Centre for Internet and Society

March NVDA ESpeak Report

praskrishna — 2015-04-10T02:44:35Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/march-nvda-e-speak-report.pdf

Smriti Irani brings back focus on voyeurism prevailing in our country

praskrishna — 2015-05-08T00:59:30Z

The case of Union minister Smriti Irani finding a CCTV camera at Goa's Fab India has again brought back the focus on digital voyeurism and how a critical issue like surveillance can be exploited. Irani's case comes days after a woman found a mobile phone strapped to a changing room door of a Van Heusen store in Lajpat Nagar's Central market, a popular shopping hub.

The article by Amrita Madhukalya was published in DNA on April 6, 2015. Pranesh Prakash gave his inputs.

Bangalore girl Sumitra (name changed) remembers the day in 2009 she saw a camera when trying on a skirt at Palika Bazaar. "I looked around the tiny changing room and saw a camera with a dipping red light. I quickly rushed out and accused the shopkeeper. But, Palika is not a place of great repute, and my friend who was accompanying me asked me to forget the matter," she says, and that's what she did. She was a degree student at Delhi University, and being relatively unaware of the city, decided to keep mum. "But look at what has happened: if they can film a Union minister at a Fab India store, they will film anyone. We need stringent action."

One of the first cases of digital voyeurism was reported in Pune in 2003 when a peon in an establishment at Sahakar Nagar installed a web camera in a changing room. In 2005, landowner Mohan Kulkarni from Navi Peth was arrested for filming women tenants. In 2007, two MMS clips from the changing rooms of a renowned departmental store in Kolkata started making the rounds. In one, a girl was shown changing clothes while in the other a couple was shown having sex. Then a year later, shop assistant Sunil Kumar Jha was found filming women in a clothes store from below the trial room door in Kolkata.

Debarati Halder, advocate and founder of the Centre for Cyber Victim Counselling, feels that had it not been a politician like Irani, the case would not have been highlighted at all. "People would have brushed off the incident had it been another woman. It is hard to escape the amount of negative publicity a case like this garners," she says. This is reflected in the case of a woman who was filmed in a leading store in Mumbai and was scared to approach the police, as she and her father did not want to go through the "legal hassles" of the case. The woman spoke of her story to a journalist of a leading daily and the ensuing report eventually led to the arrest of the shop assistant.

Cyber security expert Pranesh Prakash says that digital voyeurism is a huge problem in India and elsewhere. "There is a mismatch between privacy protection provided in the IT Act against non-consensual sharing of certain forms of sexual images, and the utter disregard for privacy in other parts of the law. Given that cybercafes have often been places where users are secretly filmed, the law should seek to crack down on such invasions of privacy. Instead, the law doesn't prohibit that, and in fact the Cybercafe Rules, encourage cybercafe owners to photograph all users, including minors. The rules say that untrustworthy cybercafe owners keep these records for a minimum period of one year, but there is no maximum period," says Prakash.

Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000, amended in 2008, deals with digital voyeurism. And section 354 (C) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with voyeurism in general.

But, there are many loopholes. "When the footage is shot by a government-run establishment, then the clause of surveillance is a cover, like in an MMS of Delhi Metro (where a couple was shown making out)."

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/dna-april-6-2015-amrita-madhukalya-smriti-irani-brings-back-focus-on-voyeurism-prevailing-in-the-country

Odia waits for Google Translate debut - Nine Indian languages available

praskrishna — 2015-05-08T01:27:21Z

Odia getting the "classical" status last year was certainly a proud moment for the people of the state, but, it is yet to feature among the languages available in Google's popular translation service.

The article by Anwesha Ambaly was published in the Telegraph on April 6, 2015. Subhashish Panigrahi was quoted.

Over 90 languages, including nine from India (Bengali, Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada, Marathi, Malayalam, Punjabi, Tamil, and Telugu) are part of the service.

Odia, which is spoken by over 45 million people globally, is yet to debut here.

Techies working in the field attribute the reason to the lack of web presence of the language.

"Google has set parameters on the basis of which translations are available. Only those languages that have a wide use on the Internet and have enough online content are included in the list. The online presence of Odia is quite insignificant," said Subhashish Panigrahi, programme officer at Centre for Internet and Society and a regular contributor to Odia Wikipedia.

Among the limited data in Odia available online, Odia Wikipedia and Odia Wikisource have emerged as important reference sources for all kinds of information.

The Odia Wikipedia serves as an online encyclopaedia that was initiated in 2002 and hosts over 8,000 articles in Odia. The Odia Wikisource was launched in the state last year and is run by volunteers and communities. It is a sister concern of Odia Wikipedia that makes rare Odia books available on the Internet.

However, a Google spokesperson said: "We value all Indic languages and search and Gmail are available in 16 Indian languages with more languages to follow"

Recently, the entire Odia Bhagbata by Jagannath Das was made available on Wikisource. Also, Bhubaneswar-based organisation Srujanika, in collaboration with NIT, Rourkela, has digitized over 750 books. But these apart, there are no major online portals available in Odia.

Panigrahi and his contributor friends are presently working at promoting the Google Translate community, which is a platform for language enthusiasts and volunteers interested in improving translation quality for their language or help Google add it to translate.

"To ensure more availability of online content, people should be encouraged to share information on the web. More Odia content on the web will get a wider reach," said the techie.

"We are quite hopeful that the translator would be available in Odia soon."

The universal web-compatible Unicode font for Odia language was developed in 2000. Despite the Unicode standard having been made available over a decade ago, Odia language is not used actively on the Internet.

"We are still stuck to using outdated fonts such as Akruti and Sreelipi for typing text in Odia and most of these are not compatible for using on the Internet. There are thousands of book and articles available in these fonts. Most of the important content available on the government portals also uses the older fonts. Unless content is available in Unicode, it will not be searchable, sharable and reusable on the Internet," said Panigrahi.

One of the earliest websites in Odia was developed by Ganesh Mishra in 1999 for a popular Odia daily. But the website was shut down after six years when the concept of e-paper came into being.

"These days, most of the publishers of Odia newspapers and magazines have come up with e-papers which are nothing but the scanned images of the original pages. But an online search won't display them as results. Online content in Unicode is accessible through search engines," said the website developer.

He said that people have so many alternatives on the Internet that the absence of Odia language is not felt. "Customers often initiate commercial websites in Odia but soon request us to change it to English because it was inconvenient for users," said Mishra.

Some youngsters in the state are coming up with online portals to promote Odia literature. Jyoti Prasad Patnaik, a doctor by profession, has been running an online Odia literary magazine since 2006.

"The Internet is the most powerful medium of communication these days and there could be no better way to popularise our language other than this. When I started out, there were hardly any readers. Today my website has around 5,000 visitors every month. The number is growing slowly and I hope it will increase in the future," said Patnaik.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/news/the-telepgrah-april-6-2015-anwesha-ambaly-odia-waits-for-google-translate-debut-nine-indian-languages-available

IPR Confluence Presentation

praskrishna — 2015-04-04T06:14:22Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ipr-confluence-presentation

Tech Law Forum

praskrishna — 2015-04-03T16:34:31Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/tech-law-forum.docx

Fourth IP Researchers Confluence

praskrishna — 2015-04-03T15:31:20Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/fourth-ip-research-confluence.pdf

The block heads

praskrishna — 2015-05-07T11:51:48Z

An entire government department is on the job, but can it really take down ‘offending’ online content?

The article by Sibi Arasu was published in the Hindu Businessline on April 3, 2015. Sunil Abraham gave his inputs.

The Department of Electronics and Information Technology’s (Deity) offices are as layered as its official website. From inside ‘Electronics Niketan’ at the Central Government Offices (CGO) complex in south Delhi, Deity’s army of director-generals, joint secretaries, department heads, scientists, clerks and staff of various grades and ranks keep an eye on how the country engages with the world wide web.

One set of cubicles is dedicated to the Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT), the nodal agency meant to combat hacking, phishing and generally fortify the internet in India. This includes the task of blocking and unblocking websites. A rather complicated job in a country where, according to one senior government official, “it’s technically infeasible to completely block content. If it’s at the gateway level, then we can filter it out. But for videos and other similar content, it is just not possible to completely block them.”

No bandwidth

Be it the AIB roasts that were taken down from YouTube or the controversial documentary India’s Daughter, which was blocked within eight hours of going online, the CERT and other allied departments have been kept busy over the past few months.

In a classic example of how blocking can go wrong, more than 36 websites were taken down in December last year to “prevent the spread of ISIS propaganda” only to be unblocked within weeks. Like elsewhere in the world, the attempt to “protect” citizens had unwittingly ended up hurting legitimate websites, including video sharing sites vimeo.com, dailymotion.com and the reference site archive.org. It was embarrassingly similar to the Chinese government’s actions in 2010 when it blocked all images of empty chairs, stools and tables as it attempted to staunch discussions about Liu Xiabo, the Nobel Peace Prize winner that year, who was missing from the awards ceremony as he was incarcerated in China.

Terming such government actions as dangerous and Orwellian, Apar Gupta, a cyber law specialist in Delhi who appeared for the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) in the PIL against Section 66A of the IT Act, says, “Any piece of content is contained within several file formats and obscured through technical devices like encryption, making its complete removal and eradication impossible.”

Internet freedom campaigners have maintained that Section 66A, which prescribed “punishment for sending offensive messages through a communication service”, was created solely to muzzle dissent and differences of opinion.

Although Section 66A was recently struck down, the law authorising blocking of content — namely, Section 69A — remains intact. The Central Government can block content it believes threatens the security of the State; the sovereignty, integrity or defence of India; friendly relations with foreign States; public order; or incites committing a cognisable offence related to any of the above. The government must, however, adhere to a set of procedures and safeguards, known as Blocking Rules.

“Larger, overbroad technical blocks can impede the functioning of the internet,” says internet policy analyst Raman Chima. “When a large website ‘blacklist’ and internet filter was proposed for Australia in 2009-10, research established that it would likely result in double-digit reductions in the internet’s speed and efficiency in that country.”

The ‘Streisand effect’, named after the Hollywood actress, is another common consequence of blocking. As Chima says, “Specific bans tend to be counterproductive and, more often than not, result in more awareness and interest in the banned content.”

Political manoeuvres

‘Ethical hacktivist’ and Hackers Hat founder Satish Ashwin sees banning and blocking as purely vote bank politics.

“Technically anything can be blocked or banned and it’s not a big deal, but the sheer volume of data uploaded makes it next to impossible to monitor and censor,” he says.

To those heralding the striking down of 66A as a victory for free speech, Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Bengaluru-based Centre for Internet and Society, points to the larger picture. “Nobody is really aware of the scale of censorship in India. Thousands of websites are blocked under Section 69A, mostly due to the maximalist enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). While 66A is gone, there are many other provisions within the IT Act that still regulate speech online. It is important to have quality laws drafted through an open, participatory process, where all stakeholders are consulted and responded to before bills are introduced in Parliament."

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hindu-businessline-april-3-2015-sibi-arasu-the-block-heads

Bloomberg.pdf

praskrishna — 2015-04-03T06:17:33Z

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

The Data Revolution and education post-2015: Considering the promise and the risks

praskrishna — 2015-05-07T06:41:56Z

In August 2014, the secretary-general of the United Nations established the Independent Expert Advisory Group on a Data Revolution for Sustainable Development.

The blog post by Joshua Muskin was published in Brookings on March 31, 2015. Sumandro Chattapadhyay gave his inputs.

This group was charged with evaluating the global state of data and deriving recommendations that permit data to live up to their potential as “the lifeblood of decision-making and the raw material for accountability.” The resulting report, A World that Counts, posits that “Governments, companies, researchers and citizen groups are in a ferment of experimentation, innovation and adaptation to the new world of data, a world in which data are bigger, faster and more detailed than ever before.” This, they assert, “is the Data Revolution.”

Central to the group’s arguments is the assertion that data are and must be treated as a “public good.” Implicit is the notion that all data are good and that more data are “gooder.” Certainly there is much to laud and anticipate in the report’s definition of the Data Revolution and its recommendations. Perhaps most deserving of interest are the call for data that:

come “from other sources, such as qualitative data, citizen-generated data and perceptions data;”
are generated “from all parts of society;”
are “more detailed, timely and relevant;”
increase “usefulness...through a much greater degree of openness and transparency,” while “avoiding invasion of privacy and abuse of human rights;” and
lead to “more empowered people, better policies, better decisions and greater participation and accountability.”

come “from other sources, such as qualitative data, citizen-generated data and perceptions data;”are generated “from all parts of society;”are “more detailed, timely and relevant;”increase “usefulness...through a much greater degree of openness and transparency,” while “avoiding invasion of privacy and abuse of human rights;” andlead to “more empowered people, better policies, better decisions and greater participation and accountability.”

The blog entry by Joshua Muskin was published in Brookings on March 31, 2015. Sumandro Chattapadhyay was quoted.

What could go wrong?

Currently neck-deep in research on the use of student learning assessment data in education, I suggest that this implicit assumption and the promise of unwaveringly positive outcomes are not guaranteed. As we experience the emerging revolution, there is every reason to embrace this promise and to take up arms to ensure its fulfillment. But, as history shows, many a revolution has derailed, claiming the benefits of the rhetoric for a few while leaving many victims. While working towards the noble and indeed crucial aims laid out in the report, vigilance will be vital—as will very strategic action to ensure that the revolution does not veer away from its vision.

It is hardly the aim of this seemingly premature appeal to vigilance to unseat completely the objectives and recommendations of the Expert Advisory Group. (Indeed, the Data Revolution has barely launched, though its roots are already solidly planted, as evident in education in the surge of countries involved in international and national testing. See, for example, Benavot and Tanner, 2007.) Rather, in the spirit of Charles Tilly’s 1963 “Analysis of Counter-Revolution,” my goal is to remind all those ready to enlist in the revolution that this initiative does not necessarily “unite the people.” Regardless the document’s comprehensive and progressive appearance, there are many who take different positions, with some fearing what a reign of big data, irrespective of its origins and nature, will yield once it moves to implementation in its myriad forms and locations. While the document features the poor as a main beneficiary of the revolution, Neva Frecheville (2014), among others, notes the absence of low-income country representatives on the panel. Arguably more significantly, the emergence of citizen-led assessments in education may be perceived as a sort of reaction against the hegemony of centrally managed data regimes, taking control of the data by the local poor to ensure that its use fully serves this population. While the report embraces such initiatives, it would seem important to secure their independence, alert to the risk of a usurpation and hijacking of the mission, the program and the resulting information.

Sumandro Chattapadhyay, research director at the Centre for Internet and Society in New Delhi, has pointed in “An Open Data Agenda for post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals” to a few likely opportunities for the revolution to go awry once operating. For one, the modern technology thrust obvious in the report does not translate automatically into heightened generation, retrieval, or understanding of information for the world’s poor majority. Quite simply, this group does not have automatic access to either the modern modes of communication or the institutions by which the agents of the revolution will transmit the results. Two, come the revolution, there is on the one hand no obvious guarantee that data will supplant politics in policy and decision-making. Yet on the other, big data may provide an even bigger and potentially obfuscating weapon in the hands of politicians’ and other leaders, whether public or not. As one learns in Statistics 101, the same numbers can justify very different conclusions; and those who control the data usually control the story: information is power. Three, the push for standards and comparability in data risk negating or at least undervaluing the validity of non-standard idiosyncratic data and other information that may emerge at the local level and still have great worth; and sometimes be more meaningful, even if not “scientific.” Finally, Chattapadhyay asks “Who is empowered by using (opened up) data?,” warning that the “falling costs of collection and archiv[ing] of data... create strong attractions towards gathering as much data as possible without specific objectives for their collection.” Furthermore, the “...availability of data at a global scale has massive commercial value, [the] unlocking of which may [also] not necessarily lead to positive impacts.” The threats of such an outcome to privacy should be obvious and are widely documented (see, for example, this post from the MIT Big Data Initiative). The fact that in education we are dealing with children raises the danger of this prospect even higher (see, for example, the U.S. Student Data Privacy Act).

What does this mean for the education sector?

In a world where data are “bigger, faster and more detailed than ever,” what are the opportunities and vulnerabilities for the local actors to whom Chattapadhyay refers; in education, these comprise teachers, other “front-line” educators, and parents. This line of inquiry was also central to the analysis undertaken by the Learning Metrics Task Force Learning Champions at their February meeting in Kigali—the topic of a recent blog of mine.

There are many claims of data as a positive asset in education, and these are often matched by actual experience in many settings. Prominent are the impact of information on policy; on the allocation of resources (financial, material and human); on the validation, revision or termination of a particular strategy or initiative; and ultimately on strengthening quality and equity. At the school and classroom level, formative assessment (with feedback) is regarded by many—e.g., see Hattie (2011); Barber & Rivzi (2013), p.65; and Black & William, in Lucas, Claxton & Spencer (2009), p. 3—as the most robust factor in learning. It is a problem, though, that there is little evidence that system-level assessments have real “meaning for...teachers” (Long, Dunne & Mokoena, pg. 158) and that formative assessment is usually either poorly done or not at all (see Shiohata, 2015).

Three fears concerning the Data Revolution come quickly to mind, adding to those mentioned above like the privacy issue. One is that data on what is easily measurable in learning will overwhelm other aspects of information on education that are equally (or even more) essential, but are not easily measured, particularly in the classroom. Conversely, there is a strong risk of eschewing measures that can be both more accurate and more nuanced in the classroom, and therefore more useful in guiding learning. An example might be the assessment of personal competencies, such as creativity, curiosity, confidence, and collaboration. While possible to do, the methodological challenges of devising valid, standardized, and comparable assessment instruments for these are prodigious, particularly across cultures, and any measures would likely be difficult to interpret into pedagogic strategies. In contrast, a school-level inquiry by teachers into the characteristics, observation, and cultivation of these same traits can be very precise, strategic, and effective, especially when facilitated as captured in the OECD background paper by Lucas, Claxton and Spencer.

The third fear is that data will influence policy, planning, and practice to a degree that exceeds the reliability of the numbers and the “external validity” (see Rodrik) of their analysis—sometimes considerably. Such would be the case, as Rodrik explains, when applying the subject of a favorable randomized controlled trial from one setting to another. Related to this, an outsized faith in statistics or a reliance on overly sophisticated analyses—lured to the shoals by the siren song of what is possible—may simply undermine basic common sense; for example, can we not sometimes rely on a teacher to identify which students are struggling and need further help without imposing frequent, narrowly defined tests? (I am reminded of a pun shared by my Swiss friend, Pierre Jaccard, who reformulates the French phrase “panne d’essence”—a breakdown due to running out of gas—to indicate the all-too-frequent occurrence in policy circles of a “panne de sens,” or running out of common sense.)

Where I perceive “red flags” to arise and start flapping most frenetically around data regards its use. In particular, both the U.N. document and much of the discussion around student learning assessment highlight the value of data for central decision-making and policymaking: As stated in A World That Counts, “Without high-quality data providing the right information on the right things at the right time, designing, monitoring and evaluating effective policies becomes almost impossible.” The report hardly ignores local level actors and institutions—in education, the classroom, the school and parents—but this level is definitely under-represented and vaguer in terms of approach. But here is where the greatest clarity and strategic precision is required.

What the Data Revolution risks overlooking most are those education actors who are furthest from policy (even excellent policy), but upon whom positive outcomes ultimately depend. These are teachers, other educators, parents, and students. Even though the Advisory Group claims to speak on their behalf and to embrace them as part of the movement, are they really co-revolutionaries? While the citizen-led assessments clearly are eager to engage with the authorities, does their legitimacy and influence derive from their being fully within the system or, as I suggest above, does it exist because of their status as an honorable and powerful counter-balance? As politicians and policy leaders demand ever more and ever more sophisticated data, and as technology makes the collection, analysis, and dissemination of these data more elaborate and extensive, how great is the risk of overwhelming the capacity of classroom teachers, other local educators, parents, and other local institutions to absorb, let alone make sense of, the information and to use it appropriately and effectively? Are we running in the opposite direction of a solution to the oft-repeated issue of low-capacity with data, especially in the developing world? What does the Data Revolution furnish truly and directly to these critical actors in terms of information, resources, capacity, and authority to make decisions that improve teaching and learning for better education and to foster broader sustainable development outcomes?

The Data Revolution surely has much of vital importance to offer in gathering, organizing, and analyzing the vast array of information that relate to education and learning. As indicated above, the aim here is not to assail the expanded definition of data and their use per se. It is, however, an exhortation to gather, analyze, disseminate and use data on learning to inform decisions and actions that link directly to real education circumstances, challenges, and goals. The language of the Expert Group report claims this as its objective. The admonition addresses the need to be sure that this crucial dimension not get lost or overwhelmed in practice. So, as we hail the intent and elements of the Data Revolution and endeavor actively to attain its full promise, it will be vital to remain keenly vigilant and, if necessary, not to hesitate in summoning a counter-revolution in order to defend fully the ultimate goals: appropriate data in the service of all, including most critically the most marginalized of the world.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/news/data-revolution-and-education-post-2015

‘Smack’ the Trolls!

praskrishna — 2015-04-04T06:38:10Z

A car was put up for sale on a Facebook (FB) page by a woman. The first few comments were genuine questions asking about the price and the woman was asked to check her inbox, where price negotiations were carried out.

The article by Marianne De Nazareth published in the Citizen on March 31, 2015 quotes Rohini Lakshané.

All in a very cordial fashion. Suddenly in a matter of seconds a nasty gender remark was made, as the car was being sold by a lady, which was taken up by a flurry of similar trolls making snide remarks on her gender and therefore the quality of the car for sale. The woman felt harassed and violated.

These faceless nasty internet beings are called trolls and we need to fight them. " Most people shy away from confronting harassment because either they are mostly unaware of how to handle it or they are scared of the harassment shifting to their daily lives in real world. The scare is not unfounded because there have been several instances of that happening around the world," says Chinmayi SK from the Bachchao project .

" A certain type of troll reacts strongly and negatively to high profile women out of a desire to correct those who have been 'taken in' by them," says Pamela Srinivasan, who uses social media frequently to buy and sell." It's an attack on the idea that the women can be powerful and can be experts. The attack is designed to remove the woman's authority."

Chinmayi advises," But, one needs to talk about online harassment because it exists. Because not talking about will not make it go away. Online harassers are like bullies enabled by the anonymity online personas provide. They are unafraid of consequences in the virtual world, which they would otherwise fear in real world. Hence changes will not happen unless you stand up to them. They will continue to harass and their harassment will only grow with time if ignored."

FB sites where people with common interests like gardening or birding or even Cuckoo clock lovers are happily free of trolls. But sites on which commercial selling of used goods happens, or discussions on touchy political topics, that's where people are viciously attacked if the administrator is not vigilant.

" It is best to have a code of conduct laid down and strictly enforced by the moderators of online communities," says Rohini Lakshané, a researcher at the Centre for Internet and Society. " Large online forums can have many, active administrators to whom users can report abuse. It also helps to report abuse to the website/ platform. However, on platforms such as Facebook, where the volume of posts is high, the review process takes time and sometimes reviewers don't understand the nuances of culture or language or other contexts. An effective, easy-to-implement, and less time-consuming measure then is for the community to police itself and smack those who walk out of line."

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-citizen-march-31-2015-marianne-de-nazareth-smack-the-trolls

You can still get into trouble for online posts: Digital law experts

praskrishna — 2015-04-02T01:44:32Z

The internet in India is freer now, but individuals could still to get into trouble for online posts, say digital media and law experts. Hailing the Supreme Court judgment on Tuesday as a landmark verdict for free speech in India, experts who have closely read the judgment say there is much to be careful about too.

The article by Kim Arora was published in the Times of India on March 30, 2015. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

The scrapping of the contentious section doesn't mean that one has a free run, cautions Sunil Abraham, executive director, Centre for Internet and Society. An online comment can still land you in jail, he says.

"The judgement in no way means that speech on online platforms will be unregulated now. You can still be charged for pornography or voyeurism under the IT Act. There are many provisions in the Constitution and Indian Penal Code that the government can use to target people it wants to go after. You can be still charged for hate speech or defamation - which is a criminal offence in India - for an online comment," says Abraham.

While lawyer Apar Gupta found the judgment to be forward-looking, he pointed to Para 98 of the 120 page judgment, which addresses Article 14 of the Constitution regarding "discrimination" and talks of the distinction between online and other media.

"We make it clear that there is an intelligible differentia between speech on the internet and other mediums of communication for which separate offences can certainly be created by legislation," says the judgment. "The court has indicated that special offences can be created for the internet. Constant vigilance is the price of liberty. We need to constantly engage with these issues to keep the internet free," says Gupta.

The judgment has been praised for making a distinction between online posts and messages that pertain to advocacy, discussion and incitement. "This is an excellent decision. The SC is saying that no matter what the medium, we stand for constitutional rights. The judges were ready to listen, and ready to share their experience of using the internet also," says Mishi Choudhary, legal director at Software Freedom Law Center, adding, "It was a lost opportunity for the Modi government. They should have gotten rid of section 66 A themselves."

Section 69A of the Act, which stands as is, allows non-transparent blocking of online content in the interest of "sovereignty and integrity of India, defense of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above." However, Choudhary says that since it is a narrowly-drawn provision, it ensures more safeguards.

"It will be noticed that Section 69A unlike Section 66A is a narrowly drawn provision with several safeguards. First and foremost, blocking can only be resorted to where the Central Government is satisfied that it is necessary so to do. Secondly, such necessity is relatable only to some of the subjects set out in Article 19(2). Thirdly, reasons have to be recorded in writing in such blocking order so that they may be assailed in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution," she says.

Going forward, the government plan of action should focus on balancing safety and freedom on the internet, says Rajya Sabha MP Rajeev Chandrasekhar, who himself was one of the petitioners. "The final endgame has to be one where we have a new law or even a new IT Act which meets the twin objectives of a safe and free internet. The two need not be mutually exclusive," he says.

(With inputs from Anand J in Bengaluru)

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/times-of-india-march-30-2015-kim-arora-you-can-still-get-into-trouble-for-online-posts

Ericsson v. Kingtech

praskrishna — 2015-03-30T16:33:58Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ericsson-v-kingtech.pdf

February 2015 Bulletin

praskrishna — 2015-03-30T16:09:05Z

It is my distinct pleasure to share with you the second issue of the CIS newsletter (February 2015).

Earlier this year, I joined the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) as the Research Director. I have been fortunate to periodically work with CIS in various capacities since mid-2012, mostly focusing on the topics of open data, open access, and visual exploration of data. Most importantly perhaps for my present responsibilities, for the last year or so, I have been in communication with various projects teams at CIS and supported their efforts through workshops on research methodologies, and by discussing and co-designing their research questions and approaches.

As the Research Director, I look forward to take these works forward, along with leading the Researchers at Work (RAW) programme, which has been shaped by Prof. Nishant Shah to host an exciting range of critical research initiatives into how the Internet and digital technologies reconfigure social processes and structures, and vice versa. Please keep an eye on the newsletter for further updates from the RAW programme.

Our sincere apologies for the delay in sending out this month's newsletter. We will soon be back in our usual rhythm. The past editions of the newsletter can be accessed at http://cis-india.org/about/newsletters

Sumandro Chattapadhyay
Email: sumandro@cis-india.org

Highlights

Forbes India in an article titled " Minds that (should) matter" names Sunil Abraham as one of the Thinkers who best explain a rapidly-changing India to the world (and the world to India). Errata: This story was shared in the last newsletter but with an error, which is now rectified.

NVDA team organized three workshops during the month for training participants on using eSpeak with NVDA software. The languages covered werePunjabi,Oriya and Hindi.
The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP), Government of India invited comments on the First Draft of India's National IPR Policy. CIS sent its comments . CIS commended the DIPP for this initiative and appreciated the opportunity to provide comments on the National IPR Policy.

CIS sent out three different Right to Information (RTI) requests to find out more details about the constitution and working of the IPR Think Tank to draft the first national IPR Policy.
Anubha Sinha analyses the submission to the DIPP by Academia and Civil Society on the draft National IPR Policy from a public interest perspective.
In an Open Letter to the Prime Minister of India, CIS requests the Government of India to initiate the formation of a patent pool of critical mobile technologies and a five per cent compulsory license.
CIS's Access to Knowledge team (CIS-A2K) in collaboration with the Centre for Indian Languages (CILHE) at TISS, Mumbai conducted a two-day workshop at English and Foreign Languages University (EFLU) at Hyderabad on January 28 - 29, 2015. Tejaswini Niranjana captures the developments in a blog post.

Subhashish Panigrahi wrote an op-ed on the endangered languages in India. This was published by Odia daily Samaja on February 21 which is celebrated as the International Mother Language Day.
CIS-A2K team conducted the " Train the Trainer Program" (TTT 2015) at CEO Centre, Dodda Gubbi, Bangalore. About 25 delegates attended the programme.
CIS has joined an international campaign to allow anyone in the world to request whether Britain's intelligence agency GCHQ has illegally spied on them.
On January 30, 2015, Associated Chambers of Commerce & Industry of India (ASSOCHAM) held a consultation on Internet governance. A committee was set up to draft a report on Internet governance, with a focus on issues relevant to India. CIS is represented on the committee, and has provided its preliminary comments to ASSOCHAM .

As part of CIS's inquiry into 'Network Neutrality' in the developing world a set of definitions of the term from different sources was collected and published as a blog post.
Namita A. Malhotra in a blog entry examines the figure of the pornographer, as a mixed media figure entrenched in various networks of knowledge production, circulation and consumption.

Accessibility and Inclusion

Under a grant from the Hans Foundation we are doing two projects. The first project is on creating a national resource kit of state-wise laws, policies and programmes on issues relating to persons with disabilities in India. CIS in partnership with CLPR (Centre for Law and Policy Research) compiled the National Compendium of Policies, Programmes and Schemes for Persons with Disabilities (29 states and 6 union territories). The publication has been finalised and is being printed. The draft chapters and the quarterly reports can be accessed on the project page. The second project is on developing text-to-speech software for 15 Indian languages. The progress made so far in the project can be accessed here.

►NVDA and eSpeak

Monthly Update

February 2015 Report (Suman Dogra; February 28, 2015).

Events Organized

Joint Report on Training of the Use of eSpeak in Hindi with NVDA (Organized by NVDA team; National Association for the Blind, New Delhi, February 5 - 6, 2015 and Blind Relief Association, Delhi, February 13 - 14, 2015).
Report on Training in the use of eSpeak Oriya with NVDA (Organized by NVDA team; Orissa Association for the Blind, Bhubaneswar; February 8 - 10, 2015). Thirty six delegates attended the workshop.
Training of the use of eSpeak Punjabi with NVDA (Organized by NVDA team; Asha Kiran Training Institute, Chandigarh; February 20-21, 2015). The workshop was inaugurated by Shri Tilak Raj, Director, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of Punjab.

Access to Knowledge

As part of the Access to Knowledge programme we are doing two projects. The first one (Pervasive Technologies) under a grant from the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) is for research on the complex interplay between pervasive technologies and intellectual property to support intellectual property norms that encourage the proliferation and development of such technologies as a social good. The second one (Wikipedia) under a grant from the Wikimedia Foundation is for the growth of Indic language communities and projects by designing community collaborations and partnerships that recruit and cultivate new editors and explore innovative approaches to building projects.

►Pervasive Technologies

As part of the Pervasive Technologies project, Rohini Lakshané wrote an Open Letter to India's Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi for creation of a patent pool of critical mobile technologies. And as part of broader Access to Knowledge work CIS submitted comments to DIPP on the National IP Policy.

Blog Entries

National IPR Policy Series: CIS Comments to the First Draft of the National IP Policy (Nehaa Chaudhari, Pranesh Prakash and Anubha Sinha; February 4, 2015). Varnika Chawla assisted the team.
RTI Requests - DIPP: Details on constitution and working of IPR Think Tank (Nehaa Chaudhari; February 9, 2015).
Open Letter to Prime Minister Modi (Rohini Lakshané; February 10, 2015). Copies of the open letter were sent to various ministers.
Academia and Civil Society submit critical comments to DIPP on draft National IPR Policy (Anubha Sinha; February 16, 2015).

Participation in Event

India at Leisure: Media, Culture and Consumption in the New Economy (Organized by Jamia University; January 8 - 10, 2015). Maggie Huang attended the event and presented a paper titled "The Future of Music Streaming: Business Practices and Copyright Management in India". The paper was co-authored by Maggie and Amba Kak.

►Wikipedia

As part of the project grant from the Wikimedia Foundation we have reached out to more than 3500 people across India by organizing more than 100 outreach events and catalysed the release of encyclopaedic and other content under the Creative Commons (CC-BY-3.0) license in four Indian languages (21 books in Telugu, 13 in Odia, 4 volumes of encyclopaedia in Konkani and 6 volumes in Kannada, and 1 book on Odia language history in English).

Op-ed

Our Endangered Languages (Subhashish Panigrahi; February 21, 2015).

Blog Entries

A Wikipedia Presentation at BITS, Goa (Radhakrishna Arvapally; February 9, 2015). Arvapally was a guest blogger.
Developing Open Knowledge Digital Resources in Indian Languages (Tejaswini Niranjana; February 20, 2015).
Telugu Wikipedia Winter Camp at Andhra Loyola College (Rahmanuddin Shaik; February 26, 2015).

Event Organized

Train the Trainer (Organized by CIS-A2K; CEO Centre, Dodda Gubbi, Bangalore; February 26 - March 1, 2015). Rohini Lakshané took a session on GLAM.

News and Media Coverage

CIS-A2K team gave its inputs to the following media coverage:

More online free content in Telugu Wikipedia soon (A.D.Rangarajan; Hindu, February 16, 2015).
Cultural knowledge needs to be more open (Jen Wike Huger; OpenSource.com; February 18, 2015).
Online Free Content in Telugu Wikipedia (Andhra Jyothy; February 19, 2015).

Announcements

2015 Opensource.com Community Awards : Every year, Opensource.com awards people from our community who have excelled in contributing and sharing stories about open source. Subhashish Panigrahi from the CIS-A2K team won the award under the category 'People's Choice Awards'.
CIS-A2K team also published the Telugu Wikipedia Stats tables. Most metrics have been collected from a partial dump (aka stub dump), which contains all revisions of every article, meta data, but no page content.

Participation in Events

Hindi Wiki Community Baithak (Organized by Wikipedia Community; February 14 - 15, 2015). Subhashish Panigrahi attended the event.
An International Conclave of Odia Language (Organized by the Intellects; February 20 - 21, 2015; Constitutional Club, Rafi Marg, New Delhi). Subhashish Panigrahi participated in the event.

►Openness

Participation in Events

Regional Open Data Agenda-Setting Workshop 2015 (Organized by Open Data Lab, Jakarta Web Foundation; Jakarta; February 4 - 6, 2015). Sunil Abraham was a speaker.
Washington Meet on Open Data (Organized by World Bank; Washington; February 20 - 21, 2015). Sunil Abraham was a speaker and made a presentation on Open Data.

Internet Governance

As part of its research on privacy and free speech, CIS is engaged with two different projects. The first one (under a grant from Privacy International and International Development Research Centre (IDRC)) is on surveillance and freedom of expression (SAFEGUARDS). The second one (under a grant from MacArthur Foundation) is on studying the restrictions placed on freedom of expression online by the Indian goverTnment.

►Privacy

Blog Entries

The Surveillance Industry in India - An Analysis of Indian Security Expos (Divij Joshi; February 19, 2015).
Right to Information (RTI) Requests to BSNL and MTNL Regarding Security Equipment (Maria Xynou; February 25, 2015). CIS had sent RTI requests to MTNL and BSNL in July 2013. MTNL responded recently whereas BSNL has yet to reply.

Announcements

CIS joins Worldwide Campaign to Discover Depth of GCHQ's Illegal Spying (Elonnai Hickok; February 28, 2015). Individuals who wish to take part in this process can sign up at https://www.privacyinternational.org/illegalspying.
Prof. Peng Hwa Ang from Nanyang Technology University visited CIS recently. He had a series of interactions with several researchers at CIS and has prepared a brief visit report. Impressed with the research work of CIS he had discussions with CIS on possible collaborations including publication in more academic journals, collaboration with academic institutions in research projects in Privacy / Data Protection and other areas of Internet Governance. He also discussed on the possible areas where he could contribute to CIS including conduction of training session on writing for academic journals.

►Freedom of Expression

Blog Entries

Requests to ICANN: CIS sent ICANN six requests to ICANN regarding ICANN's expenditure on travels and meetings, granular revenue, cyber-attacks on ICANN, ICANN's implementation of the NETmundial principles, complaints under the Ombudsman process, and information regarding revenues received from gTLD auctions. These were prepared by Geetha Hariharan: DIDP Request #1: ICANN's Expenditures on "Travel & Meetings" ; DIDP Request #2: Granular Revenue/Income Statements from ICANN; DIDP Request #3: Cyber-attacks on ICANN; DIDP Request #4: ICANN and the NETmundial Principles ; DIDP Request #5: The Ombudsman and ICANN's Misleading Response to Our Request ; and DIDP Request #6: Revenues from gTLD auction.

Collection of Net Neutrality Definitions (Tarun Krishnakumar; February 8, 2015). The definitions were compiled by Manoj Kurbet, Maitreya Subramaniam and Tarun Krishnakumar under the guidance of Sunil Abraham.
ICANN accountability, IANA transition and open questions (Geetha Hariharan; February 6, 2015).
Where Does ICANN's Money Come From? We Asked; They Don't Know (Geetha Hariharan; February 9, 2015).
Preliminary Submission on "Internet Governance Issues" to the Associated Chambers of Commerce & Industry of India (Geetha Hariharan; February 12, 2015).

►Miscellaneous

A Selection of Tweets on How to Make Crowdmaps Effectual for Mapping Violence against Women (Rohini Lakshané; February 19, 2015).
Reply to RTI Applications filed with respect to Foreign Contractors and Vendors of IT and Telecommunication Enterprises (Lovisha Aggarwal; February 25, 2015).

Event Co-organized

Digital Security Workshop for Journalists (Organized by CIS and Mumbai Press Club; Mumbai Press Club, Azad Maidan, Mumbai; February 7, 2015). Rohini Lakshané conducted the workshop as part of the Cyber Stewards project.

Upcoming Event

Cybersecurity and the Internet of Things (Organized by US Consulate Chennai, Cyber Security & Privacy Foundation and CIS; Hotel Atria, Palace Road, Bangalore; March 19, 2015).

Participation in Events

Winter School on Privacy, Surveillance and Data Protection (Organized by the Centre for Communication Governance (CCG) in collaboration with the UNESCO Chair on Freedom of Communication and Information at the University of Hamburg and the Hans Bredow; Delhi; January 19 - 23, 2015). Bhairav Acharya was a facilitator. Errata: This was wrongly mentioned in the last newsletter. We have corrected this.
NetGain: Working Together for a Stronger Digital Society (Organized by Ford Foundation; February 11 - 12, 2015).

---------------------------------
News & Media Coverage
---------------------------------
CIS gave its inputs to the following media coverage:

Facebook offers free but limited access to the Internet in India (PC World; February 10, 2015).
Govt may turn to supercomputing for better use of Aadhaar database (Moulishree Srivastava; Livemint; February 10, 2015).
Analytics to help govt read public mood online (Surabhi Talwar; Business Standard; February 10, 2015).
Facebook launches Internet.org in India (Lalatendu Mishra and Sriram Srinivasan; Hindu; February 11, 2015).
Google's war on nude photos goes against user rights (Sahil Mohan Gupta; India Today; February 25, 2015).
Hacking of SIM card by spy agencies raises fears of sensitive documents being leaked (PK Jayadevan and Neha Alawadhi; Economic Times; February 25, 2015).
Delhi government in consultation with Centre to block Uber's Internet address (Harsimran Julka; Economic Times; February 25, 2015).
SC reserves judgement in cases against Section 66A (Shreeja Sen; Livemint; February 26, 2015).

Researchers at Work

The Researchers at Work (RAW) programme is an interdisciplinary research initiative driven by contemporary concerns to understand the reconfigurations of social practices and structures through the Internet and digital media technologies, and vice versa. It is interested in producing local and contextual accounts of interactions, negotiations, and resolutions between the Internet, and socio-material and geo-political processes:

Event Organized

Innovative Infrastructures for Research and Pedagogy in Interdisciplinary Social Sciences and Humanities (Co-organized by Centre for Study of Culture and Society and CIS, Bangalore): The RAW programme organized a consultation to discuss and conceptualise an upcoming project. The project will be hosted by the RAW programme.

Blog Entry

Figures of Learning: The Pornographer (Namita A. Malhotra; February 28, 2015).

About CIS

The Centre for Internet and Society is a non-profit research organization that works on policy issues relating to freedom of expression, privacy, accessibility for persons with disabilities, access to knowledge and IPR reform, and openness (including open government, FOSS, open standards, etc.), and engages in academic research on digital natives and digital humanities.

► Follow us elsewhere

Twitter: https://twitter.com/CISA2K
Facebook group: https://www.facebook.com/cisa2k
Visit us at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/India_Access_To_Knowledge
E-mail: a2k@cis-india.org

► Support Us

Please help us defend consumer / citizen rights on the Internet! Write a cheque in favour of 'The Centre for Internet and Society' and mail it to us at No. 194, 2nd 'C' Cross, Domlur, 2nd Stage, Bengaluru - 5600 71.

► Request for Collaboration:

We invite researchers, practitioners, and theoreticians, both organisationally and as individuals, to collaboratively engage with Internet and society and improve our understanding of this new field. To discuss the research collaborations, write to Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, at sunil@cis-india.org. To discuss collaborations on Indic language Wikipedia, write to T. Vishnu Vardhan, Programme Director, A2K, at vishnu@cis-india.org.

CIS is grateful to its primary donor the Kusuma Trust founded by Anurag Dikshit and Soma Pujari, philanthropists of Indian origin for its core funding and support for most of its projects. CIS is also grateful to its other donors, Wikimedia Foundation, Ford Foundation, Privacy International, UK, Hans Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, and IDRC for funding its various projects.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/about/newsletters/february-2015-bulletin

SECTION 66A: DELETE

praskrishna — 2015-03-30T01:32:18Z

The Supreme Court has killed a law that allowed the Government to control social media. What’s the Net worth of freedom hereafter?

The article by Kumar Anshuman was published in the Open Magazine on March 27, 2015. Sunil Abraham gave his inputs.

It was in 2009 that Section 66A was added as an amendment to India’s IT Act by the then UPA Government, but it took three years before it came to the notice of Shreya Singhal, a student of Law at Delhi University. By then, the Section had already earned itself a fair amount of notoriety for how much leeway it provided for the police and politicians to abuse the law.

The first time was in September 2011 when Musafir Baitha, a famous poet and government employee in Bihar, was suspended from his job because he criticised the state government on Facebook. An uproar followed, as people realised that freedom of speech in social media could now be construed as a criminal activity. Ambikesh Mahapatra, a professor at Jadavpur Unversity, became a target of the Mamata Banerjee government in April 2012 when he made cartoons of her. In September 2012, cartoonist Aseem Trivedi was arrested in Mumbai for a caricature of corruption under the UPA. But the case that caught Shreya Singhal’s attention was perhaps the most shocking of all. In November 2012, after Shiv Sena founder Bal Thackeray’s death, Shaheen Dhada, a Thane resident, posted a comment on her Facebook page criticising the near-total shutdown of Mumbai for the funeral. She wrote that Mumbai was shut not in respect, but fear, and that a leader should earn respect instead of forcing it out of people. Her friend Renu Srinivasan ‘liked’ this post. Hours later, both were arrested and booked under Section 66A. "I was shocked when I heard of this news," Singhal says, "I went and checked the post and there was nothing which could have provoked such an outrage." Her mother, Manali Singhal, a lawyer at the Supreme Court, advised her to file a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against the Section.

The case continued for two years in the Supreme Court, while arbitrary arrests continued to be made. The UPA Government first defended 66A in court, taking the position that the current NDA Government took as well. It argued that the law would be used only in extreme cases where a person overreaches his or her online freedom to curtail the rights of others. Unconvinced, on 24 March, the apex court struck 66A down, saying that it could not allow such a law to exist on mere government assurances. The Court found several terms in the Act, such as ‘grossly offensive’ and ‘insult’, that were not clearly defined and could be interpreted arbitrarily to suit one’s convenience. ‘It is clear that Section 66A is unconstitutionally vague and it takes away a guaranteed freedom,’ observed the bench of Justice J Chelameswar and Justice Rohinton Nariman.

"We can celebrate the scrapping of Section 66A, but with caution," says Sunil Abraham, executive director at The Centre for Internet & Society in Bangalore. "[As for] those who are booked under Section 66A, the police also imposes different sections of the Indian Penal Code to justify their arrest." There are examples to support his statement, a recent one being the arrest of a Bareilly-based student, Gulrez Khan, who had posted a picture on Facebook of UP minister Azam Khan along with some derogatory comments about Hindus that he allegedly made. Gulrez Khan denied the comments, saying that his image was being maligned. The boy was arrested and booked. "People are making it out as a moment of triumph against the UP government. The fact is this boy had been arrested under Section 153A and 504 of the IPC along with Section 66A of the IT Act. We have said this even in the Supreme Court," says Gaurav Bhatia, a spokesperson of the Samajwadi Party and also a senior advocate.

But the import of scrapping Section 66A is that there is now one less law that can be misused, one that specifically stifles online freedom. "It’s an excellent judgment," says Lawrence Liang of Alternative Law Forum, Bangalore. “It couldn’t have been better than this. The fact that the apex court termed it ‘vague and overreaching’ signifies how important it was to scrap this."

Once the 122-page judgment arrived, there was a rush to welcome it—even by those who were responsible for Section 66A to begin with. Former Congress minister Kapil Sibal was one of them. "The Supreme Court has scrapped Section 66A to allow freedom of speech in cyberspace and we should welcome it,” he said. His former cabinet colleague P Chidambaram went to the extent of saying that it was poorly drafted. But the Congress as a party also warned of the possible misuse of this freedom, saying that it had woven various safeguards into Section 66A, including the condition that an arrest could only be made after an officer of the level of Inspector General or Superintendent of Police had okayed it. "The Supreme Court, it appears, has not found the safeguards sufficient," says Congress spokesperson and senior lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi. “It is now up to the current Government [to decide] how to strike the right balance between freedom of speech on one hand and [prevention of] abuse and hounding of groups or individuals through obscene or incorrigibly false information [on the other] to deter unbridled defamation in cyberspace." The Left parties, which were supporting the UPA Government back when Section 66A was imposed, have expressed happiness over the verdict. “The draconian provision of 66A was used to arrest people who express dissenting views against the Government and the State and to suppress criticism of those in power,” says senior CPM leader Sitaram Yechury.

The NDA Government has also welcomed the verdict. "The Government absolutely respects the right to freedom of speech and expression on social media and has no intention of curbing it," says Ravi Shankar Prasad, Union Minister for Information Technology.

But the scrapping of the Section leaves the Government with very little power to act against real abuse of online freedoms. Like Congress leader Milind Deora says, "An unregulated internet can be more dangerous than a regulated one." This argument is easily countered: there are enough provisions in existing laws that prevent a person from misusing freedom of speech. Says Apar Gupta, a senior lawyer, “Section 66A was a bailable section and arrests were made only with further imposition of IPC acts." While Article 19 (1) of the Constitution guarantees freedom of expression, at the same time Article 19 (2) provides a list of reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech. This is enough, experts believe, to curtail misuse of the internet. The court judgment also grants the Centre the freedom to enact any other law specific to the internet, provided it does not violate the provisions of freedom of speech as laid down by the Constitution of India.

This does, however, put a question mark on the necessity of Section 66A to begin with, if existing laws were quite enough to address freedom-of- speech abuses. "Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000, was enacted to prevent online abuse and hounding of groups and individuals, check the propagation of obscene or incorrigibly false information with the intent to create social divides and unrest, and deter unbridled defamation in cyberspace. This Act came into effect in 2008 when social media was yet evolving," says Singhvi. But experts disagree with this argument. "It is a perfect case of confusion and mixing up of facts,” says Sunil Abraham. “The purpose of this law was to curb unsolicited messages, spamming and harassing someone through fake identities in the internet space." He says that the Government claimed to borrow law provisions from the US, Canada and other countries, but the legislation was so poorly drafted that it didn’t have any teeth for action against spammers. "Even words like ‘unsolicited commercial mails’ were not included in the Act and that is the reason not a single person has been arrested in India for spam mails even after this Act came into being."

A section of the Indian legal fraternity believes that the country’s apex court should also have made a statement about the problem of spamming and harassment on the internet.

But there is bad news too. The same judgment that struck down Section 66A has upheld Section 69A of the IT Act as constitutionally valid. This allows the Government to block any website which it deems a direct threat to public order and security that might spread propaganda.

"In this case, the Government [can decide] to block a website without notifying [it with any] reason for it. If I am an internet user who wants to visit this site, I am also not notified why that website has been taken down. It is just the whims and fancies of a few officials in the Government, what to block and what not," says Apar Gupta. Using the section, the Union Government had blocked 32 websites just this January, saying that anti- national groups were using these websites for ‘jihadi propaganda’.

All major democracies have some form of legal net regulation. "Laws in foreign jurisdictions vary widely as per the guarantees of civil rights afforded to citizens in any legal system," adds Gupta. "The legislations of the United States, which borrowed certain phrases in Section 66A, have already been declared unconstitutional. In the United Kingdom, similar phrases have come under fierce critique and have been limited by guidelines issued by the office of prosecutions. In these jurisdictions, as in India, existing criminal law applies equally to online speech as much as to offline."

Also, while social media enthusiasts rejoice over their first big victory against restrictions on online freedom of speech, the internet is still a matter of great concern for any government, thanks to its reach and influence. The Union Government walks a thin line while dealing with instances of abuse on social media, and many believe India needs an IT Act drafted in proper consultation with all stakeholders.

For now, a young law student has found a place in the legal history of India. "It will always be remembered as Shreya Singhal vs Union of India," says Singhal.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT

‘66A. Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc. Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device:

Any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or
Any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device;
Any electronic mail or message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages...

shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine’

SUPREME COURT ORDER

‘In conclusion, we may summarise what has been held by us: Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is struck down in its entirety being violative of Article 19(1)(a) and not saved under Article 19(2)’

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/open-magazine-march-27-2015-kumar-anshuman-section-66a-delete

Bangla Wiki turns 10

praskrishna — 2015-04-04T16:10:12Z

The 10th anniversary of Bengali Wikipedia was marked with a a gathering of Wikipedians of vernacular languages from across the country and beyond at Jadavpur University. Bengali is one of 20 Indian languages to have a Wikipedia presence. The event also celebrated 14 years of the mother edition in English of the open-access, crowd-sourced online encyclopaedia.

Contributed by Sudeshna Banerjee, Showli Chakraborty and Abhinanda Datta the story published in the Telegraph on March 29, 2015 quotes T. Vishnu Vardhan.

"We hear of digital divide all the time. Here it is about digital inclusiveness. The University Grants Commission talks of four factors to make a good university - access, equity, quality and employability. What a teacher cannot give in class, he can offer on the world wide web. The question of quality in Wikipedia can be addressed through workshops like this," said Calcutta University registrar Basab Chaudhuri.

Wikimedia Foundation trustee Bishakha Datta spoke of the uneasy relationship between Wikipedia and academia, especially over authenticity.

"Yes, we do not use original research. So our articles are not admissible as primary sources. At the same time, every piece of information in a Wikipedia article has to be cited and annotated. It is great that an institution like JU has come forward to host us," said Datta, thanking the university's School of Languages and Linguistics.

Joint registrar Sanjay Gopal Sarkar argued in favour of the existence of Wikipedia articles in the vernacular. "It is a part of the empowerment of my mother tongue."

Quantity was a problem, he said. "It is not enough to have 33,000 articles (the English version has 4.7 million). Workshops need to be held in Bengal and Assam on how to write articles. If Wikipedia and the universities join hands, a battalion of writers and editors can be created."

The Bangladeshi delegates revealed how Wikipedia's mission of making knowledge free was getting a technological boost back home. "Grameenphone and Bangla Link, two of our biggest mobile service providers, have made Facebook and Wikipedia free. Subscribers just have to log on to specific domains (0.facebook.com and zero.wikipedia.org) to see picture-less texts," said Ankan Ghosh Dastidar, a Class XI student from Dhaka.

Vishnu Vardhan from the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, urged for more institutional tie-ups so that instead of stopping students from going to Wikipedia, teachers would integrate their contributions to Wikipedia in the course. "Andhra Loyola College is the largest contributor to Telegu Wikipedia," he said. Hindi, he added, has the maximum articles among Indian languages, followed by Tamil and Telugu. "But Malayalam has the most active Wikipedians - around 100."

A workshop was held to teach how to type in Bengali and edit the Bengali Wikipedia. Techno India student Ayan Chaudhury addressed queries on downloading the Avro font and typing tricky conjoined letters in Bengali, as also how to create cross references and highlight terms. "Ask yourself two questions when you want to add any information: Is it relevant? Can it be verified? Also do not blindly turn on Google Translate. The quality of its translation is such that a word like 'swipe' becomes ' dhum dhadakka'."

A group editing session took place on the second day with 15 volunteers translating articles from the English Wikipedia and adding new articles in Bengali. Some also worked on Wiktionary, an online dictionary, and others on Wikisource, typing out pages of seminal texts outside copyright.

Crafts for a cause

Artisans from Bengal and Bangladesh joined hands to participate in a handcrafted jewellery and handloom exhibition organised by WIIN (Women and Infants in Need) at Shree Art Gallery in Ballygunge on March 25 and 26.

"The proceeds will be donated to Paripurnata, a home for women with mental disabilities (off EM Bypass). We emphasise on mental health awareness programmes and try and create job opportunities for the residents at Paripurnata. This helps in building their confidence and creates a sense of social acceptance," said Nilanjana Mukherjee, the general secretary of WIIN and Paripurnata.

The exhibition was inaugurated by actress Sonali Gupta, who plays Satyabati to Dhritiman Chaterji's Byomkesh Bakshi in Sajarur Kanta. "This cause is close to my heart. We must come together to help women and infants in need," said Gupta.

The exhibition showcased a collection of saris and jewellery from the Rajshahi district in Bangladesh, quirky handbags, hand-painted mugs, kurtas and dupattas.

Trilingual road trip

An independent film - or indie - by two graduates of the Satyajit Ray Film and Television Institute (SRFTI) has hit theatres this Friday. Titled Yahan Sabki Lagi Hai (Everybody Gets Screwed Here), the 100-minute trilingual (English, Hindi and Bengali) black comedy is directed by Calcutta girl Tina A. Bose and Mumbai boy Cyrus R. Khambata.

Produced by Vibrant Works, the film revolves around Kesang and Bharat, who are on their way to a birthday party but their road trip soon turns into a disaster as they find themselves in the middle of a jungle, robbed of all their belongings.

Road trip gone wrong has been done before, but according to the young film-makers, "while most of them have been horror or slasher films, ours travels the philosophical path and focuses on the issues we face in life."

The lead actress is a Tibetan girl, Eden Shyodhi. "We wanted to cast a girl from a minority community. We needed someone who was weird and interesting as the character of Kesang is very unusual. And when we met Eden, she had flaming red hair, just like how we had envisioned Kesang!" said Tina, who has studied in Lady Brabourne College and Jadavpur University. The cast also includes stand-up comedian Varun Thakur and Bengali actor Heerok Das, previously seen in Egaro.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/news/the-telegraph-march-29-2015-bangla-wiki-turns-ten