Centre for Internet and Society

Porn. Panic. Ban: A Conversation on Sexual Expression, Pornography, Sexual Exploitation, Consent

praskrishna — 2015-11-29T07:36:58Z

Point of View and the Internet Democracy Project organized a conference to hold and facilitate an informed conversation on sexual expression, pornography, sexual exploitation and consent. Rohini Lakshané was a speaker. Tanveer Hasan also attended this conference held in New Delhi from October 28 to 30, 2015.

The conference was a first attempt to have an in-depth civil society conversation - among activists, lawyers, researchers working on either gender, sexuality or internet rights, or at their intersections. For more information on the event visit the Internet & Democracy website. Rohini presented her research on online amateur pornography and consent.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/porn-panic-ban-a-conversation-on-sexual-expression-pornography-sexual-exploitation-consent

One Thousand Books Online

praskrishna — 2015-12-15T08:16:39Z

The article was published in the Maharashtra Times on October 30, 2015. Download the file here.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/news/one-thousand-books-online

JP Das's Books to be Made Available Free on Wikipedia

praskrishna — 2015-12-15T08:18:51Z

Noted Odia-language author and art historian Jagannath Prasad Das's works will be available on Wikipedia for free.

A scanned version of the article published on October 16, 2015 is below:

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/news/jp-dass-books-to-be-made-available-free-on-wikipedia

We've come a long, long way together: building coalitions around the right to privacy

praskrishna — 2015-10-29T01:30:50Z

Our worldwide coalition against surveillance is expanding, reaching organisations across all continents and silos.

This article by Matthew Rice was published as part of an openDemocracy editorial partnership with the World Forum for Democracy. Centre for Internet and Society was mentioned.

In the wider civil society space, the opportunities for travel come thick and fast. From the multi-stakeholder perspective, the Internet Governance Forum will be held during November in João Pessoa, Brazil. There is the Stockholm Internet Forum in, naturally, Stockholm. In freedom of expression there is the International Freedom of Expression Exchange Strategy Conference in Trinidad & Tobago, while End Violence Against Women International's conference will be held in Washington in March 2016. What doesn't happen often is an opportunity for these weary travellers to meet in one place and discuss their backgrounds, their similarities, their differences. This is what excites me about the upcoming World Forum for Democracy, which will be organised by the Council of Europe in Strasbourg on 18-20 November 2015. It will be an occasion to meet new people, to bring more minds to think about how surveillance affects their work as well as them as individuals within our and their society, and to discover what the right to privacy means to them.

Building coalitions working on surveillance has reached a new stage. We now have a strong international network of organisations from diverse countries already representing an impressive array of stakeholders across disciplines. That took time and effort to build. The next phase is to push even further the diversity in background and discipline of organisations engaged in these debates as we advocate for the protection of the right to privacy as a fundamental human right.

NSA/GCHQ who?

While the focus of privacy and surveillance in the media has been on the deeply important Edward Snowden revelations, building a global network has provided an opportunity to move away from the simplified nexus of NSA and GCHQ. Casting an eye around the world we see organisations making gains in elevating their national discourse around privacy and pushing governments to make changes. In Pakistan, a successful challenge against the dangerously bad Prevention of Electronic Crime Bill because of its lack of inclusion of civil society in the debate led to the postponement of the bill and a consultation with the previously frozen out groups. Alongside this, exposing Pakistan's Inter-Security Intelligence agency's proposal for a mass surveillance system helped to drive national debate on what is a proportionate interference with the right to privacy, which involved local groups such as the Digital Rights Foundation, Bytes 4 All and Bolo Bhi.

In Colombia, the release of two investigative reports into the shadowy world of intelligence agencies has provided organisations in the country with the opportunity to question their own representatives about their knowledge of surveillance capabilities. A meeting of the intelligence commission, the committee that oversees the work of Colombian intelligence agencies, in early October was too coincidental to not have been influenced by the work of organisations like the Karisma Foundation in beginning discussions with lawmakers directly and delivering the reports to the relevant stakeholders.

Only five years ago, these stories of civil society stirring debates on privacy and national security wouldn't have been possible.

It has taken years for this global network to form. Privacy International began the conversation through work in Asia in mid-2008. This is often referred to as the first time that the right to privacy had been discussed with organisations in the region, such as the Centre for Internet and Society in India, or the Foundation for Media Alternatives in the Philippines. Those first conversations have come a long way, as shown by the development of initiatives like the International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance, which has been signed by 420 organisations from around the world, as well as the expansion of Privacy International across continents from Latin America to Africa and Asia.

Discovering new allies

Establishing this global network required the identification of an ideal type of partnering organisation. It was to be either engaged in research or activism, with a focus on policy relating to modern forms of communication like the internet. An interest in law, the state, and the effect of the private sector helped too. Now, this ideal type is being rewritten, expanded with new characteristics.

Coalition development is in a new phase. Groups outside of the field of internet governance and 'digital rights' are now becoming involved in the debate about privacy and surveillance. In Britain, the role of organisations focused on victim support and child protection are starting to taking an active role in the discussions about the forthcoming Investigatory Powers Bill, which will spell out the powers of the security services to conduct surveillance and associated safeguards. Other civil society actors will be represented in the coalition Don't Spy On Us, which includes organisations such as Privacy International, Open Rights Group, Liberty, Big Brother Watch, Article 19 and English PEN, and which has helped to expand the base of participants in the discussions.

Journalist groups have been growing in their presence also. Press Gazette's Save Our Sources campaign focused on the protection of the anonymity of sources after the unlawful use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act to identify the source of a story from The Sun. The National Union of Journalists has also been running a campaign on these issues for over a year.

The global network has continued to expand its address book too. In Chile, Derechos Digitales has been reaching out to indigenous communities threatened with displacement from their land to discuss the effect surveillance has had on their work. Meanwhile, in South Africa, the Right 2 Know Campaign published a series of case studies on the harassment of various activists, community leaders, think tanks and local unions by intelligence agencies.

These past few years have shown groups from different professional backgrounds and operating at different scales, either nationally or internationally, have become more engaged in the topic of surveillance. This is both a natural and a necessary development. As our lives are increasingly dependent upon the use of technology to communicate, and the devices we carry broadcast information about us even when we are not using them, the discussion on privacy and surveillance needs to reach all areas of society.

The idea to be presented at the World Forum for Democracy is built on the back of this international movement. Currently, national jurisdictions around the world make a distinction between the communications of a national and those of a non-national, and afford them with different human rights protection. In our increasingly interconnected world, this distinction is a big hurdle to the realisation of a meaningful right to privacy, without discrimination. By introducing a right to privacy through interference based jurisdiction – where states owe a negative obligation not to interfere with a person’s communication – our right to privacy will travel with the communications we send.

The success of this idea requires a worldwide, international movement with diverse voices, who will work towards this change using the skills and experiences acquired in their own work, whether that is through strategic litigation, policy development or community organising. All skills and approaches have a role to play in realising the right to privacy across the world.

As I look at the programme for the World Forum for Democracy, and at the different Labs to be held, I see an opportunity to continue to expand this coalition, as well as to learn from other groups’ experiences of building similar movements. Labs organised by interfaith, intercultural, or anti-hate groups bring together people that Privacy International would not normally cross paths with. Meeting new ideas and perspectives on how to achieve change – this is where creativity sparks.

The past few years have exposed Privacy International’s area of work to different cultures, different contexts and different challenges. It has been for the better. The participation of PI, along with some of its partners, in the World Forum for Democracy appears set to carry on this trend.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/open-democracy-matthew-rice-

Net advocacy body probing linkages between telcos and Facebook’s auto-play video option

praskrishna — 2015-10-29T00:53:55Z

Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), India’s leading internet advocacy body, which has often been critical of Facebook’s Internet.org — now called Free Basics — initiative, has said that it is looking into the possibility of Facebook helping telecom companies through its auto-play video option.

The article by Prabhu Mallikarjunan was published in the Financial Express on October 28, 2015. Sunil Abraham gave inputs.

In an interaction with FE on Tuesday, Sunil Abraham, executive director of The Centre for Internet and Society, said CIS will inititiate research on the notion that the new video option will result in 50% increase in data billing for the telecom companies. It will also look into whether this, in turn, will encourage the telecom companies to be on the Internet.org platform.

This initiative from CIS comes on the eve of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg’s visit to India on Wednesday, where he will address a gathering at IIT, Delhi. Facebook has been trying to hard sell the Free Basics concept at a time when the Indian government is looking to work closely with the internet major to push the Digital India initiative. “The company (Facebook) has done some good things, and also done some not so good things. The good thing is that, they have changed the name of the application and called it Free Basics. Also, they have re-enabled https and have published “the technical requirements document, through which they have eliminated the exclusivity arm both on the telco end and for OTT (Over the top) players,” Abraham said.

“How does FB gain from making the videos autoplay. It doesn’t gain. Why should the telcos be made happy? We are looking into this theory of whether auto-play video option will result in 50% increase in data billing for the telecom companies,” Abraham said.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/financial-express-prabhu-mallikarjunan-october-28-2015-net-advocacy-body-probing-linkages-between-telcos-and-facebooks-auto-play-video-option

International Workshop on the Impact of the TRIPS Agreement on key sectors and its continuing relevance in the context of Regional and Bilateral Trading Agreements

praskrishna — 2015-10-28T02:57:33Z

On the occasion of 20 years of TRIPS Agreement, Centre for WTO Studies and Indian Institute of Foreign Trade is holding a workshop at Naland, Indian Institute of Foreign Trade, New Delhi on October 26 and 27, 2015. Pranesh Prakash is a speaker in the concluding session.

26^th October 2015 (Monday)
1000-1030 hrs	Registration
1030-1100 hrs 1030-1035hrs 1035-1045 hrs 1045-1055 hrs 1055-1100 hrs	Inaugural Session Welcome Remarks by Prof. Abhijit Das, Professor & Head, Centre for WTO Studies, Indian Institute of Foreign Trade Remarks by Dr. V. Bhaskar, Former Special Chief Secretary Government of Andhra Pradesh and Joint Secretary Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Government of India Inaugural Address by Shri Rajeev Kher, Former Commerce Secretary* Vote of Thanks by Ms Chandni Raina, Professor, Centre for WTO Studies, Indian Institute of Foreign Trade
1100-1130 hrs Tea
1130-1330 hrs	Session 1 Implementation of the TRIPS Agreement by developing countries and the growth of the Regional and Bilateral Trading Agreement The TRIPS Agreement placed on the developing countries onerous commitments with respect to protection of IPRs leading to a complete overhaul of their legislations. In the process more than half of the LDCs implemented their obligations under TRIPS even before the timelines set for them for compliance. Many developing countries have moved beyond TRIPS in their legal regimes. At the same time, further tightening of the regime as part of the FTA commitments is also a concern. The session discusses the manner in which countries met their commitments under TRIPS and the pulls and pressure that led to the TRIPS plus positions adopted by many. The plethora of FTAs and BITs has set additional commitments. The lessons learnt from recent arbitration proceeding and the positions adopted by countries such as South Africa, Indonesia, Thailand and India need to be examined. In the context of increasing pressure to harmonize enforcement standards, the reasonableness of this given the differing domestic priorities and developmental goals also needs to be studied. Questions for discussion: What were the pulls and pressures faced by the developing countries as they sought to comply with the TRIPS Agreement? Have the developing countries largely accepted TRIPS Plus commitments in their IPR regimes including on crucial issues such as public health and enforcement? What are the areas in which the FTA and RTAs are further enhancing protection? Are the developed countries seeking commitments that are even beyond the protection provided in their own jurisdiction? What are the various mechanisms of influence exercised by the developed countries? Chair: Shri Jayant Dasgupta, Former Permanent Representative of India to the WTO Speakers: Prof. Peter Drahos, Australian National University Prof Carlos Correa, University of Buenos Aries Prof Frederick Abbott, Florida State University Shri R. Saha, Senior Advisor, Confederation of Indian Industry Shri KM Gopa Kumar, Third World Network
1330-1430 hrs	Lunch
1430-1630 hrs	Session 2 IP and Economic Development The reasonableness of high level IPR protection is often explained in the context of the beneficent impact it has on economic growth and development. The session will examine the strength, if any, of this correlation. Is the level of IP protection alone responsible for higher growth? What are the preconditions if any and empirical evidence on the level of development when this correlation really sets in? An important factor in development is the ability of countries to access technology and knowhow. What has been the experience of the developing countries in getting new technology? The session will discuss cross country studies with a view to gain clarity on this issue. Questions for discussion: Most developed countries have benefitted from fairly lax IPR regime, but the argument being given now for a high level of IPR protection is the beneficent impact it is likely to have on economic growth. Are the developed countries seeking to ‘kick away the ladder’ with which they climbed up to the top? Or is there a basis for the argument extended by them? What is the empirical evidence of the correlation of enhanced IPR protection on economic growth and development of a country? How important is IPR as a factor in economic growth? What is the evidence on the extent of technology transfer from the developed to the developing countries in the past two decade? Chair: Shri Sudhansh Pant, Joint Secretary, Department of Pharmaceuticals, Government of India Speakers: Prof. Peter Drahos, Australian National University Prof Sunil Mani, Centre for Development Studies, Thiruvananthapuram Prof Sunil Kanwar, Delhi School of Economics, Delhi University Mr Bobby Bedi, Film Producer and Director, Chairman, FICCI committee on Film and Industry
1630-1700 hrs	Tea

27^th October 2015 (Tuesday)
0945-1300 hrs	Session 3 TRIPS and Public Health Pharmaceutical and biotech sectors had the maximum divergence in IP protection regimes across countries prior to the TRIPS Agreement. The TRIPS Agreement was therefore a watershed for these sectors. However the flexibilities and subsequently the Doha declaration on TRIPS and Public Health have allowed countries to model the laws taking into account their developmental and societal objectives. Questions for discussion: Pharmaceuticals and the biotech sectors were possibly the most impacted by the TRIPS Agreement. However, the flexibilities allowed countries to take into account their public health concerns while formulating the Patent regimes. How did the Agreement impact access to medicines? Does this remain an unfinished agenda for the developed countries? What would be the areas where further action could be seen? Chair: Justice (retd.) Prabha Sridevan, Former Chairperson of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board Speakers: Mr D.G Shah, Secretary General, Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance Mr. Bhaskar Bhattacharya, Partner, Corporate Law Group Ms Leena Menghaney, ‎Access Campaign India Co-ordinator at Médecins Sans Frontières Prof Frederick Abbott, Florida State University Mr Anand Grover, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India* Prof Sudip Chaudhuri, Indian Institute of Management, Kolkata
1300-1400 hrs	Lunch
1400-1530 hrs	Concluding Session Shape of things to come The twenty years since the TRIPS Agreement came into existence, saw widespread changes in the legislative framework of most developing countries. While they grappled with fulfilling the obligations of the Agreement, the developed world has looked towards further strengthening these norms. The FTA/RTA’s with their tighter IPR chapters are but an outcome of this exercise. *Questions for discussion:* With FTAs/RTAs a norm, where are we headed? Will TRIPS lose its relevance? Or will the TRIPS be renegotiated? What are the new issues that will figure prominently in any prospective negotiations? What are the likely implications? Chair: Dr. V. Bhaskar, Former Special Chief Secretary Government of Andhra Pradesh and Joint Secretary Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Government of India Speakers: Prof Frederick Abbott, Florida State University Mr Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director, Centre for Internet Society Ms. R V Anuradha, Partner, Clarus Law Associates Ms Sanya Reid Smith, Legal Adviser, Third World Network
1530-1600	Tea

*- tbc

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/news/international-workshop-on-the-impact-of-the-trips-agreement-on-key-sectors-and-its-continuing-relevance-in-the-context-of-regional-and-bilateral-trading-agreements

Open Access Week Round-Up

praskrishna — 2015-12-15T08:21:01Z

Here is a round-up of events held at the University of Otago over Open Access Week. Subhashish Panigrahi made a presentation for the staff members of libraries across New Zealand. The event was organised by the University of Otago.

From 3-4pm Subhashish Panigrahi [@subhapa], based in Bangalore, described the concept of How to do Guerrilla GLAM. Given the emergence of Wikipedian in Residence projects overseas and at particular institutions in NZ (see a recent panel at NDF 2015), we were intrigued by what he had to say.

It was an interesting session which generated much discussion. For those of us in NZ where we are fortunate to have institutions where there is a relatively high rate of access to collections – I’m thinking even at the library catalogue level – the thought that guerrilla activity may be necessary to surface collection items without the intervention of institution staffers may be surprising and possibly confronting! Subhashish did stress this guerrilla activity in no way violates copyright or licencing agreements, but seeks to make cultural items in GLAMs openly available to the public, where possible by partnering with institutions. The fact that many institutions do not have the resources to digitize cultural items, he posits, leaves the door open for guerrilla activity by skilled volunteers.

One participant in the session succinctly described Guerrilla GLAM as being self-authorizing activity vs institutional authorizing activity. I understand this to mean that rather than institutions engaging their own staff or volunteers, or crowd sourcing new volunteers to digitise their content, the Guerilla GLAMers come to them. There may well be communities in NZ or small GLAMs that have no digital record of their collections. Communities and institutions in this situation may well find it helpful to engage some interested Guerrilla GLAMers to help them out.

The webinar links and chat are available here connect.otago.ac.nz/p4j21g554ny/
The slides are also available separately here http://slides.com/psubhashish/how-to-do-guerrilla-glam/fullscreen#/

Click to read the blog post published by the University of Otago.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/news/open-otago-october-27-2015-open-access-week-round-up

Encryption and Anonymity: Rights and Risks

praskrishna — 2015-10-27T02:37:45Z

Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2015 will be held at Jao Pessoa in Brazil from November 10 to 13, 2015. The theme of IGF 2015 is Evolution of Internet Governance: Empowering Sustainable Development. ARTICLE 19 and Privacy International are organizing a workshop on Encryption and Anonymity on November 12, 2015. Pranesh Prakash is a speaker.

This was published on the IGF website.

Encryption and anonymity are two key aspects of the right to privacy and free expression online. From real-name registration in Iran to the UK Prime Minister's calls for Internet backdoors to encrypted communications, however, the protection of encrypted and anonymous speech is increasingly under threat. Recognising these challenges, the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression, David Kaye, presented a report to the Human Rights Council in June 2015 which highlighted the need for greater protection of encryption and anonymity.

Five months on from the Special Rapporteur’s report, the participants in this roundtable will discuss his recommendations and the latest challenges to the protection of anonymity and encryption. For example, how can law enforcement demands be met while ensuring that individuals still enjoy strong encryption and unfettered access to anonymity tools? What steps should governments, civil society, individuals and the private sector take to avoid the legal and technological fragmentation of a tool now vital to expression and communication? How can individuals protect themselves from mass surveillance in the digital age?

At the end of the session, the participants should have identified areas for future advocacy both at the international and domestic levels as well as areas for further research for the protection of anonymity and encryption on the Internet.

Agenda

Moderator welcomes speakers and audience.
Outline of key issues on encryption and anonymity, including summary of the UN Special Rapporteur's report.
Each speaker speaks for 5-7 mins, giving their perspective re the issues.
Questions from participants, including remote participation via Twitter.
Conclusion and steps for further action.

About IGF 2015

Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is a multistakeholder, democratic and transparent forum which facilitates discussions on public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance. IGF provides enabling platform for discussions among all stakeholders in the Internet governance ecosystem, including all entities accredited by the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), as well as other institutions and individuals with proven expertise and experience in all matters related to Internet governance.

After consulting the wider Internet community and discussing the overarching theme of the 2015 IGF meeting, the Multistakeholder Advisory Group decided to retain the title “Evolution of Internet Governance: Empowering Sustainable Development”. This theme will be supported by eight sub-themes that will frame the discussions at the João Pessoa meeting.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/encryption-and-anonymity-rights-and-risks

The Social Role of the Communications and the Strengthening of the Freedom of Expression Panel - "Cultural Diversity and Freedom of Expression"

praskrishna — 2015-10-27T01:48:04Z

Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2015 will be held at Jao Pessoa in Brazil from November 10 to 13, 2015. The theme of IGF 2015 is Evolution of Internet Governance: Empowering Sustainable Development. The Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Communications of Brazil is organizing a panel on Cultural Diversity and Freedom of Expression on November 9, 2015, from 6.30 p.m. to 8.30 p.m., in the Sala de Concerto Maestro Jose Siqueria, located in the city of Jao Pessoa, Brazil. Sunil Abraham will be a panelist.

The experience of Internet as a global network has generated paradoxes in relation to the nationally established values and those practiced by companies providers of applications. In general, the challenge lies in fundamental civil rights balance such as freedom of expression and the personality's rights.

Although the 2005 UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions enables the countries to adopt national policies directed to the protection of their cultural diversity, terms of use and codes of conduct are globally uniform and establish common rules to users around the world, which may affect cultural diversity.

In order to address these issues the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Communications, Brazil are organizing this event at IGF 2015.

About IGF 2015

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-social-role-of-the-communications-and-the-strengthening-of-the-freedom-of-expression-panel-cultural-diversity-and-freedom-of-expression

The rise and rise of slacktivism

praskrishna — 2015-10-25T14:49:58Z

Can we change the world with the click of a mouse? Or is it just another feel-good phenomenon? The writer explores the growing penchant for online petitions and desktop activism.

The article by Divya Gandhi was published in the Hindu on October 3, 2015. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

“I am a female journalist and Kumudam’s history of objectifying and judging women sickens me,” writes reporter Kavitha Muralidharan in a no-holds-barred petition on change.org. Tamil magazine Kumudam, which last week published pictures of women in leggings describing them as “vulgar”, must apologise, she said. The apology didn’t come, but on last count the letter to Kumudam’s editor had galvanised over 20,000 signatures and, at least in part, the petition’s aim — to flag sexism in the media — had been met.

Online activism forums such as change.org, jhatkaa.org, avaaz.org or bitgiving.com have turned the Net into a vibrant space for debate, influencing public opinion and, to varying degrees, catalysing change.

Slacktivism — if we must call it that — has existed a while and cannot be dismissed, says Policy Director at the Centre for Internet and Society, Pranesh Prakash. “We can’t underestimate the power of the collective, the power of the word in influencing public opinion and policy.”

Take, for instance, the three-minute ‘Kodaikanal Won’t’ video promoted by Jhatkaa where artist Sofia Ashraf raps about Unilever’s flouting of environmental and safety norms at its thermometer unit in Kodaikanal. The video was watched over 3,00,000 times in its first 48 hours, and a parallel online petition, which asks the company to clean up its “toxic mess” got 91,054 signatures.

No, Unilever has not formally committed to ‘clean up its mess’ yet but what the campaign did was to create public pressure on the company to engage with the mainstream media, says Nityanand Jayaram, an environmental activist who has worked on the Kodaikanal case since 2001. “We had 14 years of invisible hard work behind us. That shroud of invisibility was removed with one social media campaign.”

“Most petitions I can think of have been accompanied by actions on the ground as well,” says Kavita Krishnan, Secretary, All India Progressive Women’s Association. “For instance, if an online petition that says arrest those threatening John Dayal gets 6,000 signatures in 48 hours, these are 6,000 people across the country. I cannot collect them on a Delhi street within 48 hours. It is not that these people would not join a demonstration if they could, but there is no real difference between their having attended a demonstration and their having signed that petition. There are other issues for which you need sustained action or quiet, behind-the-scenes work, but in terms of protests, I think online petitions are very effective.”

How do the views and shares and signatures turn into yardsticks to measure the success of a campaign? In the case of BitGiving, virality translates into crowdfunding. Among its success stories, it counts a campaign to help send India’s ice hockey team, which got no government support, to the Ice Hockey Championship Cup of Asia this year. The campaign came alive on social media, was highlighted in mainstream media, captured the interest of several high-profile funders, and managed to raise more money than the team needed for training, accommodation, airfare and equipment. Jhatkaa measures its campaigns by various criteria, says Deepa Gupta, Executive Director. “We track outcome, the number of people impacted… and we track media coverage.”

A quick scroll down some of these sites reflects the staggering range of subjects that has captured the urban imagination — from OROP to hyper-local issues (garbage in Bengaluru) or animal rights (the culling of stray dogs in Kerala). Just this past week on change.org, “#Khans4Kisaans” shouted out to Shah Rukh, Salman and Aamir to “help the farmers dying in Bollywood’s backyard”; another called for the declassification of Netaji-related files; and a third protested the ban on beef.

So are these forums then turning the apathetic urbanite into a political animal, someone who takes a stance? “Yes and no,” says Prakash. “It really is about how much people get involved in the issue. Often we have citizen groups that form around issues offline, and we have seen very real action on the ground, say, cleaning a lake or even getting a road repaired.”

Gupta says that Jhatkaa’s baseline assumption is not that Indians are apolitical, but that there aren’t enough meaningful ways for them to participate in our democracy outside of elections. “As individuals who aren’t issue experts, many citizens feel powerless when it comes to affecting change on the issues that they care most about.”

She was perplexed, she says, at how difficult it can be for citizens to meaningfully engage with government institutions or corporations in a way that they are heard. “I knew the only way to build a nation-wide constituency of citizens who could take collective action would be if we mobilised people with the help of modern communications and social media.”

Ghousiya Sultana, a PhD student, agrees. She has signed several online petitions and believes that she is, in some small way, making a difference. “I want to feel like I fought a good fight.” On the other hand, corporate executive Anant Kumar says he doesn’t believe in this trend. He is concerned about transparency, how his donation might be used or misused, and he does not see how a letter with a few thousand signatures can have much of a bearing on issues.

But, as Krishnan says, “An online petition doesn’t work like an on-off switch that resolves an issue immediately. It is about whether you successfully shamed them in public. It is about sparking a dialogue.”

With inputs from Zara Khan

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hindu-october-3-2015-divya-gandhi-the-rise-and-rise-of-slacktivism

CIS Participation at ICANN 54

praskrishna — 2016-01-18T12:47:19Z

Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), India participated in the 54th meeting of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) held at the Convention Center in Dublin from 17 October 2015 to 22 October 2015. Pranesh Prakash, Jyoti Panday and Padmini Baruah attended the meeting.

CIS representation was possible at the meeting due to the generous support of MacArthur grant, NCUC ICANN Travel Grant and financial support from the National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI). The issue-wise detail of CIS engagement is set out below.

At the Public Forum, Jyoti Panday asked the ICANN Board to clarify its role and the role of the community in the development of the proposal with Verisign on its role as the Root Zone Maintainer. ICANN CEO confirmed what many feared, that there will be no community involvement on this proposal as ICANN's relationship with Verisign is an "implementation" detail. He added the assurance that post transition, on the decision of renewal of the contract and whether it will be awarded to Verisign, ICANN will seek inputs from the community. Jyoti's statement is replicated below:

"I want to ask the Board why when asked by the NTIA to develop a draft proposal for the with Verisign on its Root Zone Maintainer role, did you not pass on that mandate to the community, to the CWG which already exists, and ask the community to draft out the proposal with VeriSign? Will the ICANN Board seek public comments on the final proposal before it is approved? After all, ICANN cannot claim that it is an inverted pyramid where all decisions start from the community and flow up to the Board when on a crucial issue like this, the ICANN Board and staff have not taken the community in confidence nor invited its participation."

Padmini Baruah reiterated CIS message at the Public Forum on the lack of diversity observed through the transition and presented new data. Padmini's statement is replicated below:
Today, more than 50% of Internet users are in the Asia-Pacific region, and less than 10% are in North America. Yet, when one studies diversity within the ICANN community and in ICANN processes, one finds that diversity is sorely lacking, and it is dominated by people from the United States of America. Take the IANA transition, for instance. CIS studied participant data from ICANN, NRO, and IETF's lists related to the IANA transition. Of the substantive contributors, of which there were 98, we found:
* 1 in 4 (39 of 98) were from a single country: the United States of America.
* 4 in 5 (77 of 98) were from countries which are part of the WEOG grouping, which only has developed countries.
* None were from readily identifiable as being based in Eastern European and Russia, and only 5 of 98 from all of Latin American and the Caribbean.
* 4 in 5 (77 of 98) were male and 21 were female.
* 4 in 5 (76 of 98) were from industry or the technical community, and only 4 (or 1 in 25) were identifiable as primarily speaking on behalf of governments.
It would be a travesty of language to call this the "global multistakeholder community".
Further this problem is pervasive in the ICANN community:
* 66% (34 of 51) of the Business Constituency at ICANN, as per their own data, are from a single country: the United States of America.
* 3 in 5 registrars are from the United States of America (624 out of 1010, as of March 2014, according to ICANN's accredited registrars list), with only 0.6% being from the 54 countries in Africa (7 out of 1010).
* 45% of all the registries are from the United States of America! (307 out of 672 registries listed in ICANN’s registry directory in August 2015.)
Please take this as your top priority, since ICANN's legitimacy depends on being able to call itself globally representative.

CIS attended also raised a series of concerns at the following sessions:

Enhancing ICANN Accountability Open Engagement: CIS intervened with its stance on jurisdiction and their enforcement models, and our concerns about transparency.
GAC sessions
NCSG meeting
IANA Transition Stewardship Transition Engagement Session
CCWG Accountability Working Session
Illicit Internet Pharmacies
NCUC Meeting+engagement with Larry Strickling: Jyoti Panday asked about the dual role of Verisign as a Root zone maintainer and TLD operator. Padmini Baruah asked him about jurisdiction. He said the US Congress will not support a shift in ICANN's jurisdiction.
NCSG/gNSO (CIS work on DIDP got public mention)
Contractual Compliance Programme Update
CWG Stewardship working session
Role of Voluntary Practices in Combating Abuse and Illegal Activity
Joint meeting of the ICANN Board and NCSG

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/icann-54

CIS Participated in T20 Mumbai, Regional Consultation Meeting, October 19, 2015

praskrishna — 2015-10-20T13:54:39Z

This is the first time that a T20 event, which is a series of preparatory meetings towards G20 summits, is taking place in India. Sumandro Chattapadhyay represented CIS in this consultation, and was a discussant in the session on Technology, Services, and Skills.

"On 19 October 2015, over 50 experts from foreign and Indian think tanks, business leaders from India, and government representatives from the G20 countries will gather at Gateway House in Mumbai to discuss issues of global economic governance and foreign economic policy at India’s first Think20 (T20) meeting. The keynote address for the meeting, “Global Economy and Challenges for Multilateral Policies” will be delivered by Dr. Raghuram Rajan, Governor, Reserve Bank of India. This is a Think-20 (T20) regional consultation meeting. The G20 is a multilateral forum comprising the world’s 20 major economies, and is recognized as the “premier global economic governance platform”. This year, Turkey is the president of the G20 forum (2015). The T20 is an official sub-forum of the G20 process, responsible for contributing ideas and research to the G20 on global economic issues.

The T20 Mumbai event will be co-hosted by Gateway House, in collaboration with the leading Turkish think tank – Economic Policy Research Foundation of Turkey (TEPAV). TEPAV is the official Turkish Think Tank responsible for coordinating the activities of the T20 in 2015 with think tanks from all the G20 member countries.

India will join the T20 group for the first time, by hosting the meeting in Mumbai, and Gateway House is honoured to initiate this select event. Observations and recommendations from the dialogue will be officially submitted to the Turkish G20 presidency, and incorporated into the discourse for the G20 Leaders Summit scheduled for 15-16 November, 2015, Antalya, Turkey."

This meeting is significant for India: it reinforces India’s role as a key participant in multilateral economic fora and contributor of solutions for global economic issues...

Participants will include Gateway House members comprising business leaders and individuals from India. The Indian government will be represented by the Ministry of Finance, Ministry of External Affairs, the Reserve Bank of India, and EXIM Bank. Diplomatic representation is expected from G20 countries, SAARC countries and several multilateral financial institutions.

The sessions will commence with a keynote by Dr. Raghuram Rajan, Governor, Reserve Bank of India, followed by a joint think tank and business session on the impact of geopolitics and business. Starting at noon will be five working sessions for the think tank experts to discuss a range of global economic issues under the G20 mandate such as global trade and investments, inclusive business models, financing sustainable infrastructure and building skills for a technology and services-driven economy."

Press release: http://www.gatewayhouse.in/press-release-indias-first-think20-t20-meeting/

Event page: http://www.gatewayhouse.in/t20mumbai/

Agenda: http://www.gatewayhouse.in/t20mumbai/agenda/

Notes from Sumandro's Statement

The problem of creating meaningful and sustainable employment opportunities in today's technology-mediated global economy is not simply one of skill-enabling the existing and emerging workforce to take part in the growing service sector.
It is crucial to recognise that the contemporary growth of service sector in economies across countries is being fundamentally shaped by access to technology, and access to information and services via technological devices and networks.
A key barrier to effective access to technology in the developing world is the rent-seeking business strategies that permeate global technological industries: from technologies of communication, to those of agriculture, to those of medicine.
Apart from removing such barriers, global and national strategies towards skill development for achieving meaningful and sustainable employment must focus on two things: 1) enabling self-learning through open educational resources, and public infrastructures supporting the same, and 2) a broad-based national innovation system that incentivises businesses to create and effectively use intellectual properties, as appropriate for the local context.
Skill-enabling of new entrants to the labour market (or existing one) must not be understood in terms of special purpose vocational training, that is narrow education for presently existing job opportunities. Neither can online self-learning programmes succeed without building public infrastructures for social learning.
Various recent commentators, most famously The Economist, have flagged the ineffectiveness, and even negative impacts, of the global intellectual property rights regime. An effective and democratic national innovation system must neither treat innovation in a sector-specific manner, nor as a general strategy driven by the needs of particular industries in a particular stage of their development of operations and IP ownership.
Skilling of the existing and emerging workforce must enable them to take part in the global knowledge economy, and its technological basis, in a holistic way.
Openness in policy-making and collaborative implementation, not only between public and private agencies but also between public agencies, are absolutely essential for the success of any such initiative to develop skills of the national workforce.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/news/cis-participated-in-t20-mumbai-oct-19-2015

T20 Regional Consultation Meeting

praskrishna — 2015-10-19T01:17:54Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/t20-regional-consultation-meeting

How To Win Friends, FB Style

praskrishna — 2015-10-18T12:02:10Z

True to form—and Facebook—there was a warm, friendly and familial feel to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s townhall meeting at Melon, California, with Mark Zuckerberg on September 27. Modi got emotional (yet again) while talking about his mother. Zuckerberg, the youngish founder of the world’s largest social networking site, got his parents to meet and pose with Modi.

The article by Arindam Mukherjee was published in Outlook on October 12, 2015. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

“The most amazing moment was when I talked about our families,” Zuckerberg wrote in a post, “and he (Modi) shared stories of his childhood....” That’s just the kind of stuff we would see and post on Facebook—the benign visage of a profitable, all-pervasive US-based corporation. (Needless to say, everyone who has worked on this story is a registered user).

Of course, we know Modi too is on Facebook. No other Indian politician has so effectively utilised the power of ‘likes’: and he has got 30 million. The problem with this chummy approach is that one could almost forget that the PM is also the supreme leader of a country that is Facebook’s second-largest market in the world with 125 million users. A few days earlier, Zuckerberg flew to Seattle to meet Chinese President Xi Jinping. Facebook is not present in China. “On a personal note, this was the first time I’ve ever spoken with a world leader entirely in a foreign language,” wrote Zuckerberg in another post.

In contrast, Modi and Zuckerberg were speaking the same language. In fact, they even jointly updated their profile picture on Facebook—wrapped in the shades of the Indian tricolour—to support the Modi government’s Digital India initiative. Millions of Indians followed suit. And that’s when the shit hit the internet—it was discovered that people supporting the Digital India campaign were also putting in a ‘yes’ vote for Facebook’s contentious initiative internet.org (free but restricted net access; see accompanying faqs for all the details). Immediately, Modi became a party to the raging debate in India over net neutrality. This is unfortunate as the Modi government is yet to put on paper its stand on net neutrality. The nervous reaction to this engagement is also a function of the new truism of our times—“with this government, you never know”.

What we do know is that the internet.org class name was built into the code for support for Digital India. Many experts feel this is not a coincidence; rather a clever ploy by Facebook to get the support of Indians and promote its internet.org initiative. This upset a vocal community of activists who see internet.org on the opposite camp. This led to the charge that Facebook was trying to influence the debate. Says Sunil Abraham, executive director with the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), “The moves by Facebook are quite juvenile as it is trying to use the Modi visit to further muddy the net neutrality debate. We should be concerned about Facebook trying to damage the debate in India to spin the PM’s participation in its own favour.” Of course, there are two sides to this debate. There are many people within the government who feel net neutrality is an elitist concern—increasing internet penetration, which Facebook and other such initiatives promise, is the way forward in a poor, unconnected country like India. “Today to talk about net neutrality is to talk about the 20 per cent who have access to the internet,” says telecom expert Mahesh Uppal. “It is unreasonable to dismiss out of hand anybody who offers free service to a subset of websites or services. Eventually, access to internet must come first before we talk about net neutrality.”

Facebook promoted internet.org along with Samsung, Nokia, Qualcomm, Ericsson, MediaTek and Opera Software, the aim being to provide free internet service to developing nations. India, obviously, is a hot target for Facebook. Facebook has a partnership with Reliance in the country; the free internet service will be available only to Reliance users and the free access will be limited to Facebook’s partner sites. The debate over internet.org too has picked up steam in India—big media companies like NDTV and Times of India have pulled out of it on these issues. While Facebook has stressed that internet.org will ensure that the internet reaches people who do not have access to it, there have been concerns that it will restrict internet access only to sites that are internet.org’s partners.

On its part, Facebook has been quick to refute the charge. A spokesperson in the US said, “There is absolutely no connection between updating your profile picture for Digital India and internet.org. An engineer mistakenly used the words ‘internet.org profile picture’ as a shorthand name he chose for part of the code.” The code was changed soon after. Despite repeated requests, representatives from Facebook India were unavailable for comment.

But the damage has been done. Many now openly question Facebook’s motives in India and whether they have been truthful or not. Given all this brouhaha, questions will naturally be raised about Modi’s alignment with Facebook. Digital India is many things—but obviously increasing net penetration is one its goals. “Now whatever he does on net neutrality, it will be seen in terms of whether it will benefit Google or Facebook. That is the risk he took. I would like to know why the diplomatic advisors took the risk of putting the PM in a bargaining position instead of a bonus at the end of a deal,” says Prof Narendar Pani, who teaches at the National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore.

All this matters because the Modi government positions itself as digital-friendly, even though its moves on this front have been invasive (the push for Aadhar despite a legal sanction and increasing reports of monitoring digital conversations), and contradictory (the abortive porn and WhatsApp bans, among others). “The PM is going way beyond the e-governance plan to a stage where the government will just sit and watch people speaking. It is scary,” says internet activist Usha Ramanathan. She feels it doesn’t make sense to have companies like Google sharing ideas with the government while Indian people are being kept out of the loop. “And now Facebook will be joining that gang, it doesn’t make sense. What has Facebook done to get that privilege?” she asks.

Here again there is a carefully worded counter-argument. Former telecom entrepreneur and Rajya Sabha MP Rajeev Chandrashekhar says, “Net neutrality is a definition that would be made in the public domain. It will not be influenced by the PM’s engagement with Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg. Anyone who tries to mess with the definition of net neutrality will be met with a public outcry and judicial intervention.” The substance of this view is that Modi was within his rights to speak to corporations to further Digital India, or Make in India for that matter, and that there should be an open debate on the future direction of net neutrality.

Clearly, the political knives are out. “Either the prime minister is not being briefed properly or he does not read his brief properly,” says former UPA minister Manish Tewari. Arguing that governments should be discussing rules of engagement in cyberspace, and not stakeholders, he asks, “Is India comfortable with that construct especially when the bulk of the technology companies, the root servers which form the underlying hardware of the internet, are all based in the US, and one being in Europe?”

Although the government is yet to firm up its decision on net neutrality and a policy on it is yet to be announced, the debate has already acquired political colour in India, with the Congress and Aam Aadmi Party putting their weight behind the people’s voice. This is the first time that there has been a nation-wide upsurge of such an unprecedented size and magnitude on an internet policy. Says AAP’s Adarsh Shastri, “Facebook, Google etc are just tools. People can use them at will. To make them the mainstay of your programme for digital empowerment is to step on the civil rights and liberties of citizens. Doing this is a complete no-no. Let people access internet as they want is the way to go.”

A consultation paper floated by telecom regulator Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) got almost 15 lakh responses from the Indian public in support of net neutrality. There was also strong opposition to zero rating platforms announced by telecom companies like Airtel which sought to provide free access to some websites on their platform in much the same way that internet.org proposes. And the reactions to the Facebook coding error are a pointer to what people in India think. Says Nikhil Pahwa, editor of Medianama and a leading net neutrality activist, “The reactions of the people to the Facebook event were heartening and showed that people are emotive and there is still mass support for net neutrality. The reaction to the TRAI paper was not a flash in the pan.”

Interestingly, a couple of months ago, a department of telecommunications committee had said that internet.org was a violation of net neutrality and should not be allowed. It will be difficult for Modi and the government to overrule that and give it full and free access in India. Internet experts feel that the engagement with India and Modi was a desperate move by Facebook to get numbers from India. Says internet expert Mahesh Murthy, “Facebook is pulling out all stops to get favour for internet.org and is desperate about it. If India says yes, many others will say yes, but if India says no, other countries will follow.”

Murthy says Facebook’s real problem is that it is finding it difficult to justify its price to earnings ratio as against its user numbers vis-a-vis Google which is much better in this respect. For this, it is desperately trying to get numbers, and with China banning Facebook, the only country left to get numbers is India. The massive electronic and print campaign at the cost of Rs 40-50 crore is a pointer towards this. He says everything about internet.org is about hooking Indians to it.

No wonder, Facebook has been cultivating Indian media. The Modi visit has also been tarnished by the news that Facebook paid for the travel and accommodation of journalists from three Indian newspapers and one magazine to go and cover the Facebook-Modi meeting and get favourable coverage. Says writer-activist Arundhati Roy, “Many journalists covering the event for the Indian media were flown in from India by Facebook. So were some who asked pre-assigned questions at the event. I don’t know who sponsored the crocodile tears and the clothes.” It is also quite strange that the entire display picture and source code controversy got almost no play in the national media which chose instead to talk about Modi’s speech and his tears.

All said and done, it is obvious that Facebook may be seeing India as an easy and vulnerable target which can be manipulated for its own advantage. Says Parminder Jeet Singh, executive director with IT for Change, an NGO working on information society, “India has low internet penetration and lots of people want to get on to the internet. There is low purchasing power but lots of aspiration. So the moment a free service is offered, a whole lot of people are likely to jump on it.” And that is something Facebook may be looking and aiming at.

Currently, three processes are on that will determine how India will look at net neutrality—one at the DoT, one at TRAI and a third one at a parliamentary standing committee. But given the massive people’s response net neutrality has got vis-a-vis TRAI’s paper and also during the present Facebook issue, the outcome is predictable. Or so it seems. There’s a lot of money power at stake. For now, millions of internet Indians have already voted with that dislike button. And then, governments move in mysterious ways.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/outlook-india-october-12-2015-arindam-mukherjee-how-to-win-friends-fb-style

Supreme Court provides partial relief for Aadhaar

praskrishna — 2015-10-18T05:01:49Z

In a small but significant win for the government, the Supreme Court on Thursday allowed the use of the Aadhaar number for the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), the Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana, pensions by central and state governments, and the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, in addition to its current use in the public distribution system (PDS) and the distribution of cooking gas and kerosene.

The article by Apurva Vishwanath and Saurabh Kumar was published in Livemint on October 15, 2015. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

In an interim order on 11 August, the apex court had restricted the use of Aadhaar, the unique identity number, to the PDS and the distribution of cooking gas and kerosene.

Subsequently, several state governments, government departments and regulatory agencies put up a joint defence seeking a modification of the interim order. They included the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), the Securities and Exchange Board of India and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, the governments of Jharkhand, Maharashtra, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, Gujarat and Rajasthan, and industry body Indian Banks’ Association, along with the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), the issuer of Aadhaar.

A five-judge constitutional bench comprising Chief Justice H.L Dattu and justices M.Y Eqbal, C. Nagappan, Arun Mishra and Amitava Roy said in an order on Thursday: “We are of the opinion that in para 3 of the interim order, we can include schemes like MGNREGS, pensions by state and central government, Jan Dhan Yojana and Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme along with PDS and LPG (liquefied petroleum gas).”

Para 3 of the 11 August interim order had allowed the voluntary use of Aadhaar only for direct benefit transfer in foodgrain, kerosene and cooking gas schemes.

The court’s interim order threw an element of uncertainty around flagship government programmes such as biometric attendance for government employees; the Jan Dhan Yojana, the Prime Minister’s ambitious financial inclusion initiative; digital certificates, and pension payments.

It also threatened to derail India’s progress towards a cashless economy where payments banks are expected to play an important role.

All of these depend on linking accounts to individuals electronically, and are dependent on the Aadhaar number.

“The government was able to convince the court on the utility of Aadhaar which is critical to provide services to the most vulnerable section of the society,” said a government official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The apex court, however, did not allow the use of Aadhaar for the e-know-your-customer (e-KYC) specifically, which would have helped banks, including payments banks, to enrol new customers and telecom operators for issuing SIM cards. However, it is noteworthy that while obtaining bank accounts under the Jan Dhan scheme, banks use e-KYC. The clarification that RBI sought from the court, on whether the Aadhaar number can be used as proof of identification to open a bank account, still remains uncertain.

This will affect banks, mutual funds and companies that have won in-principle payments bank licences such as Airtel M Commerce Services Ltd (from the stable of Bharti Airtel Ltd, which had a customer base of 231.6 million as of July) and Vodafone m-pesa Ltd (a part of Vodafone India Ltd, which had a customer base of 185.4 million as of July).

The licensees also include the department of posts, which has 155,015 post offices across the country, of which 139,144 are in rural areas. The sheer reach of these entities is unrivalled. These entities hope to ride on the technology platform to reach customers, and e-KYC is critical to the process.

“The reason why the court has allowed use of Aadhaar for Jan Dhan Yojana and not other banking services is perhaps because the government made a humanitarian argument that the poorest will be able to avail banking services. It is, however, a technologically flawed argument, deeply so,” said Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bengaluru-based research organization Centre for Internet and Society.

The bench ordered the Union government to follow all earlier interim orders issued by the Supreme Court starting September 2013. Some of these orders include restrain on sharing of biometrics and keeping Aadhaar voluntary.

As of now, 920 million Indian citizens have been allotted Aadhaar numbers. The interim stay was affecting beneficiaries of the MGNREGS (91.7 million), pensioners (27.1 million) and recipients of scholarships (25.7 million), among others, according to data from the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). Till now, 187 million bank accounts have been opened under the Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana.

The apex court made the interim ruling in an ongoing hearing where several pleas related to Aadhaar were clubbed together. Some relate to Aadhaar numbers being made mandatory to enable people to avail of certain government benefits and services. Others deal with the number being a violation of privacy, especially in the absence of any backing regulation or oversight, and yet others deal with possible misuse of the information.

However, the constitution bench had clarified on Wednesday that only pleas seeking clarification and modification of the interim order will be decided, and the issue concerning the right to privacy will be heard subsequently by another constitution bench.

“I am very disappointed with the court’s order. The government claims that Aadhaar is voluntary, but actually it will not be till it is delinked from all government schemes. This way, people who do have Aadhaar are excluded and will have to run from pillar to post to receive benefits if they do not have the number,” said Kamayani Bali Mahabal, a Mumbai-based lawyer, human rights activist and a petitioner in the UIDAI case. She added that the order may increase the incidents of fake Aadhaar numbers as ineligible people choose to gain from all schemes, depriving the poor and aged of real benefits.

The attorney general, Mukul Rohatgi, on Wednesday assured the court that the government has issued advertisements in over 20 languages that Aadhaar is a voluntary scheme.

On 14 Wednesday, PTI reported that a Right to Information application has showed that the UIDAI has identified more than 25,000 duplicate Aadhaar numbers till August.

Mathew Thomas, one of the petitioners challenging the use and validity of the Aadhaar scheme, also expressed disappointment at the court’s ruling today. “Aadhaar is a case of great importance to the billion citizens of India. It is unfortunate that the constitution bench spent only a few hours in hearing the issues,” he said.

The Supreme Court will appoint a larger bench of at least nine judges to hear the privacy issue. The court in 1954, in the case of M.P. Sharma vs Satish Chandra, ruled that the right to privacy was not a fundamental right recognized by the Constitution. This case was decided by an eight-judge bench of the apex court, and only a bench of equal or larger strength will be able to override that decision.

The Chief Justice in the order on Thursday said that the larger bench, with nine or 11 judges, will be constituted at the earliest to hear the matter on Aadhaar potentially violating privacy and other intervening applications.

The petitioners have argued that UIDAI was approved only by an empowered group of ministers during the United Progressive Alliance tenure and has no statutory authority to collect biometrics of residents. Senior counsel for the petitioners, Shyam Divan, said: “The only law in India which allows the government to collect fingerprints is the Prisoner’s Act of 1920, which is a colonial enactment.”

The UIDAI does not have any legislative backing and was constituted by notification in 2009 by the erstwhile Planning Commission. Divan, however, said that the Planning Commission notification has no effect since the body itself has ceased to exist, and added that the centre is not introducing a legislation empowering the Aadhaar scheme as it realizes the vulnerability of the entire exercise.

The National Identification Authority of India Bill was introduced in the Rajya Sabha in 2010.

In 2012, the centre was mulling a privacy law that could be enacted to support the UIDAI scheme and, in connection, the Planning Commission then formed an expert committee on privacy under A.P Shah, a former chairperson of the Law Commission.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/livemint-october-15-2015-apurva-vishwanath-saurabh-kumar-supreme-court-provides-partial-relief-for-aadhaar