Centre for Internet and Society

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

SC has set a high threshold for tolerance: Lawrence Liang

praskrishna — 2015-03-28T16:18:18Z

Lawyer-activist Lawrence Liang on why SC upheld section 69A and the implications of striking down section 66A.

The article by Dhamini Ratnam was published in Livemint on March 28, 2015. Lawrence Liang gave his inputs.

Tuesday marked a landmark in the fight for free speech in our country, as the Supreme Court struck down the contentious section 66A of the Information Technology Act of 2000. The section, which was introduced through an amendment in 2009, penalized those who wrote messages online that could be deemed as being false or grossly offensive. However, the apex court turned down a plea to strike down sections 69A (procedure for blocking websites) and 79 (exemption from liability of intermediaries) of the same law. Lawrence Liang, a lawyer who co-founded the Alternative Law Forum in Bengaluru, a fellow at the Centre for Internet and Society, and author of The Public is Watching: Sex, Laws and Videotape and A Guide to Open Content Licenses, spoke in an interview on the wide-ranging implications of the judgement. Edited excerpts:

What was the impetus to fight section 66A?

Over the past few years, there have been numerous cases in which section 66A has been used in bad faith against individuals online. One of the cases that became well-known by virtue of just how ridiculous it was involved the arrest of Shaheen Dhada and her friend Renu Srinivasan (which led petitioner Shreya Singhal to file a public interest litigation in the Supreme Court that eventually led to this judgement), but there have been more, so it was inevitable that a law as draconian as section 66A would be challenged for its constitutional validity.

The judgement begins by noting a distinction between three forms of speech—discussion, advocacy and incitement—and says discussion and advocacy of a particular cause, howsoever unpopular, is at the heart of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution (all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression). Only when they reach the level of incitement can they be legitimately prohibited. While the judgement does not provide a new definition of incitement, it affirms what was laid down in the Rangarajan test (1989), in which the courts had established that for censorship to be justified, the “expression of thought should be intrinsically dangerous to the public interest”. There should be an immediate and direct relation between speech and effect.

The court said that section 66A is “cast so widely that virtually any opinion on any subject would be covered by it, as any serious opinion dissenting with the mores of the day would be caught within its net”. The courts have also historically held that Article 19(1)(a) is as much about the right to receive information as it is to disseminate, and when there is a chilling effect on speech, it also violates the right to receive information. However, I would say that the court missed an opportunity to consider the blocking of websites under section 69A.

Why did the court uphold section 69A, and which other parts of the IT Act did it examine?

If section 66A was found to be arbitrary, then the procedure for blocking websites, as laid out in section 69A, is also beset with similar problems. The court, however, upheld this section and the rules under the IT Act on the grounds that there are internal safeguards and reasonable procedures. This section allows the government to block any site or information that violates Article 19(2) of the Constitution (which enables the legislature to impose certain restrictions on free speech).

The problem is that often there is no hearing or notice given to the owner of information, there is no transparency since blocks can happen on a confidential basis and these can have serious implications for the right to receive information.

The court read down section 79, which used to provide an intermediary exemption from liability with the exception that if it received “actual knowledge” of any illegal content, it was obliged to act within 36 hours. A study by the Centre for Internet and Society showed that even on sending frivolous takedown notices, intermediaries tended to comply to be on the safe side. The court’s decision has read down section 79 now to mean that “actual knowledge” means either an order of a court or the government. It moves it away from a subjective determination by intermediaries.

The court could have, like it did with section 79, retained section 66A while clarifying a procedure that would maintain a balance between the need sometimes to block and public interest, and transparency.

What does the judgement open up for the free speech debate?

The judgement speaks of chilling effects, because if one is not careful, one runs the risk of endangering political discourse through self-censorship. This is terrible for a democratic culture, which is premised on the ability to debate and dissent. Much of the use of section 66A has been politically motivated to silence criticism, and the judgement goes a long way towards promoting a culture of critique.

As the first major Supreme Court case on free speech in the 21st century, it sets the tone on how we think of free speech in a context where every individual with a smartphone is potentially a writer, a publisher and a distributor. By setting a high threshold for what is tolerated in online speech, it ensures that the online space is not doomed to be infantilized.

What position must the law take to protect rights and minority identities?

I think it is important to distinguish between different effects of speech. The court has merely reaffirmed a position that has been held in India for a long time (such as through the Ram Manohar Lohia judgement of 1960, which interpreted what “restriction made in the interests of public order” in Article 19(2) means). In other words, if someone is inciting violence, especially if they have the power to effect such violence (such as a politician), then their speech can be regulated, but the court also held that the idea of threat to public order is often imaginary.

For instance, in what way would Shaheen Dhada’s post on Facebook have incited violence? (In November 2012, Dhada, then a student and based in Palghar, Maharashtra, had written a post on Facebook commenting on the state of shutdown that followed politician Bal Thackeray’s death. Her comment was liked by her friend Srinivasan, and both of them were charged under section 66A.) So, the court is distinguishing between speech that is critical and speech that is dangerous. There are laws that deal with the latter, such as 153A and 295A of the IPC (Indian Penal Code).

It must be noted, however, that provisions also suffer from the same vice of vagueness. What we need is a more nuanced understanding of hate speech that addresses speech that incites violence or hatred against a community, but one in which the test is not of subjective hurt sentiment. The problem with hate speech laws is that they collapse questions of law and order with questions of subjective hurt, and we run the risk of becoming a republic of hurt sentiments where anyone can claim that their sentiments are hurt, especially their religious sentiments.

What happens to existing cases that are being tried under section 66A, such as the one against the organizers and participants of the All India Bakchod Roast?

Court judgements do not necessarily have retrospective effect, so cases that have been filed will continue. We must also remember that the cases filed under section 66A were also accompanied by other provisions. Of course, a judgement as significant as this, which completely delegitimizes section 66A, will have a profound impact on the ongoing cases insofar as they relate to the offence under the section, but the other charges remain.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/livemint-dhamini-ratnam-march-28-2015-sc-has-set-a-high-threshold-for-tolerance

SBI

praskrishna — 2019-02-01T15:10:56Z

SBI

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

SB Acknowledgement

praskrishna — 2014-10-15T00:07:04Z

SB Acknowledgement

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

Savita Bhabhi's hook

praskrishna — 2012-05-02T06:27:58Z

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

Saving privacy as we knew it

praskrishna — 2013-10-29T05:01:25Z

Long overdue protection law still on the back-burner; meanwhile, depts put more of one's personal details online.

The article by Surabhi Agarwal and Somesh Jha was published in the Business Standard on October 29, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

It was in 2010 when the central government decided to institute a legal framework on privacy. This was in the wake of increasing data collection by both government and corporate agencies. Concerns had mounted in the wake of projects such as the National Population Register, Aadhaar and the National Intelligence Grid.

Over three years and hundreds of consultations later, several drafts of the proposed Bill were written and rejected, and at least two committees have given recommendations. However, the law has not seen the light of day. Meanwhile, citizen data digitisation is moving at a pace like never before in the country.

Business Standard had reported on October 28 about how an investigation revealed that several states and central departments might be, unwittingly, following a bare-it-all approach in posting citizen data online in order to push the government's agenda of greater transparency and accountability. While the Centre's National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme puts out full bank account numbers of its beneficiaries, government website of Uttar Pradesh has put out full details of ration card holders, including annual income along with address and information about members of the family. By putting such sensitive information online, the government could be jeopardising the privacy of its 1.2 billion citizens, who stand exposed to a variety of risks, including those of 360-degree profiling and financial frauds. (INFORMATION DELUGE)

According to government officials, the department of personnel and training has finished compiling the final draft of the privacy legislation, now awaiting approval from the prime minister; the department is under him.

"In the absence of a privacy Bill, the only data protection, pseudo, is through Section 43A of the Information Technology (IT) Act. Unfortunately, that is not a data protection law; it is only a data security provision," said Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society.

Pavan Duggal, a Supreme Court lawyer and cyber security expert, said India needs more security while collecting data and "currently a lot of these websites don't have these security layers". Take for instance, the website of the chief electoral officer of New Delhi. Type a person's first or last name and select the constituency - the website throws up the details of all people with this name, along with all the details such as address and voter identity number. According to officials of the Election Commission, the searchability feature helps in easy access of voter details by people themselves or by interested political parties. "There has been no evidence to prove its use otherwise," an official of the EC told Business Standard.

However, experts said otherwise. Abraham said the electronic version of the electoral roll has a unique identifier, the voter ID number. "And, if there are other databases with the same identifier, a comprehensive profile of a citizen can be created." He added, at the moment, we are saved from 360-degree profiling to some extent, since there is no common identifier.

Once a privacy law comes into being, the government or a private agency will have to adequately inform citizens before collecting data, stating the reasons and only collecting as much information as is necessary for the purpose. It will also have to clearly define the time period for which the data will be stored and the security measures taken to protect it from misuse. The law also lays down the penalties in case of a breach.

Though in a less detailed manner, the current IT Act also addresses some of these issues. It defines anything which reveals financial information, biometric, health and medical records, etc, as sensitive financial information which cannot be put in the public domain.

However, experts said the government is lax in even enforcing the existing laws. To be fair, some states and departments have started being prudent about the data they put online. For instance, the state government of Chhattisgarh, a trend setter in effectively implementing the Public Distribution System, doesn't reveal much in terms of citizen information that can identify a person or can be termed as a breach of privacy. Similarly, Odisha and some northeastern states have put in a layer of security which creates some deterrents while using common keywords to search the electoral roll and create a profile of residents in a particular locality.

However, for now, most departments stuck in the tradeoff between privacy and transparency find solace in pointing fingers at contemporaries who might have also put "more sensitive and dangerous" citizen details online. The blame game doesn't end.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/business-standard-october-29-2013-surabhi-agarwal-somesh-jha-saving-privacy-as-we-knew-it

Save Your Voice — A movement against Web censorship

praskrishna — 2012-03-13T11:44:27Z

‘Save Your Voice (SYV)’ is a movement against Web censorship and its main demand is the repealing of the Information Technology Act, said SYV founders, Aseem Trividi, a cartoonist, and Alok Dixit, a journalist, on Monday.

DNA Correspondent covered a press conference held on March 12, 2012 in Bangalore. Sunil Abraham was quoted in the story.

Trivedi’s website — www.cartoonistagainstcorruption.com — was banned during Anna Hazare’s movement. Trivedi said: “Mumbai police banned the website without any prior notice and cases of ‘treason’ were also filed. The website was banned without a judicial order and I haven’t received an explanation about the crime committed.”

Sunil Abraham, executive director, Centre for Internet and Society, said the private sector does not protect the freedom of expression.

Read the original published by Daily News & Analysis on March 13, 2012

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/save-your-voice-2014-a-movement-against-web-censorship

Saumyaa Naidu

praskrishna — 2019-09-22T17:04:02Z

Saumyaa Naidu

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

Satyen Gupta

praskrishna — 2013-07-30T04:09:16Z

Satyen Gupta

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

Satyananda Mishra

praskrishna — 2011-07-06T06:13:44Z

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

Satya N Gupta

praskrishna — 2012-06-27T07:17:59Z

Satya N Gupta is a veteran in the field of telecommunications, drawing from his vast experience in telecom regulation as well as industry. Mr. Gupta joined the Planning and Coordination Wing of Ministry of Communication in 1981, holding the post of Officer-in-charge of Wireless Monitoring Station, Srinagar and Secretary, Regional Advisory Committee of SACFA for J&K and HP. Among other accomplishments, he was a member of the NGN Regulation review group of ITU and also worked as Pr. Advisor with Telecom Regulatory Authority of India at the level of Additional Secretary and is heading the Converged Network Division dealing with Regulatory, Technical and Economic aspects of Data Networks and Services.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/telecom/knowledge-repository-on-internet-access/satya-gupta