Centre for Internet and Society

RTI App 2015

praskrishna — 2016-11-17T15:20:04Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/rti-app-2015.pdf

Royson

praskrishna — 2014-08-12T10:26:18Z

Royson

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

Routing

praskrishna — 2013-05-06T06:36:44Z

Routing

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

Roundtable: Identifying and Limiting Hate Speech and Harassment Online

praskrishna — 2016-08-09T13:31:58Z

Japreet Grewal attended this event organized by Software Freedom Law Centre at Constitution Club Of India, Rafi Marg, New Delhi on July 28, 2016.

See the original report published by SFLC here.

SFLC.in organized a roundtable discussion on 28^th July, 2016 in New Delhi to initiate a focused and collaborative dialogue around the increasingly important issues of online harassment and hate speech. This roundtable was intended as the first in a series of discussions around said issues, and was attended by representatives from various stakeholder groups including intermediary platforms, civil society groups, and media houses, along with individuals who had personally experienced such online abuse & harassment. The core objective of this discussion was to recognize and understand the vast range of concerns that exist in this sphere, in an effort to develop a framework for the regulation of such activities, without stepping on the right to freedom of expression. The discussion was conducted under Chatham House rules so as to facilitate an uninhibited exchange of views.

Over the course of the event, the complex and multifaceted nature of its overarching theme unraveled, as the discussion moved from underlying social constructs, to responsibilities of intermediary platforms, adequacy of existing laws, sensitization of everyday users and effective handling of grievances by law enforcement agencies. At the very outset, it was highlighted that social media platforms, with their increasing popularity, are being considered centralized hubs for businesses and others. However, individuals, communities & institutions often find themselves at the receiving end of sustained abuse and threats either on grounds of their actual or perceived characteristics, or over their online expression. The dynamic discussion that ensued brought to light significant concerns that would require a collaborative effort across stakeholder groups to address. For the sake of clarity, we are categorizing these learnings under the following heads:

Conceptual understanding of online harassment and hate speech: It was discussed at length that hate speech and speech that culminates in harassment on the online sphere, are reflective of the social outlook of the country at large. Women were seen as more frequent targets of harassment in the form of rape threats, sexual remarks, and name calling, whereas men are mostly called out for their beliefs and opinions. When discussing hate speech relations, it was considered important to take note of the power dynamics at play amongst the stronger groups, and the vulnerable ones. Limiting such content gets specially complicated considering the apprehension that in an effort to monitor hate speech and harassment, free speech may get stifled. The paradox of anonymity being an enabler of free speech, as well the reason for unabashed harassment adds yet another layer of complexity to the issue. Moreover, it was felt that a nuanced distinction needed to be made regarding the systematic attacks by online mobs against a particular person, as opposed to hateful and/or harassing speech that engages on a one to one level. This all culminated in a realization that this issue goes beyond the online domain, into the societal mindset that is amplified on the Internet, and that the faint line between free speech, and hateful & harassing speech is very difficult to pin-point.
Role of intermediaries: It was the opinion of the representatives of intermediary platforms at the roundtable that the current legal frameworks in the country are sufficient to tackle this issue and they should operate in compliance with such laws. While the specific terms of service may differ in terms of permissible content depending on the type of service being provided by the intermediary, these platforms do invariably keep a check on the content being generated and evaluate them for compliance with the applicable terms of service. Additionally, platforms that have the option of users creating & generating their own content, give the user various tools such as block, filter, un-follow, and other customized options to moderate the content they receive. though the intermediaries, in their own words ‘ are not a delete squad, but a compliance team’, it was said that they ran the perpetual risk of either censoring content that should not have been censored, or not censoring enough of the content that should have been censored. This incentivizes them to exercise zero-tolerance policies in certain areas such as child sexual abuse or terrorism, and resort to immediate take down of content related to such themes. However, in spite of the sheer volume of material that is generated and reported, it was felt that a completely automated approach cannot be followed for filtering hateful and harassing content that violates terms of service Taking down content and expression requires processing various factors that determine the context of that material, and this calls for a subjective approach that requires a set of human eyes. Therefore, the intermediaries do have tools for users that protect them from hate and harassing speech, and they work with certain safety experts to ensure that the users feel safe while using their services.
Adequacy of legal frameworks: A distinction was drawn over the course of the discussion between hate speech as a social as opposed to a legal concept. For legal purposes, speech would not attract penalties until it incites a real threat of violence and civic disorder. However, the law is not sufficiently equipped to deal with speech that does not incite violence, but causes psychological damage. It was undisputed that the concerns in this area cannot be solved by creating more statutes. Going down this road could lead to the creation of a Section 66A equivalent that would lead to censorship through law and cause a chilling effect on freedom of expression. It was emphasized that the existing laws have adequate provisions, but a strict implementation is required.
Response from law enforcement agencies: An evaluation of this point led to the conclusion that people who are harassed online, or are the targets of hate speech, are hesitant to approach the police and law enforcement agencies for their help. There have been instances where the police is unable to help due to the limited application of laws in such cases, as mentioned above.
Possible remedies: As a part of this roundtable, SFLC.in had proposed a set of best practices aimed at limiting hateful and harassing content online. These were intended as self-regulatory measures that could be followed by intermediaries functioning as speech platforms, where users could create and publish content without pre-filtrations. Amongst the measures that was discussed extensively was the practice of promoting ‘counter speech’ on the platforms that are most frequently used to spread hateful propaganda and harassment. This was generally seen as an effective counter-measure deserving further exploration, and one of the intermediaries mentioned a project they were formulating on ‘counter radicalization’. However, concerns were raised with respect to the identification of areas that would benefit from counter speech, and its effectiveness with respect to mob attacks. Another unique approach suggested by the participants was to ‘vaccinate’ first time users by educating them about the enormity and complexity of the Internet, including intiation of such users to the idea that freedom of expression online often crosses over to hate speech and harassment. This would act as an initiation process to understand the working of the Internet and the prevalence of hateful and harassing content on its numerous speech platforms, so that first-time users are not discouraged from using the Internet merely due to the presence of negative content. An interesting suggestion for the platforms was to work towards a mechanism that is more offender centric, and facilitates the tracking of repeat offenders along with providing tools of blocking for users.

This roundtable served in exploring the many layers of hateful and harassing speech that runs across roles and responsibilities of various stakeholder groups and concerns that are deeply entrenched in our societal outlook. The increasing frequency and amount of such content on the Internet is an indication of the urgent need to collaborate and develop a framework for limiting such speech, while balancing the fundamental right to freedom of expression. We thank all the participants and appreciate their valuable contributions that facilitated a better understanding of the overall theme.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/roundtable-identifying-and-limiting-hate-speech-and-harassment-online

Roundtable on ICANN Accountability

praskrishna — 2015-04-03T16:54:41Z

The roundtable was organised by the Department of Electronics and Information Technology (DeitY), National Internet Exchange of India and Centre for Communication Governance, National Law University, Delhi at the Indian International Centre, New Delhi on 13 March 2015. Geetha Hariharan participated in the roundtable.

Timings	Programme
10.00 10.30	Welcome Address by Chimayi Arun, Research Director, Centre for Communication Governance at National Law University, Delhi
10.30 10.40	Introductory Remarks by Dr. Ajay Kumar (IAS) Joint Secretary, DeitY
10.45 11.15	Session I: NTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition
13.15 14.30	Lunch
14.30 16.30	Session II: Accountability and Transparency at ICANN
16.30	Tea

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

Round-table on User Safety on the Internet

praskrishna — 2014-05-06T09:55:07Z

Elonnai Hickok participated in this round-table meeting organized by Consumer Voice in collaboration with Google at Infantry Road, Bangalore on April 24, 2014.

Click to download the agenda.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/round-table-on-user-safety-on-internet

Round-table on User Safety Internet

praskrishna — 2014-05-06T09:53:02Z

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

Round Table on Privacy and Data Protection at NIPFP

praskrishna — 2017-03-27T16:02:59Z

National Institute of Public Finance & Policy organized a round-table on privacy and data protection on March 24, 2017 in New Delhi.

Click to see the agenda.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/round-table-on-privacy-and-data-protection-at-nipfp

Rothko Chapel

praskrishna — 2014-03-28T12:15:47Z

Rothko Chapel

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/Rothko4.png

Rothko 3

praskrishna — 2014-03-28T11:03:03Z

Rothko 3

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/Rothko3.png

Rothko 2

praskrishna — 2014-03-28T10:55:44Z

Rothko 2

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/Rothko2.png

Rothko 1

praskrishna — 2014-03-28T10:24:53Z

Rothko 1

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/Rothko1.png

Role of the US Tech Companies in Government Surveillance: A Lecture by Christopher Soghoian

praskrishna — 2012-08-26T11:03:19Z

Christopher Soghoian will deliver a lecture on the role US tech companies play in assisting government surveillance at the Centre for Internet & Society office in Bangalore on August 27, 2012, from 5.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m.

Your internet, phone and web application providers are all, for the most part, in bed with US and other foreign government agencies. They all routinely disclose their customers' communications and other private data to law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Worse, firms like Google and Microsoft specifically log data in order to assist the government. How many government requests does your ISP get for its customers' communications each year? How many do they comply with? How many do they fight? How much do they charge for the surveillance assistance they provide? Who knows? Most companies have a strict policy of not discussing such topics.

The differences in the privacy practices of the major players in the telecommunications and internet applications market are significant. Some firms retain identifying data for years, while others retain no data at all; some voluntarily provide the government access to user data, while other companies refuse to voluntarily disclose data without a court order; some companies charge government agencies when they request user data, while others disclose it for free. For an individual, later investigated by the police or intelligence services, the data retention practices adopted by their phone company or email provider can significantly impact their freedom.

Unfortunately, although many companies claim to care about end-user privacy, and some even that they compete on their privacy features, none seem to be willing to compete on the extent to which they assist or resist the government in its surveillance activities. Because information about each firms' practices is not publicly known, consumers cannot vote with their wallets, and pick service providers that best protect their privacy.

This talk will pierce the veil of secrecy surrounding these practices. Based upon a combination of Freedom of Information Act requests, off the record conversations with industry lawyers, and investigative journalism, the practices of many of these firms will be revealed.

Christopher's Personal Experience

In the year 2006, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) raided Christopher’s home at 2.00 a.m. seizing his personal documents and computers. Two attorneys, Stephen Braga and Jennifer Granick came to his defence. With their expert assistance, Christopher was able to get back his possessions within three weeks, and FBI’s criminal and TSA’s civil investigations were closed without any charges being filed.

Jennifer Granick came to Christopher’s assistance once again (joined by Steve Leckar) in 2010 after the Federal Trade Commission’s Inspector General investigated Christopher for using his government badge to attend a closed-door surveillance industry conference. It was at that event that Christopher recorded an executive from wireless carrier ‘Sprint’ bragging about the eight million times his company had obtained GPS data on its customers for law enforcement agencies in the previous years.

To know more, read Christopher Soghoian’s dissertation titled "The Spies We Trust: Third Party Service Providers and Law Enforcement Surveillance". [PDF, 1056 Kb]

About Christopher Soghoian

Christopher Soghoian is a privacy researcher and activist, working at the intersection of technology, law and policy. He is a Principal Technologist and Senior Policy Analyst at the American Civil Liberties Union and is based in Washington, D.C.

Soghoian completed his Ph.D. at Indiana University in 2012, which focused on the role that third party service providers play in facilitating law enforcement surveillance of their customers. In order to gather data, he has made extensive use of the Freedom of Information Act, sued the Department of Justice pro se, and used several other investigative research methods. His research has appeared in publications including the Berkeley Technology Law Journal and been cited by several federal courts, including the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Between the years, 2009-2010, he was the first ever in-house technologist at the Federal Trade Commission's Division of Privacy and Identity Protection, where he worked on investigations of Facebook, Twitter, MySpace and Netflix. Prior to joining the FTC, he co-created the Do Not Track privacy anti-tracking mechanism now adopted by all of the major web browsers.

He is a TEDGlobal 2012 Fellow, was an Open Society Foundations Fellow between the years, 2011-2012, and was a Student Fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society, Harvard University between 2008 and 2009.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/role-of-us-tech-companies-in-govt-surveillance

Role of the Internet in Fostering Freedom of Expression and Strengthening Activism in India - A Workshop in Delhi

praskrishna — 2011-04-04T07:18:10Z

The Centre for Internet and Society (India) and the Central American Institute for Studies of Social Democracy DEMOS (Guatemala) have the pleasure to invite you to a day-long workshop on the role of the Internet in fostering freedom of expression and strengthening activism in India. The workshop will take place in the Constitution Club in Delhi on 4 March 2011.

With the significant role reported for new technologies in recent revolutions in Tunesia, Egypt, and elsewhere, activists in India, too, have taken a renewed interest in the potential of the Internet to support their struggles for social change and social justice. But what are some of the potential stumble blocks activists in India might run into in their exploration of the Internet's potential? What are the legal restrictions and frameworks activists should be aware of when they use new technologies in their work? And what can we do to create an environment in which the online world unequivocally supports efforts for greater democratisation and social justice offline, rather than thwart them?

It is questions such as these that this workshop seeks to answer, through a mix of panel discussions, unconference sessions, a film screening, and technical and legal clinics in its day-long program.

Our hope is that the workshop will help participants as well as organisers to get a stronger sense of the potential and challenges of online activism in the particular context of India, as well as to start building stronger networks among the activists interested in these issues in the country.

Participation in the workshop is free. However, we would be grateful if you could confirm your attendance by emailing Anja Kovacs at "anja at cisindia dot org", ideally by 2 March.

We hope you will join us to contribute your own insights and experiences as well as to learn from others about this important new arena of activists' work.

Looking forward to welcoming you at the workshop!

The Agenda

9.30-9.45: Welcome and introductions

9.45-10.15:   Introduction to the Internet and freedom of expression
   By Frank La Rue, President of the Central American Institute for Studies of Social Democracy
   and UN Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression and Opinion

10.15-10.45: Film screening: “Brave New Medium”
   By Delhi-based docu film maker Subasri Krishnan
   The film addresses Internet and censorship in South-East Asia
   while raising pertinent questions about the implications of this lessons for Indian activists,
   and will be screened in the presence of the filmmaker.

10.45-11.30: Unconference: Online challenges and ways forward for Indian activists:
where are we today and what to do next?
Small group discussion sessions, as per the priorities of the participants

11.30-11.50: Tea/Coffee Break

11.50-12.40: Reporting back and plenary discussion: Challenges for freedom of expression on
the Internet in India and abroad: legal framework, ground realities, alternative visions
With national and international activists, lawyers and researchers as additional resource persons

12.40-13.00: Consultation: Can a global “Internet Bill of Rights” help?
With Lisa Horner, Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles of the UN Internet
Governance Forum

13.00 - 14.00: Lunch Break (lunch will be provided)

14.00 - 15.30: Parallel sessions:

legal clinic with a representative from Google and human rights lawyers – to answer any legal question regarding freedom of expression online you may have
technical clinic with a representative from Tactical Tech – to explore the significance of terms like
“Tor” and “proxy” and ways in which you can stay safe and secure online at all times.
If you have a laptop, bring it if you intend to attend this session!

15.30 - 16.15: Strategies for the way forward

Moderated by Mr Frank La Rue

16.15-16.30 : Closing remarks

16.30 - 17.00: Tea/Coffee

Followed by a public lecture by Mr. Frank La Rue at 6 pm, at the same venue, on Global Challenges to Freedom of Expression. Entrance free. All welcome.

Information about the Organisers

The Centre for Internet and Society

The Centre for Internet and Society is located in Bangalore, India. It critically engages with concerns of digital pluralism and public accountability in the field of Internet and Society, with particular emphasis on South-South dialogues and exchange. Through multidisciplinary research, intervention, and collaboration, it seeks to explore, understand, and affect the shape and form of the internet, and its relationship with the political, cultural, and social milieu of our times.

DEMOS Institute

The Demos Institute, based in Guatemala, is a research centre that promotes democratic alternatives for Guatemala, under the human rights framework. Within DEMOS, there is a research team which supports the mandate of Frank La Rue, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, in the making of his annual reports before the United Nations Human Rights Council.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/events/fostering-freedom-of-expression

Rohini training

praskrishna — 2014-12-27T15:15:12Z

Rohini training

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/Rohinitraininggroupondigitalsecurity.JPG