse,” says Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, Centre for Internet and Society.

Abraham's point is buttressed by a report from the United Nations Democracy Fund called ‘Freedom on the Net 2011' which gives Indian Internet usage a “partly free” status clubbed along with the likes of Egypt, Jordan, Rwanda and Venezuela.

“Pressure on private intermediaries to remove certain information in compliance with administrative censorship orders has increased since late 2009, with the implementation of the amended IT Act. While some observers acknowledge that incendiary online content could pose a real risk of violence, particularly given India's history of periodic communal strife, press freedom and civil liberties advocates have raised concerns over the far-reaching scope of the IT Act, its potential chilling effect, and the possibility that the authorities could abuse it to suppress political speech,” the report says.
User content removal

When Google began reporting government requests for data and content removal in early 2010, India ranked third in the world for removal requests and fourth for data requests. Between July 1, 2009, and December 31, 2009, India had submitted 142 removal requests. By June 2011, the Internet search giant received requests from the Indian government to remove 358 items. In a breakdown of reasons for such requests, 255 items were classified under the “government criticism” category. In May 2008, two men were arrested and charged for posting derogatory comments about Congress party chief Sonia Gandhi on Orkut. There are many other instances of Government intervention over the past 3 years.

Those who support monitoring argue that content on social media network should be scanned because the users are not responsible enough. California-based media commentator Andrew Keen blames the Internet users in a book called The Cult of the Amateur where he writes that technology has fostered a “dictatorship of idiots”. “.....the masses are liable to be further vulgarised by the overwhelming surfeit of their own voluntary contributions, which are inherently without value (otherwise they wouldn't have been offered freely). Without cultural elites empowered to control public discourse and deify their chosen superstars, the monkeys are running the show,” Keen declares.

Abraham says this argument is flawed because there is no empirical evidence to determine that people use the Internet for a single purpose. “There is no cause and effect here. People may use the Internet for anything ranging from pornography to science. One cannot generalise user behaviour. If Internet was a tool for the Egypt uprising, the same may not work in some other country,” says Abraham.
Monitoring issues

Then there are others who want the social network Web sites to take some responsibility. Rajesh Chharia, President of the Internet Service Providers Association thinks that multi-national Internet firms cannot get away by saying that they conform to standards of their country alone.

But experts feel that it is practically impossible for any social networking Web site to monitor everything that's posted on their site due to sheer volume. For instance, YouTube has 48 hours of videos uploaded every minute and Facebook has 38 million users in India posting thousands of pictures and messages every day. “The Internet is like a sea, you just cannot control everything that's thrown into it unless you man the entire coastline. Even if you block someone from posting content on one site, they will find another way to get in,” said one of major Internet firms.

Meanwhile the Savita Bhabhi site is back with all new content at a new address. So much for the Government's desire to monitor the Internet.

This article by Thomas K Thomas was published in the Hindu Business Line. Sunil Abraham was quoted in this article. Read the original here

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/caught-in-web

Much at stake for tech sector in UID project

praskrishna — 2011-12-12T13:10:49Z

With the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance raising a red flag against the National Identification Authority of India ( NIAI) Bill to grant the UID (or Aadhar) project legal status, the project looks set for a slowdown. That could have broad implications for the tech sector that had laid substantial hope on it, especially when global markets are slowing down.

The UID project is estimated to offer IT companies a Rs 15,000-Rs 20,000-crore opportunity. This includes building an ecosystem around the project, comprising biometrics, databases, smartcards, storage and system integration.

Since the UIDAI implements an open-system, plugand-play approach, entrepreneurs and startups can develop applications in numerous areas. Some of the applications of Aadhar is seen in areas such as food distribution, financial inclusion, and know-your-customer services.

The parliamentary committee has said that the project might be too expensive and duplicates the National Population Register's (NPR) efforts to collect biometric and other data for the national census. Some have also called for a change of collection of data from biometric data, which they consider insecure for smart cards (as fraudsters can take your fingerprints from objects that you touch). The Cabinet need not accept the committee's recommendations.

Thus it is unclear if the UID project will be scrapped, watered down or persisted with in its current form. Some contracts have been granted to tech majors. According to the said current contracts are not significantly large in size and their cancellation will not make a big dent in the companies' books. He added that scrapping of project from a longer term perspective could be a negative.

Government public services initiatives like public distribution system UIDAI website, Wipro in March 2011 won a contract to supply, install, and commission hardware and software for data centres at Bangalore and NCR. MindTree in April 2010 won a contract for application software development, maintenance and support. TCS, Accenture, HP, Satyam, Intelenet Global, HCL Infosystems, Geodesic are some others that have won contracts.

Ankur Rudra, IT sector analyst at Ambit Capital, (PDS) and e-governance schemes are expected to spark off more projects requiring technology enablement.

Sunil Abraham, ED of the Centre for Internet and Society, said if changes are incorporated to the Bill, it would not necessarily be anti-technology. The organization had raised concerns about security issues around biometric data. "There might be a change in the design of the UID project, but technology will remain a critical element," he added. Siddharth Pai, MD of global sourcing advisory firm Technology Partners International (TPI) India, said that the UID project is a very critical infrastructure from a national perspective and chances of the project being scrapped are little.

He added that tech companies might experience delay in government spends and see a delay in project execution. This may lead to delays in revenue yields. IT company officials also acknowledge that there could be delays in projects which could increase costs for them. None wanted to be quoted on this issue.

This article by Pranav Nambiar was published in the Economic Times on 12 December 2011. Sunil Abraham has been quoted in this. Read the original here

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/much-at-stake-for-tech-sector