Centre for Internet and Society

Centre for the Study of Culture and Society, Bangalore seeks Programme Associate

praskrishna — 2011-05-06T11:26:00Z

The Higher Education Cell, Centre for the Study of Culture and Society, Bangalore, is looking for a Programme Associate under its Social Justice initiative.

The job profile is as follows:

Working closely with colleges in three states, helping to organize and conduct workshops for undergraduate students and teachers;
Facilitating development of innovative student projects addressing issues of social justice/diversity;
Undertaking content management for the project website, newsletter and blogs;
Building and sustaining online communities using creative and user-friendly web-based platforms and documenting processes of growth.

The candidate should be under 35 years of age and have good knowledge of computer applications and multimedia technologies. Ability to communicate effectively with undergraduate students is a pre-requisite. The job is based in Bangalore but involves a fair amount of travel within the country. Experience in teaching/research in the higher education sector and with media organisations would be additional qualifications.

Consolidated honorarium will be in the range of 18,000-20,000 per month commensurate with experience. Send in applications in soft copy and hard copy along with an updated CV to:

Dr. Tejaswini Niranjana
Higher Education Cell
CSCS
827, 29th Main
Poornaprajna Layout
Uttarahalli
Bangalore - 560061

Deadline: May 31, 2011. Shortlisted candidates will be interviewed in person. Those who have applied earlier need not apply. For detailed job description click here.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/notices/programme-associate-4-cscs

Consumers International World Congress - Day 3 roundup

praskrishna — 2011-05-06T05:34:47Z

Consumers can be empowered, and consumer organisations can make sure this happens through sharing and networking, speakers at the 19th Consumers International World Congress in Hong Kong said. The programme of the Congress finished on Thursday evening, and on Friday the global consumer body will hold its General Assembly and Council elections. This news was published in the Consumer's International Blog on May 5, 2011.

In his closing remarks, CI President Samuel Ochieng, emphasised "our ability to shape our future," ending the event on a positive note. Acting Director General, Helen McCallum, showed, in her remarks, the real excitement of the last few days.

Earlier, CI Vice President, James Guest, who is also President and CEO, Consumers Union of United States, delivered a keynote address on one of the key themes of the Congress: "The fight for fair financial services - a battle our movement must win".

Guest had this message for delegates and consumers around the world: "If you're wondering whether you, as an individual or through your organisation, can really make a difference in a David versus Goliath battle against the power of special interests, you already know the answer — yes, you can. The banking lobbyists are rich and powerful, and they spend a lot of money trying to buy influence. But there is one important asset that they lack and we have: people power. In the end, although it will be a hard and difficult fight, I believe that people power - mobilised by the over 220 members of CI - will eventually win.

"That’s because our cause and our stories and our passion are real. We fight for change, not because we are well-heeled lobbyists paid to do so, but because we care about our lives and the lives of our children, our neighbours, our countrymen, and citizens of the world - today and tomorrow, for this generation and the next."

Other highlights:

In a video message to the CI World Congress, French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde, that currently holds the presidency of the G20, said that the "G20 called for action on behalf of consumers, and with OECD I am working to protect consumers of financial services". She expressed the view that "consumers should be participants in the process of ensuring their own security," and admitted that "at the time of the crisis we did not focus enough on consumers in the first instance". Christine Lagarde said she remained "interested in the proposals developed for consumer protection and involvement following a successful CI Congress".

Gerd Leonhard, CEO of The Futures Agency, attracted a lot of interest with his views. Consumer organisations must network to have greater impact, they must share and publish; this is how you engage and enable others, he suggested. The difference between MTV and YouTube is the difference between 'the network' and networked, he said.

"'When five billion people are on the internet within a few years, the power of the consumer will be greater than ever," Gerd predicted.

We use social media/mobile phones to 'review' services, and corporations are paying attention, he added and noted that with broadband culture "everything known to man will be copied".

Former CI President Anwar Fazal delivered a rousing speech, which resulted in a standing ovation from the audience. He said that "in a world of big power, big media... networking is the new democracy".

Fazal added: ''CI is a force for social justice, we can do it, we must and we will!' He warned consumer organisations to "train new people or you will have no future," and noted that we "must not allow modernity to replace fundamental human connections".

On the subject of copyright and access to knowledge, David Hammerstein, TACD IP adviser, said: "We are not against copyright, we are for a more direct relation between artists and consumers".

CI's Dr Jeremy Malcolm added: "We want to support authors but not outdated regulation". He also argued that "unbalanced copyright and IP laws hurt consumers not pirates".

We aim to have A2K included in UN guidelines on consumer protection, Malcolm said.

Go to www.a2knetwork.org to comment on draft UN guidelines for A2K.

Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, Centre for Internet & Society, argued that fake mobile phone innovators in China are not pirates but "enablers of connectivity in the developing world".

Sue Rutledge, Coordinator for Global Program on Consumer Protection and Financial Literacy, World Bank, thanked Consumers International and HKCC for tackling the issue of financial services. She said that "all financial services providers should enable consumer redress," and that she "would like to see consumer ogranisations play an active role in protecting consumer financial protection".

Interviews

A number of speakers at CI World Congress have been interviewed by young TV journalists from Hong Kong City University involved in covering the event. Check the following videos:

You can also watch:

Read the original here

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/consumers-international-world-congress-day-3-roundup

Digerati See Censorship in New Web Rules

praskrishna — 2011-05-05T02:21:27Z

Attention Indian bloggers and social media fiends: the next time you’re composing a witty tweet or posting an edgy item on Facebook, please take care that what you’re writing isn’t “grossly harmful” or “harassing” or “ethnically objectionable” or – oh, the humanity! – “disparaging.” This news was published in the Wall Street Journal on May 2, 2011.

Those are among the types of content that are banned under Internet regulations the Indian government recently put into effect to enforce sections of an information technology law passed in 2008. It’s up to “intermediaries” – Internet service providers, social networking sites, etc. – to police the Web and remove content that goes out of bounds.

As word of the new rules spreads, digital media barons and commoners alike are freaking out. Is the world’s largest democracy ever-so-quietly trampling on free speech by enacting a censorship regime for the Web? How exactly will these rules affect day-to-day activity online?

On the MediaNama digital media blog, Nikhil Pahwa offers a bleak analysis: “These rules give the Indian government the ability to gag free speech, and block any website it deems fit, without publicly disclosing why sites have been blocked,” he writes.

Concerns are also pouring out on Twitter, with user posts like “Looks like we will become China soon” and “Moving to a more draconian state” and “When the hell did this happen?”

To shed some light on that last question: These rules merely advance what has been a quiet effort for several years by the Indian government to get a grip on the Web without the kind of blanket censorship or Website-blocking practiced in countries like Iran, China and Saudi Arabia.

In a front-page story last year, The Wall Street Journal showed how Indian police and government authorities, acting on complaints from Web users, have successfully pressured Google Inc. and other companies to make inaccessible to Indian users Web content that offends figures ranging from Congress Party President Sonia Gandhi to Hindu nationalist leader Balasaheb Thackeray.

The IT law was in effect then but as the government issues more specific rules to enforce it, its powers appear to be broadening–or at least coming into much sharper focus. The cumulative impact of the government’s Web regulation regime, says Sunil Abraham of the Center for Internet and Society in Bangalore, is to foster a culture of self-censorship not just by Web users but also Internet companies that will likely err on the side of caution by removing anything that seems edgy or potentially offensive.

Mr. Abraham cited as an example of overreach in the rules a provision that bans information that “impersonates another person,” which he said would outlaw everything from parody writing in which the author pretends to be in the shoes of a celebrity to Twitter accounts such as Dr.YumYumSingh, whose tweets are a running send-up of the honorable Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. “There are many occasions when people take on a pseudonym, or pretend to be someone else. If it isn’t done with the intention of financial fraud, there’s no need to clamp down on it,” he said.

Mr. Abraham also lamented that people whose content is taken down appear to have no recourse under the law to protest to ISPs or the government. It’s up to the ISPs to offer such recourse in their terms-of-use, if they are so generous.

To put this in its proper perspective, Indian authorities have never tried to disable Web access for large segments of the population or block very large numbers of sites, so far as we know. CIS revealed through a Right-to-Information request that 11 sites are currently being blocked, including a Facebook page that disparages constitutional framer and low-caste champion B.R. Ambedkar. There are certainly countries practicing a much, much higher degree of outright Web censorship.

But is fostering self-censorship–if that’s what’s happening here–just as bad as censorship itself?

Let us know what you think of the new rules in the Comments.

Read the article originally published in the Wall Street Journal here

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/censorship-in-new-web-rules

Free expression

praskrishna — 2011-05-23T08:48:44Z

Free speech and spirited public debate will be the casualties of new rules issued by India restricting Internet content. This news was published in Watertown Daily Times on May 2, 2011.

The regulations from the country's Department of Information Technology go beyond government censorship to individual censorship of material that might be offensive. According to the New York Times, even private citizens can demand that a service provider remove content that is "disparaging," "harassing" or "blasphemous."

The terms, though, are not defined. They are vague and subject to personal interpretation. Enforcement by the government or individuals will be arbitrary.

A rule against content that "threatens the unity, integrity, defense, security or sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign states or public order" could be used by the government to block Internet debate over foreign policy or disagreement with the government's diplomatic relations with another country.

They are also subject to abuse by those who want to silence those they dislike or oppose.

India has a history of banning books and other materials considered objectionable, but the new rules go much further than a specific ban. They also require "intermediaries" such as Facebook and YouTube to remove offensive content within 36 hours of a complaint from anyone. No provisions are made for challenging the complaint.

"These rules favor those who want to clamp down on freedom of expression," said Sunil Abraham, executive director for the Center for Internet and Society.

Such rules are not surprising in countries with repressive regimes, but they are intolerable in a nation like India that considers itself democratic.

Read the original here

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/free-expression

Discussion on 'Press Freedom in the Era of Social Media'

praskrishna — 2011-06-23T06:25:08Z

Anja Kovacs will participate as a panelist in the conference jointly organised by UNESCO and UN Information Centre (UNIC) to commemorate World Press Freedom Day 2011 on May 3 at the UN Conference Hall, Lodhi Estate, New Delhi.

The discussions will focus on the impact of social media on press freedom: its benefits, challenges and limitations.

Download the agenda here [PDF, 166KB]

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/notices/press-freedom

Privacy By Design — Conference Report

praskrishna — 2011-08-22T12:03:30Z

How do we imagine privacy? How is privacy being built into technological systems? On April 16th,The Center for Internet and Society hosted Privacy by Design, an Open Space meant to answer these questions and more around the topic of privacy. Below is a summary of the conversations and dialogs from the event.

Introduction

On April 16th, The Center for Internet and Society hosted Privacy by Design, an Open Space meant to foster discussions around questions related to how privacy is being designed into technological systems. The day opened with two basic questions: How do we imagine privacy? And how are individuals building technology systems incorporating privacy into the system? Throughout the day the conversations took many twist and turns, but at the end of the day three basic points about privacy had come out of the many discussions: 1. Privacy cannot be limited to one definition; it is constantly changing based on person and on context 2. To a person - privacy is a function of abuse and violation 3. The increased generation of data that was made possible by web 2.0 has lead to a rise in privacy issues and is significantly changing many traditional concepts, spaces, and relationships – such as what constitutes a public space, and the relationship between a state and its citizens.

Database architecture and privacy

The morning discussion focused on databases and privacy, and began with questions like: How can a database be built to protect privacy? When a database is built, what role does privacy play in the migration of data? Is privacy protected in databases simply by limiting access to certain parts of data sets? Though many of these were left unanswered, the conversation highlighted the fact that th databases are coded to segregate /regulate users and information in order to protect the system. Thus, databases are architected to incorporate privacy in such a way that protects the viability of only the system and not the individual. In our research we have seen many cases of this. Individual’s privacy has been violated because of malfunctioning or poorly constructed databases. For example, currently Indian governmental databases often have incorrect information, individuals do not have the ability to access and change their information, and if an individual’s information is compromised the government is not held accountable, and there is no course of action that an individual can take towards redress.

Security vs. Privacy

Embedded in this understanding of how privacy is built into technological systems is the question of what security is, and when systems are built, whether privacy and security are considered to be essentially the same. Thus far in our research we have distinguished between privacy and security, saying that, security and privacy have an interesting relationship, because they go hand in hand, and yet at the same time have a different focus, because of this differing focus data security and privacy are not the same. Data breaches that contain personal information of any sort that can be matched, tracked or otherwise co-related to a person or persons will result in a privacy breach too. Though data security is critical for protecting privacy, because data security and privacy have different focuses, the principles that each follows are also different and sometimes conflicting. For example, data security focuses on data retention, logging, etc, while privacy focuses on consent, restricted access to data, limited data retention, and anonymity. If security measures are carried out without privacy interests in mind, privacy violations can easily result. Therefore we have thought that data security should influence and support a privacy regime, but not drive it.

security and privacy have an interesting relationship, because they go hand in hand, and yet at the same time have a different focus, because of this differing focus data security and privacy are not the same. Data breaches that contain personal information of any sort that can be matched, tracked or otherwise co-related to a person or persons will result in a privacy breach too. Though data security is critical for protecting privacy, because data security and privacy have different focuses, the principles that each follows are also different and sometimes conflicting. For example, data security focuses on data retention, logging, etc, while privacy focuses on consent, restricted access to data, limited data retention, and anonymity. If security measures are carried out without privacy interests in mind, privacy violations can easily result. Therefore we have thought that data security should influence and support a privacy regime, but not drive it.

The right to be forgotten and regulation of data

The possibility of creating systems with "off switches" also came out of this thread of conversation. For instance, can a database be structured to show only necessary information to third parties based on the context. In this scenario a card would be created that has all of an individual’s information on it, but only the pertinent information will be shown based on the different situations - if, for example, a teenager goes to a bar, the card will only show a third party that he is over 18. This idea is already taking shape in many Western countries, and is similar to the idea of a federated identity system. A question to ask though is if such a system could work for India, or be even more appropriate for India than a system like the UID. The purpose of federated systems of identity is to take context into consideration, and enable users to keep contexts separate, and link information about an individual only takes place when consent is given by the user. In response to the idea of an identity system that allows only certain information to be seen by third parties based on the situation, it was brought out that privacy is not protected simply by the separation of data into public or private categories, because all data have the potential to be misused. The immediate response to this concern was that if all data have the potential to be mis-used – than the use of data should be carefully regulated. The regulation of data though is also a double edged sword. On one hand regulating the use of data can stop a company from misusing information, but on the other hand it can keep a country from having full and equal access to the internet. A question that came out of this discussion on regulation was about the right to be forgotten. Does an individual have the right to regulate all information about themselves that is in the public sphere? Can they ask for their photos or videos to be taken down from the internet? In India this question has yet to be answered by the law, and it is a question that our research is looking into.

The purpose of federated systems of identity is to take context into consideration, and enable users to keep contexts separate, and link information about an individual only takes place when consent is given by the user. In response to the idea of an identity system that allows only certain information to be seen by third parties based on the situation, it was brought out that privacy is not protected simply by the separation of data into public or private categories, because all data have the potential to be misused. The immediate response to this concern was that if all data have the potential to be mis-used – than the use of data should be carefully regulated. The regulation of data though is also a double edged sword. On one hand regulating the use of data can stop a company from misusing information, but on the other hand it can keep a country from having full and equal access to the internet. A question that came out of this discussion on regulation was about the right to be forgotten. Does an individual have the right to regulate all information about themselves that is in the public sphere? Can they ask for their photos or videos to be taken down from the internet? In India this question has yet to be answered by the law, and it is a question that our research is looking into.

Data types and privacy

Emerging from the conversation on database structure, a conversation on types of data in databases was started. The question was raised as to whether or not databases can actually handle certain types of data. The example given was caste-related data. Information about a person’s caste is constantly changing as people lie about their caste, change their caste, and become married and take on another caste. Furthermore, some people do not want to live with their caste and want to shed off their caste. Therefore, can a database accurately represent such a dynamic data set? Is it dangerous to put such a politically volatile concept as caste into a database where it will confine a person to one definition once entered? Another side to this question though is that perhaps it is in fact necessary to try and place a person in one caste, as there benefits enshrined by law based on a person’s caste, and an individual who has the ability to change his/her caste at their whim therefore defeats and takes advantage of governmental benefits. The point was also raised that by placing information like caste and identity into a database, governments have the ability to divide the country into subsets of identities that they decide to generate. Caste is not the only data that faces these complications and issues. For instance religion and race raise similar question. How can you define and represent a person’s relationship with God in a database? How to you represent a child of multiracial parents on a database?

Changes in the relationship between the state and the citizen

It was also brought out that the representation of citizens’ identities on a database changes the relationship between a state and its citizenry. States no longer see citizens as individuals, but instead as data samples. The UID is an example of an e-governance program that if enacted, could further such a change in the relationship between the state and the citizen, as the whole of India will suddenly and ubiquitously be recognized by the Government (and other entities/organizations) according to their aadhaar number. The relationship between the state and the citizen is not the only social change that databases bring about. Databases also change the concept of public space. As web 2.0 has facilitated the generation of large amounts of data, public space has become a space where one enters and interacts as a dataset. For example face book and twitter allow individuals to create datasets of them and interact with other people through their datasets. Beyond social networking online banking and online shopping also push people to form datasets about themselves and interact with services that were traditionally done in person as individuals, as datasets.

Questions of ownership

The above thread of conversation led to the next question of whether or not individuals control technology or whether technology controls individuals. The example of Facebook was used to illustrate this question. Even though Facebook has a privacy policy, once a person engages with Facebook he or she accepts Facebook’s definition of privacy – which is two tiered. On one level Facebook defines user privacy in terms of restriction - allowing the user to limit who can see their profiles. On another level Facebook’s privacy policy allows the company to share and sell personal information. In these ways companies are constructing databases so that instead of the company being the custodian of information – an entity that provides a structure to protect and hold information - the companies are now the owners of information- selling and using individuals information for profit. In India, this is a problem. Companies, once they collect data, treat it as their own - selling and sharing data with third parties, or using it in ways that were not agreed to by the customer. The question of ownership was a critical question for the group. In the discussions it was important to individuals that they had control and ownership over their information. Individuals felt that information that could be traced back to them or their identity belonged to them, and that in order to protect privacy consent should be secured before any information is used. For instance, data mining by websites without notice was seen as a violation of privacy. The collection of data in public places for marketing purposes without a person’s consent or awareness was similarly seen as a privacy violation. It was also brought out from this conversation that the digitization of information has caused a commercialization of information, and that has led to a sense of ownership and need for privacy over information. For example, before, if someone were to take one’s name and mis-use it, that person was charged with defamation – not for violation of privacy – but if someone misuses information that is in a database or online, that person is now charged for a violation of privacy. This shift in thinking is another example of how web 2.0 has increased privacy violations.

Perceptions and expectations of privacy

The day ended with a conversation about the perceptions and expectations of privacy. Privacy as it relates to an individual is almost wholly dependent on expectation, which changes from person to person, from community to community, and from culture to culture. Just as the expectation of privacy varies between individuals, so does the degree of violation. Thus, it is important to recognize the changing nature of privacy, because it explains why it is difficult for the legal system to address all the nuances of privacy with one broad legislation. This point has been crucial in our research thus far as we are consulting with the public, analyzing legislation, and following news items to see if privacy legislation is wanted and needed in India, and if it is - how it should be shaped.

From the conversation on perceptions of privacy and privacy violations it was also brought out that the concept of privacy is on one hand related to the notion of ownership, and on the other hand it is related to the violation. From the experiences shared by individuals, their privacy never became a concern until it was violated, or they learned about someone else’s privacy being violated. This led to the observation that not only is it difficult for the law to address privacy violations because the violation is based on perception, but also because the effect when one’s privacy is violated is often an emotional one.

Conclusion

The conversations held throughout the day showed the dynamic and personal nature of privacy, and how when databases are constructed, and how our lives made digital this personal aspect is easily lost. When we think about the conversations held throughout the day in relation to our initial questions: what are the different ways of imagining privacy, and how is privacy being built into technological systems, besides the three basic themes of privacy highlighted in the beginning of this blog - there emerged to more themes. One theme portrayed an imagination of privacy that is more personal, and that address the emotional component and the perception component to privacy. Another theme portrayed an imagination of privacy that is technologically more controlled, that allows for more personal regulation, more precise segregation of information in a database, and restricted access by third parties. This imagination of privacy can be and is being met by new and developing technologies. Increasingly in many countries technology is being structured with privacy built into the system. The larger question that this open space has raised, and not completely answered is if privacy legislation can adequately protect an individual’s privacy, and if it cannot, can technology can fill the gaps that privacy legislation leaves open.

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

India curbs on Bloggers and Internet

praskrishna — 2011-05-13T11:59:20Z

The Information Technology Rules 2011 (due diligence observed by intermediaries guidelines) by the Indian government could lead to online censorship, feel human rights activists. This article by Ayyappa Prasad was published in TruthDrive on April 29, 2011.

"This will curtail the freedom of expression of individual bloggers, because as an intermediary they will become responsible for the readers’ comments. It technically means that any comment or a reader-posted link on a blog which according to the government is threatening, abusive, objectionable, defamatory, vulgar, racial, among other omnibus categories, will now be considered as the legal responsibility of the blogger," said a blogger.

Blogs, which are typically maintained and updated by individuals, have showcased their political importance in recent times and the internet community views these rules as a lopsided attempt to curtail an individual’s right to expression.

"If individual blogs are an intermediary, then why can’t Facebook and Twitter also be classified as such, as they too receive, store and transmit electronic records and facilitate online discussions," retorts the spokesperson of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), a Bangalore-based organization, which works on digital pluralism. " These rules will not only bring bloggers and the ISP provider on the same platform, but the due diligence clause will also result in higher power of censorship to the larger player. Imagine your ISP provider blocking your blog because it finds that certain user-comments fit these omnibus terms," the CIS spokesperson added.

Intermediaries include web-hosting providers, which would include companies like Amazon, cyber cafes, payment sites like Paypal, online auction sites, ISPs like BSNL, Airtel, etc. Blogs also fall in this category as networked service providers. The due diligence specifies intermediaries should not display, upload, modify or publish any information that is 'harmful' , 'threatening' , 'abusive' , 'harassing' , 'blasphemous' , 'objectionable' , 'defamatory' , 'vulgar' , 'obscene' , 'pornographic' , 'paedophilic' , 'libellous' , 'invasive of another’s privacy' , 'hateful' , 'disparaging' , 'racially , ethnically or otherwise objectionable' , 'relating to money laundering or gambling'.

Read the original here

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

April 2011 Bulletin

praskrishna — 2012-07-30T10:45:01Z

Greetings from the Centre for Internet and Society! In this issue we are pleased to present you the latest updates about our research, upcoming events, and news and media coverage:

Researchers@Work

RAW is a multidisciplinary research initiative. CIS believes that in order to understand the contemporary concerns in the field of Internet and society, it is necessary to produce local and contextual accounts of the interaction between the Internet and socio-cultural and geo-political structures. To build original research knowledge base, the RAW programme has been collaborating with different organisations and individuals to focus on its three year thematic of Histories of the Internets in India.

Workshops organised in Bangalore

Shadow Search Project (SSP) [CIS, April 18, 2011]
Facebook Resistance [CIS, April 2, 2011]

Digital Natives with a Cause?

Digital Natives with a Cause? is a knowledge programme initiated by CIS and Hivos, Netherlands. It is a research inquiry that seeks to look at the changing landscape of social change and political participation and the role that young people play through digital and Internet technologies, in emerging information societies. Consolidating knowledge from Asia, Africa and Latin America, it builds a global network of knowledge partners who want to critically engage with the dominant discourse on youth, technology and social change, in order to look at the alternative practices and ideas in the Global South. It also aims at building new ecologies that amplify and augment the interventions and actions of the digitally young as they shape our futures.

Columns on Digital Natives

A fortnightly column on ‘Digital Natives’ authored by Nishant Shah is featured in the Sunday Eye, the national edition of Indian Express, Delhi, from 19 September 2010 onwards. The following were published in the month of April:

Who the Hack? [Indian Express, April 24, 2011]
One for the avatar [Indian Express, April 3, 2011]

Digital Natives Newsletter

Links in the Chain is a bi-monthly publication which highlights the projects, ideas and news of the Digital Natives with a Cause? The first issue of volume IV is here:

links in the chain volume 4 Best Practices

New Blog Entry by Samuel Tettner

Samuel Tettner is a Digital Natives Coordinator in CIS. He has written the following blog entry:

Cyber Fears: What scares Digital Natives and those around them

Accessibility

Estimates of the percentage of the world's population that is disabled vary considerably. But what is certain is that if we count functional disability, then a large proportion of the world's population is disabled in one way or another. At CIS we work to ensure that the digital technologies, which empower disabled people and provide them with independence, are allowed to do so in practice and by the law. To this end, we support web accessibility guidelines, and change in copyright laws that currently disempower the persons with disabilities.

Workshop organised in Hyderabad

Web Sites Accessibility Evaluation Methodologies: Conference Report

Openness

CIS believes that innovation and creativity should be fostered through openness and collaboration and is committed towards promotion of open standards, open access, and free/libre/open source software. Its latest endeavour has resulted into these:

Submission

Comments on Draft National Policy on ICT in School Education

New Blog Entry

Towards Open and Equitable Access to Research and Knowledge for Development [PLoS, March 29, 2011]

Internet Governance

Although there may not be one centralized authority that rules the Internet, the Internet does not just run by its own volition: for it to operate in a stable and reliable manner, there needs to be in place infrastructure, a functional domain name system, ways to curtail cyber crime across borders, etc. The Tunis Agenda of the second World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), paragraph 34 defined Internet governance as “the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet.” Its latest endeavour has resulted into these:

CIS is doing a project, ‘Privacy in Asia’. It is funded by Privacy International (PI), UK and the International Development Research Centre, Canada and is being administered in collaboration with the Society and Action Group, Gurgaon. The two-year project commenced on 24 March 2010 and will be completed as agreed to by the stakeholders. It was set up with the objective of raising awareness, sparking civil action and promoting democratic dialogue around challenges and violations of privacy in India. In furtherance of these goals it aims to draft and promote over-arching privacy legislation in India by drawing upon legal and academic resources and consultations with the public.

Featured Research

Interview

An Interview with Activist Shubha Chacko: Privacy and Sex workers

Workshops organized in Ahmedabad and Bangalore

'Privacy Matters', Ahmedabad: Conference Report [Ahmedabad Management Association, Ahmedabad, March 26, 2011]
Privacy, By Design [CIS, April 16, 2011]

New Blog Entries

Telecom

The growth in telecommunications in India has been impressive. While the potential for growth and returns exist, a range of issues need to be addressed for this potential to be realized. One aspect is more extensive rural coverage and the second aspect is a countrywide access to broadband which is low at about eight million subscriptions. Both require effective and efficient use of networks and resources, including spectrum. It is imperative to resolve these issues in the common interest of users and service providers. CIS campaigns to facilitate this:

Column

Shyam Ponappa is a Distinguished Fellow at CIS. He writes regularly on Telecom issues in the Business Standard and these articles are mirrored on the CIS website as well.

Learning from Fukushima [published in the Business Standard on April 7, 2011]

News & Media Coverage

The Gary Chapman International School on Digital Transformation[International School on Digital Transformation, July 17-22, 2011]
Iraqi delegation in Bangalore to study e-governance projects [Economic Times, April 20, 2011]
Dark waders [Time Out Bengaluru, Vol. 3, Issue 20, April 15 - 28, 2011]
Beyond Clicktivism [Outlook, April 18, 2011]
Gone in a flash [Times of India, April 16, 2011]
How Web 2.0 responded to Hazare [Hindu, April 11, 2011]
EU Commissioner Hedegaard to deliver keynote address at consumer world congress
Net cracker [Time Out Bengaluru Vol. 3 Issue 19, April 1 - 14, 2011]
On the Path to Global Open Access: A Few More Miles to Go [PLoS, March 2011, Volume 8, Issue 3]

Follow us elsewhere

Get short, timely messages from us on Twitter
Follow CIS on identi.ca
Join the CIS group on Facebook
Visit us at www.cis-india.org

CIS is grateful to Kusuma Trust which was founded by Anurag Dikshit and Soma Pujari, philanthropists of Indian origin, for its core funding and support for most of its projects.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/about/newsletters/april-2011-bulletin

Bright lights, geek city

praskrishna — 2011-05-01T02:41:34Z

Bangalore serves as my anchor because this is where the geek is, says Nishant Shah. The news was published in the Hindu on April 28, 2011.

I have spent the last couple of years on the fly, measuring life in cups of coffee consumed in transit at airports, working largely with young people in the Global South about their use of digital technologies for social change and political transformation.

It was interesting to live in non-localised time zones and out of suitcases, treating Bangalore as some sort of a laundermat where I largely came to get fresh clothes. But, in this year, as I spend more time in the city, I have started rediscovering the reason why I came to Bangalore eight years ago and decided to call it home.

I realise now, that despite my geographically distributed lifestyle, Bangalore serves as my anchor because this is where the Geek is! And I use the word ‘geek' not only to refer to the (largely male) technology population of the city, but to the people who, in their own quest for knowledge, have made a supportive, symbiotic and inclusive ecosystem of interventions, interests and interactions.

Over the years, many small and big spaces and organisations, collectives and meet-ups have made the city into a mashup that willingly or unwittingly, is a consequence of the digital technologies which are often held responsible for the ‘ruin and decline' of ‘good old Bangalore'.

Here are my three favourite such spaces: one, the experimental make-shift curatorial space Jagaa that ‘makes things happen' in the crowded topography of Shanthinagar. Over time, I have been a part of a bar-camp on digital archiving, audience to an electronic music remix concert, and learned about Dutch Colonial history at Jagaa, making it the official Geek Centre for those who want to be a part of things as they happen.

Two, the Blank Noise Project (BNP) that has now made substantial interventions in discourse on safety on our streets and gender. Using digital technologies and capital, BNP constantly involves young people in and outside the city to reclaim the public spaces through performances and writing.

Three, Kiran ‘Jace' Jonallagadda, who should be in a travel book for Geeks. Jace started the first bar-camps in Bangalore so that geeks of a feather could flock together. His technology-based, community-based venture called HasGeek is all set to become the only way of capturing the burgeoning tech interest and talent in the city.

I realise, as I write this, that this list of ‘Geeks' Up!' in Bangalore is almost exhaustive. I run through the fun, the excitement and the energy that digital and internet technologies have brought the city and I feel recharged. And I am glad that the Centre for Internet and Society, which I co-founded and work with, is in this city, with all these exciting people, just a click or a corner away.

Read the original news published in the Hindu here

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/geek-city

India Cracks Down on Internet Free Speech

praskrishna — 2011-05-23T09:57:32Z

Government officials quietly released new rules restricting content on the Internet. The country is now getting backlash from free speech advocates protesting the new regulations, according to media reports. This article by Erin Harrison was published by TechZone360.com on April 28, 2011.

"Critics of the new rules say the restrictions could severely curtail debate and discussion on the Internet, whose use has been growing fast in India," according to an April 27 New York Times report.

"The list of objectionable content is sweeping and includes anything that "threatens the unity, integrity, defense, security or sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign states or public order," the Times said.

The new rules, released by the Department of Information Technology on April 11, allow officials and private citizens to demand that Internet sites and service providers remove content they consider objectionable.

As the Times reported, Sunil Abraham, the executive director for the Center for Internet and Society, said India’s rules require Internet "intermediaries" — "an all-encompassing group that includes sites like YouTube and Facebook and companies that host Web sites or provide Internet connections — to respond to any demand to take down offensive content within 36 hours. The rules do not provide a way for content producers to defend their work or appeal a decision to take content down."

In addition to new content regulations, the government also issued regulations pertaining to data security, Internet cafes and the electronic provision of government services. As an example, part of the regulations stipulate that cyber cafes be registered with a unique registration number with an agency called as registration agency "as notified by the appropriate government in this regard."

Although fewer than 10 percent of Indians have access to the Internet, that number has been growing fast, the Times reported, especially on mobile devices, adding that there are more than 700 million cell phone accounts in India.

Read the original here

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/india-cracks-down

India's cyber cafes going porn-free

praskrishna — 2011-05-06T04:53:41Z

Pornography fans in India who like to indulge in the sexual eye candy at public cyber cafes may be in for a forced intervention as a new government ruling bans porn websites, requires cafe owners to keep a one-year log of all sites accessed by customers and forces customers to produce an ID card prior to use. This news was published on msnbc.com on April 28, 2011.

These new guidelines, which were released April 11, are getting a lot of pushback from privacy advocates in India, who cite the legality of watching porn in the country.

"Watching pornography is not illegal in India," Pawan Duggal, a lawyer who specializes in IT laws, told The Times of India."It's absurd to ask cyber cafe owners to tell their customers not to access pornographic material even as law allows individuals to access adult websites unless it's not child pornography. The new rules require a second look."

The "Information Technology (Guidelines for Cyber Cafe) Rules, 2011" imposed by the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (aka the Department of Information Technology) have several requirements, all of which have met with more questions and concerns over the impact on everyone who accesses the Internet through the cafes, not just porn watchers. Here are the notable issues that show some Big Brother tendencies:

Cyber cafe owners must register with an unnamed agency for licenses for their establishments.

Cyber cafe users must produce a legally valid form of identification prior to using a computer, such as school ID, passport, driver's license and voter ID card. Children without ID must be accompanied by an adult with acceptable identification documents.
If the cyber cafe user isn't able to produce legit ID, then they may be photographed through a webcam.
Refusal to produce identification or to be photographed will result in the user not being allowed to use a computer at the cyber cafe.
"All the computers in the cyber café shall be equipped with the safety/filtering software so as to the avoid access to the websites relating to pornography, obscenity, terrorism and other objectionable materials."
Webcam photos will be part of the log cyber cafe owners need to maintain for a minimum of one year, either in print or online. Cyber cafe owners will also be required to submit monthly reports to the Ministry's overseeing agency that give details about computer use, including: "History of websites accessed, logs of proxy server installed at the the cafe, mail server logs, logs of network devices such as routers, switches, systems etc. installed at the cyber cafe and logs of firewall or Intrusion Prevention/Detection systems, if installed."
Finally, the guidelines bring down barriers between users by disallowing partitions of more than 4.5 feet at computer stations. Children are not to be allowed to use the computers unsupervised.

Duggal told The Times that he thought these rules may very well force cafe owners out of business.

Non-profit watchdog Privacy India has these guidelines square in its sights, protesting: the redundancy of the licensing process (cyber cafes are already subject to registration and licensing), how the guidelines may make cafe owners vulnerable to liability for the actions of their users and blocking internet access to children from "poorer classes, (since they are most likely to routinely access internet through cyber cafes) and denies them the opportunity of developing their computer skills which are crucial for the growth of the “knowledge economy” that India is trying to head towards."

Naturally, privacy is the issue that most concerns the group, which would insist on a purge of the logs after "the minimum retention period." Here's what they have to say about kids and their right to privacy:

In addition, we believe that children are more susceptible to exploitation and consequently have a heightened privacy expectation which must be honoured. We recommend that the current sub-rule be deleted and replaced with a clause which specifically exempts children from proving their identity and forbids taking photographs of them under any circumstance.

And why adults need it, too:

There are many uses of the internet for which a user may legitimately require privacy: For instance, patients, including HIV patients and those with mental illness, may wish to obtain information about their condition. Similarly sexuality minorities may wish to seek support or reach out to a larger community. Enforcing the architecture stipulated in this rule would discourage their access to such vital information. In addition, this architecturewould make it easier for cyber crimes such as identity theft to take place since it would be easier to observe the login details of other users at the cyber café.

The group is also not a fan of all the info that cyber cafes will be sitting on. "We further believe that access to the history of websites and mail server logs is a serious invasion of a person’s privacy, and should be omitted from the back up logs."

As if all those new guidelines weren't already cramping the carefree surfing experience, cyber cafes will also be subject to periodic visits by police inspectors who will have the power to demand all logs and check for compliance.

Read the original here

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/cyber-cafes-porn-free

Global IP Convention, 2011

praskrishna — 2011-05-08T04:04:31Z

The Global IP Convention, 2011 is being held at the Lalit Ashok Hotel in Bangalore from 28 to 30 April 2011.

Institute of International Trade and Sughrue are the knowledge partners, Thomson Reuters, Licensing Executives Society India and Society of Indian Law Firms are the supporting organisers, and the sponsors include Bird & Bird, Finnegan, watermark, MOS AID, Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione, Philips, Kilburn & Strode, Lakshmi Kumaran & Sridharan, Questel, SCOPE, EVALUESERVE, STN, DoW, United Phosphorus Limited, Yahoo India, Indian Oil, DANIEL, Global IP Services, Jitendra Intellectual Property, Novel Patent Services Limited and resurgentindia. CIPA, iam, World Trademark Review, manupatra, Lex Witness and LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa are the media partners. The event is convened by Tata Consultancy Services and Intangible Business.

Speakers

Narendra K. Sabharwal, Former Deputy Director General [World Intellectual Property Organization]
Chid Iyer, Partner [Sughrue Mion PLLC, USA]
Michael R. Dzwonczyk, Partner [Sughrue Mion, PLLC, USA]
Jay Lytle, Partner [Sughrue Mion PLLC, USA]
Susan Pan, Partner [Sughrue Mion PLLC, USA]
Alban Kang, Managing Partner [ATMD Bird & Bird LLP, Singapore]
Anand K. Sharma , Partner [Finnegan, USA]
Dr. Raj Gupta, Partner [Finnegan, USA]
Richard Baddeley, Principal [Watermark, Australia]
Thayne Forbes, Joint Managing Director [Intangible Business, UK]
Ralph J. Gabric, Partner [Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione, USA]
Nicholas G. de la Torre, Partner [Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione, USA]
Manish Mehta, Partner [Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione, USA]
Rana Gosain, Senior Partner [Daniel Advogados, Brazil]
Nick Lee, Partner [Kilburn & Strode LLP, UK]
Ravi Srinivasan, Partner [JA Kemp & Co. UK]
Paul Teng, Partner [COOPER & DUNHAM LLP, USA]
Richard Liu, Regional IP Director, Asia Pacific [Yahoo!]
Pravin Anand, Managing Partner [Anand and Anand]
V Lakshmi Kumaran, Founder and Managing Partner [Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan]
N. L. Mitra, Senior Partner [FoxMandal Little]
Dr. Rahul Verma, Assistant Vice President [Evalueserve]
Deepak Maheshwari, Director - Corporate Affairs [Microsoft]
S K Murthy, Patent Counsel [Intel India]
Vinod Kumar, Sr. Director, Business Development *TBC [MOSAID Technologies Inc., Canada]
Terry Ludlow, Founder and CEO [Chipworks, Canada]
Benjamin C. Adams, Director - Legal and Intellectual Property [Nokia]
Alex Jamal, Director-Patent Licensing [Ericsson Group]
Dr. Pinaki Ghosh, Head IP [Infosys Technologies Ltd]
Dr. Viswanathan Seshan, Country Manager -IP&S India [Philips Electronics India Ltd.]
Chandra Bajagur, Head- IP [Shell Technology India Private Ltd]
Dr. Aravind Chinchure, Head-IP [Reliance Industries Ltd.]
Dr. Anindya Sircar, Head – IP [Infosys Technologies Ltd]
Dr. Arun Kumar Kashyap, Chief Research Manager – IPR [Indian Oil Corporation Ltd]
Anup Kacker, General Manager (IP) [Indian Oil Corporation Ltd]
T C James, Director [National Intellectual Property Organisation]
Dr. Samiran Mahapatra, Open Innovation Director- Asia [Hindustan Unilever Limited]
Dr. A.S. Narayan [Unilever Research Center]
Dinesh Jotwani, President, National Bar Association of India [National Bar Association of India]
Santanu Mukherjee, Lead IPR Attorney [Qualcomm India Pvt. Ltd.]
Neeraj Panchal, Senior Manager – IP [John Deere]
Murthy Kotra, General Manager, Technical Information Services [Dow Chemical International Pvt. Ltd.]
Arun Bhardwaj, Director – Business Development [Dell Global]
Dr. Raghunadh Vajjula, IP Analyst [GE India Technology Center]
Anubha Sharma, Senior Legal Counsel and Head-IP [Bharti Enterprises]
Dawn Jos, Patent Strategy Coordinator- Asia [Texas Instruments]
Dr. Pradeep V Desai, Principal Consultant [Tata Consultancy Services]
Faiz ur Rahman, Manager – IP [Wipro Technologies]
Ayan Roy Chowdhury, Senior Manager - Legal & IP [Sony Entertainment Television]
Stephen Mathias, Partner [Kochhar & Co]
Lokesh V, Founder and CEO [Innomantra Consulting]
Lakshminarayanan R, IPR Specialist [Nokia]
Prof. Dr.-Ing. Sigram Schindler, CEO [TELES AG Informationstechnologien, Germany]
Navneet K Bhushan, Founder Director [Crafitti Consulting Pvt Ltd]
Hasit Seth, Director [Coofluence]
Mohammad S. Rahman [Rahman LLC, USA]
Sunil Abraham, Executive Director [Centre for Internet and Society]
Dr. Vijay Soni, Executive Vice President-IP [Glenmark Generics Inc]
Dr. Balu Gupta, Vice President - Patent Estate [Dr. Reddy's Laboratories]
Dr. Rajiv Saha, General Manager, IP *TBC [Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd]
Gautam Bakshi, Head – Corporate Intellectual Property [PROMED Research Centre]
Dr. Swati Bal-Tembe, Vice President [Piramal Life Sciences Ltd]
Dr. Alpesh Pathak, Head- API Patent Cell [Alembic Research Center]
Ashwini Sandu , Senior GM- IPR [United Phosphorus Ltd]
Jayanthi M, Senior Executive – IPM [Intas Biopharmaceuticals Ltd]
Dinesh Pillai, CEO [Mahindra Special Services Group]

For more details, click here

Download the event brochure here [PDF, 1.09 MB]

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/notices/global-ip-convention

The Task of the Translator after Google

praskrishna — 2011-10-07T05:36:43Z

Hans Verghese Mathews, a distinguished fellow with the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) will give a public lecture on April 30, 2011.

The talk will consider again ― proceeding upon the increasing 'searchability' of literary corpora that the Web will presumably allow ― the special task assigned the translator by Walter Benjamin: which was the 'restitution' of 'originals' through the 'afterlives' given them by their 'traducings' into other languages. A reformulation of that task will be attempted: but the exercise will be conducted in an illustrative way, in the course of examining the approved translation into English of El Aleph, one of the more famous among the early ficciones of Borges.

Hans Varghese Mathews

Hans Varghese Mathews read philosophy as an undergraduate, at the University of Southern California, studying logic and aesthetics; and went on to obtain a doctorate in mathematics, from the University of Wisconsin, studying algebraic topology primarily, with mathematical logic and philosophy as subsidiary subjects. He has been a research associate with the Indian Statistical Institute, and has written extensively on visual art for Frontline; he currently directs mathematical modelling for an analytics firm, and is a contributing editor to the online journal Phalanx. He has an abiding interest in the formal understanding of painting and poetry; and a more recent and dominating interest in the mathematisation of the social sciences.

VIDEO

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/events/lecture-by-hans

Thousands queue for iPad 2 across Asia

praskrishna — 2011-05-23T07:10:28Z

The iPad 2 went on sale in countries across Asia and beyond Friday as Apple's updated gadget entered an ever more crowded market. This article written by Joyce Woo was published by AFP on April 28, 2011.

Apple's original iPad defined the tablet computer market and was swiftly followed by offerings from the tech industry's main players, from Samsung and Dell to BlackBerry maker RIM and Toshiba.

A late arrival to the tablet party was Sony, which only this week announced its own tablets a full year after the original iPad went on sale.

Now Apple is moving into round two of the battle of the tablets with a lighter, thinner, camera-equipped version of their original machine.

First in line in a queue of around 400 rain-soaked people outside an Apple store in Hong Kong was 16-year-old mainland Chinese student Dandy Weng, who travelled to the city from neighbouring Guangdong province for a device.

"I have waited for over 12 hours and haven't slept in 48 hours -- I'm very tired but excited," he told AFP. "I will be the first in China to have the iPad 2! I'm speechless, it's so exciting."

A queue snaked around the Apple shop in a major shopping centre, with some shoppers loading trolleys with as many as a dozen iPads, priced from HK$3,888 ($500) for the 16GB Wi-Fi only model to HK$6,488 for the 64 GB Wi-Fi and 3G model.

Those trying to buy an iPad 2 online via Apple's Hong Kong site, however, will have to wait a little longer -- all versions of the gadget were already out of stock before midday.

At an Apple authorised retail shop in Singapore, only 100 devices were available for sale and most official Apple retailers in Malaysia quickly sold out of the iPad 2.

"Each of our flagship stores had 600 devices each on sale and they ran out just like that," an official with a major Apple retail chain in Kuala Lumpur said.

Trade in "grey market" second generation iPads remained brisk in computer malls in the city such as Low Yat Plaza.

"We can charge more because there is a lot of demand and there is still not so much supply in Malaysia," seller Ang Chee Wei, 34, told AFP, adding that he had sold more than 20 of the devices so far.

"I bring in my iPad 2 from the US so I can still make some money until there are more iPads on the market."

Queues also formed outside retailers in the Philippine capital Manila.

John Quindo, 39, was first in line after standing patiently outside an Apple reseller for three hours.

"I'm excited because the Philippines is usually late (with Apple product releases)," he told AFP.

In India, over 150 outlets across the country opened their doors to Apple lovers seeking a new gadget, with the firm reporting a "phenomenal" initial response from customers.

Nishant Shah, director of research at the Centre for Internet and Society in the southern city of Bangalore, said he expected demand for the iPad 2 to be "huge", with Indian consumers increasingly brand-conscious.

Shilpa Malhotra was on the hunt for an iPad in Mumbai, but at an Apple outlet in the upmarket area of Breach Candy she was told that she could not buy one off the shelf immediately.

"I'm going to check to see if any other stores have got it in stock," she said, getting into a taxi.

The shop had taken orders and pre-payment for nearly 50 of the new iPads since Thursday, meaning dozens more customers wanting to buy the gadget on Friday were placed on a waiting list.

Anyone booking on Friday would get their device in 15 days' time, a store worker said.

In South Korea, 100 invited customers lined up from midnight at the central Seoul branch of KT, a local partner for iPhones and iPads.

The iPad 2 was also launched in Japan on Thursday after a month's delay caused by the devastating quake and tsunami.

A Wi-Fi only version of the gadget will be available in China on May 6.

It also hit stores Friday in Israel, Macau, South Africa, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates, after being first released in the United States on March 11.

The California tech firm sold 15 million iPads last year following the original device's launch in April, generating $10 billion in revenue.

Read the original here [Hosted by Google]

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/ipad-2-across-asia

New internet rules open to arbitrary interpretation

praskrishna — 2011-05-06T04:58:57Z

Six years after an e-commerce CEO's arrest for a pornographic CD sold from his website, the government has introduced a liability on intermediaries such as Facebook and Google to "act within 36 hours" of receiving information about offensive content. This article by Manoj Mitta & Javed Anwer was published in the Times of India on April 27, 2011.

Under the rules notified on April 11 under the Information Technology Act, the intermediaries are required to work with the internet user "to disable such information that is in contravention" of the prescribed restrictions. While most of the restrictions in the rules are based on the criminal law (stuff that is blasphemous, obscene, defamatory, paedophilic, etc), some are so loosely worded that they could easily be misused against netizens accustomed to speaking their mind freely, whether on politics or otherwise.

One glaring example of an ill-thought-out provision is the prohibition on saying something that is "insulting any other nation". Since this expression has been mentioned without any qualifications, it could be invoked against anybody who talks disparagingly about other countries.

Apart from encroaching on free speech, the subjective notion of insulting a nation â€” as opposed to valid criticism â€” opens scope for arbitrariness and politically motivated interpretation. The authorities may not, for instance, take action against any content that is bashing Pakistan but may be touchy about similar attacks on the US.

Since such violations and the remedial action taken on them could become a subject of police probe, the rules state that "the intermediary shall preserve such information and associated records for at least 90 days for investigation purposes".

Given their legal repercussions, activists termed the new rules "draconian". Pranesh Prakash of Centre of Internet and Society alleged, "The rules seek to expand government's reach to control content on the internet. This is neither reasonable nor constitutional as the rules undermine the free speech guaranteed by the Constitution."

The intermediaries are also required to appoint a grievance officer and publish his contact details as well as the mechanism by which "users or any victim who suffers" can notify their complaints. The grievance officer is required to redress the complaints within one month of the receipt of the complaint.

Industry sources hold that the 36-hour deadline imposed on the intermediaries to take action on complaints would unduly affect their freedom as service providers in the Indian jurisdiction. A Google spokesperson told TOI that the proposed guidelines could be "particularly damaging to the abilities of Indians who are increasingly using the internet in order to communicate, and the many businesses that depend upon online collaboration to prosper."

Read the original article published by the Times of India here

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/internet-rules-arbitary-interpretation

Centre for Internet and Society

Centre for the Study of Culture and Society, Bangalore seeks Programme Associate

Consumers International World Congress - Day 3 roundup

Other highlights:

Interviews

You can also watch:

Digerati See Censorship in New Web Rules

Free expression

Discussion on 'Press Freedom in the Era of Social Media'

Privacy By Design — Conference Report

Introduction

Database architecture and privacy

Security vs. Privacy

The right to be forgotten and regulation of data

Data types and privacy

Changes in the relationship between the state and the citizen

Questions of ownership

Perceptions and expectations of privacy

Conclusion

India curbs on Bloggers and Internet

April 2011 Bulletin

Researchers@Work

Workshops organised in Bangalore

Digital Natives with a Cause?

Columns on Digital Natives

Digital Natives Newsletter

New Blog Entry by Samuel Tettner

Accessibility

Workshop organised in Hyderabad

Openness

Submission

New Blog Entry

Internet Governance

Featured

New Blog Entries

Study Tour

Featured Research

Interview

Workshops organized in Ahmedabad and Bangalore

New Blog Entries

Telecom

Column

News & Media Coverage

Follow us elsewhere

Bright lights, geek city

India Cracks Down on Internet Free Speech

India's cyber cafes going porn-free

Global IP Convention, 2011

Speakers

The Task of the Translator after Google

Hans Varghese Mathews

Thousands queue for iPad 2 across Asia

New internet rules open to arbitrary interpretation