Centre for Internet and Society

Announcing the Asia Pacific Google Policy Fellows

praskrishna — 2011-05-30T09:26:19Z

Posted by Ross LaJeunesse, Head of Public Policy and Government Affairs, Asia Pacific

There are now more than 2 billion people online, with approximately 850 million of them in Asia Pacific.

Given Asia Pacific’s importance, we're excited to announce the extension of the Google Policy Fellowship program to this part of the world. The goal of the program is to assist public interest organizations at the forefront of debates on important Internet policy issues, and to support talented young advocates and scholars. Since its inception in 2007, the Google Policy Fellowship has provided a platform for students interested in technology policy to contribute to the public dialogue on these issues, and to explore future academic and professional interests.

The Asia Pacific program for 2011 includes one Fellow each in Australia, Hong Kong and India. The University of New South Wales, the City University of Hong Kong, and the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore will be serving as the respective host institutions.

In this region, we see many policy challenges concerning access to information online. The 2011 Asia Pacific Fellows will therefore focus on legal and policy issues related to the open Internet.

Congratulations to our first class of Asia Pacific Google Policy Fellows:

Lauren Loz, University of New South Wales, Faculty of Law Australia
Henry Hu Ling, University of Hong Kong, Faculty of Law, Hong Kong
Rishabh Dara, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, India

We extend our sincere thanks to everyone who applied. If this pilot program proves to be a success, we hope to expand the Policy Fellowship for 2012.

Cross-posted from the Google Public Policy Blog

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/asia-pacific-google-policy-fellows

Google Unveils Controversial Street View Mapping in B’lore

praskrishna — 2011-05-30T09:48:29Z

Mapping service, under criticism in Europe because of security reasons, allows users to view pedestrian-level photos of streets, houses. This news was published in the Economic Times, Mumbai on May 27, 2011.

Amid concerns of privacy in Europe and several western countries, Google launched its popular but controversial mapping service Street View in India’s technology hub Bangalore, which will allow users to view pedestrian-level photos of streets and houses.

Google said on Thursday that it has started capturing images of Indian streets which will later allow users to view panoramic images of streets across the country through its popular yet controversial “street view” feature on Google Maps. For starters, cars and three-wheelers, mounted with high resolution cameras will begin driving and taking street level photographs of public locations around Bangalore, top Google executive said at a press conference here on Thursday.

"We are announcing the street view in India. You will start seeing Google cars on the streets collecting imagery and then over time, it will be launched online on Google maps," said Vinay Goel, product head, Google India. Street View is a popular feature of Google Maps which is now used in more than 27 countries. With Street View, users can virtually explore and navigate a neighbourhood through panoramic street-level images. Besides cars, specially designed three-wheel pedi-cabs, called Google Trike, with a camera system mounted on top — will start gathering images from selected locations in the area such as the Nrityagram Dance Village over the next few weeks. The company’s move comes at a time when the Indian government is becoming more and more conscious of privacy laws. In a recent amendment to the existing Information Technology Act, India has added many clauses that protects sensitive information of the citizen. Privacy advocates criticised the feature in the US where it was first launched in 2007. After Google admitted that it collected wi-fi payload data by mistake using the street view cars, lot of bad press and protests followed. Google has stopped collecting wi-fi data.The feature met with opposition on similar grounds in Europe when it was launched. Opponents said that people did not want to be pictured going to places — like bars and strip clubs — they did not want to reveal publicly. They also did not want a private company to capitalise on public data. Google Street View was temporarily banned in Austria and Czech Republic due to privacy concerns.

Goel said, that the company has addressed privacy concerns and is continuously monitoring reports of privacy violations.

"Google will collect only public data. We have also improved the process so that faces and identifiable details like number plates will be blurred out of the images. We have permissions from local authorities and are open to discussions," he added. Users can also report problems to Google directly using the "report a problem" button on Google Maps.

Says Nishant Shah, director, research, Centre for Internet and Society, "Street View has been contested in many other countries on three counts. Private companies should not be allowed to capitalise on public data. This is a serious problem. Another nuanced argument is, if you formalise and regulate space in a particular space, it reduces the possibility of grey areas and diversity. It is also difficult to ensure total privacy. People invariably figure in many of the images captured. Even if you blur faces, there are certain identifiable characteristics of a person and can be misused."

Vinay Goel, product head Google India, launches Street View in Bangalore

Read the original here

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/google-unveils-controversial-street-view

NGOs say eG8 report must stress internet rights

praskrishna — 2011-06-22T04:17:55Z

More than 35 NGOs from around the world signed a joint declaration requesting that issues concerning freedom of speech be included in the report set to be presented to G8 heads of government by the organisers and participants of the eG8 Forum held in Paris. The news was published in TELECOMPAPER on May 26, 2011.

Read the full story in TELECOMPAPER

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/e-g-8-report-internet-rights

Panel Discussion on UID – Its Feasibility, Utility and Legality

praskrishna — 2011-05-25T04:11:48Z

A panel discussion on "UID, its feasibility, utility and legality" is being organised by Citizen’s Action Forum, Grahak Shakti and the Centre for Internet and Society. It would be held at The Energy and Resources Institute (at TERI auditorium) in Domlur, Bangalore (near Domlur Club) on Thursday, May 26, 2011. The program commences with lunch at 1 p.m. and ends at 5.30 p.m. You are cordially invited to attend this program.

The panel members would include Mr. Rama Jois (former Chief Justice of Chattisgarh High Court and present Member of Parliament), Mr. Moinul Hassan (Member of Parliament), Mr. Narendra Babu (Member, Legislative Assembly, Karnataka), Mr. V P Sudarshan (former Chairman, Legislative Council of Karnataka and present speaker of Congress party) and Mr. Venkatesh Baberjung, Advocate, High Court of Karnataka.

The National Identity Authority of India Bill, 2010 has been placed before the Parliament by the Government. This Bill has been referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance. Mr. Moinul Hassan is a member of this committee. The committee has held one sitting where the Chairman, UIDAI, Mr. Nandan Nilenkani was asked for certain clarifications on the Bill.

The UID project is now under implementation at Mysore. It is scheduled to be launched in Bangalore in June 2011. The Central Government has decided to include caste and religious data in the census. The linkages between UID and the census could come up for discussion among panel members.

UIDAI officials and government officials from the Department of E-Governance, Government of Karnataka have been invited as panel members.

The subject of the discussion is thus topical and of high public interest and importance. We cordially invite you to the lunch and to cover the event so that the public could become aware of issues concerning the same.

The programme schedule is as follows:

1.00 p.m. to 2.00 p.m. - Lunch
2.00 p.m. to 2. 15 p.m. - Welcome and introduction by sponsoring organisations and moderator
2.15 p.m. to 3.00 p.m. - Opening statements by panel members
3.00 p.m. to 4 p.m. - Panel discussions
4.00 p.m. to 4.15 p.m. - Tea
4.15 p.m. to 4.45 p.m. - Panel discussions and questions to panel from audience
4.45 p.m. to 5.15 p.m. - Open House for Audience views
5.15 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. - Concluding remarks by panel members

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/events/uid-panel-discussion

Sunil Abraham, CIS : "Avec l’e-G8, Nicolas Sarkozy veut promouvoir de nouvelles restrictions à la liberté d’expression"

praskrishna — 2011-05-25T11:54:51Z

Le débat continue de faire rage en Inde au sujet d’une nouvelle législation posant des limites floues et, selon certains, potentiellement dangereuses, à la liberté d’expression sur Internet. Et alors que s’ouvre à Paris l’e-G8, sur fond de polémiques autour des intentions de son principal supporteur, le président de la République Française, Nicolas Sarkozy, Sunil Abraham, directeur exécutif de l’ONG Center for Internet & Societies, a accepté de partager son regard sur l’événement, depuis Bangalore. This news was published in LE MAG IT on May 24, 2011.

LeMagIT: L’Inde vient de se doter d’une nouvelle législation relative aux technologies de l’information et de la communication. Que dénoncez-vous dans cette législation ?

Sunil Abraham: Il y a trois principales préoccupations, pour la société civile. Tout d’abord, cette nouvelle législation va au-delà de son périmètre légitime et définit des limites vagues et inconstitutionnelles à la liberté d’expression sur Internet. Par exemple, un discours dénigrant, relevant du harcèlement, blasphématoire ou haineux n’a jamais été criminel ou considéré comme tel par la justice indienne. Mais du fait de cette nouvelle législation, cela peut être puni de 3 ans de prison. Ensuite, ces règles introduisent un biais contre la participation citoyenne à toute forme de publication en ligne, en particulier dans les médias sociaux ou la production de contenus collective. Ainsi, une fois qu’un ordre de retrait a été notifié, le contenu contestable visé doit être supprimé dans un délai de 36 heures. Ou c’est l’intermédiaire concerné qui est susceptible de voir engagée sa responsabilité. De grandes entreprises telles que Google seront en mesure de gérer de telles injections et d’engager des procédures en justice mais de simples individus seront écrasés par la censure privée sans application équitable de la loi. En outre, les individus ne seront pas notifiés de l’application d’une telle censure et aucune pénalité n’est prévue pour ceux qui abuseraient du système en émettant des ordres de retrait de contenu en masse de manière automatisée. Enfin, l’État a créé un système de surveillance à plusieurs niveaux impliquant cyber-cafés, FAI et fournisseurs de services en ligne. Les garde-fous sur les réquisitions judiciaires émises par les agences de renseignement ont été dilués. La rétention de logs redondante à plusieurs niveaux fournit en outre des cibles multiples avec des vulnérabilités multiples aux criminels à la fois au sein et en dehors de ces institutions. Les violations de la vie privée vont se multiplier et ne feront que distraire les agents du renseignement de leurs missions de fond pour lutter contre la criminalité et le terrorisme.

En clair, nous pensons que ces nouvelles règles vont réfréner la liberté d’expression sur Internet en Inde en stimulant l’auto-censure, la censure privée et la surveillance. Cela va nuire à l’exercice démocratique, à la liberté des médias, et à la transparence des institutions publiques, à la culture et à la créativité, à la recherche et au développement, et enfin - mais ce n’est pas rien - à l’entrepreneuriat.

LeMagIT: Dans un contexte de suspicion sur les objectifs du forum e-G8, et avec la perspective de la nouvelle législation indienne, quel regard portez-vous sur le sommet international qui s’ouvre ce mardi 24 mai en France ?

Sunil Abraham: Nicolas Sarkozy et les nations développées de l’Ouest ont complètement perdu leur légitimité morale dans le débat sur la liberté sur Internet. Leur duplicité et leur double-langage ont été mis en lumière - d’un côté, ils critiquent la Birmanie, l’Arabie Saoudite et la Chine mais, dans le même temps, à l’intérieur de leurs frontières, ces nations ont courbé l’échine pour satisfaire aux demandes des ayants-droits. Rétention de données, exigence de justification d’identité dans les cyber-cafés, riposte graduée, investigations transnationales, etc... sont en train de devenir la norme. Nicolas Sarkozy semble avoir oublié que l’accès au savoir est le prérequis de la liberté d’expression. Le partage de l’information est une composante essentielle des activités quotidiennes des citoyens du Net. Criminaliser ces actes afin de soutenir les modèles économiques moribonds des éditeurs de logiciels et des sociétés de production de médias ne fera que réduire Internet à une télévision interactive.

En tant que personne mariée à un ayant-droit en quête de rente, Nicolas Sarkozy n’a naturellement que peu de sympathie pour l’accès [libre] à la connaissance et peut ainsi se faire le champion vocal des régimes de riposte graduée. Il serait bien capable d’interdire à quelqu’un de lire sous un livre prétexte que cette personne aurait partagé les photocopies de ce livre avec trois de ses amis. Il n’y a aucune proportionnalité entre le préjudice et la punition.

Avec l’e-G8, Nicolas Sarkozy essaie de pousser d’autres restrictions à la liberté d’expression avec son concept “d’Internet civilisé” - les régimes répressifs du monde entier ont de quoi se réjouir. Leur régulation draconienne a été importée par le pays de “liberté, égalité, fraternité.” J’espère que le peuple français se joindra aux sociétés civiles du monde entier pour rejeter les propositions de Nicolas Sarkozy.

Sunil's original response in English

What is wrong with the latest IT Rules 2011 [Intermediary Due Diligence, Cyber Cafe and Reasonable Security Measures) under the IT Act [Amendment 2008]

There are 3 broad concerns that civil society has with the latest IT rules. One, they go beyond the the scope of the IT Act and place unconstitutional and vague limits on freedom of expression online. For example speech that is harmful, harassing, disparaging, blasphemous or hateful has never been criminal or defined by Indian courts. But thanks to the latest rules, they are punishable with 3 years of imprisonment. Two, the rules are biased against citizen participation in online publication especially in the form of social media and commons based peer production. Once a take down notice is received the objectionable content has to be deleted within 36 hour otherwise the intermediary looses immunity. Large corporations like Google will be able to manage due diligence and also fight court battles but individual users will becrushed by private censorship sans due process of law. This individuals will not be notified when such censorship occurs and there is no penalty for those who abuse the system by sending bulk machine generated take-downs. Three, the state has mandated a multi-tier blanket surveillance regime - by cyber-cafes, ISPs and application service providers. Safeguards for information requests by intelligence agencies have been diluted. Redundant multi-level retention of logs provides multiple targets with multiple vulnerabilities to criminals both inside and outside these institutions. Privacy violations will multiply only serving a big distraction from the real intelligence work required to stop criminals and terrorists.

In brief - we believe the latest rules have a chilling effect on online freedom of expression in India via self-censorship, private censorship and blanket surveillance. This will undermine - democratic governance, free media, transparency and accountability in public institutions, culture and creativity, research and development and last but not least entrepreneurship.

What is wrong with Sarkozy's agenda at the e-G8

Sarkozy and developed western nations have completely lost their higher moral ground on net freedom. Their duplicity and double-speak has been exposed - on the one hand they criticise Burma, Saudi Arabia and China. But simultaneously at home these nations have bent backwards to please rights-holders. Blanket data retention, real ID requirements at cyber-cafes, three strikes regime, cross-border searches, etc are becoming the norm. Sarkozy appears to have forgotten that access to knowledge is the precondition for freedom of expression. Sharing of information is an essential component of the everyday Internet use of ordinary netizens. Criminalising these acts in order to prop up extinct business models of media houses and software companies will only reduce the Internet to interactive television.

Read the original published by LeMagIT here

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/avec-i-e-g-8

Take charge of Facebook

praskrishna — 2011-06-06T08:16:19Z

Want to take control of your data and the way you use your Facebook account? Then try these tricks, writes Shweta Taneja.

When Tejas Pande, a 23-year-old Bangalore-based information technology professional, heard about a workshop called Facebook Resistances at the Centre for Internet and Society (www.cis-india.org) in the city, he signed up without thinking twice. "I spend almost 10 hours every day logged in to my Facebook account. Its fixed rituals were getting to me. So I wanted to find out how I can take more control of my account and make it more personal."

The workshop, which was conducted by Marc Stumpel, a new media researcher and privacy advocate from Amsterdam, the Netherlands, had the same concerns. Stumpel’s workshop, which has travelled across the world from Barcelona and Berlin to Bangalore, is a research initiative that looks at changing the rules and functionality of Facebook. "We want to change your experience of the site and make it more personal," he says, adding, “We also want you to safeguard your privacy in the Facebook world." All this, he says, is possible through add-ons to your Internet browser. “People just need to know what these cracks are."

With more than 600 million active users, Facebook has become prone to attacks from hackers. Problems such as identity theft and malicious bot messages or status update worms are becoming common. Other than that, privacy concerns which have wracked Facebook since its inception continue to be controversial despite the "controls" it now offers.

The main reason for this is that the social networking mammoth keeps on pushing new features or changes constantly and rapidly, even before we can understand the ones that already exist. "Most often we don’t get a chance to opt in to new features, and can only opt out if they get our attention," explains Stumpel. This leads to a loss of control over personal data and what Facebook can do with it.

To prevent this, it’s necessary to keep going back to those account settings and make full use of whatever control Facebook offers at any point. Here are some of the latest ways you can protect your online identity.

Log out of multiple sessions

How many times have you logged into Facebook from an Internet café or a friend’s mobile phone and forgotten to log out? Every time you do that, even though you close the browsing window or application at the end, Facebook keeps your session open, making you vulnerable to mischief. Now you can log into your account and see a list of active sessions with their details, which include the login time, device name, the approximate location of the login based on IP address, and browser and operating system. If some of them are unauthorized or you are unaware of these activities, shut them immediately and reset your password.

Take control now: In your Facebook account, go to Account > Account Settings > Account Security > Account Activity > Also Active. Facebook lists all your active, open browsers in the Also Active list. Click on End Activity on the unwanted ones. You can also take control of which gadgets you log on from with the Login Approvals feature that comes under Account Security. This feature lets you put a code alert, which can then be SMSed to your mobile phone as soon as you log in from an unrecognized computer. This will alert you in case there’s been a login from a source you don’t know about.

Avoid the unwanted photo tag

Did a friend just put your drunk as hell photograph, wearing a "I hate my boss" T-shirt and making an obscene gesture, online? And did your boss and wife see it and blast you for irresponsibility? Other than the embarrassment, you may get into trouble at home or at work because of friends tagging inane photographs they clicked somewhere you don’t remember.If it’s not photographs, it’s minor irritants such as social or festive messages that you unexpectedly get tagged in. Avoid such irritants with a simple click.

Take control now: Go to Account > Privacy Settings > Sharing on Facebook. Click on ‘Customize settings’. In the page that pops up, choose in each option who can see and comment on things you share, things on your Wall and things you’re tagged in.

Secure your account

Hacking is increasingly a problem on Facebook. The reason is that on most of the networks, Facebook (unlike email clients) works on an unsecured connection (http) and not a secure one (https). Now the social networking site gives you an option to choose a secure site for logging and browsing. You can also choose one-time passwords when logging into Facebook from a public connection.

Take control now: Go to Account > Account Settings> Account Security > Secure Browsing. Tick on Browse Facebook on a Secure Connection (https) whenever possible. In case you are using a public computer, take the option of Facebook One-time Passwords. Text "OTP" to 32665 on your mobile phone and you will get a new one-time password which expires within 20 minutes.

Stop Facebook from haunting you online

Baffled when your Facebook profile image pops up every time you are reading a news site or a travel website online asking you to "Like" a news or review since another friend from Facebook does? Or surprised when you are browsing a travel website and your friends’ photographs pop up suddenly, saying they have been there and "Recommend" a hotel or site? Facebook has partnered with some websites to, as it delicately puts it, "provide you with great, personalized experiences the moment you arrive, such as immediately playing the music you like or displaying friends’ reviews”. Basically if you are logged in to Facebook, these sites can take information from your account and display it and also tell you which of your friends have visited that particular city earlier. If you wish to stop Facebook from haunting you everywhere you go online on your browser, act now.

Take control now: To block a third party, go to Account > Privacy Settings > Apps and Websites> Instant Personalization. Deselect Enable Instant Personalization to stop getting these subtle suggestions from Facebook.

Cut off the ads

A Facebook friend, Mr-I-Like-Everything, "Likes" yet another page and it pops up as a suggestion on the right side of your profile. If you have been on Facebook long enough, chances are one of the "Sponsored" pages has been shoved under your nose at least once. These little ad blurbs which keep popping up on the right-hand side corner, or underneath your apps on the left side of your page, are a mix of advertisements as well as Facebook’s way of further profiling you. Facebook calls them “Suggestions” that add to your social personality, but they are just ads. The good news is that you can now block these permanently.

Take control now: What you need is an ad-blocking add-on for your browser. The best in the market is GreaseMonkey, which works as an add-on for Mozilla Firefox, Google Chrome, Opera and Internet Explorer. Run it and you will be able to customize the way your Facebook page is displayed or behaves by using small bits of JavaScript. On your browser, go to Tools > Add-ons > GreaseMonkey. Click install. Once the basic add-on is installed, it will direct you to http://userscripts.org, which is an open-source, online space for free scripts that can be installed into GreaseMonkey. Find Remove All Facebook Ads in the list and install it. Google Chrome has a basic extension which is called Hide Facebook Ads, which effectively blocks the ads on your Facebook page.

Customize your Facebook page

Bored to death with the classic Facebook blue and white? There’s help at hand to see your Facebook page in a new, stylized version.

Take control now: Download and install an add-on called Stylish in Mozilla Firefox. Then go to Userstyles.org and choose a theme you want to install. Click on Load Into Stylish. Once the theme is successfully loaded, choose it from a small icon on the right corner and activate the theme. Refresh and enjoy the new look.

Block unwanted applications

How does an application you haven’t given access to know your birth date? The answer is your friends. Even though your settings might be sealed and set, you are vulnerable if your friends don’t care who’s accessing their information—and most of them don’t. Applications on Facebook can harvest not only a person’s birth of date or city of residence, but also that of their friends. As Facebook writes, the applications "may access any information you have made visible to Everyone as well as your publicly available information". Publicly available information "includes your Name, Profile Picture, Gender, Current City, Networks, Friend List, and Pages". Facebook offers a way for you to control what your friends can share about you with these applications. It’s a well-hidden section under Accounts called Facebook Ads.

Take control now: To check which applications are using what from your profile, go to Account > Privacy Settings > Apps and Websites. Block any of the apps you haven’t used for a couple of months and don’t remember when you gave access to. Cut down the information accessible to other applications through your friends by unmarking under "Info accessible through your friends". If you don’t want the "suggestions" that Facebook makes about the pages that your friends "Like", go to Account > Account Settings > Facebook Ads. Choose "No one" for both “Ads shown by third Parties" as well as "Ads and friends".

Remove yourself from Facebook & Google Search

Now you can avoid unwanted attention from generic Google and Facebook name searches with a simple privacy setting to turn off your public visibility.

Take control now: Go to Account > Privacy Settings > Connecting on Facebook. Click on View Settings and under it, and in the options under "Search for you on Facebook", select Friends or Friends of Friends.

Add a dislike button

Tired of no option but to "Like" comments, links and silly photos on Facebook? Now you can install a Dislike button to show your hatred of everything inane that people put on your wall.

Take control now: The Dislike button comes with an add-on called Facebook Dislike 1.2.3 by Thomas Moquet. It works on both Google Chrome and Firefox. Remember that you are the only one who will see that button. For your friends to see what you dislike, they need to install it too.

Illustration by Raajan/Mint

Write to us at businessoflife@livemint.com

This article first appeared in the Business of Life, Mint. The copyright of this article rests with Mint and no part of can be reproduced without prior permission. Please log on to http://www.livemint.com/articles/2011/05/24210434/Take-charge-of-Facebook.html.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/take-charge-of-facebook

As Simple as a Tweet

praskrishna — 2011-05-24T07:17:50Z

Got caught in traffic, need to let your folks know you’ll be late, Twitter to your rescue. This article by Nidhi R Daiya appeared in the Deccan Chronicle on May 24, 2011.

When you can you use the micro-blogging site, do you think celebrities would be left far behind?

With stars clearing the air on the site, be it the beautiful Shilpa Shetty denying the rumours about her pregnancy or the Kidnap actress Minisha Lamba claiming to be innocent, Twitter is many celebrities’ rescue route or way to stay in ‘direct’ touch with their fans.

The Nadunisi Naaygal actress Sameera Reddy might not be tech-savvy but sure connects to her fans when she finds the time. "I am not tech-savvy but whenever I have the time I make sure I tweet about my happening so my fans know about me."

Ask Sameera if she thinks this micro-blogging site is the ultimate platform to get in touch with her fans. "It’s the best way to be in touch with your fans directly," she says.

While some might use the site to stay in touch with their fans others use this powerful medium to clear the air. Soundtrack composer and singer Yuvan Shankar Raja denied the rumours about his and Gautham Menon’s tiff through his tweets.

"Not only can one get in touch with your fans directly but also get the opportunity to clear doubts about any rumours surrounding you. Earlier, media used to play the catalyst now it’s all direct and a lot easier," says Yuvan.

Well, if Dhanush can confirm on Twitter that the superstar is fine and Bipasha Basu can confirm her status, do you think other stars will be left behind?

Srinivasan, an active blogger, explains why some celebrities who have a blog prefer tweeting to writing pages full of stuff. "Having only 140 characters to convey your message — it’s short, sweet and personal. So obviously Twitter is a hit."

But he goes on to explain why blogs still have that personal touch to them.

"Twitter might be quick but elements like pictures cannot be shared in it, so those who are ardent followers will still follow celebrity blogs."

Sandeep Verma, a social media analyst, seconds the thought. "Those active bloggers have now turned to Twitter because it’s easy and direct. The reaction speed is fast and it’s a good medium. Stars like Shah Rukh Khan and Amitabh Bachchan too have stayed in touch with their fans and responded to tweets that have been misinterpreted. The fans may be left confused because reports may tell a different story but celebs tell a different story too," adds Sandeep.

However, Nishant Shah, director of Research, Centre for Internet and Society, says Twitter is another extension of the media itself, "Even though Twitter is on a public space and gives one 140 characters to emote, the information is grabbing attention. A tweet can be called as a body of many tweets as you can add links, tag or re-tweet."

What They Tweeted

Tweets about stars that have cleared the rumours or apologised publicly.

Dhanush tweeted "Guys superstar is absolutely fine! He is taking complete rest. After 35 years of hard work he deserves it too. Ve a good day. God bless!"
Amitabh tweeted: "When Graham Bell discovered the telephone, he found two missed calls from Rajinikanth."

Later Amitabh responded to the accusations that he was making fun of Rajini by tweeting "I was not criticizing Rajinikanth…actually it’s praising him...praising his status and greatness...and not making fun of him...he is a noble successful humble person."
Ranvir shorey to apologise on twitter for a comment posted by (@swathipradeep2) on-simple! since @ranvirshorey career is doomed, he is bootlicking barkha didi to use her influence & get him movies" (sic)."
Shilpa Shetty: 'I Am sick and tired of all the congratulatory messages and calls. For the last time I am saying, I am not pregnant, all this is so annoying.'
Bipasha Basu tweeted: "Hi all! Speculation is a part of r business! I knw d warmth n love tht I get frm u all!
Anurag Kashyup on the Dabangg controversy apologised saying 'Dost fati toh meri dawood se nahi jab black friday banai thi, na halaat se jab film release nahi hoti thi…maafi maangi kyonki galat news pe react kiya tha.. galti maanne main bhi nahi phati…tum log bas thodey badey ho jaao.'

Read the original published in the Deccan Chronicle here

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/simple-as-a-tweet%20

A Network of Chains

praskrishna — 2011-05-23T06:50:28Z

New infotech rules infringe on freedom of expression, make net use near-impossible, writes Arindam Mukherjee. The article was published in the latest issue (May 30, 2011) of Outlook Magazine.

If all goes according to plan, internet users may not be able to put up a strong message or comment about, say, the Congress on the BJP’s website. A simple complaint from a Congress worker or, for that matter, any Indian citizen, can get the comment removed—it could even lead to the website being blocked by the host. Similarly, forceful comments on networking sites like Twitter and Facebook about individuals and on issues of national interest could soon also be history. If anyone wants, a simple complaint can get the comments—or even a user—removed from that network without informing him or her about it.

The new set of rules gives any citizen the right to complain against any content on any website that they consider objectionable. The new guidelines redefine the rules of the game for online intermediaries—Internet Service Providers, a website, a blog or a blog host, or the online edition of a media company with space for letters to the editor. These intermediaries, who are protected by the government against harmful content generated by third parties, stand to lose their protection if they do not comply and take off the objectionable comments within 36 hours.

As expected, there is a huge outcry in the online community and in civil society on the implications. Pranesh Prakash, programme manager, Centre for Internet and Society, says, "We are concerned about the overreach of the IT Act. These rules are unconstitutional and violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It is harmful to freedom of speech and does not go by the basic principles of natural justice because only the complainant is heard and not the user."

"These rules violate the Constitution, harm freedom of speech, go against the principles of natural justice."
Pranesh Prakash
Manager, CIS

The new rules provide that anyone can complain against any online content if he thinks it is objectionable and breaches any of the keywords provided under the rules (see graphic). Chakshu Roy of prs Legislative Research, an independent group, says, "The keywords provided under the rules are rather too open to interpretation. This might lead to potential legal complications for internet companies who derive value by allowing people to interact online."

The tricky part is that the government has said that all disputes over interpretation of the keywords can only be adjudicated by a court of law and that the government or its agencies cannot interpret it. So if your website or content is blocked, the only recourse before you is to knock at the court’s doors. In sum, under the new rules, it would be absolutely impossible for any online entity to carry any comment without getting into some infringement under the new rules. "If internet platforms are held liable for third-party content, it would lead to self-censorship and reduce the free flow of information," says a spokesperson for Google.

Despite the government arguing otherwise, this is being construed as an indirect way to control the internet and online activity. The new laws will suppress public opinion at a time when the internet is developing into a primary medium to mould as well as express public opinion. Nikhil Pahwa, an avid blogger and editor of Medianama, says, "National security is one thing, but what about civil liberty? Isn’t that being violated here? This is a veiled move to block all public opinion."

In recent times, 11 websites and search results have been blocked on the government’s order, apart from over 1,400 requests to Google for removal or blocking of content. Soon, many more websites and portals could be in the firing line and face a block, censure or even closure under the new set of rules.

Online protagonists also feel that enough thinking has not gone into the framing of the rules. Subho Ray, president, Internet and Mobile Association of India (iamai), says, "The new rules are arbitrary as it is protecting the interest of one set of citizens while compromising upon that of others." Also, there is ambiguity in the rules on bulk sms carriers and telecom-based content, which should technically fall under user-generated content reaching the masses.

Perhaps the most bizarre are the rules regarding cyber cafes, which seek to define not just how the cafes conduct their business but also how a cyber cafe should look and even arrange its furniture. The new guidelines mandate that cyber cafes keep a photo ID record of all users apart from maintaining usage data of individuals—including logs of all websites surfed by them—for one year. The rules even go on to define the physical layout of the cyber cafes.

"Today a third of India’s internet usage comes from cyber cafes. If you are putting requirements of photo ID and maintenance of logs of usage of every user, the crowd going to these cafes will move away," says Ray. He also feels that cyber cafes, which are already subject to harassment by local authorities, may find it even more difficult to survive under the new rules. Also, there are serious online security concerns over the functioning of cyber cafes under the new rules. "If you require all cyber cafes to maintain history of all websites visited by a user, including bank accounts and credit card transactions, it will be naive to think that such information will not be misused," says Prakash.

Significantly, the new rules also allow the government to access personal data and intercept any conversation or communication without judicial intervention. This, at a time when telephone intercepts by government agencies are being questioned, could lead to further complications. The government asserts that the new rules have been put in place looking at the “best practices" from across the world. But looking at the discontent—and the real danger of misuse—it needs to rethink these strategies.

Read the original published in the Outlook here

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/network-of-chains

Sony site flaw puts focus on Internet security

praskrishna — 2011-05-30T13:15:07Z

INTERNET security has once again come into sharp focus with Sony discovering a loophole in their website set up to reset passwords for its users affected by the hacking of the PlayStation network. Shayan Ghosh's article was published by Mail Today on Friday,May 20, 2011.

Sony on Thursday announced that it has found a security flaw on its website that could have allowed a hacker access to private details of its gaming buffs.

"We are in the process of continuous restoration of the website loopholes that have been identified and it will be healed pretty soon," said Atindriya Bose, country manager at Sony Computer Entertainment.

Last month, Sony’s PlayStation network was hacked and user data such as email ids and credit card details were possibly stolen in huge numbers, affecting users worldwide.

"Some users could say botnets (a collection of infected computers or those taken over by hackers) are the largest threat today because they have the potential of shutting down websites, online stores and even Governmental websites and critical resources," Costin Raiu, director of the global research and analysis team, Kaspersky Lab, said, explaining the present online threat scenario.

"Others say that a much more serious threat can come from mobile malware, because there are a lot more mobile phones than computer systems," he noted.

"Even though hacking is going on we are prompt to enhance our security measures. But only these won’t help. The Indian users also need to be conscious; they also need to be vigilant about private details such as credit cards when they are on the web," Bose explained.

"A lot of companies are successful in e-commerce and have been in the industry for quite long. But regarding such flaws, it depends on how fast the company reacts to the situation," he said.

Hacking is like an arms race, according to Sunil Abraham executive director, Centre for Internet and Society. "It is going side by side with the security measures that people are taking," he said.

Abraham said there are many reasons behind the recent rise in hacking with data being stolen very often.

Firstly, the information system nowadays is more complex though not mature enough to handle such threats. Secondly, the social networking sites are a key player when it comes to damage undergone due to hacking. The level of data loss is huge when one hacks a social networking site which, was not the case before. Thirdly, new updates of these networking and gaming sites are released very frequently, which leaves little time to check the security flaws in the website.

"New features are more prone to attacks," Abraham said.

"As attackers become more sophisticated and targeted, hacking continues to be a serious threat. In fact, Symantec’s Internet Security Threat Report 16 revealed that an average of 260,000 identities were exposed per data breach caused by hacking in 2010, nearly quadruple that of any other cause," Abhijit Limaye, director, security response, Symantec, said.

However, there are ethical hackers who feel the need for security and also think that hacking will be a major issue worldwide, in a couple of years.

Download the original article published by Mail Today here [PDF, 2.08 MB]

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/sony-site-flaw

Bangalore-based NGO files RTI query asking list of websites blocked by Indian govt

praskrishna — 2011-05-23T08:39:58Z

The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS), a Bangalore-based NGO, recently filed an RTI query with the Department of Information Technology (DIT), asking for a list of websites blocked by the Indian government under the IT Act. This article by R Krishna was published in the Daily News & Analysis on May 18, 2011.

The department handed them a list of 11 websites. It was just one department’s list, but this was the first time such a list was being made public. "The information given was not comprehensive. For instance, we still don’t know who ordered these blocks," says Sunil Abraham, executive director, CIS, "We will file another RTI application to get those details out."

As of now, Indians enjoy considerably free access to information online, and the right to freedom of expression is protected by the Constitution. But you run into a veil of secrecy when trying to find out what sort of information is being blocked online, who is doing it, and for what reason. The list of 11 revealed by the DIT is only representative — no one can even guess the real number because, well, there is no way of knowing when a website gets blocked.

What is more disturbing is that the government has formulated a set of rules that can block content considered "disparaging", "harassing", or "blasphemous", besides a whole range of other labels that are vague and hence open to interpretation. The rules put the onus of removing such material on intermediaries such as ISPs (Internet service providers) and websites that host the content — within 36 hours of a complaint being filed. And just about anyone can request that the content be taken down — all they have to do is write a letter or an email with an electronic signature. There is no provision for the intermediary to challenge the complainant’s assessment of the content in question.

Users will be afraid

In other words, censorship will now be a free-for-all exercise. Protests, such as the one we saw during the Jan Lokpal agitation, can be nipped in the bud since anyone, including politicians, can claim that they are being "harassed". Information revealed by websites like WikiLeaks can be blocked because they may "threaten friendly relations with foreign states".

There is a sense of shock among the handful of netizens who are aware of these rules and the potential for their misuse. "What are we, Saudi Arabia? We don’t expect this from India. This is something very serious," Pushkar Raj, general secretary of the People’s Union for Civil Liberties, has been quoted as saying. MediaNama, a website reporting on the media industry, points out, "Who defines 'blasphemous'?... India doesn’t even have a blasphemy law, so who interprets what is blasphemous or not?" Media watchdog The Hoot’s Geeta Seshu says, "This is chilling. Websites will be wary of putting up content. How can one appeal? How can one have a free discussion on anything at all online?"

Vishal Anand, product manager at Burrp, an online startup that hosts user-generated reviews of restaurants, is worried about the impact it will have on the discussions happening on the website. "I hope the ecosystem is not impacted. Users may be more afraid to respond, and businesses will be afraid about the content they host."

Guilty until proven innocent

The fundamental issue is that the onus is on the carrier or host to prove that the content is inoffensive, if any objection is raised. "The regulation is placing the burden on the intermediary so that there is no need to go to court (to get content blocked). This is going to lead to a lot of private intervention. You will have to go to court to get the content back up online, rather than the other way around," says Delhi-based lawyer Apar Gupta.

In fact, intermediary liability is a contentious topic globally, and this is not the first time it has caused a controversy in India. Back in 2004, eBay India’s CEO Avinash Bajaj was arrested because a user tried to sell a pornographic CD on its website. This set off a furious debate on the issue, with the government finally agreeing to amend the IT Act. Gupta notes on his blog, "Even after the IT Act was amended, the government failed to make any rules… In the absence of rules, intermediaries continued to be dragged to court and to the police station. This includes a recent incident where an FIR was registered against Facebook."

Checks and balances exist

These developments lend credence to a recent report on Internet freedom released by US-based NGO Freedom House, which ranks India 14th out of the 37 countries surveyed. Stating that the Internet in India is only "partly free", the report notes, “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.

The revised law grants (the government) the authority to block Internet material that is perceived to endanger public order or national security… and assigns up to seven years’ imprisonment for representatives of a wide range of private service providers… if they fail to comply with government blocking requests." What is even more troubling is that the current rules weren’t even in place when this report was being prepared.

The new rules could worsen India’s Internet freedom rankings. Responding to DNA, Sarah Cook, Asia research analyst and assistant editor, Freedom House, said, "We would have concerns over some of the rules and how they came about. This includes broad and vaguely worded censorship criteria, apparent initiation of the regulations "quietly" without significant consultation with key stakeholders, and absence of an appeals process for those who might disagree with censorship decisions."

Legal experts in India too are puzzled by the new restrictions when there are already reasonable restrictions on freedom of expression that the Constitution defines. "There are anti-defamation provisions in the law. Then why include 'disparaging' in the new rules? Why is impersonating being made illegal? For example, on online dating websites for gays, users may not feel comfortable revealing their identities straightaway. And if somebody is impersonating to commit fraud, there are laws that already exist that deal with it. Instead of incorporating existing offences, the scope of what may be considered illegal is being broadened," says CIS’s Abraham.

The new rules are so broad-based that anyone can claim they are offended and demand that content be taken down, even out of business rivalry.

For example, Zone-H.org, run by Italy-based Roberto Preatoni, was one of the 11 websites blocked by the Department of Information Technology. This was done after the Delhi High Court passed an ex-parte interim order (where the other party is not present) in the E2 Labs versus Zone-H case to block the website. "This seems unnecessary since it is some kind of private business battle between E2 Labs and Zone H. Where was the need for the Indian government to get involved?" asks Abraham.

Bangalore-based cyber law expert N Vijayashankar agrees. "Websites are being blocked using interim orders. There is no national interest involved in some of these cases. Plus, there is no need to block the entire website, just a particular page could be blocked."

In fact, one of the webpages blocked was an opinion piece Vijayashankar had written about the Zone-H case on BloggerNews.net. "I had no intimation that the webpage was being blocked," says Vijayashankar, who got to know about the blockage only after CIS published the DIT’s response.

Learn from the world

Globally, excessive regulation of online discussions, particularly those related to political and social issues, can kill the open exchange of information. "In many countries, we saw that new laws, prosecutions, or proactive government censorship contributed to greater self-censorship among users. This is particularly pernicious when it affects discussions that relate to public interest or that affect people’s well-being — such as an Indonesian housewife facing high fines for circulating critical comments about a local hospital, the Chinese authorities censoring content on torture in police custody, or the Korean government prosecuting a blogger who posted pessimistic predictions about the country’s economy," says Cook. Cook acknowledges that balancing the right to freedom of expression against security threats, hate speech or child pornography is quite difficult — even for nations that rank high in their study. But there are a few best practices that India could learn from.

"Examples of good practices would include no criminal defamation provisions (though criminal penalties for inciting violence would be appropriate), immunity for online content providers from being held liable for the information posted by their users (there is such a law in the United States), and multi-stakeholder consultations prior to the passing of regulations related to the Internet/digital media."

The new rules India has come up with fly in the face of such best practices. Authorities and netizens alike should be on the guard, lest we go the China way.

Read the original published by DNA here

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/rti-query-filed

IT Act if enforced will leave internet use in India no freer than in China

praskrishna — 2011-05-18T02:28:38Z

The Centre for Internet & Societies (CIS), a Bangalore-based NGO, recently filed an RTI query with the Department of Information Technology (DIT), asking for a list of websites blocked by the Indian government under the IT Act. The department handed them a list of 11 websites. It was just one department’s list, but this was the first time such a list was being made public. This news written by R Krishna was published by the Daily News & Analysis on May 15, 2011.

"The information given was not comprehensive. For instance, we still don’t know who ordered these blocks," says Sunil Abraham, executive director, CIS, "We will file another RTI application to get those details out."

What is more disturbing is that the government has formulated a set of rules that can block content considered "disparaging", "harassing", or "blasphemous", besides a whole range of other labels that are vague and hence open to interpretation. The rules put the onus of removing such material on intermediaries such as ISPs (internet service providers) and websites that host the content — within 36 hours of a complaint being filed. And just about anyone can request that the content be taken down — all they have to do is write a letter or an email with an electronic signature. There is no provision for the intermediary to challenge the complainant’s assessment of the content in question.

Users will be afraid

Guilty until proven innocent

In fact, intermediary liability is a contentious topic globally, and this is not the first time it has caused a controversy in India. Back in 2004, Ebay India’s CEO Avinash Bajaj was arrested because a user tried to sell a pornographic CD on its website. This set off a furious debate on the issue, with the government finally agreeing to amend the IT Act. Gupta notes on his blog, "Even after the IT Act was amended, the government failed to make any rules… In the absence of rules, intermediaries continued to be dragged to court and to the police station. This includes a recent incident where an FIR was registered against Facebook."

Checks and balances exist

These developments lend credence to a recent report on internet freedom released by US-based NGO Freedom House, which ranks India 14th out of the 37 countries surveyed. Stating that the internet in India is only "partly free", the report notes, “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. The revised law grants (the government) the authority to block internet material that is perceived to endanger public order or national security… and assigns up to seven years' imprisonment for representatives of a wide range of private service providers… if they fail to comply with government blocking requests." What is even more troubling is that the current rules weren’t even in place when this report was being prepared.

The new rules could worsen India’s internet freedom rankings. Responding to DNA, Sarah Cook, Asia research analyst and assistant editor, Freedom House, said, “We would have concerns over some of the rules and how they came about. This includes broad and vaguely worded censorship criteria, apparent initiation of the regulations "quietly" without significant consultation with key stakeholders, and absence of an appeals process for those who might disagree with censorship decisions."

Legal experts in India too are puzzled by the new restrictions when there are already reasonable restrictions on freedom of expression that the Constitution defines.

"There are anti-defamation provisions in the law. Then why include 'disparaging' in the new rules? Why is impersonating being made illegal? For example, on online dating websites for gays, users may not feel comfortable revealing their identities straightaway. And if somebody is impersonating to commit fraud, there are laws that already exist that deal with it. Instead of incorporating existing offences, the scope of what may be considered illegal is being broadened," says CIS’s Abraham.

The new rules are so broad-based that anyone can claim they are offended and demand that content be taken down, even out of business rivalry.

"This seems unnecessary since it is some kind of private business battle between E2 Labs and Zone H. Where was the need for the Indian government to get involved?" asks Abraham.

Learn from the world

Globally, excessive regulation of online discussions, particularly those related to political and social issues, can kill the open exchange of information. "In many countries, we saw that new laws, prosecutions, or proactive government censorship contributed to greater self-censorship among users. This is particularly pernicious when it affects discussions that relate to public interest or that affect people's well-being — such as an Indonesian housewife facing high fines for circulating critical comments about a local hospital, the Chinese authorities censoring content on torture in police custody, or the Korean government prosecuting a blogger who posted pessimistic predictions about the country’s economy," says Cook.

Cook acknowledges that balancing the right to freedom of expression against security threats, hate speech or child pornography is quite difficult — even for nations that rank high in their study. But there are a few best practices that India could learn from. "Examples of good practices would include no criminal defamation provisions (though criminal penalties for inciting violence would be appropriate), immunity for online content providers from being held liable for the information posted by their users (there is such a law in the United States), and multi-stakeholder consultations prior to the passing of regulations related to the internet/digital media."

The new rules India has come up with fly in the face of such best practices. Authorities and netizens alike should be on the guard, lest we go the China way.

Read the original story published by DNA here

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/it-act-internet-use

Your Privacy is Public Property

praskrishna — 2011-05-18T02:28:11Z

Rules issued by a control-obsessed government have armed officials with widespread powers to pry into your private life. This article was published in Mail Today on Sunday, May 15, 2011.

The government has gifted itself the power to pry into your electronic personal details without a search warrant. With new IT Rules, it can lay claim to an array of your most sensitive and zealously guarded personal details — ranging from your ATM pin, your net banking password, your credit card details, to the status of your mental health, your DNA profile, and even your sexual orientation. “These rules are a complete invasion of privacy
with immense potentiality of misuse,” says Supreme Court advocate and cyber law expert Pawan Duggal. Drawing attention to the fact that such executive orders are often drafted by government officials who aren’t legally qualified, Duggal asks: "Our medical records and sexual orientation have no bearing on the verification of our identity or our cyber crime record. So why should the state want access to this data?" That is not all. Every key stroke you make at a cyber cafe will now be under the scanner — with cafe owners being asked to maintain logs of your online activities for a minimum of one year. The rules have also turned the heat on internet service providers and social-networking sites to remove objectionable content posted on them, leading to strong objections from Google.

Under provisions of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and the Information Technology Act, 2000, the state already has the power to snoop through the letters you post, the emails you send and the calls you make. But while such surveillance came with several checks and balances, cyber law experts and internet activists say that the government can now access private data with far more ease.

"Whenever any government agency needs to access information on individuals, detailed processes need to be followed so that the rights of the citizen are protected. You need a magistrate — who is not part of the government — to sign a search warrant. A home secretary with the centre or state has to sanction a phone tapping request," points out M.R. Madhavan, head of research, PRS Legislative Research.

These safeguards have not been included for access to electronic databases. "An investigating officer simply needs to give a request in writing, in contravention of all other norms," says Madhavan.

Your privacy is being violated at several levels with the new rules, says Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bangalore’s Centre for Internet and Society. "Cyber cafe owners across the country can now take photos of women coming to their cafes. They also have to show their identity proof. Many women fear they can be harassed on the basis of this information." Cyber cafe owners also have to maintain records on who you are mailing, the subject, how often you access a web page, the packets of data sent and received, etc. Be prepared for rampant leakage of personal information with this provision, warns Abraham.

"A boy who fancies you could easily bribe the cafe owner to get the list of websites you access. The owner will have all the information on you stored for a minimum of one year. No process of destroying the logs has been specified by the IT rules and regulations," says Abraham.

The trouble, says Venkatesh Nayak, the Programme Coordinator for Access to Information, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, is that everyone is suspect in the eyes of the government because of the perception that terrorists don’t function like organised crime syndicates.

Privacy concerns are taken far more seriously in the West. "In countries which have a data protection law, there are data protection tribunals and data protection commissioners. It is not that easy for governments to collect sensitive information on individuals and keep it away from them," says Nayak.

The government, meanwhile, denies any invasion of privacy with the rules. "The intent of the rules is to protect sensitive personal information. The rules do not give any undue powers to government agencies for free access of sensitive personal information," the department of Information Technology has said in a statement.

Cyber experts aren’t convinced, and believe that the days of greater surveillance lie ahead. "After 9/11, the US Homeland Security had started accessing databases of public libraries to find out what people were reading. The day may not be far for us," is Nayak’s dark projection.

Read the original published by Mail Today here

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/privacy-public-property

Point By Point Rebuttal Of Indian Government’s Statement On Internet Control Rules

praskrishna — 2011-05-25T12:46:48Z

The Centre for Internet and Society has published a point-by-point rebuttal of the statement issued by India’s Department of Information Technology on India’s Internet Control Rules. The text below is reproduced from CIS India’s website, under a CC-BY license (which means anyone can re-publish it, with attribution. You can, too). We’ve highlighted (in bold) certain statements in the rebuttal. This article by Nikhil Pahwa was published in Medianama on May 13, 2011.

The press statement issued on May 11 by the Department of Information Technology (DIT) on the furore over the newly-issued rules on ‘intermediary due diligence’ is misleading and is, in places, plainly false. We are presenting a point-by-point rebuttal of the DIT’s claims.

In its press release on Wednesday, May 11, 2011 , the DIT stated:

The attention of Government has been drawn to news items in a section of media on certain aspects of the Rules notified under Section 79 pertaining to liability of intermediaries under the Information Technology Act, 2000. These items have raised two broad issues. One is that words used in Rules for objectionable content are broad and could be interpreted subjectively. Secondly, there is an apprehension that the Rules enable the Government to regulate content in a highly subjective and possibly arbitrary manner.

There are actually more issues than merely "subjective interpretation" and "arbitrary governmental regulation".

The Indian Constitution limits how much the government can regulate citizens’ fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. Any measure afoul of the constitution is invalid.
Several portions of the rules are beyond the limited powers that Parliament had granted the Department of IT to create interpretive rules under the Information Technology Act. Parliament directed the Government to merely define what “due diligence” requirements an intermediary would have to follow in order to claim the qualified protection against liability that Section 79 of the Information Technology Act provides; these current rules have gone dangerously far beyond that, by framing rules that insist that intermediaries, without investigation, has to remove content within 36-hours of receipt of a complaint, keep records of a users’ details and provide them to law enforcement officials.

The Department of Information Technology (DIT), Ministry of Communications & IT has clarified that the Intermediaries Guidelines Rules, 2011 prescribe that due diligence need to be observed by the Intermediaries to enjoy exemption from liability for hosting any third party information under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. These due diligence practices are the best practices followed internationally by well-known mega corporations operating on the Internet. The terms specified in the Rules are in accordance with the terms used by most of the Intermediaries as part of their existing practices, policies and terms of service which they have published on their website.

We are not aware of any country that actually goes to the extent of deciding what Internet-wide ‘best practices’ are and actually converting those ‘best practices’ into law by prescribing a universal terms of service that all Internet services, websites, and products should enforce.

The Rules require all intermediaries to include the government-prescribed terms in an agreement, no matter what services they provide. It is one thing for a company to choose the terms of its terms of service agreement, and completely another for the government to dictate those terms of service. As long as the terms of service of an intermediary are not unlawful or bring up issues of users’ rights (such as the right to privacy), there is no reason for the government to jump in and dictate what the terms of service should or should not be.

The DIT has not offered any proof to back up its assertion that ‘most’ intermediaries already have such terms. Google, a ‘mega corporation’ which is an intermediary, does not have such an overarching policy. Indiatimes, another ‘mega corporation’ intermediary, does not either. Just because a company like Rediff and Blizzard’s World of Warcraft have some of those terms does not mean a) that they should have all of those terms, nor that b) everyone else should as well.

In attempting to take different terms of service from different Internet services and products—the very fact of which indicate the differing needs felt across varying online communities—the Department has put in place a one-size-fits-all approach. How can this be possible on the Internet, when we wouldn’t regulate the post-office and a book publisher under the same rules of liability for, say, defamatory speech.

There is also a significant difference between the effect of those terms of service and that of these Rules. An intermediary-framed terms of service suggest that the intermediary may investigate and boot someone off a service for violation, while the Rules insist that the intermediary simply has to mandatorily remove content, keep records of users’ details and provide them to law enforcement officials, else be subject to crippling legal liability.

So to equate the effect of these Rules to merely following ‘existing practices’ is plainly wrong. An intermediary—like the CIS website—should have the freedom to choose not to have terms of service agreements. We now don’t.

"In case any issue arises concerning the interpretation of the terms used by the Intermediary, which is not agreed to by the user or affected person, the same can only be adjudicated by a Court of Law. The Government or any of its agencies have no power to intervene or even interpret. DIT has reiterated that there is no intention of the Government to acquire regulatory jurisdiction over content under these Rules. It has categorically said that these rules do not provide for any regulation or control of content by the Government."

The Rules are based on the presumption that all complaints (and resultant mandatory taking down of the content) are correct, and that the incorrectness of the take-downs can be disputed in court. Why not just invert that, and presume that all complaints need to be proven first?

Indeed, the courts have insisted that presumption of validity is the only constitutional way of dealing with speech. (See, for instance, Karthikeyan R. v. Union of India, a 2010 Madras High Court judgment.)

Further, only constitutional courts (namely High Courts and the Supreme Court) can go into the question of the validity of a law. Other courts have to apply the law, even if it the judge believes it is constitutionally invalid. So, most courts will be forced to apply this law of highly questionable constitutionality until a High Court or the Supreme Court strikes it down.

What the Department has in fact done is to explicitly open up the floodgates for increased liability claims and litigation – which runs exactly counter to the purpose behind the amendment of Section 79 by Parliament in 2008.

"The Government adopted a very transparent process for formulation of the Rules under the Information Technology Act. The draft Rules were published on the Department of Information Technology website for comments and were widely covered by the media. None of the Industry Associations and other stakeholders objected to the formulation which is now being cited in some section of media."

This is a blatant lie.

Civil society voices, including CIS, Software Freedom Law Centre, and individual experts (such as the lawyer and published author Apar Gupta) sent in comments. Companies such as Google and others had apparently raised concerns as well. We at CIS even received a ‘read notification’ from the email account of the Group Coordinator of the DIT’s Cyber Laws Division—Dr. Gulshan Rai—on Thursday, March 3, 2011 at 12:04 PM (we had sent the mail to Dr. Rai on Monday, February 28, 2011). We never received any acknowledgement, though, not even after we made an express request for acknowledgement (and an offer to meet them in person to explain our concerns) on Tuesday, April 5, 2011 in an e-mail sent to Mr. Prafulla Kumar and Dr. Gulshan Rai of DIT.

The process can hardly be called ‘transparent’ when the replies received from ‘industry associations and other stakeholders’ have not been made public by the DIT. Those comments which are public all indicate that serious concerns were raised as to the constitutionality of the Rules.

The Government has been forward looking to create a conducive environment for the Internet medium to catapult itself onto a different plane with the evolution of the Internet. The Government remains fully committed to freedom of speech and expression and the citizen’s rights in this regard.

The DIT has limited this statement to the rules on intermediary due diligence, and has not spoken about the controversial new rules that stifle cybercafes, and restrict users’ privacy and freedom to receive information.

If the government is serious about creating a conducive environment for innovation, privacy and free expression on the Internet, then it wouldn’t be passing Rules that curb down on them, and it definitely will not be doing so in such a non-transparent fashion.

Read the original published in Medianama here

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/point-by-point-rebuttal

The Second IJLT-CIS Lecture Series at National Law School, Bangalore

praskrishna — 2011-05-13T11:03:04Z

The Indian Journal of Law and Technology and the Centre for Internet and Society, present the second IJLT- CIS Lecture Series, an event comprised of an intensive series of lectures by luminaries with expertise in law and technology to give students, professionals and anyone interested in a comprehensive idea about the theme, "Emerging Issues in Privacy law".

The focus will be on contemporary sub-issues of critical relevance such as:

The Unique Identification Project and Challenges to Privacy
Cloud Computing and Behavioural Tracking
The State and Privacy: Electronic Surveillance

Speakers

The following delegates would be speaking at the conference:

Usha Ramanathan
Malavika Jayaram
Vivek Durai
Prof. Sudhir Krishnaswamy

Profiles of the Speakers

Usha Ramanathan

Dr. Usha Ramanathan is an internationally recognized expert on law and poverty. She studied law at Madras University, the University of Nagpur and Delhi University. She is a frequent adviser to non-governmental organisations and international organizations. She is a member of Amnesty International's Advisory Panel on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and has been called upon by the World Health Organisation as a expert on mental health on various occasions. Her research interests include human rights, displacement, torts and environment. She has published extensively in India and abroad.

Malavika Jayaram

Malavika Jaya has an experience of more than 15 years as a lawyer with a specialization in information technology and intellectual property. She is a partner in Jayaram & Jayaram, Bangalore managing a portfolio of work that has a strong focus on IT/IP and commercial work, especially with an international angle and is a fellow of the Centre for Internet and Society. She works with CIS in its efforts to explore, understand, and affect the shape and form of the Internet, and its relationship with the cultural and social milieu of our time.

More info on Malavika Jayaram can be found here

Vivek Durai

Vivek G Durai is co-founder and managing partner at Atman Law Partners. He represents Indian and overseas clients in connection with their India entry strategies, venture capital and private equity investments, infrastructure projects, technology contracts, procurement and supply agreements and real estate investments.

More info on Vivek Durai can be found here

Professor (Dr.) Sudhir Krishnaswamy

Prof. Sudhir Krishnaswamy graduated from National Law School Bangalore with a BA LLB (Hons) degree. He then went onto finish a BCL and DPhil in Law from the University of Oxford on a Rhodes Scholarship. He has taught at National Law School, Bangalore and Pembroke College, University of Oxford among other places. His research interests include constitutional law, administrative law, intellectual property law, legal profession and reform of the legal system.

More info on Prof. Krishnaswamy can be found here

Admission will not charged but in order to enable us to ensure adequate seating, do register without fail by the 18th of May by email at editorialboard@ijlt.in.

Updates regarding the conference will be posted here.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/events/ijlt-cis-lecture-series

New rules to ensure due diligence: IT dept

praskrishna — 2011-05-23T06:12:39Z

Facing widespread criticism over new IT rules that put certain amount of liability on intermediaries like Google and Facebook for user-generated content, the government clarified that the rules are simply seeking "due diligence" on the part of websites and web hosts. This news was published in the Times of India on May 11, 2011.

The new rules were notified on April 11. Activists and Internet companies say that the rules are archaic and loosely worded and may lead to harassment of web users and website owners. The Times of India was first to report on the issue on April 27.

The ministry of information and technology said, "The terms specified in the rules are in accordance with the terms used by most of the intermediaries as part of their existing practices, policies and terms of service which they have published on their website."

It also clarified the "department of telecommunication has reiterated that there is no intention of the government to acquire regulatory jurisdiction over content under these rules".

The government has claimed that before it made the rules final, it had sought public comments over the draft. "None of the industry associations and other stakeholders objected to the formulation which is now being cited in some section of media," it claimed.

However, sources told TOI that companies like Google had objected to loose wordings of the documents and asked government not to put any liability on intermediary for user-generated content on the web. "We too approached the government with our concerns. For our communication, we never received any acknowledgment," said Sunil Abraham, executive director at the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS).

"Given the fact that final rules are more or less similar to the draft rules, I can say that nobody in the government took into account the objections raised by CIS and many other organizations," he added.

Google had earlier told TOI that new rules would adversely affect businesses that depend upon online collaboration to prosper. "We believe that a free and open Internet is essential for the growth of digital economy and safeguarding freedom of expression.

If Internet platforms are held liable for third party content, it would lead to self-censorship and reduce the free flow of information," a Google spokesperson said.

Read the original published by the Times of India here

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/new-rules-for-due-diligence