Centre for Internet and Society

Science Gallery Workshop @ Srishti

praskrishna — 2012-12-04T15:42:58Z

Srishti School of Art, Design and Technology is organizing a workshop to discuss the exciting potential of envisaging a Science Gallery in Bangalore as a part of the Global Science Gallery Network. Sunil Abraham is participating in this workshop.

Srishti is hosting this first workshop in collaboration with the Science Gallery at Trinity College Dublin, which is spearheading this initiative across six cities worldwide on November 23, 2012.

Shristi is inviting multiple stakeholders in the city, including scientists, technologists and artists, to begin discussions and collaborations to conceptualize the Science Gallery in Bangalore. The Science Gallery will explore intersections of art, science and technology, through public engagement particularly the youth, to make science accessible and inspirational to all.

Click the links below for more about the Science Gallery:

http://sciencegallery.com/

http://sciencegallery.com/international

Venue
Srishti School of Art Design and Technology (N2 campus)
No. 40/A, 5th Cross, 5th Main,
Shiva Mandir Road,
Yelahanka New Town 5th Phase

Date: Friday, November 23, 2012
Time: 9.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/science-gallery-workshop

Schuyler

praskrishna — 2012-02-11T03:30:43Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/schuyler_erle.jpg

Schmidt

praskrishna — 2013-04-16T05:41:02Z

Schmidt

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/Schmidt.png

Schedule of the National Consultation on OER for Higher Education

praskrishna — 2017-03-28T15:47:43Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/files/national-consultation-on-oer-for-higher-education.pdf

Scenario Building Process

praskrishna — 2013-03-26T10:32:31Z

Scenario Building Process

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/copy_of_W1.png

SCCR Working Document

praskrishna — 2013-12-07T07:55:27Z

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

SCCR 29: Public Interest Organizations Statements regarding the Broadcasting Treaty

praskrishna — 2014-12-27T16:44:18Z

Also presented during the afternoon plenary, here are 3 statements by public interest organizations, the TACD, EFF and CIS:

The article was published in Knowledge Ecology International on December 9, 2014.

TACD: Thank you very much the transAtlantic consumer dialogue is concerned that the discussion on this treaty whereas in the past due to the lack of definitions we called it an unidentified flying object, now, as the definitions get a bit clearer, we feel it's becoming a more identified flying object in the air as a transmission and precisely because it's becoming identified some of these definitions we consider are concerning us and we are worried about these definitions because we think these definitions and these protections of rights could mean a threat to access to culture, a threat even to freedom of speech, and a threat to the public domain. And we are talking about a public domain, about public broadcasting signals.
And we think these threats are coming from a scope that is much broader than is recommendable. It is a scope that could take into account a lot of the digital rights that millions of young people around the world are fighting for and defending. And I think this sensitivity of digital rights of mixing, of the type of things that go on every day millions of times on the Internet should not be threatened by this treaty. So how can we avoid that? We could avoid that by avoiding any post fixation rights.

We could avoid it by a very narrow definition of simultaneous or near simultaneous traditional broadcasting signals to the public in the air. We could -- broadcasting should mean, similar to the Rome Convention, the transmission by wireless over the air means for public reception of sounds, of images and of words.
As well, what is a signal? What is a signal? A signal obviously could not just mean everything. A signal means an electronically generated carrier over the air with sounds and images, and what we really need, what we really need is to narrow down the scope to a point where we don't see this as something that can be a threat to the creativity, innovation, new business models at a time when we know that the new business models need that flexibility, what we don't need is yet another layer of bureaucratic costly rights that will be burdensome for the future of the Internet.

So for that reason, for consumers, for Internet users, for culture, for new innovation, we would like really to call for this very narrow definition of the scope. Thank you very much.

The call for a narrow based possible treaty was echoed by EFF https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/12/danger-post-fixation-rights-wipo-b...

>> Electronic frontier foundation: This year marks the tenth anniversary of EFF discussions over the WIPO treaty for broadcasting organisations. And during that time our position has been constant that any such treating should be limited to addressing the unauthorized simultaneous and near simultaneous retransmission of traditional broadcast untiles to the public without assigning new exclusive rights in the content of those signals. We also note it would be possible to include a right to prohibit the transmission of prebroadcast signals within a snail based approach and without assigning any new exclusive rights. Although this has been [decided?] in the past when WIPO dwed at the 2007 assembly to follow a signal based approach. Current discussions on post fixation rights have backtracked from this commitment and it's that more than anything else that has led these negotiations to become more protracted.
Creating new exclusive rights in post broadcast fixations would impede access to public domain material and material over which copyright limitations and exceptions may apply. This is because some material may not be readily available other than from broadcasts such as in the case of broadcast of sport or use events. It would impede the use of technological innovations that add val you to broadcast. Especially if it curtailed the use of circumvention devices this could affects digital media players and new innovations we can't even envision yet especially those running on free and open source marredware and software. So EFF urges WIPO members to be disciplined in their add harns to a narrow signal based approach as we see this as the only way that a treaty for broadcasting ors organisations can be conclude in 2015 or at all. Thank you.

The CIS made a technical analysis of the "charts" that cannot (yet) be provided to the public also here: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-29-cis-intervention-on-proposed...

> CIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair. This intervention will be based on your chart detailing the concepts corresponding to the various definitions we are discussing here today. We believe that there are certain elements to these concepts that are inconsistent with the broadcast treaty based on a signals based approach and over the course of the next few minutes, I would like to briefly discuss these.
First, Mr. Chair, in the first column, and broadcasting or cable casting organisation in the traditional sense where communication of the signal has been listed under the scope of responsibility. Mr. Chair, as we have submitted in other statements before this community, before this committee, communication itself we believe is a concept that is an element of copyright, and it's distinction broadcast rights char related rights. A signal, Mr. Chair, we, therefore, believe could be broadcast or transmitted and accordingly under the element that deals with the scope of responsibility, we are of the money opinion that it should read broadcast or transmission of the signal and not communication of the signal, and the focus should not be communication to the public.

A concept that's also been discussed in certain alternatives to the definitions under Article 5 which accordingly we would loss not favor. Second, Mr. Chair, in the second column in broadcasting and cable casting transmission, we have three observations. Fist, under the means of transmission, we believe the transmission over computer networks is wide enough to encompass IP based tran missions and, therefore, should be excluded in order for the treaty to be consistent with the signals based approach.

Second, on the reception of the broadcast or cable cast prance mission, we believe that it should be qualified using the phrase general public. We are of the opinion that there is a danger that a limited public, say, family members, could be covered under the term public but would be excluded from the term general puck public which in any case is the targeted audience of a broadcast. Third, Mr. Chair, on whether the transmission would be encrypted or not, which also flows into the thought column on the signal, and whether the signal itself is encrypted or not, encrypted or not.

And which would also then relate to whether broadcasting organisations will have the right to prevent unauthorized decription. Mr. Chair, we don't think there should be a separate right to prevent unauthorized decription. Given that signal theft is a crime, having a spect decription might result in an absurdity where it would cover decrypting and unauthorized retransmission without authorization from the retransmitter where the transmission by the retransmitter was illegal to begin with.

Finally, Mr. Chair, in the third column and on the meaning of the signal, we submit that our preferred definition would be one where the definition of a signal is confined, and is understood as an electronically generated carrier transmitting a broadcast or a cable cast and not one which has the capability of such transmission as has been stated in your third chart.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/news/knowledge-ecology-international-sccr-29-public-interest-organizations-statements-regarding-the-broadcasting-treaty

SCCR 29 Libraries, Archives and Public Interest NGOs in Q&A with Dr. Crews

praskrishna — 2014-12-27T16:54:58Z

While the many publishers representatives took the floor to explain that there are truly no problems with limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives (and anyway according to them if there are problems that can be solved with licenses), libraries & archives as well as public interest groups make their case: the committee must continue its work on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives and find solutions.

This blog entry was published on the website of Knowledge Ecology International on December 11, 2014.

Here are excerpts from some of the interventions:

Hasmik Galstyan, Yerevan, Armenia speaking for the Electronic Information for LIbraries (eIFL.net):

>> EIFL: I'm speaking on behalf of the electronic information for libraries and that works with libraries and library con sort Sha in more than 60 developing and transition economy countries. We thank the Secretariat for commissioning the updated study that provided a comprehensive overview in the IP law. We thank professor crews for his clear presentation.
The report contains positives and negatives from our Point of View. The positives include the fact that law makers are to some degree responding to the need for legal change and a small number of countries have over the last six years created new exceptions especially with regard to digital services. These changes are to be commended. On the other hand, it is discouraging that 18% of countries including five EIFL partner countries have new exceptions for libraries and over one-third located almost totally in the developing world still do not have an exception allowing libraries to make copies of their works for the users. The trend regarding digital library services doesn't look good. Even for states that introduce amendment 2008 digital is barred in 50% in some cases for preservation and it states with anti-circumvention protection while some have applied library exceptions as mentioned by professor crews half of the countries have provided no library exceptions. So while a small number of countries are moving ahead and reforming their copyright laws the digital divide is being perpetuated at a time when libraries everywhere are adopting new technologies and Developing Countries are rapidly moving to mobile. My question is how can the situation be addressed. How can WIPO as an UN agency with a commitment to work with Developing Countries to enhance their participation in the global innovation economy most effectively support countries to be at the forefront of digital developments. To ensure that our libraries that are working hard to support education and development are not operating with one hand tied behind our backs.

My second question is considering that between 2008 and 2014 only a handful of countries have been implemented made changes benefitting libraries and their users and imagining that the current rate of support for a change stays the same, how long do you think it will take before all WIPO Member States have exceptions good enough to support library activities in the Digital Age? And the last question, please. Libraries collections contain materials of unique cultural and historical significance to people in other countries to the national border changes shared languages and a host of other reasons. In addition collaboration among researchers today is international. Therefore libraries increasingly need to send and receive information across borders. In our examination of copyright laws how do they accommodate or not these activities? Thank you very much.

The libraries representatives were echoed by archives representatives. William Maher, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, representing the Society of America Archivists.

Thank you for producing a study that brings such clarity to the quite confusing maze of the laws that librarians and archivists must work with. Archives has been mentioned a lot over the past couple of days but I am only the second archivist to be addressing this issue at SCCR. Archivists know that the general populations does not understand what archives are and how and why we do what we do. However, it seems reasonable that those who draft copyright laws should understand that archives are fundamentally about the unpublished legacy of humankind. Yet, when looking at the 70 or so countries in the 2014 study, archives are seriously overlooked–Despite whatever minimal improvement for libraries, archives have been left out of 53% of the exceptions for preservation and 72 % of the exceptions for copying for research. Is this absence of provisions also reflected in the fact that the laws lack definitions of archives? Can this oversight be read as meaning that archives do not matter to the nations copyright system, or does it mean that copyright should not matter to archives?
>> KENNETH CREWS: Well, thank you very much. Yes, I think you have also heard me speak very strongly about the distinct interests of archives and maybe I should say even more important the distinct interests of our citizens in archives and in the works that they are -- the work that they are doing. And their ability to use these copyright provisions for the benefit of the country and of its citizens. I certainly can't emphasize that enough. So I -- I'm not going to read in to the lack of reference to archives. The kind of meaning that you are asking about. But instead I think we can certainly say that it makes you wonder if archives have been recognized by the drafters of many of these statutes and if in the case of following through on the example of the models influencing domestic law it really is have archives come to the attention of the individuals who have been responsible for developing some of the models. So I believe very strongly that the future statutes in individual countries and the drafting of different kinds of instruments or models that may come from WIPO or any other organization need to encompass archives. And the -- because the preservation and research access and other kinds of beneficial uses of archival material goes directly to the preservation of the culture and the history of our countries and our people. And it is vital that we be able to do that and keep archives at the table. And I thank you very much for being here.

Another stakeholder, Nehaa Chaudhari, Lawyer, Programme Officer at the Centre for Internet and Society questioned Dr. Crews on provisions regarding digital works:

CIS: Thank you Madame Chair. Thank you very much professor crews for your presentation yesterday and this comprehensive study on libraries and archives. Very timely and very important to us from the [...] access to knowledge and information most critically.
I have two questions. My first question: did you find in your examination that in terms of or on the question of limitations and exceptions did you find that there was an equal or equitable treatment of digital resources in comparison to resources available in more traditional formats? And if not, where do you think that are lever of change lies to ensure that fair use of fair dealing provisions are extended e equitably to the digital environment as well.

My second question is on the interoperability of limitations and exceptions. Given that copyright is a very national thing and as your study has also well established countries have a whole range of veridy veers approaches and practices on limitations and exceptions. But also given the fact that we live in an increasingly globalized world we need a system that is interoperable with respect to the transboundary movement of works with as little fiction as possible. Again both in the physical as well as in the digital environments. So what did your examination show of how interoperable or not the range of limitations and exceptions actually have. Those are my two questions. Thank you very much.

> KENNETH CREWS: Thank you very much. On the second question, I'm afraid I might mind myself only repeating some of the concepts that have already said about transborder and really about in the statutes anyway, a lack of recognition of transborder. And the transborder concept, so I will add this piece to the conversation, the transborder concept seldom if ever appears in these library exceptions to the extent that we are going to find it in copyright law or some other part of a national law it may very well be over in the import/export kind -- area of the law. But that also goes to the interoperability which think we have answered a few times just this sort -- the lack of exact harmonization and as others have reminded me I have said before that I may not be a fan of exact precise harmonization and indeed it may not be possible or even desirable. But some degree of harmonization can help with that interoperability. Interesting question, you do -- you did raise a new point about digital. We have talked several times in this conversation about use of digital technologies in the exercise of the rights of use under the exception. However what I think you were asking about is the ability to apply the exception to works that are digital in the first place that are what we call born digital and that's a very interesting question. The statutes do not address that. Sometimes you will see a statute that refers to -- that says it applies to all these different kinds of works but not computer software. That tells you somebody was thinking it shouldn't apply to software but somehow software is different and there are problems with that. We know that software has changed and been incorporated in to many different works. But we generally see a statute almost always see a statute that's about books or archival materials or some other kind of work without specifying the technology. So can it apply to an e-book in addition to the paper book? The statutes don't go there. They don't sort that out.

So in my common law tradition I look at that and see that as a question for interpretation. In
a civil code system I might look at it and see it a little bit more firmly for lack of a better word
about what the scope of that word book, for example, really means. Really good question. And it is one that the statutes have not picked up on. Thank you very much.

Finally, the TransAtlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD) representative David Hammerstein made the following political and philosophical intervention:

Thank you very much. Thank you Mr. Crews for your presentation. I would like to say a few general words. Internet and the digital obviously is global. Copyright laws are national. Economic power is global. Politics is national. This is very relevant to our discussion.
And other relevant factor is that copyright law and the idea of exceptions and limitations are very complicated. It is for small circles of specialists usually and when these things come out in to the open to the greater public opinion things change radically. I can only remind peep of this room for the debate on ACTA or the debate for SOPA and PIPA in the United States. When these issues come out of the closet things are seen in a very, very different light. The opinion of copyright specialist especially where I know in the European Union and totally different with the opinions of the general public. And the general public the vast majority are frustrated by copyright law because social reality that applies de facto and I am not talking about piracy, I am talking about de facto flexibilities and exceptions and limitations are very, very far from the legal reality of the copyright. The vast majority of Europeans would like to have a harmonized and mandatory exceptions and limitations that we are speaking about, whether it be more text and data mining, whether it be for libraries whether it be cross-border, whether it be preservation of cultural heritage, they would like that. Now the opinions of the often of political structures are captured by certain experts and very special groups that are interested in what they want. Especially the European Union is at a cross roads and we can see it politically because around a year ago the European Union launched a process called lnss for Europe where some of the ideas presented by some of the industry people were brought up memorandums of understanding and that the solution to exceptions and limitations for these issues could be found in voluntary measures between stakeholders. This was a failure. This was a terrible failure. We had letters many many many Nobel Prize winners who are asking tore a legal exceptions and limitations for text and data mining for other scientific research and we think that many orphan works legislation does not go far enough. Et cetera, et cetera, self generated user content. How can that Democratic debate take place and these cross roads can be made a positively by real decisions. And I think those real decisions have to be deal with the public dough minute yon, what is public knowledge and things about the commons, we are talking about the knowledge commons here need to have a democratic debate and need to have democratic management. Now this could be done by very delayed mediation to end up in the hands of a few copyright experts that are very close to very narrow industry that I think is defending outdated models or we could open a democratic debate where exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives for preservation for scientific limitation would be beyond borders. Even inside the European Union today it is almost hard to imagine there to be harmonization in the internal market. And the people making money prefer a fragmented market even though European site sents want a harmonized market for these things. My question is impossible question. I am sorry to put you on spot of how to open up the door, how to bring this issue out of the closet and how to involve millions of people who really want that change. Thank you very much

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/news/knowledge-ecology-international-sccr-29-december-11-2014-libraries-archives-public-interest-ngos-q-a-with-dr-crews

SCCR 27 WIPO

praskrishna — 2014-04-30T05:18:48Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sccr-27-cis-wipo.pdf

SCCR 26

praskrishna — 2014-05-01T13:57:22Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sccr-26.pdf

Scared by a spoof? You’ve got to be kidding me!

praskrishna — 2012-06-05T05:24:09Z

Whether it is Mamata Banerjee's recent crackdown on a comic strip or the new legal guidelines that allow touchy readers to have objectionable content taken down, what you say online is under scrutiny. What, then, will happen to news satire websites?

The article by Dhamini Ratnam was published in the Times of India on June 3, 2012

"Meri site www.cartoonsagainstcorruption.com kabse band ho chuki hai (...) Humara sabse bada hathiyar humse chheena ja raha hai (...) Aaj chup rahe toh phir bolne ke liye zubaan bhi nahin bachegi." (My site www.cartoonsagainstcorruption.com has been shut down (...) Our biggest weapon is being taken away from us (...) If we remain silent, we won't be left with anything to articulate with").

That's the first thing you read on Kanpur-based blogger Aseem Trivedi's new site, www.cartoonsagainstcorruption.blogspot.in, on which he transferred all his satirical cartoons earlier this year, after he found that his website had been arbitrarily blocked based on a complaint lodged with the Mumbai Crime Branch last December.

In May, Trivedi went on a hunger strike. His point was simple. The police had no right to have his website taken down, under the Information Technology (Amendment) Act 2008, or even under the new Information Technology (intermediary guidelines) Rules, 2011. These rules came into effect last April, and give 36 hours to the intermediary (read Internet Service Provider) to take down content deemed 'objectionable'.

At the face of it, this may seem like a handing over of power to Internet users. But what does this hold out for news satire websites that routinely critique public figures, spoof politics and play an important role in raising public awareness through humour?

For one, in a surprising move, the editors are giving up being anonymous. Says Rahul Roushan, editor, Faking News, "I began this site under the pseudonym Pagal Patrakar in 2008. By the end of 2009, I didn't want to remain anonymous anymore."

Roushan, who is based in Gurgaon, felt readers weren't taking him seriously. "Unless there's a face to such sites, people will think you're spreading lies," says the 33-year-old former television news anchor. Yet, coming out wasn't a cakewalk. "A post I wrote about on the anti-people policy of Mr Thackeray received a comment that I am a Bihari, and therefore against Marathi manoos. Had he not known my name, the reader would never have written such a comment," says Roushan.

Yet, Roushan would rather have his readers - his blog gets 10 lakh page views a month - trust his judgement.

However, recent events, including Pashimbanga Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee's crackdown on a comic strip, and Union human resource development, communications and IT minister Kapil Sibal's suggestion to Internet giants to "regulate themselves" has left Roushan and other news satire website editors wary.The new IT guidelines, fears Roushan, will create an army of self-righteous people with "a lot of hurt sentiments".

"I'm scared of sentiments," he says, wryly.

T S Sudhir, editor of Tenali Rama Reports, a news spoof site that was started in September 2011, feels the trick to safeguard against such "sentiments" is to maintain a rigorous editorial policy. "No obscene, lewd or toilet humour," says the Hyderabadbased former journalist.

The recent fracas over Mamata's 'Maoist' concerns, for instance, elicited a light-hearted piece that said all dosa-eaters are Maoists, because 'mao' in Tamil means 'batter'. "India has a long-standing political tradition of satire, and readers are used to political cartoons with biting humour."

Mangalore-based political cartoonist Satish Acharya, however, has faced the brunt for his biting humour. In September 2011, a Mumbai Crime Branch officer asked him to take down a cartoon depicting Sharad Pawar in a red gown that Acharya had posted on his blog, after it was published in a Mumbaibased tabloid. "In political cartoons, what is the yardstick to measure what is objectionable," asks Acharya. "Can a policeman decide whether a political cartoon is objectionable and have it taken down?"

Programme manager at The Centre for Internet and Society, Bengaluru, Pranesh Prakash has a one word reply: No. Together with his teammates, Prakash is working on a set of guidelines that counters the Intermediary Rules and offers checks and balances without trampling on fundamental rights. For instance, says Prakash, after a complaint is made, the content owner - say the website editor, or cartoonist - should be allowed to reply. If the problem persists, the complainant can go to court.

If cartoons are an effective vehicle of critique online, so are videos. The UnReal Times, run by New Delhi-based IIM graduates C S Krishna and Karthik Laxman, shot to online fame last year after they released a video depicting the Prime Minister as Singham, the heroic character played by Ajay Devgn in a film.

"The best sort of satire," says Krishna, "is when you can't prove in the court of law that the piece is insulting." Krishna and Laxman, who do policy research work for BJP MP Uday Singh, insist that they are not card-holders for the party, and have taken pot-shots at the BJP, too. "Since political satire focuses on mocking the establishment, the UPA government is the subject of most our (satirical) pieces on politics," says Krishna. Tanay Sukumar, editor of News That Matters Not, feels that the content should be directed at a problematic policy, not person. Engineering students Sukumar and Sugandha, who founded the site in 2009, feel that a satirist needs to distinguish between what is necessary and what isn't. "Portraying a political figure using sexual innuendo might be funny for several readers, but would be "unnecessary" in most cases. Our job is to to critique governance." In the case of a crackdown, however, they are clear about what they'd do: they'll take down the 'offending' piece, and then write about having done so. "We will not offend them; we will wear them out," they say.

Want to start a news satire website? here's how:

Have a disclaimer page. Apologise in advance for "hurt sentiments", offer readers a chance to get in touch with you directly for redressal, explain why you're using satire as a tool to critique. If your ISP is asked to remove content, the current IT guidelines are such that they would need to obey. However, since the law doesn't require ISPs to keep track of content that has been removed, make noise about it. There'll be enough people online who will fight for your freedom of expression. Study satire - it's an effective tool - but learn to distinguish it from slander and falsehood. Keep the post grounded in a real event or phenomenon. Critique the agenda, not the person. Consult an IT lawyer if you are in doubt about a piece. It's always good to know your legal argument beforehand.

Pranesh Prakash is quoted in this article.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/scared-by-a-spoof

Scale

praskrishna — 2012-10-03T04:54:07Z

Scale

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/scale.jpg

Scalability and Security Issues in Distributed Trust based Cryto-Currency Systems like BITCOIN

praskrishna — 2014-12-05T01:33:25Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/scalability-security-issues-in-distributed-trust-based-cryto-currency-systems-like-bitcoin.pptx

SC seeks govt reply on PIL challenging powers of IT Act

praskrishna — 2014-09-08T04:45:51Z

Section 66A of the IT Act punishes sending offensive messages through communication services, including posts on social media websites like Facebook.

The article by Shreeja Sen was published in Livemint on August 30, 2014. Leslie D’Monte contributed to this story. Sunil Abraham gave his inputs.

The Supreme Court on Friday asked for the central government’s response in a writ petition filed by Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI) challenging the arbitrary powers that the Information Technology (IT) Act confers on the government to remove user-generated content.

This is not the first time that the amended provisions of the IT Act 2000 and the IT (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 have been challenged. The rules were released by the government in April 2011, and laid down detailed procedures for regulation of intermediaries and online content.

A bench of justices J. Chelameswar and A.K. Sikri, while issuing notice to the central government, tagged the cases with others of a similar nature, including ones by MouthShut.com, a consumer review website, and Shreya Singhal, a public interest litigant who challenged the constitutionality of Section 66A in support of Shaheen Dhada, who was arrested for criticizing the shutdown of Mumbai after the death of Shiv Sena supremo Bal Thackeray in 2012. Section 66A of the IT Act punishes sending offensive messages through communication services, including posts on social media websites like Facebook.

“We’re very happy at MouthShut that IAMAI decided to take a stand regarding this,” said Faisal Farooqui, chief executive officer of MouthShut.com.

The petition, which runs into 1,100 pages according to those familiar with the case, seeks to challenge Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act. The section holds an Internet service provider (ISP) responsible for content which may be unlawful, published by third parties (not the ISPs) when they’ve been intimated by the government. It takes away the safe harbour rule, which protects ISPs from being sued because of third party actions.

According to a statement by IAMAI, the industry lobby approached the apex court for “objective interpretation of the laws”. Referring to the court agreeing to hear the petition, the statement said, “This admission today allows the industry an opportunity to argue for a clear Safe Harbour Provision for the intermediaries, which is an essential pre-condition of a thriving digital content business.”

“In my view, the court may be sympathetic to this particular situation because there is a body of research and evidence that demonstrates that the private censorship regime instituted by Section 79A that places unconstitutional limits of freedom of speech and expression,” said Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), India, a non-profit organization involved with research in freedom of expression, privacy and open access to literature.

On 27 April 2012, CIS-India had released a paper which, among other things, listed why the IT Rules 2011 could have a “chilling” effect on intermediaries. No much has changed since. The paper argued that not all intermediaries have sufficient legal competence or resources (or the willingness to devote such legal resources) to deliberate on the legality of an expression, as a result of which, intermediaries have a tendency to err on the side of caution. It also pointed out that the qualifications and due diligence requirements of different classes of intermediaries have not been clearly defined in the Rules resulting in uncertainty in the steps to be followed by the intermediary. It noted that depending on the nature of a service, it may be technically unfeasible for an intermediary to comply with the takedown within 36 hours.

“The chilling effect can primarily be attributed to the requirement for private intermediaries to perform subjective judicial determination in the course of administering the takedown. From the responses to the takedown notices, it is apparent that not all intermediaries have sufficient legal competence or resources to deliberate on the legality of an expression, as a result of which, such intermediaries have a tendency to err on the side of caution and chill legitimate expressions in order to limit their liability,” the paper said.

Another privacy lobby body, SFLC.in, had submitted feedback to the government when the draft IT Rules were put up for consultation but said that “when the final Rules were notified we found that most of our concerns were not addressed and that the Rules exceeded the scope of the parent act”.

In a July paper, SFLC.in reiterated that “Words and phrases like grossly harmful, harassing, blasphemous, disparaging and “harm minors in any way” are not defined in these Rules or in the Act or in any other legislation. These ambiguous words make the Rules susceptible to misuse…(and have a) chilling effect on free speech rights of users by making them too cautious about the content they post and byforcing them to self-censor…As technology evolves at a fast pace, the law should not be found wanting. The law should be an enabling factor that ensures that citizens enjoy their right to freedom of speech and expression without any hindrance. India, being the largest democracy in the world should lead the world in ensuring that the citizens enjoy the right to express themselves freely online.”

SFLC.in is a donor-supported legal services organization that brings together lawyers, policy analysts, technologists, and students.

According to a March study commissioned by the Global Network Initiative, a multistakeholder group of companies, civil society organizations, investors, and academics and conducted by Copenhagen Economics, an economic consultancy, the GDP contribution of online intermediaries may increase to more than 1.3 % ($ 241 billion) by 2015, provided the current liability regime is improved.

In another development, hearing a petition asking to take down pornographic website, the court deemed it fit to send it to an advisory committee that has been set up under Section 88 of the Information Technology Act. The petition, filed by lawyer Kamlesh Vaswani in 2013, asked for a direction to the central government to block pornography websites, platforms, links or downloading. Speaking to reporters, Vaswani’s lawyer Vijay Panjwani said, “as on date, there are 4 crore pornographic websites. For 18 months, the government has not blocked them.”

The central government informed the committee was considering several options to address the issue of including methods used in the US and UK. This case was being heard by a three-judge bench headed by the chief justice of India R.M. Lodha, who said that to address these technological issues, a “synthesis of law, technology and governance is required.”

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/livemint-august-30-2014-shreeja-sen-sc-seeks-govt-reply-on-pil-challenging-powers-of-it-act

SC reserves judgement in cases against Section 66A

praskrishna — 2015-03-08T15:08:00Z

The verdict will have far reaching consequences on civil liberties and right to freedom of speech on the Internet.

The article by Shreeja Sen was published in Livemint on February 26, 2015. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its judgment in cases involving multiple challenges to certain provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and so-called guidelines for intermediaries.

The verdict will have far reaching consequences on civil liberties and right to freedom of speech on the Internet. One of the cases is a public interest litigation filed by Shreya Singhal, after two Mumbai-based girls were arrested for criticising on a social media platform the city’s shutdown following the death of Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray.

A bench of justices J. Chelameswar and Rohinton F. Nariman has heard 10 cases in all that challenge Section 66A (which punishes sending offensive messages through a communication service), intermediary guidelines under Section 79 of the IT Act, and Section 69A, which allows the central government to block “information” for “public access” over a “computer resource” if the same is “in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states or public order or for preventing incitement”.

In the court, the government, which made it clear it was not taking an adversarial position, said through additional solicitor general Tushar Mehta that the laws had to interpreted in a way so that they would serve the purpose it was meant for without jeopardising free speech. Some of the petitioners claimed that Section 66A definitely infringes on the right to free speech. “I can’t presume to know the minds of the judges and I will not do so.

But I find it very disappointing that the Narendra Modi government with ministers like Arun Jaitley, who had argued against Section 66A and the intermediary guidelines under Section 79, are now defending them,” said Pranesh Prakash, policy director at think-tank Centre for Internet Society.

“Second, that given the line of questioning the court has taken, the arguments adduced in court and based on our research on 66A, 69A and intermediary guideline rules under 79, which ought to be called Internet censorship rules according to me, it is amply clear that these provisions are unconstitutional.” Ideally, Prakash said, the government should redraft the law, with inputs from legal experts, academics, civil society organizations and technologists.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/livemint-shreeja-sen-february-26-2015-sc-reserves-judgment-in-cases-against-section-66a